March 28, 2014

If you associate "too closely with a man who is significantly below your intellectual level, you will eventually get stupid juice all over you."

Writes Susan Patton, in "Marry Smart," and NY Post columnist Naomi Schaefer Riley says "Ewwww."

But "Ewwww" constitutes laughing at what Patton obviously intends as a joke, and Riley doesn't disagree with the proposition that women want to pair with men who are at least not significantly below their intellectual level, which is just not a startling assertion at all. The real issue is whether women had better find their life mate while they are in college — and thus in close contact with lots of single men who are on their level — or whether they can risk putting off mate-finding until later in life. That's a serious question, and nothing about squicking over juice that comes out of males is going to change the odds about where women and men are going to find someone they can live with on a permanent basis.

At the bottom of her column, Riley switches over to another woman who has also written a book titled "Marry Smart," Christine Whelan, a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin. Riley chooses to mention only an older book by Whelan with a less Patton-style title, "Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women." At this point, Riley is refuting something Patton might be saying: that it's easier for a man to find a mate later in life, because men are willing to to marry women who are significantly below their intellectual level. Riley says that Whelan "analyzed Census data" and found that "educated men may be just as embarrassed to have a bimbo on their arms as women are to have a 'himbo.'"

So... suddenly it's about embarrassment? And how do you detect embarrassment in census data?

That himbo/bimbo talk is — in my book — embarrassing, but it seems to be what caught the attention of The Wall Street Journal, which did a video interview with Riley titled "College Women Won't Marry 'Himbos.'"

I suspect you need to use inflammatory words — like "stupid juice" and "himbo" — to grab traffic. Riley seems serious and intelligent in the WSJ interview, but also pedestrian. The odds of finding a mate change as you age, and the pool of potential partners may be biggest when you are in college, but finding a mate is not your only interest at that point in life, and you are also relatively young which might weigh against marrying.

At about 3 minutes into the video, the WSJ interviewer throws out the word "hypergamous" — which to my ear is not as exciting as "stupid juice" and "himbo," but might excite some people. I'm thinking it excites: 1. Women who get pissed off at the notion that they have any disadvantage, and 2. Less-than-fully-attractive males who feel heartened/hardened at the dream of pretty girls flocking their way if only they get a good enough job or create the impression of having whatever that amount of money is that gets the pretty girls to flock.

The question about "hypergamy" is (I'm paraphrasing): If all the other women are trying to marry up and the men they're chasing are okay marrying down (if the woman is pretty), don't the smartest, most professionally accomplished women face terrible odds?

Riley's response is that the world has changed, so that men are now ashamed to be with women who are not their intellectual equals. She utters this astounding sentence: "If you're a Stanford graduate, you don't want the UMass girl on your arm." That's some big time propaganda for elite women. Did you know that our society had become that snobby... and that the snobbery was so much about what school you got into?

Ah, what do I know?! I went to college back in 1969, when the idea of taking out loans to go to college was never even mentioned. I went to the University of Michigan because that's what my parents told me they could afford, and I married a very smart man who went there for the same reason. We stayed together for 17 years, and after we broke up, when I was 36, I went more than 20 years without finding someone I could be with. Now, I'm with Meade, who found me when I was 58, and I'm not ashamed or embarrassed at the difference in our education. The schools to which you submit your time and your money don't tell us all that much about the quality of your mind. But more than that, forming an intimate partnership is not about avoiding shame and embarrassment.

If you're a big shame-and-embarrassment-avoidance woman, I'd like to recommend celibacy.

Then you won't get any man juice on you.

153 comments:

betamax3000 said...

Althouse writes "squicking over juice that comes out of males" and I have to leave for work? I'll be pining all day over the missed opportunity. Sorry, America.

BAS said...

Who says the men at those colleges want to find a life's partner in college? Isn't the ratio of men to women low in colleges? That makes it a much more fun place for men then women.

I remember when my mother taught me not to judge a book by it's cover. She also told me to choose a good person over a smart one. I thought everyone was taught that, but I was so wrong.

Pogo is Dead said...

I'm failing to see what men get out of this whole marrying thing anymore.

Most especially, marrying women like them. Ewwww.

Gabriel Hanna said...

To me "smart" is a descriptive word, like "tall". Your life will, all else being equal, be much easier if you are tall than if you are not, just as your life will be if you are smart, all else being equal, than if you are not.

This may be because I believe "smart" is no more under one's control than "tall" is. Doesn't matter if heredity or environment is primarily responsible--you can't study to be "smart" anymore than you can study to be "tall".

The sort of people who sneer at UMass seem to think that "smart" is more like "thin". It's partly a moral failing not to be smart, as it is not to be thin.

Therein lies, I think, the source of the snobbery. A person who went to UMass just didn't care enough to do what it took to get in to Stanford, just like an obese person just didn't try hard enough to eat less and exercise. And going to Stanford versus UMass is also a socioeconomic signal, like being thin is nowadays.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

"If you're a Stanford graduate, you don't want the UMass girl on your arm."

This sentence has relevance to what percentage of the population, now? How many people actually think like that?

Most people just want someone they can talk to at the end of the day. It's really not that complicated. My husband and I are intellectually well matched and he has two master's degrees while I didn't finish college. He's not ashamed by my lack of education any more than I'm ashamed that he hasn't read any James Joyce.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

This isn't surprising at all, upon reflection.

As I said in another thread, folks who study this sort of thing, know that easy communication becomes difficult when the IQ gap between the communicators nears 30 points.

In a relationship, early sexual attraction, denial, etc covers that issue up, but that doesn't last.

Marriage is many things, and it is very much a life-long conversation. If there is a significant IQ gap, if one of the persons can not hold up their end of the donkey, it will eventually become unworkable.

We all know this is true, and can find many examples in our own experience, or in people we know.

But it is not polite to bring this up, or point this out. That's why my handle is SomeoneHasToSayIt

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm failing to see what men get out of this whole marrying thing anymore."

So, then, for you too, I recommend celibacy.

Ann Althouse said...

"As I said in another thread, folks who study this sort of thing, know that easy communication becomes difficult when the IQ gap between the communicators nears 30 points."

How do they study that, with census data?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

It's all a matter of priorities. If your priority in life is your career, then do everyone a favor and don't get married. If your priority in life is family, then live like that is your priority.

Michael K said...

Medical schools are one area where there has been a real change in mating behavior and just in time. Women now make up about 60% of medical students and male and female medical students tend to marry each other, thus creating a double income couple.

When I was a medical student 50 years ago, we had no women in my class and only three in the class ahead. Admission committees did tend to discriminate against women because there was a belief that they would not practice full time and a doctor shortage existed. Now, 50 years later, the evidence is that the admission committees were correct. Women physicians work about 50% of the hours that male physicians do and male physicians work less than my generation did.

Since 1969, the medical schools have more than doubled enrollment so a shortage should not be present but a reduction in incentives to work more hours has largely cancelled the effect. Double income physician families have made up the difference in income.

I have noticed that quite a few women physicians marry men who are less educated. Mostly they seem to choose men who have fixed work schedules and who can help with children. Examples are firemen and policemen who have shift work.

madAsHell said...

My father always told me....

"Never get into bed with a woman who has less money, and more problems than yourself"

Of course, sometimes you don't see the problems until you're between the sheets, and you had to sort things out in the morning.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Pogo is Dead said...

I'm failing to see what men get out of this whole marrying thing anymore.

Then either you are not the type of person who should be marrying, or you never met the right woman.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

p.s. I should have said that my husband's not ashamed of my lack of "education" because having a degree does not equal being educated. Don't we see daily examples of shocking ignorance on the part of people with impressive credentials?

jacksonjay said...

Marty

EDH said...

You're "stupid" if you're not my intellectual equal, however I define that.

Imagine how miserable you'd have to be walking the earth with that world view.

Curious George said...

"Now, I'm with Meade, who found me when I was 58, and I'm not ashamed or embarrassed at the difference in our education"

Well, when the house needs paintin' the house needs paintin'!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Growing up, I always assumed that I would get married and have children, and that those would be the most important things that I would do with my life. I didn't know that anyone looked at life differently.

Fortunately I met a girl who felt the same way.

mccullough said...

If you're a man or woman in college it's worthwhile to think about your odds of meeting someone at work in your future profession. If you're going into a male or female dominated profession, it makes sense to look around you now for a future mate.

Pogo is Dead said...

"So, then, for you too, I recommend celibacy."

I'm sure you do.
But that's not how it works.
Not marrying ≠ celibacy. (Were they ever equivalent?)

Young men have little reason to marry. Especially women like this.

Why don't these assholes just marry each other?

High status lesbian arm candy smart juicing all over each other, smashing all the female competition.


Bob Boyd said...

ARTIST: Julie Brown
TITLE: I Like Them Big and Stupid
Lyrics


When I need somethin' to help me unwind
I find a six foot baby with a one track mind
Smart guys are nowhere, they make demands
Give me a moron with talented hands
I go bar-hopping and they say last call
I start shopping for a Neanderthal

The bigger they come the harder I fall
In love 'til we're done then they're out in the hall

{Refrain}
I like 'em big and stupid
I like 'em big and real dumb
I like 'em big and stupid

What kind of guy does a lot for me
A Superman with a lobotomy
My fathers outa Harvard
My brothers outa Yale
But the guy I took home last night
Just got outa jail

The way he grabbed and threw me, ooh it really got me hot
But the way he growled and bit me, I hope he had his shots

The bigger they are the harder they'll work
I got a soft spot for a good lookin' jerk

{Refrain}

I met a guy, who drives a truck
He can't tell time but he sure can drive
I asked his name and he had to think
Could I have found the missing link
He's so stupid you know what he said
Well I forgot what he said, 'cause it was so stupid

The bigger they come the harder I fall
In love 'til we're done then they're out in the hall

{Refrain}

I like 'em big and real dumb
I like 'em big and

TMink said...

I think that intelligence is indeed a useful trait in a mate. But kindness kicks intelligence in the balls if you will permit such a violent metaphor! Then there is having a good work ethic. And how about how someone acts when they are angry?

Intelligence is great, but it is not a trump card so far as I can see.

Trey

chrisnavin.com said...

There definitely is a quality of abstinence, anaestheticism, and celibacy about the true believing feminist. No makeup. No nonsense. They have wrapped themselves in a set of ideas about the world. They have removed the scales from their eyes.

The core elements of religion make such a sacrifice for one's ideals a natural fit for some of them. Only the purest may apply.

Some feminists are lesbians. It's not popular to say it, but I'm guessing many in the past ended-up in nunneries. Some have made their way into the academy. Their relationship with men is problematic to say the least, and not intimate. Lots of man-haters.

There are also lots of damaged souls out there, and some women who were done wrong and never gotten over it. They need a cause or purpose and some may never be the kinds of people involved in how anyone else should live.

There's also a lot of just bad scholarship in feminism, misuse of statistics and a hermetic righteous air. Where do those ideas actually line up with reality? How can they be proven?

This is apart from women in general and the reasons for feminism.

I still don't understand why any reasonable man, apart from the women in his life, would or should self-identify and be aligned with such a movement, one that excludes him by definition.

Typically, it's men who share a political ideology, or power, or common worldview who do align themselves with it.

Such a man doesn't need to be a boor, nor a misogynist, nor a 'patriarch' to keep his distance, and push back against the more ideological elements and shoddy thinking of many feminists.



Roughcoat said...

I'm failing to see what men get out of this whole marrying thing anymore.

If you get a good woman, you get everything. Like having good health.

I got a good woman so I got everything. For going on 32 years now.

What did she get? Ask her.

If you have to ask this question you ain't never gonna know.

Pogo is Dead said...

"Ignorance is Bliss said...

Then either you are not the type of person who should be marrying, or you never met the right woman.
"

been married 30 years.
Your answer is non-responsive.
What's in it for young men to marry these days?
Helen Smith wrote a book about it.

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream.

It's a serious issue, adversely affecting society at large.

It's not merely a personal failing that Althouse can shuck off by saying then be celibate.

The women in this article, gay marriage, and the don't be a splooge stooge advice are part of why they aren't marrying.

But it is easier to mock men.

Shouting Thomas said...

Let me reinterpret your statements, prof, according to the theory of the pickup artist websites.

You were over 60 years old when you entered your current marriage.

You didn't have the "sexual market value" to marry a man of your caste. Pardon my French, but you were a dried up old fag hag by the time you decided to get it on with your husband.

So, you didn't do anything daring in marrying your husband. You did what you could do, in light of your near zero value in the sexual marketplace. All you had to offer was status and money. No beauty or sex appeal.

You've screwed up the operating principal of "hypergamy," too. The pickup artist sites like Heartiste discuss this ad nauseum.

Hypergamy is females screwing around in their 20s with the highest ranking alpha males in the hopes that they can land the big Kahuna. When that fails, they "settle," by lowering themselves to to marry a beta.

TMink said...

"As I said in another thread, folks who study this sort of thing, know that easy communication becomes difficult when the IQ gap between the communicators nears 30 points."

Many smart people use their intelligence to enhance their communication skills. So I would think that a person with a 120 IQ would be able to communicate with a person with a 90 IQ quite well.

Now communication with someone who has an IQ of 70 is challenging because of the 70 IQ, but I do not think that the person with the lower score would communicate better with a person who scored 90 than they would 110 just because the split in scores is smaller.

Trey

Jonathan Card said...

"I'm thinking it excites ... [l]ess-than-fully-attractive males who feel heartened/hardened at the dream of pretty girls flocking their way if only they get a good enough job or create the impression of having whatever that amount of money is that gets the pretty girls to flock."

That's my plan!

chrisnavin.com said...

People are talking about good and kind people, and there are a lot of smart assholes out there. Aren't goodness and kindness virtues, partially developed from habit in relationship to one's experience?

In other words, they arguably need to be modeled, taught and reinforced, often early in life and can lead to good outcomes.

Gahrie said...

So, then, for you too, I recommend celibacy.

When we do, you women complain there are no men left to marry....

TMink said...

Pogo raises a good question, as is his habit.

Trey

David said...

Note to young men:

Wait to marry most of these female people. You have to find out if a little life reeducates them from some of the crap they consume on campus. Many figure it out. Some do not. A few gems are never infected in the first place.


Shouting Thomas said...

Pogo's and my post are quite complimentary.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Pogo is Dead said...

been married 30 years.
Your answer is non-responsive.


And your answer is non-responsive. If you don't know what's in it for a man, then you never met the right woman, even if you've been married 30 years.

That's not to say that men who get married met the right woman, obviously many have not.



gerry said...

High status lesbian arm candy smart juicing all over each other, smashing all the female competition.

Well, the latest radchic feminism is all rape culture all the time, with vaginal intercourse rape no matter what the circumstances. A feminist must be a lesbian, according to the latest rules. By the by, I especially like "juicing all over each other". Ewwww.
______________________________
You didn't have the "sexual market value" to marry a man of your caste. Pardon my French, but you were a dried up old fag hag by the time you decided to get it on with your husband.

So, you didn't do anything daring in marrying your husband. You did what you could do, in light of your near zero value in the sexual marketplace. All you had to offer was status and money. No beauty or sex appeal.


ST, are you personally as worthless as this comment?

Todd said...

Riley's response is that the world has changed, so that men are now ashamed to be with women who are not their intellectual equals.

That is just whistling pass the grave yard. She wishes it to be so because in that statement she catches a glimpse of her salvation.

Pogo is Dead said...

"Ignorance is Bliss said...

And your answer is non-responsive. If you don't know what's in it for a man, then you never met the right woman, even if you've been married 30 years.
"

I see; I am being unclear.
I am not asking why I should have gotten married.

I am asking why today's young men should marry. What is in it for them?

What was in it for me 30 years ago is no longer present. The advantages have changed, dwindled, or evaporated.

Skeptical Voter said...

Someone Had To Say It and Roughcoat both make good points. Marriage is a life long conversation (my wife and I have been talking for almost 50 years now) and marriage to a good woman--or to a good man--is a very rewarding thing.

There are all kinds of intelligence out there, and not all of them are book smarts. I've spent my adult life around and among highly educated people with "degrees out the ying yang" as it were. I've known a lot of highly educated fools.

But if you are bright and quick--and may even on rare occasions be the smartest person in the room, then you'd better not marry down much as far as intelligence goes. I had that figured out by the time I was 18 years old (which was also the last time I was ever the smartest person in any room).

Youthful beauty doesn't always last; physical passion and skills therein may fade in time. But the old saying that "ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever" is true. That's the one thing that can't be fixed and will never fade away.

Shouting Thomas said...

ST, are you personally as worthless as this comment?

How often do you beat your wife?

Ralph Hyatt said...

I just wanted to say that Professor Althouse wins the Internet today with this post.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Ann Althouse said...

"As I said in another thread, folks who study this sort of thing, know that easy communication becomes difficult when the IQ gap between the communicators nears 30 points."

How do they study that, with census data?


Is this a genuine inquiry by you, or just a smart-ass throw-away?

Because you are quite good at google searches, and can surely find these studies for yourself, if you really want to become informed.

I'm going to guess that you do not even want to "go there", as the saying goes.

This might be wise in your case. Such 'searches' could get you fired, so they would take significant courage.

I can give you a couple of place to start, if you are interested.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Pogo is Dead said...

What was in it for me 30 years ago is no longer present. The advantages have changed, dwindled, or evaporated.

What has been lost for someone who marries the right woman?

The answer to that, from my point of view, is a whole lot of societal respect for the insititution, and the people in it. This is tragic for society, but is not enough to make marriage no longer worth it, if you marry the right woman.

I will say thing have changed to make things much worse for the man who marries the wrong woman. The risks are very high. If, as a guy, family is important to you, you need to invest a lot of time and effort into finding the right woman.

surfed said...

Good squick er...stuff today Professor. Keep it coming. Oh my, did I just write that?

The Cracker Emcee said...



"If you get a good woman, you get everything. Like having good health.

I got a good woman so I got everything. For going on 32 years now.

What did she get? Ask her.

If you have to ask this question you ain't never gonna know."

This. Life has taught me then when men or women make negative generalizations about the other sex what they're really complaining about is their own poor choices, stupidity, and immaturity. If you're going to use intelligence as a benchmark for finding a mate then you are truly one screwed dumbass.

carrie said...

Bigots of the worst kind.

Lyssa said...

Pogo said: What was in it for me 30 years ago is no longer present. The advantages have changed, dwindled, or evaporated.

Be more specific - what, exactly, was in it for you then, and what is in it for you now?

Unless your reasons for getting and staying married are/were extremely bizarre, I can almost promise you that most of them are very much still in it for most young couples. The vast majority of people are not psudeo-intellectuals spewing craziness on the internet; most are just happy young people who like to be with each other and want a life and family together.

William said...

My guidance counsellor told me that my IQ tested out at nearly 100. That's a nearly perfect score. It's fine to be this smart, but when you have a nearly perfect IQ the downside is that you're forced to go out with women who are much dumber than you. The way I try to work out of this dilemma is by going out with women much sexier than me.......When you're super smart, a lot of the life juices flow into the frontal lobe instead of other areas of the body. So it's a swap. I trade my smart juices for her sexy juices, and we both come out ahead.

Shouting Thomas said...

As usual, Althouse concerns herself mostly with people like her, that is people with an IQ of +120 in professional jobs.

Her entire discussion of gay marriage was also delivered from that standpoint.

That's such a tiny portion of the populace. It's also the most boring, stunted, lifeless sector of the populace.

"It's better on the bottom," said Henry Miller, and he was right.

I could have lived in that emotional desert that Althouse occupies. It bored the hell out of me.

Pogo is Dead said...

@Lyssa:
From Helen Smith:

"In the old days, it was sort of like – fifty years ago a man was head of household, looked up to, treated with respect, and now a married man in many ways is seen as less of a man (not more of one) and it’s doubly so if he has kids. We see the whole, “He’s no longer Ward Cleaver. He’s some schlub carrying around a flower diaper bag.” There are huge risks involved in divorce which is very unfriendly to men. When we look at the workplace, sexual harassment laws and the growth of HR bureaucracies – which are mostly made up of women – these are hostile environments to men. People don’t think about that. They think of hostile environments as only places where things happen to women."

and

"The percentage of unmarried men has tripled among some demographic cohorts, for those with college educations and those without. Labor participation rates for men are falling: In 1967, nearly 97 percent of men with no more than a high school education had a job, Dr. Helen says, citing figures from the Brookings Institution. Now the number is 76 percent. Among all working-age men, only 66 percent work full time​—​down from 80 percent 40 years ago. College admissions counselors across the country despair over the lack of male applicants. About 60 percent of college applicants each year are female​—​a ratio carried over into the student bodies of more and more schools."

Paul said...

It's hard to believe so many of you are still in the dark as to how feminism and it's concomitant infusion of latent misandry into modern Western culture has changed the incentives of young people's mating strategy. ST and Pogo are right on the money and the rest of you are apparently comfortably ensconced under a rock somewhere.

Dr. Helen's book is an excellent place to start.

Titus said...

My office is teaming with smart, later 20's, early 30's Ivies-out of approximately 50 only 4-5 are not married.

The ones that are married are all married to other ivies though or second tier ivies (middlebury, connecticut college, haverford, colby).

UMass would be out of the question though for any of our staff.

Shouting Thomas said...

If you are a professional or high IQ man, you might want to look elsewhere than those feminist professional women who will refuse to give you kids, divorce you on a whim and bleed you of everything you worked so hard to accumulate.

Those "lower class" women who are working as your secretaries, or working as nurses will surprise you when you get to know them.

They are usually much smarter than you think. They are most likely far smarter than those snot nosed brat professional women who you lust after for a second paycheck.

Birkel said...

Lyssa,
Without taking a side in the debate I would offer that the evidence (e.g. marriage rates) indicate men evaluating the payoff matrix (i.e. Their incentives) of marriage have determined it is less valuable now than before. We should assume those men are best situated to determine their own, respective incentive structures. And we can observe their choices and impute their meaning. Not to do so amounts to willful ignorance, in my opinion.

Pogo is Dead said...

@Lyssa:
"The vast majority of people ...are just happy young people who like to be with each other and want a life and family together."

No longer the majority.

"...Canada has seen a collapse in heterosexual marriages far some decades. It was a decline that started in 1945 and then became an upturn in 1960 but which reversed into a near terminal decline in 1970 lasting until the present day.

Our nearest neighbours, the EU nations, all have very similar patterns in marriage decline as measured by per 1,000 of inhabitants.
"

paul a'barge said...

Why does Naomi Schaefer Riley have 3 names?

Everyone else has two.

paul a'barge said...

... almost forgot to say: Feminism is a culture of gender hatred.

Ann Althouse said...

"Never get into bed with a woman who has less money, and more problems than yourself."

So he was restricting you sexually to woman who have more money than you AND fewer problems than you.

That's a small pool, but you can make it larger by staying poor and having a lot of problems.

Good luck! I hope you are super-cute.

Pogo is Dead said...

3 names is status. More smart juice.

John Lynch said...

This isn't about smarts or education. It's about status.

paul a'barge said...

Naomi Shaefer Riley? Did someone say Naomi Schaefer Riley?

Believe me. No man, smart or other, is going to be hanging her on his arm.

Lyssa said...

Pogo said: From Helen Smith:

"In the old days, it was sort of like – fifty years ago a man was head of household, looked up to, treated with respect, and now a married man in many ways is seen as less of a man (not more of one) and it’s doubly so if he has kids. We see the whole, “He’s no longer Ward Cleaver. He’s some schlub carrying around a flower diaper bag.” There are huge risks involved in divorce which is very unfriendly to men. When we look at the workplace, sexual harassment laws and the growth of HR bureaucracies – which are mostly made up of women – these are hostile environments to men. People don’t think about that. They think of hostile environments as only places where things happen to women."


I didn't ask what Helen Smith (who is married to a man who presumably decided that marriage is worthwhile, BTW) thinks; I asked what was in it for you.

The reference is 50 years ago, Ward and the Bev time. You didn't get married 50 years ago, you got married 30 years ago. 1984, give or take. Women's lib was solidly a thing; the sexual revolution done; the divorce rate had already reached it's peak. What was in it for you then?

No one makes you carry around a flowered diaper bag. You can get one with literally any manly symbol you want.

Conserve Liberty said...

This is all such BS.

Marry who 'ya like. Odds are you'll like someone your intellectual and socieceonomic equivalent, who also shares your goals and values.

Eventually, if you work at it, you'll be in love, but like lasts longer.

Whatever happens, stay married. Work at it. Make it work.

Divorce is the most financially destructive avoidable act ever visited upon manmkind.

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm sure you do. But that's not how it works.
Not marrying ≠ celibacy. (Were they ever equivalent?)"

Of course, I realize that, but I am recommending celibacy for you because you are presenting yourself as a very grim, unpleasant person and I don't think you should inflict this on a woman or on many women or whatever sexual hijinks you're imagining for yourself.

You are a depressing old man. With celibacy, you have a chance at finding spiritual peace and depth.

I am not kidding.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Pogo is Dead said...


From Helen Smith:

"In the old days, it was sort of like – fifty years ago a man was head of household, looked up to, treated with respect, and now a married man in many ways is seen as less of a man (not more of one) and it’s doubly so if he has kids. We see the whole, “He’s no longer Ward Cleaver. He’s some schlub carrying around a flower diaper bag.”


You and Dr. Smith are correct that society treats men, including married men, with little respect.

On the other hand, if you marry the right woman, you now have someone treating you with respect every single day, for the rest of your life. In that way, marrying the right woman is now more valuable then it ever was.

Marry the wrong woman and you are screwed.

Lyssa said...

Birkel said: Without taking a side in the debate I would offer that the evidence (e.g. marriage rates) indicate men evaluating the payoff matrix (i.e. Their incentives) of marriage have determined it is less valuable now than before. We should assume those men are best situated to determine their own, respective incentive structures. And we can observe their choices and impute their meaning. Not to do so amounts to willful ignorance, in my opinion.

Oh, I'm not saying that some men (or women) don't make a reasonable-for-them decision not to get married. It's Pogo's absurd argument that there's absolutely no reason for any young man to get married that I think deserves serious pushback.

People going around pushing false ideologies about marriage certainly doesn't help society or marriage in general. It's poison in the well.

Scott M said...

With celibacy, you have a chance at finding spiritual peace and depth.

Isn't finding depth the opposite of celibacy?

Shouting Thomas said...

And, yet, Althouse and her colleagues march on in their quest to re-engineer human nature.

Gay marriage!

Althouse is smarter than 2,000 years of Judeo-Christianity theology and human tradition.

John Lynch said...

Smart people marrying smart people leads to a lot of autism.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The schools to which you submit your time and your money don't tell us all that much about the quality of your mind.

THIS exactly!!

A college degree, even from Stanford, is not a guarantee of intellectual curiosity, intelligence or as stated....the quality of your mind.

Some of the smartest, most engaging, nimble minds I have know were ensconced in the heads of self made business men and women who didn't finish college or went to an icky lower class college....ooooooh how low rent. Some very smart and well read working men and women as well.

The attitude of the article is of the elitists who cannot conceive of anyone outside of their own insular bubble. Not only is this a bigoted opinion, it is ignorant and unintelligent.

That being said, to have a compatible relationship, both parties really do need to be on a relatively level intellectual playing field. I can't imagine anything worse than being married to, or have any friendships with a person with whom I cannot have a discussion. We don't have to 'agree' but at least be able be on basically equal footing.

Gahrie said...

In that way, marrying the right woman is now more valuable then it ever was.

Marry the wrong woman and you are screwed.


The problem is, the culture is telling the right women that they are wrong, and the wrong women that they are right.

Shouting Thomas said...

The celibacy argument is just another example of the divide between men and women.

Sex is more important, generally, to men than to women.

Smart women don't taunt men with the threat of the withdrawal of sex. They humble themselves to provide their man with the sex he needs.

Lyssa said...

Ignorance said: You and Dr. Smith are correct that society treats men, including married men, with little respect.

On the other hand, if you marry the right woman, you now have someone treating you with respect every single day, for the rest of your life. In that way, marrying the right woman is now more valuable then it ever was.


Co-sign (for both sexes, of course). One thing that bugs me about (the women who claim to be) feminists is how much stock they put in "society." "Oh, women can't do that." Me: "Of course they can, who's going to stop them?" Them: "Well, society would frown on them." Me: "So?"

Pogo is doing the same here - You can push back against society without letting it infect your own family or the families of others.

Pogo is Dead said...

@Lyssa:
"What was in it for you then? "

I grew up in a small town. it was not unlike the 1950s even when I got married. Feminist cant was viewed as a joke.

Shouting Thomas said...

Pogo is doing the same here - You can push back against society without letting it infect your own family or the families of others.

You don't have to do this either.

There be women who don't give a shit about "society." They care only about their own families and their own men.

Women indoctrinated by a dumb ass feminist residence in a U.S. college are unlikely candidates.

Gahrie said...

The vast majority of people are not psudeo-intellectuals spewing craziness on the internet; most are just happy young people who like to be with each other and want a life and family together.

Which is why of course that:

A) Divorce rates are skyhigh
B) Single mothers are the norm
C) "Baby Daddy" and "Baby Momma" have become demograhic terms
D) Women are constantly complaining that there are no men worth marrying

Lyssa said...

Pogo said: Feminist cant was viewed as a joke.

Feminist cant is still viewed as a joke in most circles. What was in it for you to get married? Be specific.

Pogo is Dead said...

"You are a depressing old man. With celibacy, you have a chance at finding spiritual peace and depth."

You're such a kidder.

"I am not kidding."

Oops.

And here I thought I was presenting argument for an intelligent discussion.

"I'm sorry I ruined your New Year's Eve party, Lieutenant Dan."

Pogo is Dead said...

"What was in it for you to get married? Be specific."

Althouse wants me gone. Too depressing.

Lyssa said...

Gahrie said A) Divorce rates are skyhigh
B) Single mothers are the norm
C) "Baby Daddy" and "Baby Momma" have become demograhic terms
D) Women are constantly complaining that there are no men worth marrying


This is the sort of thing that I'm talking about, poisoning the well. Divorce rates are *not* sky-high. They peaked in the 70's, and have dropped since. It is simply not true that 50% of marriages end in divorce.

Women who complain about there not being men worth marrying are generally idiots who are looking for the wrong things.

Single parents are not yet the norm, though we are going dangerously close to that. Spreading falsely negative attitudes about marriage in general is certainly not helpful to that issue.

Ann Althouse said...

"Let me reinterpret your statements, prof, according to the theory of the pickup artist websites. You were over 60 years old when you entered your current marriage."

No. I was 58.

"You didn't have the "sexual market value" to marry a man of your caste."

I hadn't encountered any men who I thought could be a soul mate since the man I'd married right after college. And I found that doing a good job at work and raising 2 sons was what I needed to devote those years to. I didn't enter any "sexual market." You would not have found me in any of those places where your favorite how-to-fuck-women blogger tells you about.

"Pardon my French, but you were a dried up old fag hag by the time you decided to get it on with your husband."

Much as I would have enjoyed having numerous gay male friends, that's not the way life is in Madison, Wisconsin. And I wasn't "dry" at all. You wouldn't have read my blog all these years and hankered after knocking me down for so long if you thought I was "dry." What other old ladies have you been badgering for years with your tips from a how-to-fuck-women website?

"So, you didn't do anything daring in marrying your husband. You did what you could do, in light of your near zero value in the sexual marketplace. All you had to offer was status and money. No beauty or sex appeal."

I won't make the argument for my own beauty and sex appeal, but why are you so obsessed with me?

"You've screwed up the operating principal of "hypergamy," too. The pickup artist sites like Heartiste discuss this ad nauseum."

I'm glad your favorite blog makes you feel nauseated, but seriously, why do you think that guy is sharing his purported fucking tips with you (rather than keeping them to himself and trouncing the competition)? He's trying to draw traffic to — pick one — his blog OR your cock? You may enjoy the feeling that women are being degraded, but you are the one consuming that material. Only you are degraded.

"Hypergamy is females screwing around in their 20s with the highest ranking alpha males in the hopes that they can land the big Kahuna. When that fails, they "settle," by lowering themselves to to marry a beta."

The 'gamy suffix refers specifically to marriage. The word ONLY means marrying up. If you want to talk about strategies women have for marrying up — bad strategies — feel free to talk about them, but it is not what the word "hypergamy" means.

And remember, the topic of this post is smart women. You don't seem to be talking accurately about smart women, and you are certainly not talking about me. I have never engaged in any of this behavior or even wanted to.

When I was coming of age, we were hippies and we laughed at the squares who cared about money and social prestige. It has never crossed my mind as a serious thought to have sex with someone as a way of getting to money. It's not the way I've lived, and my lack of interest in living that way has nothing to do with whether or not I was or am "marketable."

You're a sad old man, and you get off on degrading women. That's not at all attractive, and there is no scenario in the world where I'd would be interested in you -- not at any age, not at any relative degree of age or beauty as between us, and not at any level of money that either of us has had, and not at any stage of sex-deprivation I've experienced.

Gahrie said...

Single parents are not yet the norm, though we are going dangerously close to that

Where do you live? Mayberry?

SOJO said...

But this is true of every dominant relationship. The reverse is also true. With a brain chemist friend, I had to keep learning just to participate in the conversation. When I hung out primarily with creatives, my sense of humor and wordplay were far sharper. Conversely, when I first graduated college and worked a few low level jobs in the entertainment industry, I could feel my brain degrading by the day. It became so painful, I left for Web 1.0.

This phenomena remains one of the most terrifying and dehumanizing aspects for anyone working a shit job. (On a macro level, it is worrisome that the country is becoming a nation of shit jobs with the top three employers being McDonalds, Yum Yum Brands and WalMart rather than the modern equivalent AT&T and the auto industry.)

You can keep it going on your own, but it takes excellent internal mental hygiene. This is why people fear the suburbs, restful as they are. It is a form of creative retirement.






Biff said...

It's interesting to see how decades-old SAT scores and one's extracurricular activities as a teenager, by virtue of their weight in the college admissions process, lie at the heart of the social choices of so many people in their forties and beyond.

Compared to the teenager I was, I now am nearly unrecognizable, and yet it would seem that for some (many?) people, the college acceptance letter I earned based on the exploits of my sixteen year old self is the most salient feature of my life story. That's...stupid!

glenn said...

As long as she's hot. Snort, Snort. Rolls in mud, farts, scratches privates, goes for another beer.

Bruce Hayden said...

I grew up at the end of the era when women were going to school for the Mrs degree. A majority of those whom I went to college with did not get married at graduation, or thereabouts, but a lot did, and with the exception of a couple MDs, are almost all still married, over 40 years now - except that we are now seeing one partner or the other starting to die off now. The young lady who had her hat set on me got away, and I do regret that at times (actually, in this case, it was almost literal - we met during Sigma Chi Derby Days, and first spent time together in trade for one of my derbys in the Derby chase - it was the last year that it was held).

I think that today you need to extend college, as a mating scene, to include graduate school, at least if you are going to one where your sex is not greatly over-represented (i.e. if a young woman wants to go into, say, social work, she would probably do better snagging a husband as an undergraduate, but would do just fine in engineering grad school).

I think that maybe part of the problem is that a lot of young women view their undergraduate years as a time to party, and that seems to often lead to sleeping around a bit, and the transition from that to seriously dating seems to not work very well. Guys, probably too, in that regard. Interestingly, watching my kid, as they finished their undergrad, and started grad school, was that the kids who didn't date or party as much, unless they were dating one person seriously for much of school, seemed to do much better at getting into long term relationships than did those who partied a lot.

A lot of this is why I always found the TV series Sluts in the City so sad. They were all getting old in NYC, a big glamorous city, which has a large sexual imbalance already, and the older they got, the more desperate they seemed to get, so they would seemingly sleep with whomever they could, on the chance that they might be able to extend a one night stand into a long term relationship. But, the more they slept around, and the older they got, the less attractive they got for the quality of men they thought they deserved.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

SOJO's post (11:05) is a prime example of the snobbery rampant in the elitists colleges and media. Shit jobs? Judging people by what they do and not what they are? If you can't make friends who are compatible with you or feel chained to the stupid people in your work environment...I feel that you are the inadequate one. If you fear the suburbs, you are probably TERRIFIED of where I live. Stay in the cities. Please.

Althouse DID take a bold step in doing what many in her inner circle at the University would consider, marrying down. People looking down their noses at a spouse who didn't get a degree or who isn't in their (perceived) same elevated status.

I've been married now for 20 years to my loving husband whose on line persona is The Dumbplumber. A self made business man and entrepreneur who dropped out of college after two years. I was, and am now retired, a stockbroker/financial planner. You would not believe the snobbery that we would face, from some, when attending the various mandatory conferences and working trips when those other professionals in my field would find out that The Dumbplumber was.....gasp..... a guy who works with his hands and didn't have a big fancy college education. I will stack "his" financial acumen and intellect against any of their MBAs or credentials any time. Fortunately, The Dumbplumber has a good sense of humor and is impervious to their insulting attitudes. Myself as well. I could give a shit what they thought.

Nevertheless, you ARE taking a bold step when you bring an "outsider" into the elite's inner circle.

Shouting Thomas said...

I won't make the argument for my own beauty and sex appeal, but why are you so obsessed with me?

This is an interesting strategy that you, and other advocates of gay marriage resort to frequently.

First, you want to discuss gay marriage. Then, somebody discusses gay marriage and disagrees with you. If this continues for several rounds, you then denounce your interlocutor as a "homophobe" who is obsessed with the big bag of dicks rattling around in his brain.

Heartiste is not my favorite website. In fact, I find it rather childish. I've been very successful in my relationships with women, so I don't need to follow the recommended strategies.

Since you decide to use the terminology so often associated with Heartiste, I decided to present you with the other side of the coin.

John said...

Ann recommends celibacy.

Later admits that one can have sex without a relationship.

Hookers may also be an option.

In one of GV Higgins one of the characters says something like "I can see why some guys like to go to whores. Sometimes you just want to get laid without having to put up with a whole bunch of conversation"

I am sure Higgins said it more eloquently then I am quoting from memory.

One could also become gay. Solves this whole problem with women.

(Just celebrated 40 years of happy marriage for anyone who wonders)

John Henry

Shouting Thomas said...

You're a sad old man, and you get off on degrading women.

You're a dumb fuck intellectual who's out of touch with reality. You're a very destructive dumb fuck intellectual. Look at the hatred you are engendering here. You've been doing it your entire life.

And you know better, which really makes you a piece of shit.

You're an enemy, Althouse. I read you to do surveillance on a vicious enemy.

John said...

I do like the term "Stupid juice"

Seems like we have a lot of politicians, from Obie on down, in both parties, splooging it all over us every day.

John Henry

Ignorance is Bliss said...

John said...

I do like the term "Stupid juice"

Best to only use it in print. Otherwise you might be thought an anti-Semite.

madAsHell said...

My guidance counsellor told me that my IQ tested out at nearly 100. That's a nearly perfect score.

Your guidance counsellor lied. He was probably making fun of you.

Drago said...

paul a'barge said...
Why does Naomi Schaefer Riley have 3 names?
Everyone else has two.

Had a flashback to the scene in "Zorro, the Gay Blade" where George Hamilton is noticing that the white woman who wants to help the "poor downtrodden peoples (sic)" is one "Ms...Charlotte...Taylor....Wilson".

With an hilarious accent Zorro (Hamilton) tells here that she has too many names. Certainly more names than any poor person has.

Amusing.

Drago said...

John: "I am sure Higgins said it more eloquently then I am quoting from memory."

I've watched every "Magnum PI" and I'm quite sure Higgins never said that!


.....ok, not the greatest joke ever.

Scott M said...

"Zorro, the Gay Blade"

One of the greatest movies most people have never seen.

Pogo is Dead said...

For the record, I did not insult you, Althouse.
Rather than respond to my argument you insulted me.
Oh, well.

Drago said...

Dust Bunny Queen, I've told more than 1 budding "Classics" and "Fine Arts" majors that learning the plumbing and/or electrical trade was a ticket to financial independence IF they were hard working and competent and willing to take some chances on building a small business.

The best part?

You are free to continue your studies of what you truly love, the Fine Arts and the Classics.

There is no barrier to continued learning and growth....and financial stability.

Drago said...

I should have said no barrier to small business success other than obama, the dems and their marxist followers.

Shouting Thomas said...

Rather than respond to my argument you insulted me.

This is a bitter war.

At some point in the future, it will explode into a global shooting war.

Insults will be the least of it.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

John said...

Ann recommends celibacy.

Later admits that one can have sex without a relationship.

Hookers may also be an option.


Women generally really have NO idea of what sex often is, and can be, to a man --- especially what constitutes "good enough for most occasions".

In a few short years, the combination of Japanese robotics (already quite advanced), and virtual reality immersion technology, will produce a very credible and satisfying substitute for sex-with-a-female.

The Millennial girls are learning now just what their 'hook up' available-ness have done to the attitudes towards them, of Millennial men.

The robotics/VR will take that to a whole new level.

Ann Althouse said...

"Pogo's and my post are quite complimentary."

The word is "complementary."

You'll never know how many females will demote you below the minimally fuckable level for making a gaffe like that.

William said...

I think Althouse is witty and attractive. I enjoy reading her, and good for her that she found a worthy partner to play with on the last set. I like to see happy marriages. It's not part of my skill set, but it's good to see that it can be done.....People have a lot of hungry mouths to feed, and they seldom can make it through the winter without gnawing on each other.

Ann Althouse said...

"If you don't know what's in it for a man, then you never met the right woman, even if you've been married 30 years."

The things men say to themselves to remain in wedlock. The other women are all bitches anyway. And the grapes you can't reach are sour.

As I said before, you seem very grim and unpleasant, but maybe you think you're quite charming, because you think you are the one who has the only good woman in the world.

Does she know that's how you think about women?

Does she enjoy believing that she's the only woman who's any good?

Is that the right way to live in this world? Even if the whole world has gone to hell, save your soul.

SOJO said...

@DustBunnyQueen

You don't know me, so I can't make you believe it, but honestly, you're projecting judgment and snobbery where none exists.

I do live in the suburbs now. It's restful and beautiful with its own strong points (morality and decency for example), but it is not a creative hotbed; the slower pace is a good thing for where I am currently in my life, but yes, it would have driven me insane in my 20s.

Why be dishonest that shit jobs exist? It is not a reflection on the person taking them, nor on their capacities.

People, not just me, but people and the country at large, deserve better and can do better. To be cowed or angered by snobbery, real or imagined, is a deterrent to improvement for everyone. It is a temptation.

The primary reason I left my shit 'glamor' job was because I wanted to participate an arena in which people of all types could overcome hardened obstacles and prejudices in older industries and get paid to use their minds and/or be creative. I wanted those qualities to be more easily available to more people. That same impulse writ large created the web as we know it today and in which you are happily participating.

That same impulse in younger people is as we speak creating new industries.





Ignorance is Bliss said...


Does she enjoy believing that she's the only woman who's any good?

I suspect she's spent a lot of the last 30 years telling herself that all the other men are assholes anyway. And the grapes she can't reach are sour.

But that's just a guess.

Ann Althouse said...

"No one makes you carry around a flowered diaper bag. You can get one with literally any manly symbol you want."

Can he get one with penises?

Freeman Hunt said...

I think people with Ivy League degrees marrying others with Ivy League degrees is probably a function of social networks. One of my closest friends graduated from an Ivy, and her husband did too; they met through mutual friends. My best friend from high school got her PhD at an Ivy, as did her husband; they met while there. Another good friend graduated from an Ivy law school and is married to a woman he met while doing undergrad at a state university.

So I don't think it's about snobbery. It's about who you're around most during the usual marriage years.

Ann Althouse said...

"The celibacy argument is just another example of the divide between men and women. Sex is more important, generally, to men than to women. Smart women don't taunt men with the threat of the withdrawal of sex."

There's no threatening and there's no taunting when a woman does her work, lives independently, and pursues non-sex activities of her choice.

It reveals the kind of person you are that you picture this woman interacting with you.

I don't think sex is more "important" to men, unless you define sex in a particular manner centered on some stereotype about sex. And anyone can masturbate. Anyone can feel sexual and still refrain from sexual activities. And anyone can go through a physical act of sex without having any sexual feelings.

So what are we talking about?

You concludes with "Smart women… humble themselves to provide their man with the sex he needs."

That assumes a man who needs a humbled woman. And what's her motive? I guess she's that gold-digger you're always talking about. You're accidentally disparaging men now, portraying them as manipulable through sex by women who are only using sex as a means to an end. But what end?

Unless this man is offering something in return, why is she doing this?

You seem to be a guy with a sexual orientation toward demeaning women, and you seem to get off writing about it.

But you don't write well enough. It's not funny. It's not artful. And the reasoning is full of holes.

I should just decline to publish my own comment because to respond to you is to imply that your comments are at least worth responding to.

What the hell...

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Ann Althouse said...

"Pogo's and my post are quite complimentary."

The word is "complementary."

You'll never know how many females will demote you below the minimally fuckable level for making a gaffe like that.


To each their own, I guess.

Having voted for Obama would make any girl un-fuckable, in my book.
It's a proxy for gullibleness, and poor and shallow judgement and thinking.

Meade said...

"Not marrying ≠ celibacy."

Not marrying is the very definition of celibacy.

Perhaps what you're looking for is chastity?

Ann Althouse said...

"As long as she's hot. Snort, Snort. Rolls in mud, farts, scratches privates, goes for another beer."

Hypergamous females scratch generals.

gregq said...

nn Althouse said...

"I'm failing to see what men get out of this whole marrying thing anymore."

So, then, for you too, I recommend celibacy.

Why? There's lots of women who will have sex with us, no marriage required.

Really tasty, creamy milk is out there, just about for free. When in the world should we buy a cow? Or give up on the milk, just because cows have become really expensive?

Fen said...

Having voted for Obama would make any girl un-fuckable, in my book. It's a proxy for gullibleness, and poor and shallow judgement and thinking.

Well duh. You fuck the liberal girls to satisfy your sexual fantasies, but you marry conservative women to raise a family.

Because there are just some things you don't do to the mother of your children.

Fen said...

Too busy to scan, but I'm guessing the article is about the lack of good men, how women are having to marry "down". Hah.

Dumb Plumber said...

yes, it [living in the suburbs]would have driven me insane in my 20s.

Well, I must admit that it wouldn't have suited me either in my 20's :-)

But to blame intellectual stultification on your geographic area is not honest either.

Why be dishonest that shit jobs exist? It is not a reflection on the person taking them, nor on their capacities.

Of course shitty jobs exist. I've worked in many of them and it would be great if no one had to plunge the toilet or wipe the baby's ass at day care while others work in fab creative occupations. THAT is a whole other discussion.

However, in the context of this discussion of the article about not marrying or having a relationship with your intellectual "inferiors" based on your credentials, the attitude in the article and one held by many people is that if you are one of those who ARE working in the shit jobs you are somehow intellectually and socially inferior. You MUST have a degree and the degree from Stanford trumps even a degree at a lesser college. That you will be covered in stupid juice if you associate with the inferiors.

This is the level of snobbery that we see all of the time and with which the author of the article is oozing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Dang it. Used the wrong log in.

That was supposed to be me.

Titus said...

"You'll never know how many females will demote you below the minimally fuckable level for making a gaffe like that."

that was great.

But I think it all is about social networks too. Many of these people have been going to school with these same people for years and develop networks. And then they marry someone in that network. But some of them specifically will not marry out of this class.

We have had many examples where we interview a Phd wife for one position and then her Phd husband interviews for another position.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"There be women who don't give a shit about "society." They care only about their own families and their own men"

This would be the overwhelming majority of women. Fewer men feel this way every day, though. Society really is going to reap the feminist whirlwind.

Gahrie said...

Why? There's lots of women who will have sex with us, no marriage required.

Exactly. Rarely when feminists or women in general are discussing marriage, and the increasing number of men who are not interested in it, is the issue of supply brought up. When the supply of easily available sex was low, marriage had more value for men.

There are very few incentives for men to get married today, and ever increasing disincentives.

(unless they're gay of course)

gregq said...

Lyssa said...

Pogo said: What was in it for me 30 years ago is no longer present. The advantages have changed, dwindled, or evaporated.

Be more specific - what, exactly, was in it for you then, and what is in it for you now?

Marriage is now heavily weighted towards women:

1: If she gets pregnant, she can have an abortion, you get no vote.

2: If she gets pregnant, you are stuck with child support for the next 18 years, even if the child was "fathered" by a different man.

3: Society does not give husbands and fathers the respect that they once had. That respect was a strong incentive for getting married, isn't any more.

4: Women are willing to have sex with very little investment by the male. If your goal is to get laid, marriage, even commitment, are no longer necessary.

So, in short, the costs have gone up, the benefits have gone down. Unless you find a women who's major league valuable, somewhat "out of your league", and willing to marry you anyway, why bother?

Have kids? Why would you want to create a human being who will be spending his or her life paying off the interest on Obama's debt, and paying for a lot of other people's retirements? Take the money you would have spent on the kid, and invest it so you can take care of your own retirement, then let the rest of the world go to hell.

Gahrie said...

You're accidentally disparaging men now, portraying them as manipulable through sex by women who are only using sex as a means to an end. But what end?

He's not disparaging men, he's accurately describing human society throughout history. Hell you can make the arguement that our physical bodies have evolved precisely to account for such behavior.

MadisonMan said...

It's about who you're around most during the usual marriage years.

Propinquity!

A favorite word of mine.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Looks like some of those punches hit the mark.

Althouse has her granny panties in a bunch. I find it quite amusing.

SOJO said...

@DustBunnyQueen

Okay, you caught me. I didn't read the article because I'm already familiar with the attitude. :D



Robt C said...

Forget all the discussion about IQ and college. Steven Pinker distills the marital partnering process quite nicely: "People shop for the most desirable person who will settle for them." That's perfect -- if each partner thinks he/she married up, ie the other person "settled," you have mutual respect--and a compatible mate, or as he puts it, "most marriages pair a bride and a groom of roughly equal desirability."

surfed said...

Let me be the first to say it's a lot more fun to live in sin. Always has been - always will be.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Robt C said...

Forget all the discussion about IQ and college. Steven Pinker distills the marital partnering process quite nicely: "People shop for the most desirable person who will settle for them." That's perfect -- if each partner thinks he/she married up, ie the other person "settled," you have mutual respect--and a compatible mate, or as he puts it, "most marriages pair a bride and a groom of roughly equal desirability."


Sorry, but that doesn't advance things at all. One of the things you "settle" for is not too much of an IQ gap.

And of course, on a tangent, college and degrees and such have very little to do with actual IQ. This is especially true if you got your degree while being a "student athlete". Or anything associated with, say, African American studies, Gender studies, etc.

Pogo is Dead said...

@Meade:
"Not marrying is the very definition of celibacy.
Perhaps what you're looking for is chastity?
"

Celibate: abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons.

Celibate can be taken to mean 'not married' per se, but that is an uncommon usage. More often, people use the word "unmarried" to describe that state.

Paul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...

One of the best barometers of how feminism has poisoned the well can be seen in many TV commercials and series where men, particularly spouses, are portrayed as bumbling buffoons or emasculated chumps, as their smart, sassy wives roll their eyes while they solve the problems and clean up the messes of their incompetent partners.

Meanwhile, as Camille Paglia has courageously noted, men are overwhelmingly responsible for the building of civilization and society and it would grind to a halt without them.

It's just another branch of Marxist propaganda designed to destroy Western civilization, and Althouse and many of the "conservatives" here are all in with it.

Tom said...

Best advice I ever heard: Don't Fuck Stupid.

bearing said...

I really loved this post, Ann. It's just fun to read.

I am technically more educated than my husband (I have a PhD and he has a BS, in the same field), but I'm staying home with the kids and he supports the family with his paycheck. I find that this feels... really egalitarian, in a good way. He always liked working a "job" more than I did. It's a good life.

Scott M said...

Best advice I ever heard: Don't Fuck Stupid.

True enough. Followed immediately by "Don't Shit Where You Eat."

Robt C said...

Someone: I didn't say it advanced things, just distilled them. You are right--IQ is one of the (many) aspects that lead to the choice of a marital mate.

gerry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

"Christine Whelan, a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin."

Shouldn't be too hard to find a guy smarter than her.



Meade said...

@Pogo, then why, after asserting, "Not marrying ≠ celibacy" did you ask, parenthetically, "(Were they ever equivalent?)"

I take it you have heard of Catholic spiritual (Josephite) marriage?

jebkinnison.com said...

The Amazon comments for her book are interesting - most people found it boring and snooty. I liked this parody comment:

My son will be attending Princeton in the fall, and I am so excited, I am buying him all things Princeton, so he will know what to expect. This was written by a Princeton mom, so I'm sure she knows. I have just finished reading this book, and I have told him to disregard all the female pronouns, this book is perfect for young men. I have scrimped and saved since before he was born so that he could attend an Ivy League school because I do not want him to marry one of the airheaded nitwits in our hometown. He will be spending four years learning and growing in an environment full of beautiful, intelligent, talented, interesting young women, and I want him to make the most of it! If he picks right, his fiancee could have a successful mother or father who just might give my son a job! Because everyone knows that quality girls don't want a recent graduate who only pulls down an entry level salary, and I've seen it happen time and time again to my male friends from college. They thought that life would just be like college, with beautiful, smart girls lining up to date them. Well even with a degree the world was not their oyster! They all settled for the first girl after graduation who said 'yes'. One of them even married a prostitute because he was so lonely! Now they are old, broke, disillusioned and divorced. I told my son: don't be like those guys, make the most of your time at Princeton! Marry a Princeton girl! Just don't knock her up before graduation, because then her mom will hate you, and then you'll just be like every other schmuck on the street with a suit and a resume, lining up to get in the door without a wife, or any references or connections.

I went to a quasi-Ivy (MIT), hung out at Harvard. There's a lot of one-upping and jokey snobbishness in the culture there, but they are smart enough to know great minds can be anyplace; the veneer of sophistication they gain from being at the Hub of the Universe includes some understanding that it's just a veneer. You marry because you think you will enjoy your partner's company for years to come, can rely on them for support in the worst of circumstances, and need someone to snuggle up with, not to mention to raise a family with. Someone from a lesser school -- or, egad, a plumber! -- can be a great partner.

As for Doubting Thomas, I've enjoyed his curmudgeonly presence in the past, but I hope he rethinks the idea of saving his civilization as he knows it via uncivil and sharply-pointed personal attacks. Both unwise and unkind, and definitely uncivilized. As I recall, one of the hallmarks of that Golden Age of Traditional Marriage was good manners.

Pogo is Dead said...

@Meade said...
"...then why, after asserting, "Not marrying ≠ celibacy" did you ask, parenthetically, "(Were they ever equivalent?)"

Even the devout unwed may fail to remain virgins.

Notably, nuns are chaste but not celibate, as they are married to Jesus.

Larry Nelson said...

Before the cursed White Man came to this country,
there were no taxes and women did all the work.

virgil xenophon said...

My personal motto is that everything in life is a double-edged sword. It's true enough that college provides the largest critical mass of culturally like-minded and intellectually equivalent potential mates, but few of us are the same person at 30 that we were in college largely by dint of life experience in the "real world." Thus it can be argued that it is better to wait until one's character (and that of one's potential mate) has been formed before selecting a life-long mate. But of course the potential field of prospective mates of the same age/education is much
smaller at the later stage.

In my case I knew full-well in college I was entering into the Air Force and pilot tng and headed straight to Vietnam, so didn't think it fair to saddle a new wife with a potentially dead husband. Others in my situation felt differently and married and "became pregnant" just so something of them would survive if they were KIA. After my combat tour my life was basically an extension of life as a glorified fraternity boy partying as a young Captain in a fighter-squadron (the closest thing to a college fraternity I can think of) in the UK for three years. Upon leaving the USAF and entering grad school I met my wife also in grad school who was five years younger than I. At age 29 I married her in 1973 and we have been together ever since--tho by this stage we re-evaluate our marriage hourly, lol!

Birkel said...

Ann Althouse queried:
"Is that the right way to live in this world? Even if the whole world has gone to hell, save your soul."

I seem to remember a few times in the Old Testament where the whole world went to hell. And the righteous alone were saved. The story of Noah springs to mind. And Sodom and Gomorrah.

I assume the question rhetorical but thought I'd answer nonetheless.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Except, Freeman, the article had nothing to do with proximity and directly advised avoiding getting "stupid juice" on you.

Michael K said...

"2: If she gets pregnant, you are stuck with child support for the next 18 years, even if the child was "fathered" by a different man."

In some ways this is an argument against marriage since, if she gets pregnant and the DNA is not yours, you are off the hook.

I doubt many men think this way but it is an interesting idea.

John Lynch said...

This is another case of people refusing to do what they need to do to get what they want. You want a high-status mate? Then earn it. Don't care? Then don't bitch. We choose our lives.

Status is a game. If you play, then play to win. Otherwise don't play at all. Complaining about a rigged game is pathetic. If it's rigged, then find a way to win anyway, or quit.

This article is about elite women. It's not generalizable at all. These are people who spend their lives seeking status and recognition (the money is incidental to that.) If you want to live in that world you have to plan your life around achievement from an early age. If you don't want to do that it's quite easy to avoid doing so.

This isn't about "women" any more than an article about the behavior of high rollers is about "men." It's a tiny subgroup of people who devote their lives to playing status games. Give them the credit for that. I'm not interested, but no one profiles me in big magazines.

Smilin' Jack said...

"If you're a Stanford graduate, you don't want the UMass girl on your arm."

Hee. A quick Google indicates that Jennifer Lawrence is from Kansas and never went to college at all. Imagine how mortifying it would be to have her on your arm.

John Lynch said...

IQ is fairly meaningless when it comes to human relationships. If you really are so smart, you can communicate with anyone of any IQ level. Intentionally making communication difficult to score status points isn't smart.

"Smart" has become equal to "good" in our postmodern language. It's always a compliment to say someone is "smart." I always want to say, "So what?" It's about as meaningful as saying someone is pretty or handsome. So what? It tells me nothing about them.

Because of the oddities of IQ testing, my wife and I have a 50 point spread. We make about the same amount of money and work about the same amount of time. Been married 12 years.

Character is far more important than IQ. Marry someone who won't run when things get bad. It will save a lot of complaining later.

Kirk Parker said...

Althouse @10:38 AM: Boolean Algebra Fail.

Kirk Parker said...

"The problem is, the culture is telling the right women that they are wrong, and the wrong women that they are right."

Gahrie cuts to the chase of Pogo's admitted (even if not by him) hyperbole. It's not literally (and by that I mean literally-literally) true that there's NO reason, but there are surely fewer and fewer each passing year. Or as I observed in an earlier instance of this argument, things fall apart from the margins inward.

Alex said...

Shouting Thomas is one of the most vicious, nasty characters I've come across on these interwebs. I'm rooting for Ann here.

Kirk Parker said...

" If you really are so smart, you can communicate with anyone of any IQ level. "

Actually, no. If you're too much higher on the scale, often you have no idea how to accommodate your presentation to those whose capabilities are far different thatn yours.

Nichevo said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Pogo's and my post are quite complimentary."

The word is "complementary."

You'll never know how many females will demote you below the minimally fuckable level for making a gaffe like that.
3/28/14, 11:43 AM



Funny, almost all the women I've ever known, and all the women I've slept with but one, were inferior to me in grammar and even spelling. PhDs among them.

I never held it against them. At the most I may have smiled to myself.

You overestimate the number of women who would detect that error, or care.

Nichevo said...

Kirk, I'm not sure what part of IQ, g, or other measure of mental ability or power it is, but some people have the gift of communication. It's that simple.

Kirk Parker said...

Nichevo,

Absolutely some do have that gift, but it's not a one-to-one correspondence with IQ, not by a long shot.