Writes Grazie Sophia Christie, in "The Case for Marrying an Older Man/A woman’s life is all work and little rest. An age gap relationship can help." This is from a series in New York Magazine called "The Good Life," which is "about ways to take life off 'hard mode,' from changing careers to gaming the stock market, moving back home, or simply marrying wisely."
[T]he single older women, my husband’s classmates... discussed me in the bathroom at parties when I was in the stall.... What do they talk about? They were concerned about me. They wielded their concern like a bludgeon. They paraphrased without meaning to my favorite line from Nabokov’s Lolita: 'You took advantage of my disadvantage,' suspecting me of some weakness he in turn mined....
[W]e live in a world in which our power has a different shape from that of men, a different distribution of advantage, ours a funnel and theirs an expanding cone. A woman at 20 rarely has to earn her welcome; a boy at 20 will be turned away at the door. A woman at 30 may find a younger woman has taken her seat; a man at 30 will have invited her. I think back to the women in the bathroom, my husband’s classmates. What was my relationship if not an inconvertible sign of this unfairness? What was I doing, in marrying older, if not endorsing it? I had taken advantage of their disadvantage. I had preempted my own....
Posts
52 comments:
She's really taking about marrying rich men. That is likely to overlap with them being older, but them being older is not the point.
Also, if she's offering her looks in exchange for security, she needs to have a plan in place for when her looks fade.
Rich girl problems, 28 minute podcast.
50 liberal, low-T options.
Not so appealing...
Starting to see the appeal of same sex relationships.
Pull your head out of your ass and do something for someone other than yourself.
I haven't read the whole thing, but the snippet seems very anti-woman. Everything is defined in terms of men. Welcome to 1950. Or maybe 1850. I'll add the Men at 20 are not turned away at the door, either. Boys, maybe. Sometimes you grow up faster.
You're free when you make your own power. Is that harder? Sure. Is it more rewarding? Absolutely. Of course, this is the default point of view for me, a man.
Again, I can't get past the naked status signaling of the author in the very first sentence of the piece, in which she talks about living in the south of France.
"Look at me! I'm so much more important than you peasants!"
Not the worst example of its sort, but too much Creative Writing.
Gents: remember the hot/crazy/writer matrix.
My mom and dad were separated by more than a decade and they had a long happy marriage. Female busybodies should not be policing who is allowed to love whom at what age, as long as everyone is over 16 or so.
"[W]e live in a world in which our power has a different shape from that of men, a different distribution of advantage, ours a funnel and theirs an expanding cone. A woman at 20 rarely has to earn her welcome; a boy at 20 will be turned away at the door. A woman at 30 may find a younger woman has taken her seat; a man at 30 will have invited her. I think back to the women in the bathroom, my husband’s classmates. What was my relationship if not an inconvertible sign of this unfairness? What was I doing, in marrying older, if not endorsing it? I had taken advantage of their disadvantage. I had preempted my own..."
This is eternal truth.
Women are born with inherent value. All you have to do to find a mate is to not be fat and not be a bitch/gold digger/304.
Men are born into a world worthless and have to build themselves into something a woman will value.
This is based on obvious evolutionary biology.
When women try to be like men, i.e. build a career and make money, they are unhappy in general. It is OK for some but for most they would be happier having a family and following the path that is open for every woman.
This dichotomy was played out when they had a men vs. women Survivor series. They put a group of men on one side and a group of women on the other. The men had water and fires going and food stored up within a day. Teamwork in a survival setting is natural for men. The women were being hauled out in less than a day on a stretcher. They were fighting and yelling at each other and generally inept.
A small group of men have fed the feminist lie to women. They spend their 20's sleeping with men above their status but getting no commitment. Then in their 30's they are discarded for women in their 20's.
And there is another group of women who led these poor girls into unhappiness. Then single and angry into their 30's and 40's they further destroy society by voting for rapists like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. They compound this by letting some man get them pregnant and raising kids without a father.
There is a reason society used to shame this activity and we will return to that again. The failures of single motherhood are too obvious to miss.
You can not make this shit up. The hypocritical flexibility of American women never ceases to amaze. Thank God my wife wasn't raised in this simp kingdom. We're trying for another child and I pray it's not a daughter despite my wife's sincere desire for one. If it is, I'm going to seriously consider sending her to boarding school in another country.
The solipsistic entitlement is off the charts. In 50 years these airheads are going to be wearing hijabs and cooking meals for their sister wives while writing articles about how liberating mohamedan polygamy is.
"City girls just seem to find out early
How to open doors with just a smile
A rich old man and she won't have to worry
She'll dress up all in lace and go in style."
I don't know about you, but I feel that it's sexist to see men as an ATM instead of as an equal. Plus, it didn't go unnoticed that she referred to 20 year old women as "women," but 20 year men as "boys." At 20, the vast majority of men aren't in high paying jobs and haven't built much wealth. So in her mind, they're still children and not worth her time.
This is my biggest problem with modern feminism. No matter how much women claim that they want to treated equally to men, there is a very large percentage of women who still expect men to pay for things. These women totally undermine the concept of equality of the sexes.
Life is quite competitive and we all take advantage of what strengths we have. That, of course, includes youth and beauty, if you're lucky enough to have those.
This woman is the same as the little covey of girls I was in the friends with as a high school senior and college freshman- young women what never considered ‘boys’ their own age as suitable. None of them spinster material, and never hard up for a date. Three decades later they all live with their cats. One expressed regret. Not sure what all that means…
Harvard people always let you know they went to Harvard.
Writes Grazie Sophia Christie in her best-selling book, How to be a Gold-Digger.
Kanye West and Jamie Foxx sang,
She take my money when I’m in need
Yeah, she’s a triflin’ friend indeed
Oh, she’s a gold digger”
https://stories.isu.pub/92839808/images/22_original_file_I0.jpg
I like this comment over there: "Hey, if you’re happy, you do you. That being said, this essay feels like it was written by a character on the White Lotus."
So she pursued the goals that she thinks are important. Good for her. I won't say that she's wrong, but I will say that she has missed out on the coincident personal growth that young couples go through as they are confronted by life's consequences, a shared growth that is life- shaping and is also a bonding experience.
I wonder if she has kids or plans to. I wonder what her reaction will be when her son takes up with an older woman.
You don't have to marry older. You can see see how a young man's life will likely play out. Is he constantly chasing girls for external validation? Does he work hard d? Have good character? Is he kind? Is he intelligent? Is he into any of the common vices? Partner up with all of that in mind, and you'll probably come out okay.
As for chasing jobs as a woman or not, that's up to individual preference and circumstance.
I could diligently craft an ideal existence, over years and years of sleepless nights and industry. Or I could just marry it early.
Could she really do it herself, tho? She'll never know. Or maybe she does know.
Why diligently craft your self-respect and with it your respect for others when you can twist absolutely anything you do into another reason to think well of yourself?
And where does it end, this attitude of instant entitlement?
Why diligently craft a persuasive argument when you can censor and cancel?
Why diligently craft a winning platform and campaign when you can simply steal an election?
I read this article a week or so ago and thought it might be an apt Althouse topic. The article is dense with many important points, some obvious and true--but not-to-be-said in this day and age. Others, a bit more subtle, like the way women and men train each other, mostly to the benefit of their partner's next partner.
Strange, I remembered the content of the article, but not the aspect that I thought, at the time I first read it, but forgot till I went back to it--what's with the weird and grotesque graphics? Doesn't the giant body, tiny head style give everyone a bout of nausea? I find it so off-putting.
She's pursuing an MRS degree. Not exactly a new thing.
“Bitch, we live in a world that has bills, and those bills have to be paid by men with jobs. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Ms. Weinburg? I have a greater advantage than you could possibly fathom. You weep for your classmates, and you curse the undergrads. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That your classmates' figures, while somewhat athletic, won't survive the first c-section. And my existence, while pitiful and incomprehensible to you, attracts men. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, men want me on their arm, men need me on their arm. We use words like beauty, manicure, pilates. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent obtaining something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a woman who had the very advantages I possess and spent them growing hair under her arms and attending womyn's or womxn's or whatever you called your ridiculous rallies while debating whether to adopt new pronouns. I would rather you just said you blew your chance, and went on your way, otherwise, I suggest you pick up some eyeliner, and leave your trans-inclusive study group. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”
Reading this you can understand Charlie Sheen's comment on why he used Prostitutes:
"I wasn't paying them to show up, I was paying them to leave".
Rehajm: It sounds like all those girls were aiming for Chad, and Chad saw no reason to settle down with any of them. They were shooting a bit out of their league, so to speak, and didn't realize until it was too late.
"Maybe she gets a Birkin. Maybe he gets a baby long after his prime."
What do women (or this particular type of woman) want?
A Birkin bag.
"I don't know about you, but I feel that it's sexist to see men as an ATM instead of as an equal"
Even if the man is perfectly content in such a relationship? Is it sexist of women for that man to have what he was selectively bred for, after all, by women over eons? Denying men the option of this type of relationship is like denying a Labrador the game of fetch.
I had to look up White Lotus . Seems to be a show about people with psychological problems.
Which seems a bit odd. Psychological problems seem rather more closely associated with the idea that fifty years of modern culture can wipe out millions of years of evolutionary biology.
Back on Planet Earth, men are attracted to (in the sense of attracted to enough to enter into a potentially eye watering financial commitment) - young, attractive, personable, healthy non skanky women. Women are attracted to men of equal or higher status than themselves who are not irredeemably ugly or unpleasant. This is the kind of deal that evolution has been working on ever since it decided that humans were going to be smart, so that they would have to be born premature to get their enormous heads out of the birth canal. Making human offspring very burdensome on the parents.
Thus requiring a change from the mammalian norm of wham bang thank you ma’am, to one where the male human is desired for his ability and commitment to investing in the mother and children.
Women still overwhelmingly prefer men with obvious investment potential, and men prefer women young enough and healthy enough to produce some kids and get em to at least 5 years old. Whose skankiness is low enough to give the guy some confidence that he’s investing in his own offspring.
The weirdos here are the ones telling college age gals - your career is your life, concentrate on that for the next ten years.
I can't even imagine the frustration of being married to a twenty something airhead. Marriage is about having a partner in life. Not a junior partner.
@Kevin
I'm dying. My sides have left low earth orbit and are now on their way to Alpha Centauri👍
A famous answer to this:
THE ANSWER
Dear Pers-431649184:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a
cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you
suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense
to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case
you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's
as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So,
I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"
as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of
lease, let me know.
My wife just discovered the birkin bag. Baader-Meinhof for her- all the clients have them…
…she’s getting a new golf bag.
A young woman could do worse than marrying an older man who treats her like his beloved daughter who he delights in indulging. An older guy could do worse than marrying a young woman who considers that his added years have given him wisdom and judgement. Sadly, this only works if the guy is rich and the girl has a hot body. Still, when the stars align, it works fine. Symbiosis is the most altruistic form of exploitation....But anyway, all these courtship turns and counter turns and bows will soon no longer be needed. What with AI and robotics, the perfect mate will soon be available for everyone. Human beings, even in the best of circumstances, wear each other out. As a general rule, humans get along much better with their machines than with other humans. The technology isn't here yet, but give it another fifty years.
You studied Nabakov. A pedophile. What did you expect? To just be stabbed like Norman Mailer's wife?
Moron.
Mating for life was once the rule that made survival of the married work and often spawned large families.
Now college age women have the careers and the money to choose from, And choosing raising a child is discouraged. While same sex lovers are celebrated for a being superior lifestyle.
Why women feel unloved later is no mystery. They have chosen divorce, career, and abortions. Those choices leaves them without anyone left to love. Except for small dogs and cats.
I thought Jane Austin, maybe Thackeray. Nabokov seems inappropriate.
Achilles: to correct the Survivor record, it was a male removed on a stretcher; the women dispenced of every last one of the male players, then it got so bitchy I don't know which woman won.
Greg Hlatky said...
"Harvard people always let you know they went to Harvard." And vegans
THE ANSWER as supplied by Jack, while entertaining, is economically flawed, since it implies that no one would ever buy a depreciating asset. Whereas in fact people buy depreciating assets all the time. They just don’t buy them as investments, they buy them to USE.
A woman is production machinery, used in the offspring production process. No substitute yet exists on the market. So if you wish to be in that game you have to acquire the use of one, or several if you can afford them.
Whether to lease or buy depends on the normal criteria that determine lease / buy decisions. Price, terms, maintenance costs, machine spec, disposal costs and of course government regulation.
Of course this kind of machine is a depreciating asset. The young lady in question is just making the impeccably correct economic point that new production machinery commands a higher price - lease or buy - than old production machinery. Or in the language of economics, depreciating assets are worth more when they still have some depreciating left to do :)
Remember that women are the only females among the great apes to be sexually receptive throughout their cycle. It's almost as if they are designed to keep a man around taking care of them, and it's almost as if men like taking care of women. It's a strange fact that feminists seem to think is not worth discussing. We are a complementary species, evolutionarily. The belief that we can just throw out millions of years of evolution because suddenly we live in cities where food comes in plastic wrap, and still be happy, is kind of bizarre. It's almost as if that belief serves some tiny, wealthy elite, at a huge human cost to the rest of us....
Naah!
@Kevin
Your quote reminds me of Col. Nathan Jessup in "A Few Good Men"
"You want me on that bed! You need me on that bed!
One of the most influential books in my interior world has been Sociobiology by the late great Edward O. Wilson. The woman whose article inspired this thread ought to read that book or have it explained to her. Our mating choices choose us.
I read this a few weeks ago, and I was underwhelmed. Like, ok, glad it worked out for her. Everybody is different, has different goals, and different ideas of happiness. I wish them well.
@Kevin
Very nice! Read it twice. Second time used Jack Nicholson's voice in my head….
The article has been McSweeney-ed. Pretty funny.
Lee Moore said "No substitute yet exists on the market"
-------------------------------------------
By the end of the century it just might, with AI and all. If and when that happens, women will go the way of the horse when confronted with the Model T Ford. Perhaps some high-rollers will keep some around since they're nice to look at, complete with stables.
pacwest said...
"I can't even imagine the frustration of being married to a twenty something airhead. Marriage is about having a partner in life. Not a junior partner."
There's nothing frustrating about being married to a woman whose age affords her great skin, pert breasts, and a high libido. I even got three children out of it. Marriage is also almost never an equal partnership. Now that would indeed be frustrating.
The view that all 20 year olds are airheads fits perfectly with all people of color are savages or lazy or stupid.
... I go for younger women, lived with several a while... True dat, Jimmy.
Met the love of my life in 1980. She did the NYT crossword puzzle in ink, usually before her second cup of coffee. She was 18, I was 37. A chance encounter, a long way from home for both of us. Gave it all up three months later because those were the rules, you know.
We've kept up for 44 years. Seen each other a time or two. Nothing's changed. Fuck the rules.
I look back on my life and see decisions from 20,40, even 50 years ago have, to a large extent, led me to where I am today.
It's a pretty nice place. But I can, through the miracle of hindsight, thought of different decisions that potentially led me tho height imagined. Of course I can see decisions that could have led to ruin.
But the decisions I made at 20 were made by a 20 year old kid. You could not have talked me out of them while I was 20. I knew EVERYTHING!
At 35 I saw how foolish the 20 year old me was, but now I really had it figured out.
Sure I did, sure.
The point is we can ponder, decide and act. But life tosses us all curve balls.
I am happy if your choices and opportunities work out for you.
I'm in my 70s now and I DON'T know it all. But, as I said, I'm in a good place.
Bad deal for the guy with money.
She will only get less beautiful and he will most likely get more wealthy.
Best for him to just use her and throw her away when he wants a new model.
Marriage isn't even remotely part of the equation unless he has Biden syndrome...
Post a Comment