Were there economic incentives for this to happen? Was it a change in general perception, philosophy or thought? It seems like the best thing for the white males to do was to continue the enslavement of women and black people. Why all of the sudden white men acted against their own self interest?
Tues. 12/07/03 00:13 EDT.post #196 John James:Then why did you suggest it?I didn't, although you seem to have inferred it. John James:What is even your point?John, I must go to bed, sorry. Go back and re-read what I wrote. After I re-read what I wrote, I'll try to answer this question of yours tomorrow (or later today, as the case just became).
John James:Then why did you suggest it?
John James:What is even your point?
@MMMark: I think Carolla, in the "complains about women" clip, isn't even talking about what women should be like. Rather, I think he's making a point that women have a propensity toward dissatisfaction with their status quo, whereas men tend to be happy with the status quo. This is actually one of the most common plot tensions in movies, sitcoms and fiction so I don't see how it's controversial.
As for the point about the textbook, I think he's saying that rather than doing things that enhance dissatisfaction with the status quo, such as looking at glossy magazines of all the places you could be instead of where you are right now, perhaps they should study history and put their current situation into perspective. We're not being bombed. We're not fleeing the Nazis. What, really, is so bad about our day-to-day life that we need to fly to Bermuda or we need to remodel the entire downstairs or whatever in order to be happy.
Of course, men are materialistic bastards, too. But there's a crucial difference in motivation that's worth noting (neither form of materialism is "better" than the other). Men are materialistic as a matter of competition with other males, that is, in order to show off to the ladies. Women are materialistic as a matter of cashing in on child-bearing (yes, I said it). And this is the root conflict in the marital relationship. There is no contractual agreement stating how much of the man's wealth will be saved, invested, passed on in inheritance versus spent on expensive clothes, expensive food, expensive travel, etc. for the gratification of the woman's material appetites. In the traditional "man is provider, woman stays home" relationship, this is a major source of tension. In more modern relationships where the woman also works, new and even bigger tensions arise as a result of the fact that the man no longer actually supports the woman. Regardless of how the housework is divided (50/50, 90/10 he does it all, etc.), she is still the one who must get pregnant and give birth to the children so her net contribution to the relationship (full-time work + child-bearing) massively outweighs his contribution (full-time work only).
And thanks for the catch on segue. Noted.
Clayton -
MMMark: John James:Then why did you suggest it?I didn't, although you seem to have inferred it.
Oh? Then what exactly where you "inferring" with the statement:
"Would a woman who exhibits more "masculine" interests (such as conversance with war history, for example) really be more attractive to Carolla?"
Clayton: And thanks for the catch on segue. Noted.
I just assumed you were talking about this.
Clayton:In more modern relationships where the woman also works, new and even bigger tensions arise as a result of the fact that the man no longer actually supports the woman. Regardless of how the housework is divided (50/50, 90/10 he does it all, etc.), she is still the one who must get pregnant and give birth to the children so her net contribution to the relationship (full-time work + child-bearing) massively outweighs his contribution (full-time work only).
I call bullshit. It is a rare exception that one will find a woman who truly works "full time" and bears children. And even in that case, it's not as if she can be working while in labor or directly after. She is taking time off work to literally bear that child.
And "the man no longer actually supports the woman"? Please. For one thing, I'm sure that would certainly be news to all the poor saps paying (what Tom Leykis so aptly calls) "vaginamony". For another, again, how exactly are all these women "supporting themselves" while they're bearing all these children?
And what's worse is the way you portray this female combination as "massively" outweighing the male contribution.
Warren Farrell destroys these and other myths in his excellent book.
Even if they did know all about it, it would be via what feminists claim is "woman's way of knowing", so there's that.
Funny how it is estimate who "contributed more" men or women. Isn't this a bit like weighting and comparing whether the stomach or the brain contributed more to the body?!
@JJ: You're reading me completely backwards. Male power is a myth, that's my point. But there's a reason why - wombs are more valuable than testes. That's why women hold all the power in the reproductive relationship. As far as Nature is concerned, the man's contribution is whatever food he puts in the mouth of the children, clothing, shelter, etc. whatever he does that increases their survival and reproduction chances.
The time the woman takes off from work to give birth is irrelevant. The point is that she had to go through the cost to her body in terms of risk, permanent changes and discomfort. While she benefits, too, (by propagating her genes as well as yours) she will have that benefit no matter who she reproduces with, so the real question is how much benefit she receives from reproducing with you versus someone else. Because testes are cheap and wombs are expensive (Nature's PoV), men are locked into competition with one another for access to wombs so that, as the average man becomes more productive, the price of the womb steadily rises. Unless you're ridiculously handsome, in which case, women's brains short-circuit and tell them that you're "worth it" no matter how much of a deadbeat you might be. Damn those lucky, handsome jerks.
The fundamental exchange that is occurring in the reproductive relationship is "you give me stuff, I give you children." The only question left is price. When a woman works, the pile of "stuff" she's going to want from you increases by that much, since she can do without that much "stuff" from you. That is, she measures your actual contribution as the difference between your income and hers. If you earn $50,000 and she earns $0, then your contribution is $50,000. If she earns $50,000 and you earn $50,000, then your contribution is $0 because she could have the same standard of living without you as she would have if she quit work and lived off of you.
I don't see what any of that has to do with what you previously said.
You alleged two things which I challenged:
1) It is a fact that the man no longer actually supports the woman.
2) her net contribution to the relationship massively outweighs his contribution...because hers is "full-time work + child-bearing" and his is "only" full-time work only.)
Number 1 is not only contradicted by plenty of empirical evidence, but also by you yourself in this new post of yours, by your stating that "The fundamental exchange that is occurring in the reproductive relationship is 'you give me stuff, I give you children.'"
Number 2 is not only contradicted (or should I say "proven false") by the empirical data offered by Farrell, but also contradicted by your own math that claims that "she measures your actual contribution as the difference between your income and hers."
So if anything, you're contradicting yourself...and that's only if one pretends for the sake of argument that that latest post is even relevant. "Fact the man no longer actually supports the woman"? Seriously?
And what's more, your one-sided view of the whole setup essentially assumes women are all equally desirable in the eyes of men...that every womb is just as valuable as another, and thus all have the same "price". Laughably you allege that men are all in competition with one another for "access to wombs", and therefore "as the average man becomes more productive, the price of 'the womb' steadily rises"...as if women aren't in competition with each other for access to the men's "pile of stuff" as you put it.
And finally, how exactly can you allege that a man who makes the same amount as a woman does is automatically valueless in her eyes? You're telling me that a woman who makes $1 million/yr meets a man who makes $1 million/yr and determines "meh. This guy is worthless to me." As if none of his million could/ would be spent on her? As if all he is to her is money? As if the woman is not at all interested in a long-term partner and companion, a father for all these children she's going to bear, a provider for when she can't be earning her million dollars? Give me a break.
I'm actually kind of surprised that this kind of narrow-sightedness would come from you.
You alleged two things which I challenged: 1) It is a fact that the man no longer actually supports the woman.
From her PoV, in a relationship where she earns an income on parity with his. Now, this is only the case ceteris paribus. If you want, you can argue that the woman might try to bargain for a more desirable male but, in that case, her income has priced her out of reach of the males who could have had her if she did not earn that income. The real world is probably a more complex mixture of these effects.
2) her net contribution to the relationship massively outweighs his contribution...because hers is "full-time work + child-bearing" and his is "only" full-time work only.) Number 1 is not only contradicted by plenty of empirical evidence, but also by you yourself in this new post of yours, by your stating that "The fundamental exchange that is occurring in the reproductive relationship is 'you give me stuff, I give you children.'" Number 2 is not only contradicted (or should I say "proven false") by the empirical data offered by Farrell, but also contradicted by your own math that claims that "she measures your actual contribution as the difference between your income and hers."
I'll retract my statement that made a direct comparison between the contributions of the man and the woman. My argument only holds relatively. A woman who doesn't earn an income could attempt to attract a more desirable male than the exact same woman in every other way except she doesn't earn an income.
So if anything, you're contradicting yourself...and that's only if one pretends for the sake of argument that that latest post is even relevant. "Fact the man no longer actually supports the woman"? Seriously? And what's more, your one-sided view of the whole setup essentially assumes women are all equally desirable in the eyes of men...that every womb is just as valuable as another, and thus all have the same "price". Laughably you allege that men are all in competition with one another for "access to wombs", and therefore "as the average man becomes more productive, the price of 'the womb' steadily rises"...as if women aren't in competition with each other for access to the men's "pile of stuff" as you put it.
Well, of course there is a scale of desirability of both men and women. No one disputes that a man who earns a high income is - ceteris paribus - more desirable to women than the exact same man who earns no income or a low income. My point is that the reverse also holds. A woman with a high income is more desirable (can demand more concessions in the relationship in terms of decision-making power, or attract a more desirable mate) than a woman with a low income or no income. Look at the logic of dowries in 19th-century English high society... you can read a Jane Austen novel to get the idea of how it worked.
And finally, how exactly can you allege that a man who makes the same amount as a woman does is automatically valueless in her eyes? You're telling me that a woman who makes $1 million/yr meets a man who makes $1 million/yr and determines "meh. This guy is worthless to me." As if none of his million could/ would be spent on her? As if all he is to her is money? As if the woman is not at all interested in a long-term partner and companion, a father for all these children she's going to bear, a provider for when she can't be earning her million dollars? Give me a break. I'm actually kind of surprised that this kind of narrow-sightedness would come from you.
I don't think any of that. Of course a man is not just money to the woman, nor a woman just sex/children to the man. But we can posit that all those other factors are held constant (ceteris paribus) for the sake of reasoning about the effects of changes in the relative desirability of a man or woman on the terms of the reproductive relationship. And these factors - sex/children, material goods/lifestyle - comprise the preponderance of the exchange in the reproductive relationship.
I thought of replying further but I think I'll just leave it as it is. The crux of the matter is that women earning income fundamentally alters the balance of the reproductive relationship. That seems obvious to me.
Aren't you now (insinuating) assuming that only contributions of a financial nature (do count ) are meaningful?!
Tues. 12/07/03 12:35 EDT.post #197Okay, now to get back to your question, which was John James:What is even your point?You asked this with regard to what I said here; I said:
MMMark:Would a woman who exhibits more "masculine" interests (such as conversance with war history, for example) really be more attractive to Carolla?
John James:Oh? Then what exactly where you "inferring" with the statement: etc.
Clayton:I think Carolla, in the "complains about women" clip, isn't even talking about what women should be like.
Clayton:Rather, I think he's making a point that women have a propensity toward dissatisfaction with their status quo, whereas men tend to be happy with the status quo.
This is rather humorous because the very battle that is being waged here (the dominance or lack of dominance of males) is the very discussion that kicked off the 19th century feminist movement. I do not know if any of you know such a fact, but it seems like lines are still being established.
1848- Seneca Falls, NY. The first convention on Women's Rights in the United States. The question was whether women have the same inalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence as men do. Women could not vote, could not own property (unless they were a widow in some cases), did not have the same liberties as men. Women wanted to get into the public sphere because they were denied such a spot and regulated to the domestic sphere. They were trying to move beyond the home, not stay in it. Three things helped them do that: Religion, Abolition and Temperance.
The religious aspect had been raging since Anne Hutchinson and the Puritans and it was asking the question of what the role of women was in the church. Could they be ministers? Could they even speak and understand the words of God and could they lead men to salvation?
The abolitionist aspect was one of seeing similarities between the conditions of slaves and that of women. Disallowed to own property, disallowed to vote, ruled by a patriarchal figure, subjugated to the domestic sphere.
The temperance aspect was one of witnessing the plight of a drunkard's wife. The domestic abuse and the spending away of the family's food for drink. The most notable examples of this were playwrights like Ten Nights in a Bar-room. Which represents the fall of a man from grace due to drink and the beating of his wife and event accidental murder of his daughter. Drunkness was invading the domestic sphere and women needed to go into the public sphere in order to prohibit it or to speak out against such activities.
Anyways, please continue. I love reading this debate about gender roles (a cultural phenomena) are established in biology.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Clayton:I'll retract my statement that made a direct comparison between the contributions of the man and the woman. My argument only holds relatively. A woman who doesn't earn an income could attempt to attract a more desirable male than the exact same woman in every other way except she doesn't earn an income.
...I fail to see how the same isn't true for men. (Because it is true for men.)
No one disputes that a man who earns a high income is - ceteris paribus - more desirable to women than the exact same man who earns no income or a low income. My point is that the reverse also holds. A woman with a high income is more desirable (can demand more concessions in the relationship in terms of decision-making power, or attract a more desirable mate) than a woman with a low income or no income.
First of all, that is not a point you made. I outlined both of the claims you made, and you've already retracted one of them.
Second, I would argue that's an extremely hasty generalization. Men are far less interested in whether or not a woman has her own income. Particularly "desirable" men (i.e. men that have their own wealth). In fact that is so low on the totem pole I don't even know why you would try to introduce it. If a woman meets the most important qualifications on a man's checklist, by the time it gets down to how much money she makes, not only do most men not really care, many men actually prefer she not make much (or any). In fact, the more she makes, her desirability actually begins to decline in the eyes of more and more men.
You said it yourself there is a focus on the gap between his income and hers. His is expected to be higher. The higher her income, the more and more men are getting knocked out of the line...as they find her less desirable because they want to make more than their female counterpart, and you said yourself SHE HERSELF sees them as worthless if they make even the same amount as she does...let alone, less.
Yet now you're telling me that a woman with high income is more desirable?
Have you not been getting enough sleep or something?
Look at the logic of dowries in 19th-century English high society... you can read a Jane Austen novel to get the idea of how it worked.
The same guy who specifically introduced the topic of "in more modern relationships where the woman also works", and actually started this conversation about how relationships work in the modern world, and the dynamic between women who earn income and men who earn income...the very thing we're talking about....this same guy is telling me to look at 19th century arranged marriages with dowries.
I honestly don't know what's up with you.
Clayton: John James:And finally, how exactly can you allege that a man who makes the same amount as a woman does is automatically valueless in her eyes? You're telling me that a woman who makes $1 million/yr meets a man who makes $1 million/yr and determines "meh. This guy is worthless to me." As if none of his million could/ would be spent on her? As if all he is to her is money? As if the woman is not at all interested in a long-term partner and companion, a father for all these children she's going to bear, a provider for when she can't be earning her million dollars? Give me a break.I don't think any of that.
John James:And finally, how exactly can you allege that a man who makes the same amount as a woman does is automatically valueless in her eyes? You're telling me that a woman who makes $1 million/yr meets a man who makes $1 million/yr and determines "meh. This guy is worthless to me." As if none of his million could/ would be spent on her? As if all he is to her is money? As if the woman is not at all interested in a long-term partner and companion, a father for all these children she's going to bear, a provider for when she can't be earning her million dollars? Give me a break.
What?? You spent an entire paragraph explaining the math. Indeed your entire post was basically predicated on this notion that "men are locked into competition with one another for access to wombs so that, as the average man becomes more productive, the price of the womb steadily rises" and that "The fundamental exchange that is occurring in the reproductive relationship is 'you give me stuff, I give you children.'"
That's what you said. You can scroll up and read your post if you want to. Your entire post was literally that there is a calculation taking place which rests on that "fundamental exchange" and that that is how this "net contribution" to the relationship is extrapolated.
All I had to do was increase the incomes to a higher level, or remind you of a couple other things a woman might be interested in other than a man's money and now all of a sudden you are denying your previous statements.
The crux of the matter is that women earning income fundamentally alters the balance of the reproductive relationship.
No, once again, your argument was:
And my argument is, both of those statements are false.
If you want to argue that it being possible/ socially acceptible for a woman to earn her own income gives her more choices as to her life situation, fine. I don't disagree. In fact, that's a large point of Farrell's book. But to try to quantify it and essentially claim "well she 'works full time' AND bears the children, whereas he just works full time. Ergo, x + y > x" is just asinine.
First of all, as I pointed out, her "full time" is not the same as his "full time". Men on average work something like an average of 4-5 or more hours per week than women. (This in fact accounts for more than 70% of the pay gap, in fact). Second, (odds are) her work is decidedly less valuable than his...as empirically show through her lower pay.
So this careless generalized term of "work full time" used to label what both the man and woman does so as to make it sound like all you have to do is add something to the woman's schedule and she automatically does more is ridiculous.
And this idea that it is a "fact" that "the man actually no longer supports the woman" is just laughable. Sure more women are earning their own money. But I'd be willing to bet the percentage of women who earn enough to maintain their current lifestyle on their own, without their male partner is so small, it basically invalidates your argument immediately. And then when you want to bring kids into it, (which is what we're talking about), it drops off almost completely.
Because it was the right thing to do, right wing anti-Lincoln conspiracies aside.