In response to Laura Perrins: Nice guys won’t marry girls who have screwed around, BSO wrote:
In an effort to ensure we are dealing with the real world, i.e. what is actually going on between the sexes (as opposed to feminist sniping) it’s worth pointing out that most women see through the shag-around “ladette” nonsense. Sex as consumption is not all it’s cracked up to be (something most of us find out if we are not too careful).
I recently listened to a podcast by Brett McKay in which he interviewed Jon Birger the author of Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game. It looks at the impact of the sex ratios amongst college graduates in USA. There is a section on the very negative worsening ratio of available men to women as the women age. For those remotely interested this has been long known to black women in the UK looking to marry within their own ethnic group as ‘the shortage’. But I digress.
In the real world educated, high-earning women who either follow the “sleep around” then settle with a “nice guy” model or seriously delay having children until they have achieved career goals, find that the pickings are slim and that the “best” men have been snapped up. The more sensible approach is to select wisely when the ratios are best in your early to mid-twenties, marry well, have your children early and resuming or juggling career around the children’s needs with the support of your spouse…if you wish.
Of course this is the stereotypical 1950s model striped of the feminist smear campaign. As Laura pointed out recently, the whole core of the gender pay gap is in fact good men funding their wives/partners to have the children and those women staying out of the labour market by choice. You only have to read the ‘Cosmograph’ Stella magazine to realise that women in their 30s crave work life balance. You would have thought someone would have commissioned an analysis of gender and pay that includes shared income – if they did I am sure women would be massive net beneficiaries – which is of course exactly as it should be because there is no “gender war”.
I recall the first time I heard the phrase “the personal is political” make its way into the New Left from the feminist movement. In those days we dismissed it as petit-bourgeois moralising; today we would call it virtue signalling. Whilst the 7-8 per cent of the population that sees itself as feminist blathers on about inequitable relationships, patriarchal oppression, etc., the rest of us have to live in the disastrous environment created by their “culture wars”.
The horrendous demographics of divorce and unbalanced gender university graduation will I fear play out and we will see a further “worsening” ratio of educated high earning men to women. For those not obsessed with individual autonomy this is bad for our society.
