Terracotta
2mo ago
(I say all this as a former Naval officer who was become a committed pacifist. One reason among many for the transformation is just how fun it is to kill.)
I can fully see how this would be true of mowing down dim figures with ranged weapons at a distance, videogame-style. Can I ask, from curiosity, if in your experience it's also true of killing in hand-to-hand combat, where you can see/ hear/ smell the physical damage being done and watch the life leaving people's bodies?
Terracotta
3mo ago
Right, but OP was specifically critiquing
the fantasy among some dateless conservatives that if only they were born in some bygone era where women didn't have nearly as many options then they'd surely get a girlfriend almost by default.
The point of the trad dating vision, at least as I understand, is not "If only it were The Past, I could have become a more socially adept man, then they'd want to date me." Instead, it's "if only it were The Past, I could have access to more desperate women, then they'd have to date me."
And I think that latter claim is wrong: women's standards are variable above a certain threshold, but there's also a hard limit of interpersonal function below which instinct just says it's better to go it alone.
The parallel question is also interesting to investigate for heterosexual male desire. For instance, if every woman (including every woman in porn) suddenly weighed 4x more, what proportion of men would just opt for permanent singledom? Would any?
Terracotta
3mo ago
This seems directly contradicted by the various attempts at measuring the frequency of baseline human relationships.
Why would the existence of undatable people in every era imply that their frequency must remain constant over time? That's true if datability is entirely genetic or if it's strictly relative (e.g. datability = being in the top 70% [or whatever]). But if animal courtship rituals involve complex, learned social behavior, then you could easily have cultural and environmental shifts that would reduce the number of people with the social ability to do courting effectively, regardless of their motivation or desire.
For instance, it strikes me that in every era, when you see intelligent young people who grew up like Extremely Online young men today (that is: indulged but also isolated, mostly sedentary life between school and home, 0-2 siblings under the care of a pampering mom or nanny, pressured to study hard with no economic constraints well through their early 20s, socializing largely virtually or in adult-controlled spaces, allowed to pursue status by developing obsessive, frivolous solitary or same-sex hobbies) - the introverted ones also commonly end up unpartnered or childless and a little eccentric. That's the H.P. Lovecraft story and it seems like practically the median trajectory for Gilded Age scions especially, but you can find instances all through history and across cultures.
So as more people are raised like this, you'd expect the ranks of the undatable to grow over time, assuming that some level of charisma or social confidence are necessary to inciting female desire in the absence of countervailing factors. It's just the "zoo animals can't mate in captivity" or the "my dog doesn't get along with other dogs" problem.
Roadway peeing is fine but does incrementally degrade the commons.
Also, it's unnecessary. If you have four kids, you're in an SUV or a minivan, so get a folding potty seat like a Potette and have the kids use it right in the back seat of the car. Potty gets lined, trash-can-style, with a plastic shopping bag (double up for security) plus an absorbent puppy pad or leftover diaper in the bottom of the bag, tie up the bag for easy discarding when everybody's done, and it's surprisingly tidy. Advantages are that it allows toilet paper use and works with #2 as well as #1.
fyi for when you're on foot, they also make pee pals for girls!
Terracotta
5mo ago
Main characters in media and games are depicted as unrealistically powerful across virtually all material domains, including physical contests and bodily feats of skill but also depictions of physical handicrafts, animal interactions, vehicles and projectiles, etc. That's because almost nobody in the audience has any actual experience making, building or doing anything with their bodies in the real world, so they have zero gauge of what's plausible and no reason to care.
So yeah, a woman can't beat a guy at arm-wrestling, and also mining doesn't mean swinging a weightless pickaxe until big nuggets of gold drop out of the rock face, and also IRL that pudgy gamer could barely even lift that longsword, and also a roadrunner mostly can't outsmart a coyote. But audiences like cartoon logic because it's nice to imagine that we are powerful and other people's skills are easy.
Terracotta
5mo ago
This one Im confused by. I think I do this and see others do it. My father, who is most definitely not a feminist, does it.
Wish I could meet your father, he sounds like a cool guy.
Terracotta
5mo ago
In that specific story, yes, but the emotional thrust of the trope is that a little guy can beat a much larger opponent through his superior bravery, skill or virtue. And underdog physical conflict stories are all over 60s-90s boys' media, from Tom & Jerry through The Karate Kid. TvTropes helpfully points out that this is the convention for final boss levels in videogames, as well.
So Muscles are Meaningless is not one-sided in its gender appeal.
Terracotta
5mo ago
In all fairness, there's a very long history of underdog sports and fighting stories where it's also presumed that tiny, willowy men can totally beat the brawny jocks through sheer pluck or clever moves or ancient Asian secrets, or whatever. Likewise films and books where humans defeat obviously larger and stronger animals in physical fights.
Cope-oriented David-vs-Goliath media tropes were being served up to insecure men long before they got cross-applied to women.
Terracotta
6mo ago
Sounds like the object-level positions are secondary to some underlying value or ethos that is perceived to be shared with Bob but not Carol. In Walterodim's read, this value would probably be "logical consistency." But it could just as well be a certain type of class consciousness: both anarcho-libertarians and socialists have a kind of working-class, artisanal sensibility that values the individual worker's control over what he creates. Or a perceived character feature: maybe they're small-government conservative because they value tight communities of mutual aid, which socialists could also be perceived as chasing even if they go a bit astray with it.
Terracotta
7mo ago
Wasn't my premise, and if it was OP's it was pre-disproved by the guy upthread saying men should statusmax through their twenties to avoid marrying somebody fat (!).
I was responding to hydroacetylene's comment on the psychology of women wanting to finish at least college and maybe some entry-level career groundwork before marrying, but if we're talking practical fertility decisions I also don't see a bunch of 23-year-old romantic tradhusbands lining up to woo and support their young wives and eventual five children, 1950s-style. If a single person in this thread knew an early-20s family-minded guy who'd proposed to his girlfriend and been turned down, I'd be surprised.
I actually don't know what anybody's vested interest is in having other people do young tradmarriages, since nobody seems to want it for themselves. Maybe I'm wrong, but to the extent that people argue from personal experience, it mostly seems to be about getting annoyed by movie/TV girlbosses or DEI chatter in college and feeling like those would go away if we could make young SAHMhood a thing.
I'm still lost. I was responding to @hydroacetylene's point, where he argued that women avoid 20yo SAHMhood not from vanity but from anxiety about risks. He blamed media "fearmongering" about rape and abuse.
I said that while I agreed about the anxiety/risk part, it was unfairly dismissive to round it off to women gullibly believing fear porn. I listed various misfortunes that families semi-commonly encounter, where a woman could spare her eventual children a lot of hardship by having decent career options in place, including the unexpected death, disability or long-term unemployment of the husband.
I really don't see how it's relevant that in those cases the husband should also want his wife to have good career prospects? AFAICT the only way the husband's alignment would have "big implications for our general picture of the situation" is if we're arguing about 20-year-old SAHMhood as a proxy for WOMEN BAD MEN GOOD. In which case I guess, sure, gotcha, this is totally an instance where MEN GOOD, but I was never denying that! And I sure hope it's not what everybody else was arguing anyway.
Could you say more about how you think the general picture is changed by the husband and wife having common interests in the scenarios you cited?
Terracotta
7mo ago
I hope I'm following what you're saying. It seems like you're asking me, since we agree that both men and women should want wives to have good career options in the event that the husband dies or becomes disabled, why I'm listing "husband's unexpected death or illness" among the reasons a family-minded woman might still want to finish college and work for a couple years before marrying and having children.
Is that summary accurate? If so, what does the fact that this is a "non-conflicting" concern have to do with the debate over whether women could be justified in not marrying at 20? I don't get it.
Terracotta
7mo ago
If it's just two people having an argument, no arguments matter. It doesn't matter who's correct unless one of them can use their correctness to convince the other, which is a strategy easily defeated by refusing to be convinced.
That is fascinating, because I was honestly about to make the same argument in the opposite direction: that regardless of how far orders could actually be enforced in a case of open resistance, people mostly obey when they believe the other person has a legitimate authority to give the orders. A husband's being able to say "Come on, I'm happy to support you because I love you, but I sweated for this money while you were baking cookies with the kids, it is the product of my labor and skill" - well, that's a somewhat psychologically compelling way to claim authority over the family funds. And "I gave you this material thing, now you owe me something back" is pretty universally effective as a coercion tactic, so much so that street scammers use it on tourists all the time.
Respecting my friend's example, I was only imagining that it illustrated how having an independent income can ensure your children get what they need even if your husband is a skinflint - I'm pretty well up in modern PMC/HR-type attitudes, but it never occurred to me that her predicament was textbook financial abuse or that she should call him out on it, so it's really interesting that you find it obviously unacceptable. Knowing the wife, I'm fairly sure she also just thinks "well, so he feels possessive about the money, no use starting a big fight about it," so preserves family harmony while being a little sad about what she is and isn't able to do for the kids.
At least one relative she consulted in my hearing also had the reaction that it was unkind of him to keep refusing the house (so, not "you have no right to complain"), but without any instinctive sense that his behavior was actually violating her financial rights, so I'm not as optimistic about the informal third-party community intervention as you are. And I do think that taking things all the way to separation over something like low-level bullying would be obviously disastrous for a mom with no money and small kids who adore their dad.
Terracotta
7mo ago
In the first friend's case, both spouses had their own individual accounts (which is how he'd funded various peccadillos already), and she managed the joint household budget because she was more organized-- so both of them ended up getting lawyers. It does illustrate that access to funds at the level of individual accounts is important, though, and while I'd recommend that no SAH or working spouse of either gender give their partner absolute control of the finances, I don't see how you avoid this if the sole employed partner wants it that way. In the case of a breadwinning spouse who says "It's my money, I'll deposit it in my account and you just let me know how much you need for the groceries" or "sorry, we don't have enough money for Timmy's braces," what is the SAH spouse's counterargument supposed to be?
Wife: I think we should buy a bigger house, but my husband thinks the smaller one is good enough. He says that he should get to make the decision because he's the breadwinner and I'm a stay-at-home mother.
Wife's friend: He's right. You have no right to complain.
This is an actual dispute that has arisen in a SAHM family I know. In that case, nobody explicitly said "you have no right to complain," but the working spouse said "OK, I'll work on it, I'll let you know when I think we can afford it," and then somehow they never could afford it, even as a series of other things he valued got afforded just fine. There again, I don't know how the non-working spouse's counterargument is supposed to go. "Why are you buying ___ when we can't have a bigger house so Janie can have a yard to play in?" "I told you we couldn't afford the house, and stop nagging me about how I spend my money."
Terracotta
7mo ago
Nah man, I assume that young men and young women in the 50s just fell in love and settled down to have babies early because they could afford to, the way everybody does in times of high economic opportunity for the middle classes. Women might have married at 20 in the midcentury, but men also married at a median of 23, after all.
OTOH I suspect the kinds of 2025 internet people who vocally fantasize about teen brides and argue for excluding women from the workforce, but somehow never consider what historically has happened to the kiddies if Daddy gets sick or his industry contracts, are not coming to this issue from a POV of direct practical interest in forming stable, resilient families.
Terracotta
7mo ago
I've had relatives and friends who've gone through this, so I'm weighting their experiences. One friend was able to reclaim her life after her husband became abusive and floridly unfaithful only because she was the one who kept the family accounts, hence had access to funds to secure an attorney. She also took the advice of friends at work, could use her relative independence of movement to make the necessary consultations, knew something about the process and could assess the attorney's advice because she was well-educated, etc. Her husband continued to spiral downward and there was definitely no spousal support on the table, but after the divorce, she just kept working her existing middle-class job, got a nice little apartment and did fine.
I also have a friend who's a SAHM in a more patriarchal setup where the husband keeps track of the money (after all, it's his, he earned it) and doles out an allowance for household shopping, reads and pays his wife's credit card bills, works from home where he can incidentally observe her comings and goings, is the final word in decisions of household policy (his money, his call). Her husband is a nice guy and she's able to hold her own because she worked for a while before having kids and has a reasonable perspective on things. But if she had gotten married to him at 20, wrangled toddlers full-time for a decade or so and then encountered the family crisis that my first friend did? I really think she would have been screwed. At minimum, she would have stayed in a worsening situation for far too long out of sheer exhaustion, dearth of resources and fear of the unknown.
Terracotta
7mo ago
He would, presumably. It seems like a decent reason why a pro-family middle-class woman might opt to finish college and establish first-job cred through 24-25 or so before having that first kid, rather than pumping out babies right out of high school. Mid-20s is still extremely fertile and still leaves a long childbearing window if that's what you're into. Historically there have been plenty of eras when it was the norm for both middle-class women and men to work and save up for a household through their mid-20s.
I don't know why the pro-tradwife folks aren't more interested in practical family risk-management considerations. Maybe it's just the sheer appeal of imagining a nubile 20-year-old wife who can't afford to leave even if she wanted to?
Terracotta
7mo ago
The problem is that good outcomes in the law go to people who can afford good lawyers. So maybe the divorce actually was cheating-related, but if he has control of all the accounts, a robust community network and is willing to pay up for the absolute best legal representation, then how is his wife going to afford enough representation to gather evidence and make that case? It sounds like OP's uncle was relatively easygoing and generous, but that is not the modal attitude among divorcing spouses.
Similarly, post-divorce, being awarded child support/spousal support and actually collecting said support are extremely different things, and I assume affording good representation makes a substantial difference there, too. There are a lot of ways that someone with good lawyers can bully a less well-connected person into making custody or financial concessions.
Even if child support is awarded and collected, it may or may not match the actual expense of raising the children, a gap which the ex-wife will struggle to close with the wages of the kind of low-skill, entry-level work you can pick up as a 42-year-old job-seeking for the first time.
many of the common ones have a substantial safety net in place.
What exactly is the safety net, beyond the noblesse oblige of the departing spouse? Favorable terms in a divorce go to the party with a good lawyer. Unless she's been very lucky and careful about secretly diverting money, SAHM has no means of hiring a shark attorney or a PI. Post-divorce, she has no resources to battle for payment of child support and spousal support, no economic slack to position herself favorably in the housing or job market. The likeliest scenario is she needs to quickly find some other man to support her and the kids, who may or may not be a good guy (stepfathers have a broadly bad reputation).
So in the event of a divorce mommy having a middle-class career is her safeguard against having to immediately remarry and subject her kids to some jerk, just to get by. Or else try to go it alone with child support plus a low-skill/low-wage job while the kids get raised by the internet.
And that's leaving out second-order consequences! Back in the golden age of what you call the "traditional marriage" (which is actually just the Victorian middle-class town marriage, not lindy at all), the husband got custody of the kids by default and the wife got absolutely nothing. Whatever safety net we currently have was developed because of women's greater economic leverage and participation in the public square, plus the added perspective of female judges/ lawyers/ lobbyists.
So yes, if we total up the possibility of ‘marry the nice guy your parents approve of and be a SAHM’ ruining your life, it’s small enough for a girl to be confident in her decisions.
OK, let's run rough numbers on the most common of these disaster scenarios.
-
43% of first marriages end in divorce *31% of divorces initiated by husband= 13% chance the husband just up and dumps her at some point. You'd probably say that middle-class marriages are less subject to these risks; I don't see evidence of that, but fine, let's halve that to 6.5%.
-
Of remaining divorces, 35% of women cite their husband's infidelity, 24% abuse, 12% addiction as the reason for leaving. Assume there's some overlap and make it a total of 50% of wife-initiated divorces having one or more of these factors. So 43%*50%= 22% chance the husband eventually philanders, abuses, gambles, drinks or tokes enough to make her wish he'd dump her. Apply the classism correction, that's 11% chance.
-
Odds of her husband dying early run from .23%/year when he's 30 to .98%/ year when he's 55 (still too early to have fully adequate retirement savings, even with life insurance). Presumably it's not a linear increase, so say .35%/yr*25 yrs=9% lifetime chance her spouse dies and leaves her to support herself and the youngest of the kids.
-
Odds of her husband becoming semi-permanently unable to support the family owing to disability or job changes: this is annoying to figure out, but I'm seeing 3% unemployment, higher underemployment, 1% SSDI for working-age men with college degrees, so let's spitball 1% odds she becomes the family breadwinner by necessity.
To me, that looks like a roughly 28% chance that a married woman will eventually encounter one of the many commonplace disasters where her independent earning capacity would be a huge benefit for her and the kids. Not sure where you get the idea that these things don't happen to nice middle-class moms of 5, but every one of these scenarios, including husband's addiction, abuse, infidelity, early death, has happened to at least 1-2 of the few large families I know. Even if you think a lifetime 28% is still too high, it's fair to ask how just how low those odds would have to be to make it a responsible decision for a young woman to forgo the insurance of a decent career and instead chase an idealized 24/7 tradwife/cupcake fantasy.
And that's leaving out the lower-key negative changes in the family dynamic itself when one spouse has absolutely all the economic power and knows it. Many husbands stay kind and generous, but if not, a SAHM ends up quietly bearing a lot more borderline treatment of her and the kids, simply because speaking up would risk the disaster of her husband's leaving them unsupported. If you cruise by conversations of angry adult children who've cut contact with their parents, a common theme is "my dad was an asshole and my mom did nothing to stop it." A SAHM can't do anything to stop it, because her husband is doing her a favor just by letting her exist on his dime.
Terracotta
7mo ago
Are you sure it's just "fearmongering about getting raped" that makes it seem like a high-risk life choice to enter lifelong, irrevocable financial dependency on a man, and commit your children to same?
In today's economy, a middle-class girl who quits college at 20 to get married and have somebody's 5 babies will find that she's made a life-ruining decision if absolutely any of the following happen:
-Husband falls out of love in a commonplace way and wants a divorce (43% of women and 46% of men are obese by their 40s and at least one poster upthread considers a fat wife strictly inferior to no wife at all; plus, skinny or fat, 100% of 50-year-old women are older than the hottest 20-something at the office).
-Husband's little vices worsen into a behavioral problem (with drugs, alcohol, gambling, porn, gaming, overspending, hoarding, whatever) that make him a misery to live with or a financial liability to the family
-Husband turns out to be physically/ sexually/ emotionally abusive
-Husband turns out to be selfish and won't spend money on the kids, so they limp along with the bare minimum
-Husband commits white-collar crime, goes to prison
-Husband has a midlife crisis and unexpectedly comes out as gay/ trans/ polyamorous/ into a distasteful fetish after a decade or two of marriage
-Husband gets sick in a permanent career-ruining fashion (depression, disability, accident).
-Husband's career unexpectedly implodes for any other reason
-Husband dies
Note that any of these would have a disastrous impact not just on the girl's life, but on the lives of her future children. And every one of those negative impacts could be substantially mitigated (although not removed) by the girl's having access to a decent middle-class job, to partly support herself and the kids in a pinch. Otherwise you live a life that's one negative event away from having to dump your kids with the dodgy babysitter while you desperately slog through night courses at the community college.
If you total up all those probabilities, can the girl really feel justly confident that she and her kids won't need that career someday?
Terracotta
7mo ago
It's an interesting choice for sure, given the context in the poem. What do you love about those lines?
Terracotta
8mo ago
I sure hope you're right. But does there exist a historical precedent for any industry ever moving from "heavily bureaucratized, intensively regulated, ideologically freighted, opaque, inefficient and expensive" toward "lean, simple, transparent and consumer-oriented" in any meaningful way under a modern state? If so, I'd genuinely love to hear about it.
Terracotta
8mo ago
Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but most of the industry-facing benefits of price opacity seem to entail a parallel set of benefits for regulators, legislators and nonprofits. If the meme that Healthcare is Priceless signs blank checks for producers in the industry, it presumably works the same way for bureaucrats and lawmakers, who get a free pass to accumulate power, expand surveillance, reward cronies and promote pet causes through selective disbursement of all that funding. And that's leaving out the large proportion of regulators/ lawmakers who are just literally in bed with parts of the industry, like the FDA folks who retire to take plum positions with Pharma.
I'm sure you could get that class to happily support selected instances of price-limiting legislation where it might hurt their political adversaries, but who's the constituency for plain consumer empowerment, beyond just Joe Q. Public?
Terracotta
8mo ago
I'm curious as to why you think it would ever be in the best interests of the medical industry to provide price transparency.
Like, obviously they could develop ways to formalize price estimates and communicate them to customers. If anything, that's confirmed by the poor quality of the countervailing arguments in the thread below. But why would they ever want to?
Having the ability to inflate prices without reducing demand, because nobody at the point of consumption has any idea what anything costs, seems like a pretty sweet situation. Likewise, high salaries and various other forms of grift and waste across healthcare are made possible by the broader cultural perception that the industry provides priceless, sanctified Human Care Through Science rather than some mere grubby service like your hairdresser or auto mechanic. Giving patients the power to participate in rational cost-benefit analysis about their healthcare seems like it'd work out worse for every single level of the industry.
That's such a vivid account of the overall thought process; thanks for posting! If St. Augustine's depiction is accurate, it sounds as though there's a strong element of visceral carnivore/ hunting drive in there, which I guess checks out. It certainly makes sense for a partly meat-eating species to have a mode where it enjoys the sensory experience of catching and ripping apart a living animal while it screams. "Eew fresh meat, its pain gives me the squick" isn't exactly a survival-friendly instinct.
More options
Context Copy link