I can’t imagine most of the manosphere, to say nothing about MRAs, haven’t read about the latest feminist triumphalism in a recent Pew study that’s determined that 23% of women now out-earn men. The ironic inconsistencies are an easy mark for most red pill men, but I imagine they’re particularly galling for MRAs:
Moms now earn more than dads in almost a quarter of all U.S. families, the highest level in history. It’s a huge leap from 50 years ago when only a handful of moms were bringing home the bacon, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center.
Overall, women – including those who are unmarried – are now the leading or solo breadwinners in 40 percent of U.S. households, compared with just 11 percent in 1960, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by Pew.
Cue the MRA rage posts about unmarried women receiving uniquely feminine social benefits and entitlements men have no access to, not to mention state enforced male child support for unmarried mothers and remarried mothers. I get it, really I do, but my emphasis here isn’t so much about the factual information being skewed by the feminine imperative, rather its neurolinguistic delivery of those distortions.
That’s both good news and bad news, depending on which end of the scale you examine. At the top level, educated women are catching up with men in the workforce. But at the bottom rungs, there are more single mothers than ever and most of them are living near the poverty line.
Bear in mind this report by Amy Langfield was what hastily replaced this report by Bill Briggs – For Richer or Poorer?, When wives make more, some men’s health suffers – on NBCs frontpage. As I’ve written before, the feminine imperative will never allow even its own message to be sullied with a male perspective.
When wives bring home more bacon than their husbands, household budgets surely may sizzle but in some cases, men may pay a price. Some guys who lose their role as primary earners are known to lose sexual steam and may deal with insomnia and other issues, researchers say.
In relationships where women’s wages become slightly fatter than what their spouses pocket, scientists have determined that men are about 10 percent more likely to require prescription pills to combat erectile dysfunction, insomnia and anxiety, according to a recent study by Washington University in St. Louis’ Olin Business School.
Naturally the comment section is rife with feminine ridicule and accusations of men’s masculine insecurities being made manifest in not being able to get it up when wifey makes more money. The apex fallacy is a helluva drug for the feminine imperative.
“There is a powerful social norm for many men that it’s important to make more than their wives and, essentially, when that social norm is violated, what this does is make them feel emasculated,” said Lamar Pierce, a professor of strategy at Olin who completed the study in February, working with colleagues in Denmark. Other research has shown that men with wives who earn more are more likely to cheat.
It’s going to be important to read that linked 2010 article about men who’s wives earn more being more likely to cheat, because this is the crux of who gets to decide what emasculation feels like for men. Lamar Pierce’s assertion, as with most blank slaters, is that masculinity is the result of “powerful social norms” and not the result of a culmination of what millennia of biological and psychological evolution physically made of men. The nuts and bolts get discarded when the feminine imperative defines the terms of what men feel and why they do.
The problem here is that the nuts and bolts are about the physical male sexual response. What is it about women earning more money (excluding for single mother bonuses) that makes them less likely to pass the boner test? If the feminine imperative is to be believed, it’s due to men’s fragile egos and masculinity being defined by his ability to provide. No mention is made of women’s lack of femininity, physical sexual attraction or simple logistics when she’s the one tasked with bringing home the bacon. No mention is given about women’s desire to even be in the position of being the sole or majority breadwinner.
The main problem with women earning more than their men is far more hardwired into both gender’s psyches than the experts consigned by the feminine imperative will ever be allowed to relate. It’s not very complimentary to the imperative because it reveals far too much of its real inner workings and exposes its social engineering to effect them.
On the feminine side we have the cruel reality of feminine Hypergamy that’s constantly reminded that the man she’s paired with (or would pair with) isn’t capable of, or is less capable of, the provisioning her Hypergamy ultimately demands of him, and which she can provide for herself. For the single professional woman this imbalance results in their constant search for a man they consider “her equal”, and is the cause for many post-Wall women’s common lament of not being able to find the guy she thinks she deserves.
By this distorted logic, professional women subscribe to the social convention that they can ‘buy Alpha'; that their credentials, financial and social status ought to be the deciding factor for men’s intimate estimations of them, and any man not abiding by these conditions is by definition “infantile”, has a “fragile ego” and is “threatened by successful women”.
Feminine Operative Social Conventions are the meta-hamster of the gestalt consciousness of the feminine imperative.
On the masculine side the problems are twofold. The first comes from men’s evolved subliminal understanding about how being a provider is his last, best, resort of securing a mate who will send his genes on to future generations. Once this capacity is removed, he becomes conscious of his vulnerability to the predations of his wife’s Hypergamy.
If men met their future wives when the women already were the bigger breadwinners, “they never have any problems later on,” Pierce said. “The problems are all coming in marriages where the guys are making more, they get married, then their pay slips (below their wives’ salaries).” The study was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Since mass media is rooted in a fem-centric reality, we’re spared the gory details of women’s Hypergamic re-estimations of their husbands. Rather, we’re left to believe that it’s the husbands who have an inability to cope with their wives making more money (due to fragile egos remember?) and suffer from a masculine insecurity that’s making their cocks go soft. No mention is made of men’s now-impassable Hypergamic shit-tests women demand of men affecting their previously stable marriages.
For the majority of Beta men, their cow-eyed confidence and reliance on being able to at least provide an equal contribution to a woman’s wellbeing as part of his Beta-Game sexual strategy gets flushed down the toilet when she out earns him. For Beta men, men’s primary sexual market value is derived from performance – unfortunately Betas are beginning to be outperformed by women and their wives. Once that outperformance is actualized for women, only Alpha dominance defines men’s SMV since it’s the other remaining side of women’s Hypergamy and their pluralistic sexual strategy.
The Bought Alpha
The second masculine issue is the bought Alpha. When a woman is in fact capable of her own provisioning all that’s left wanting for her hypergamy is Alpha dominance. Most breadwinning women are condemned to being frustrated by this dynamic. The majority of elite earning women simply lack the feminine grace and physical appeal to attract this Alpha dominance. Fewer still have the capacity to surrender to that Alpha, but the upper 1% of elite earning women can, and they illustrate the dynamic here. I realize it’s an old article but have a quick read – Guys more likely to cheat on high-earning women.
In fact, men who were completely dependent on their partner’s income were five times more likely to cheat than men who contributed an equal amount of money to the relationship, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.
You’d think such men wouldn’t want to risk their meal ticket. But lower-earning men may be self-medicating their inner macho guy, says Cornell University sociology graduate student Christin Munsch, who conducted the study.“Having multiple sexual partners may be an attempt to restore gender identity in response to these threats,” she writes. “In other words, for men, sex [outside their relationship] may be an attempt to compensate for feelings of inadequacy with respect to gender identity.”
Despite the masculine shaming threaded throughout the article, what’s not being addressed is women who make substantially more money, or all the money, in their relationships have flipped a dangerous gender script. As elite earners, women tend to want to pair off not with the the guy who’d otherwise be a loyal, respectable Beta provider under other conditions, but rather the men they feel they ‘deserve’. The provisioning part of their Hypergamy has been satisfied, so the visceral part is all that’s left wanting. Thus they gravitate to the Alpha cads they’re aroused by, and they ‘deserve’ by virtue of their earning ability and status. These women’s Game is a reflection of Beta men’s Game – they believe that their provisioning alone will be the lynchpin in keeping their spouse loyal.
An Alpha guy (like Jesse James from the article) grows tired of being his wife or girlfriend’s accessory, and as is the Alpha nature, he’s happy to have the financial backing to fund his infidelity. An inverse of this would be Tiger Woods’ marriage and his indulgences. The marriage becomes a means to an Alpha end (or a hinderance for Tiger), and our rich, empowered wife duplicitously loves and hates that her Man is so desired by other women, but can’t balance her Hypergamic nature any other way.