Why blacks were freed and women received equal rights?

[John_James]

@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.

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:

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.)

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.