90
91

DISCUSSIONModern women choosing traditional masculinity (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor

Discussion topic.

Women marry up, men marry down. In modern times, it becomes increasingly difficult for women to settle because women nowadays want a man who has higher level education, higher salary, higher social status.

I have noticed a trend in a handful of my girlfriends. They are attractive women who have postgraduate degrees, working in white collar jobs with middle to upper middle class salaries, and they have chosen to marry/date a man with traditionally masculine qualities.

By traditionally masculine qualities I mean that these men may not have as high of a salary or even the same level of education, but he has physical strength, street smarts, hands-on skills, social skills, athletic ability, a sense of protection. Typically these men can be found in jobs of law enforcement, military, emergency services, aviation, vocational trades or sports/fitness, essentially jobs that are not so academic but require a different set of skills. They tend to be more "rough and tumble" types of men. They have jobs that utilize their testosterone - jobs that require physical strength, aggression, stoicism, or adrenaline.

I have also noticed with these more traditionally masculine men, they could care less about women's intelligence and appreciate her femininity, domesticity and companionship. For certain modern women, this can be a relief in a world of feminized, neutral gender roles - she can utilize her womanhood and not feel like she has to compete with a man, because he doesn't care and he is not with her because he expects her to keep up. He treats her like a woman and only expects her softness and feminine qualities.

And for some women who feel the pressure to be masculine because of "equality," this is a relief.

Has anyone noticed this trend? It could be among more conservative cultures, but I find there are some liberal career women who DO choose a man with more traditional values, because she actually wishes for this gender dynamic.


[–]Rivkariver2 Star 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Well my boyfriend has a much more advanced career than I do, and he has a higher ed degree. But he’s also military and really good at several masculine, work with your hands hobbies. He can build all kind of things.

I don’t have an advanced degree and my career isn’t my main focus.

Before I met him, I was surrounded by philosophy student guys, and I couldn’t take it. I needed a man who, while intelligent, didn’t live in his head all the time. And to my relief, my bf doesn’t judge me if I express a thought in a ditzy way once in a while. Some of the philosophy dudes would get smug.

Lots of women like those types of men, but it wasn’t for me. I’m pretty strong willed and knew I needed someone who was more dominant. Yet also very kind. And someone with real life experience and skills, who can handle a crisis and not break down. A book can’t teach you that.

This isn’t a great example for your topic since he is more educated and successful than I am in career, but I do relate to the need for traditional male skills which many man don’t possess these days.

[–]ange-nocturne 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Interesting observation. As an educated woman I have been considering doing this myself for a while. It’s hard to find truly masculine men on my university campus. In general, most of the educated, modern men of today do not have Alpha qualities. I may need to delve into a different pool of prospective mates. The “rough and tumble” practical type of guy who is good with his hands has always been very attractive to me. Also manual labour and a high salary are not always mutually exclusive, especially within the current social climate. Just like how a university degree doesn’t guarantee you a good job anymore. There are many educated people who can’t find work and there are many people with hands-on jobs who make good money.

[–]st_agnes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm in this exact situation. Since I was young, I've always been attracted more to the firemen, policemen, paramedic types. Men in those types of work have to be strong, stoic, capable, and brave. What's more, I think they make better partners because they've seen more of the world. A man who's been in harrowing situations or has seen the worst of humanity is more likely to appreciate a good, loyal woman. I've also noticed that these men treat me better, treat me more like a lady. They hold doors open for me, nod politely when they pass me on the street, whereas I can barely get my male classmates to make eye contact when we're having a conversation. When a man works in a rough profession, surrounded by other men, he appreciates a petite, quiet, polite woman wearing a dress. On the other hand, a male university professor who has to deal with mean, shrill female colleagues all day is less affected by femininity.

Unfortunately, because of my upbringing (both my parents are professionals), I've had to repress my true feelings. I'm on the path to being a physician, and my family expects me to marry someone of equal or higher income. I don't know how I could get them to accept my marrying a man in a 'lesser' job.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (23 children)

My gut tells me these women are dating down because they can't get one of the fewer higher paid academic guys. But I also think social skills are more important to women's attraction than men's, because women cope through talking more, whereas men cope through action more, which affects how each value relationships; and because there are lots of women who have regular flings or relationships with men who make less than them and have no financial intelligence, and what all these men seem to have is a love of being social, at the least with women, and enough sexual dominance so everything can "just happen" which is what most women like. So I think those two traits are more likely to be present in these guys that the academic women are dating down with; whereas I think some of the highly paid academic guys could be more likely to use more abstract thinking and be less social, which drives a lot of women crazy in a bad way because its against their general coping style. Pros and cons.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 25 points26 points  (17 children)

I think that the men in these types of jobs have a social dominance and social intelligence. So even though academically inclined men with white collar jobs may be "higher" in terms of income, I find that the traditionally masculine men also treat women like women. They tend to be more chivalrous, flirty, protective, leading. I also wonder if it's because these men work in male-dominated industries. When you're nearly always around men, you will treat women differently. If you work with a lot of women, a man has to be careful of his actions and be politically correct or else it can come off as sexual harassment.

A part of it could be because the women can't get these types of academic men, but like I said - I don't think they WANT to. Higher status doesn't necessarily mean income. As long as a man shows his dominance in certain areas, yes, she will be attracted to him.

In another comment I stated that many of these women were mid-20's when they married - so they were in their prime. My gut instinct is actually that women are the ones waking up and realize they're not happy with neutral gender roles - and seek a socially dominant man. Alpha doesn't necessarily mean a degree. It's the way he approaches life, the way he treats you, like a woman, as you said - they let things "just happen," romantically. And this is a very dominant trait to be able to make this happen.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I want to add to this because I believe you are spot on, but you covered it so well already!

If a woman is a high earner and we accept hypergamy, then there are essential two options: across or up the income/career spectrum OR the most masculine dominant man you can attract as a counter to your femininity. If women continue to earn more degrees than men there are going to be fewer men to chose from if you look at income/career. Masculine men are a better strategy AND probably more in line with what RP believes most women want in a man.

[–]Yayayayayaya0101 2 points3 points  (14 children)

Your responses generally have a tone of white collar and alpha as being mutually exclusive, which I strongly disagree with

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (13 children)

That's exactly what I'm saying - higher income (usually in white collar careers) doesn't necessarily mean masculine or alpha.

[–]Yayayayayaya0101 4 points5 points  (12 children)

There are loads of weak framed men in the military and loads of strong framed men in positions of power. Heartily disagree with the thinking that career correlates to alpha.

Software engineers aside...

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 8 points9 points  (9 children)

I think you might just not understand what u/vanBeethovenLudwig is trying to say. There are masculine and non-masculine men everywhere. It is generally true that women look for men who have careers better than theirs. Her experience is that some high powered women are now seeking men with careers that are not equal to theirs because those men are masculine and that is more important than career to them.

You are missing the forest for the trees here dude.

[–]Yayayayayaya0101 -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

Nah, OP is clearly implying masculinity is tied to career, which is clearly not true.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Income isn't a determining factor of masculinity. It's the personality traits, the way he makes you feel.

In a comment below. If that isn't' a statement that masculinity isn't tied to career then I can't convince you.

Just because she says that masculinity isn't tied to higher incomes doesn't mean that it is tied to lower incomes either. You are really missing something and it really sounds like she's triggered you for some reason. Is her supposition somehow insulting your alphaness?

Look, my husband is both masculine and an engineer. One of his best female friends is also and engineer and did exactly what the OP is suggesting. She is the high earner and she married a masculine construction worker mountain man type. Because she made enough money to support her family, she had the flexibility to choose whatever type of mate she wanted and the man she chose fishes for dinner instead of earning the money to buy it.

[–]Yayayayayaya0101 0 points1 point  (4 children)

"By traditionally masculine qualities I mean that these men may not have as high of a salary or even the same level of education, but he has physical strength, street smarts, hands-on skills, social skills, athletic ability, a sense of protection. Typically these men can be found in jobs of law enforcement, military, emergency services, aviation, vocational trades or sports/fitness, essentially jobs that are not so academic but require a different set of skills. They tend to be more "rough and tumble" types of men. They have jobs that utilize their testosterone - jobs that require physical strength, aggression, stoicism, or adrenaline."

That sure sounds like she's tying masculinity to blue collar work to me. She says it explicitly

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 10 points11 points  (3 children)

She's describing the men who her female friends married. Just because it exists in a certain set of careers, does not mean that it can't exist in another. That's simply not what we're talking about here.

But usually, women consider income as a part of masculinity because that is how we're wired. You seem to be offended that there might be a way to judge masculinity other than beta bux.

And honestly, you have to be willfully ignorant to suggest that there aren't a higher number of masculine men in the military or firefighters or the trades than say, lawyers. Simply put, these are jobs that require a certain level of fitness and testosterone is tied to that fitness. You have to be a lot more masculine to make it through boot camp than law school.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I'm trying to explain that masculinity is not necessarily tied to career, especially when nowadays this is all women look for.

Women tend to look for a man with a better career or income than her.

My post is saying that there are still very masculine personality traits in men who may not have a "better" career or higher salary, and women should not only emphasize career when they look for partners.

[–]Yayayayayaya0101 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, got it

[–]BewareTheOldMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So... negative - there are not many weak-framed military men. However, there are many men who are inexpereinced with female nature, hypergamy, and are strongly Blue Pilled based on Social Conditoning and other societal factors. In short - they believe the general narrative of "sugar and spice and everything nice" about women and are hesitant to accept anything contrary to the narrative.

I worked with many of these guys for years and I was hard-pressed to observe weak frame. If military guys have no "frame," it's in the area of inexperience with women and that's generally where it stops.

There are "soft" and low-density jobs in the military, but these are a small minority of men (and some women).

Most military folks are hard-chargers and are the people sent in to defeat terrorist networks and another country's rouge military - THAT'S FRAME.

[–]pabz_is_keww 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why software engineers aside? Curious ...

[–]Ok_Philosopher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Higher status doesn't necessarily mean income.

lol, this is like women claiming hotness doesn't necessarily mean thinness. While it can be true, sometimes, it's just not in most cases. And just as women shouldn't try to say, "but curvy is beautiful!" and expect men to get on board, men also shouldn't think social dominance can be a substitute to high income and that women will gravitate towards it. Nope. Women want providers, and the higher the income the better.

Harsh truths apply to both genders.

[–]Rivkariver2 Star 6 points7 points  (2 children)

While I agree I prefer a man more successful than myself, all women do not want the purely academic type. My bf is intelligent and intellectual but is also very hands on and practical, has handled many crises in his work. I would never want to date a purely ivory tower type, no matter how much he made.

[–]red_matrix 1 point2 points  (1 child)

By successful do you mean he earns more than yourself?

[–]bloobird08 5 points6 points  (0 children)

True. I’ve noticed many men that make very high salaries are dominant and confident as a result of their money and education, but it’s almost to a fault. There are downsides to a high powered man- stubbornness, inflexibility, workaholic etc. A man earning a lower salary in a more low-key job may be more social, laid back and easier to get along and live with.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not for nothing...but it's NOT "dating down" if you are attracting men at your level, commensurate with a woman's SMV/RMV.

It's insulting the men these women eventually marry in that she could "do better." It's counterproductive and allows many women to believe the man they marry is "less than" when in fact, he's her best/better prospect.

If a woman could in fact generate interest and snag a "higher level education, higher salary, higher social status," and Higher Value Man she will make this happen without issue, problems, or hesitation.

[–]jm51 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Maybe they are marrying up?

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, they are if they emphasize the masculine qualities rather than just degrees or income.

[–]bloobird08 7 points8 points  (1 child)

It is no surprise that women choose the masculine types who earn less because the alternative is a weak/fat beta who might make the same or even less (It seems there are many betas nowadays that don’t have enough money to fit the standard of a beta bux). I would say this is just an adaptation for modern times. Pre-internet, the beta men in all industries used to be fit, manly, and confident. Not so much anymore. Of course, this applies to women too. Women have gotten more fat/masculine post-internet, and men have gotten softer/feminine. I’ve noticed RP blames feminism for these gender shifts, which is valid, but I think the internet and the modern inactive/fast food lifestyle is also to blame for why the genders have become bastardized.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At the end of the day most women want and desire masculine men - those are the guys to whom women are generally attracted and are the ones they're offering sex to as well.

Masculine men note this observation and don't change or make adjustments to fit a narrative. They "do what they do" and women take interest...or not. More often than not, these guys are getting women.

If high-earning women are basing requirements solely on high income from both partners, assuming kids are involved the question becomes who is minding this power couple’s kids? Most men are not keen on outsourcing bulk child care to a third party.

[–]BooksAndCatsAnd 6 points7 points  (3 children)

This is interesting to me, because it pokes directly at my particular situation... married in my early 20s to a mid 20s man, whom I adore and trust wholeheartedly. I’m a white collar breadwinner and while hubs has one more degree than I do as well as professional certifications, his industry alignment is blue collar. Being a corporate person at a desk would be his nightmare! Other people often treat me like I have married down, ignoring other aspects that make us work because they’re so shocked he’s not a white collar professional. Never mind that I love him as my protector and leader, never mind that we save so much money because he can fix our home/things/cars, never mind that he comes from a wonderful family with deep roots in his community, that he’s a great judge of character, that he calls me out, challenges me intellectually, and encourages me to improve myself, that he supports me so I can pursue my career and interests without forgoing his own dreams.... I have my dream life because of him, who gives a damn if he doesn’t have an office job? :P

I adore scientific studies but I think it’s easy to lose the forest for the trees on these types of issues due to their complexity. In today’s society, where in most major cities dual incomes are needed, marrying someone who makes less than you is not necessarily marrying down. It just means they have a different path - one piece of a puzzle. A lot of people forget that skilled blue collar folks make six figures too! And past that point, can you really say someone is inferior/superior, just because their chosen niche pays less or more? The whole thing just seems superficial and indicative of someone who is more interested in “keeping up with the Joneses” than the intrinsic value of the relationships in their life. Money isn’t everything y’all - my investment banker ex would have been a terrible husband!

[–]bloobird08 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I think people also don’t factor in men with lower salaries who are good with saving and investing. Investing properly can grow your wealth quite a bit. A man who makes a blue collar salary who knows how to invest is generally a better option than a white collar man who is a spendthrift and doesn’t save or invest for his future.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are a lot of self-made men out there. Men who worked up slowly and earned their worth.

I've also slowly realized there are a lot of men out there who do not work for large corporations - rather they are extremely self-sufficient in their work and survival methods. They often have much more control over their own destiny - tightly controlling finances, having the ownership over their income, and enjoying life at the same time.

Some men don't want to sell their lives to the rat race. They'd rather be self-sufficient. And with self-sufficiency comes very masculine traits of survival.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There was a guy on the Dave Ramsey show who became a millionaire from mowing lawns which shocked me, so its mind-blowing what consistent work, saving money, and good investing can do.

[–]imdar3ald3al 12 points13 points  (6 children)

I'm hard pressed to believe they are truly happy, but yes. I've noticed the trend. I think most women still want a more educationally and financially successful than herself and will often times resent their lesser achieving partners but can definitely find dominant alpha males that behave way better than a lot of the Mr. Beta bucks guys out there.

I still believe a lot of these women end up miserable. Settling down goes against evolutionary biology. Only a properly redpilled woman can curve that instinct and be happy.

I think the most common narrative is these women waited until they got old to settle down and found themselves at a slight disadvantage toward getting higher achieving men so they made their standards more realistic to account for their own declining sexual market value.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I think the most common narrative is these women waited until they got old to settle down and found themselves at a slight disadvantage toward getting higher achieving men so they made their standards more realistic to account for their own declining sexual market value.

I'm not so sure if I believe that, actually. A lot of these women were mid-20's when they got married. Plenty of young women in their prime, with master's degrees, choosing to marry men who only have a bachelor's or in some cases only a high school diploma. But these men had been in the work force for much longer than the women. Life experience can increase a man's RMV, not just a degree.

It depends on the postgraduate degree of the woman as well. For example, a woman with a PhD in history or literature, might have a "nerdy" life and would be attracted to a man who has a lot of social skills and a adventurous approach to life.

[–]imdar3ald3al 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right about that I was using presumptive redpill perspective. There are probably more women who cash their chips in early like you just explained.

[–]Ok_Philosopher 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I completely agree that these women (educated, white collar jobs) are likely dating down (to men who are manly, but not as well paid or educated).

My group of friends consists almost entirely of well-educated women. When they list who they want to date, they want men of equal or higher standing in education/pay. And this makes sense. I think the equivalent of what the OP is claiming is saying "high paid men aren't prioritizing hotness, but rather their cooking skills." No, ideally they want a hot wife first, who can also cook. But similarly, high paid/educated women usually want high salary/education first, and a man who is also masculine. But the masculinity ranks second, and women hope that their first criteria of pay automatically confers the latter--it doesn't, but that's the hope, even if not explicitly stated.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

In a generation where there are many more women than men who have higher education, and these women tend to want a man with the equivalent level of education, but slowly realize it's more and more difficult because the number of women with higher degrees outweigh the number of men with higher degrees...these women will have to appreciate masculine personality traits rather than just the number of degrees he has.

[–]Ok_Philosopher 2 points3 points  (1 child)

.these women will have to appreciate masculine personality traits

Again, though, this is like claiming that men will have to appreciate women who are overweight because they'll realize it's more and more difficult to find a thinner woman due to the rise in obesity.

Just because men may have to settle for that just because the trend reveals it's harder to find thinner women, this doesn't mean they want that.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep - I agree on this sentiment. If women don't TRULY appreciate the man they can attract and eventually marry, it's a disservice and disrespect to the man who in all honesty could do much better than a woman who is ambivalent about her own husband.

No fence-sitting. Either you're ALL IN or give up that Good Man and allow him happiness with a woman who appreciates his presence in their life.

Also - most men are consistent. If they don't like fat women early in life, they will most likely NEVER like fat women especially later in life. "Body postivity" means nothing to most men as most men rarely change preferences.

It's one thing for a woman to start off thin and a man stays married depsite weight gain - that's investment and commitment to the marriage...NOT to fat women.

[–]HumanSockPuppetEndorsed Contributor 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Frame is a greater indicator of strength, dominance, and the will to overcome hardship than wealth.

In fact, frame precisely IS all of these things. It should comes as no surprise that a woman will more often fall for a seasoned law enforcement officer over a software engineer.

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Yes, exactly. It's the personality traits, not necessarily the degree. Income can be a representation of strength or dominance - but plenty of a men can have good alpha frame with a middle class salary. He doesn't necessarily need a six figure salary to have dominant personality traits.

[–]HumanSockPuppetEndorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Strength and dominance are the best indicators of strength and dominance. It's easier and more reliable to observe the qualities directly rather than to try and infer them from something abstract like money.

In fact, for women this process is even easier. She need only develop herself and keep herself in top form. The strong, dominant men will typically self-select by being the only ones to approach her.

[–]robertcw93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a line between confidence and undeserved confidence. Should a guy be allowed to have confidence beyond his abilities? Is that okay?

For instance, can a guy be in over his head and work and still be honestly confident that he can do the job, when in fact he has no idea that he has no idea what hes doing?

This is important. I’m pretty sure this is what separates arrogance from confidence. But is it still arrogance when he doesn’t realize he can’t do the things he confidently believes he can until after he failed at trying? And then what about confidence that if he try’s again he can, when he can’t?

[–]aussiedollface 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes! Thankyou for this post, I totally agree. I’ve noticed this trend in my life too. I’m a physician and many ladies I work with were married/dating builders and other tradesmen. Very “strong” and manly types. I also noticed that men like that seemed to pursue me more as I moved upwards in my career! I suppose it’s a dynamic that works for some people. I personally prefer more traditionally “intellectual” types so I married my darling husband (lawyer, earns more than I do etc). x

[–]alpha-zach 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Statistically speaking when a woman makes more or even equal money with her man, the chances of adultery skyrocket. Not just for her, but him also.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 7 points8 points  (3 children)

I see a problem with the statistics from an RPW perspective. A woman can earn more and still use the strategies that we espouse here. She can be feminine and soft and be a first mate to her husband. He can be a leader and make her feel cared for and cherished and not like the burden of the family is on her shoulders. In that case, I suspect that instances of cheating are much rarer.

However, if a relationship has a more equal dynamic and neither partner is happy, the income disparity is one more reason for the woman to feel dissatisfied and like she inhabits the masculine role and the man to feel like his role is usurped. Then I think cheating is more common because both partners will seek what they aren't getting at home.

I would very much doubt that the majority of marriage with a female breadwinner fall into the first category.

It's a case where I think you can say "this is what the statistics say, what do I need to do to not be a statistic?"

[–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He can be a leader and make her feel cared for and cherished and not like the burden of the family is on her shoulders.

I think this statement hits the nail right on the head. Income isn't a determining factor of masculinity. It's the personality traits, the way he makes you feel.

If a woman feels cared for, feels cherished, feels protected, feels like she is being led - and is aware of these factors being more important than solely a salary number - then she will be OK with a man who earns less than her. As long as he continues to make her feel that way.

If a man is smart and understands this about modern women - that modern women tend to be better academically and therefore will have more degrees - he will know that his masculine qualities and frame are even MORE important besides his academic achievements.

If a woman is smart she will acknowledge the importance of masculine qualities over degrees and not be so picky about the men who will commit to her.

[–]ragnarockette4 Stars 2 points3 points  (1 child)

In a society where a large part of a man’s perceived value is his ability to provide, women probably don’t feel like a poorly paid man has earned their submission.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I can see that being the case but I think that women who think that way are less likely to be submissive in general - just a gut feeling, couldn't articulate why exactly.

But i consider it a general flaw when too much weight is put on income as a marker of quality. I think it sets a woman up to chose man for his money over his character and be disappointed when the infatuation stage ends.

The end goal of feminism should be masculine trophy husbands for every high powered career woman 😂

[–]Meadowfly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is me :) I have an honours degree, my career is in STEM and my fiancé was paramedic and now he is in agriculture. I have a lot of respect for what he does. He is very practical, enduring, physically fit and has to think on the spot. I too have noticed this trend in a small handful of women I know where they gravitate towards men which have different forms of intelligence and ability other than that which is purely academic.

[–]Yayayayayaya0101 2 points3 points  (11 children)

In my personal experience zero female doctors/lawyers/white collar educated women settle down with cops/personal trainers/auto mechanics, but hey, thats just me

[–]aussiedollface 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m a physician and work with ladies who have married builders and tradesmen etc. It certainly does happen!

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 5 points6 points  (8 children)

Exactly. That is just you.

[–]Yayayayayaya0101 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Do you think it's more common for white collar women to marry blue collar men or white collar men?

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 2 points3 points  (6 children)

What difference does that make here? These women are discussing an alternative to something you clearly think is a problem as well. Why would you shit all over that?

You may not have the capacity to pursue a prestigious career or pull in a lot of money, but I'm certain you could turn yourself from the whiny, pouting bitch you are right now into something remotely resembling a man. What's being discussed here is a situation where you'd still be in the game, provided you nut up.

[–]Yayayayayaya0101 1 point2 points  (5 children)

What in my post upset you to the point you went ad hominem? I stated my personal experience (framed as such), and asked you a question.

If you maintain frame this well on reddit your married life must be awesome.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I can answer what upset him. My husband thinks poorly of men who come into the women's space, not to offer help or guidance, but to treat it as an easier going version of TRP where they won't have to face as much scrutiny from other men.

You came in, participated in one discussion thread, and disagreed in one sentence responses instead of fully articulated thoughts. Our RPW regular men put their time into offering advice and insight to the women. They understand men and gender dynamics enough to speak from more than just their own experiences.

Does that sound about right u/guywithgirlwithabike?

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes. I detest the men that are too weak to handle even the constructive criticism on TRP. They come here for refuge, and I will not let them find it here.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    I read your post history; calling you a weak bitch isn't ad hominem, it's an objective assessment.

    And if you want to know how awesome my marriage is, you don't have to speculate; my wife is a regular poster here, you can read all about it.

    [–]ragnarockette4 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    My experience is the same. A quick scan through my girlfriends in highly paid professions:

    Radiologist. Married to a very high earning software salesman for Accenture.

    Partner-track lawyer. Married to a successful entrepreneur whose business has raised around $10M to date.

    Startup founder. Married to a VP at a bank.

    Federal judge. Married to an executive at a major energy company.

    Assistant Film Director. Serious relationship with a Director of Photography who films in war zones.

    HR Manager at a hospital. Married to an Assistant District Attorney.

    In my social sphere I honestly don’t really even know anyone who works a blue collar job.

    [–]blushdot1 Star 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Unike many RPW, I am rather liberal politically but a social conservative in my own life and prefer traditional gender roles. I majored in English and was surrounded by some of the most liberal women (and men), given that gender studies is basically the only major more liberal than my own was - and English is basically gender studies. I also once lived in a very liberal area where the idea of being a hippie is basically standard practice, not a rebellious choice.

    Essentially, I can speak on your observation quite well, as my family and peers are all about as horrifyingly liberal as you can expect.

    I am also someone who is "career-minded" (I'm a teacher - does that even count?) and looking for a traditionally masculine man. Given where I currently live, I would need to "marry down" or "marry my equal."

    So the first thing to realize is that the "liberal career-minded" woman who marries a masculine man can be divded into two basic categories:

    • Social Conservative: This woman may be religious or usually come from a traditional background herself. Think a catholic, hispanic, or immigrant woman.
    • Family-Minded Liberal: This woman is not socially conservative, but wants children. She is limited to men she can trust will stay in the marriage and promote a stronger familial atmosphere.

    Social conservatives are probably going to marry other social conservatives. In a way, a lot of Appalachia is technically in this category. They promote progressive policies like welfare, but balk at identity politics of any variety.

    However, social conservatives in Appalachia are very different from social conservatives in liberal areas, or for minorities. These social conservatives will be more accepting of identity politics, but not moral politics. An Appalachian social conservative is very against abortion and affirmative action. A liberal area conservative would never get an abortion themselves, but feels they should support pro-choice. However, the idea of "open marriages" is likely one of the biggest moral threats in their lives.

    Social conservatives may be republicans due to the idea that liberalism is a growing threat on morality, or they may simply place more emphasis on tradition. These people tend to be surrounded by other social conservatives and probably are probably going to find a traditionally masculine man well enough.

    Unfortunately, many social conservative women find themselves as single mothers if they do not secure a high-value man. This could be due to liberal policies which allow quite a bit of dependence on the government. It causes some men to have beta thinking, and women to place a higher value on their career than family. It's fine to care about your job - you should, if you have one. Unfortunately, while they have social conservative values, their economic ones are liberal, and this extends to the workplace.

    But social conservative women can be quite happy if they find the right man. If. If. If.

    Eventually, some social conservative women may find themselves not truly respecting gender roles and morality, or their husband doesn't respect gender roles and morality, and the relationship blows up in their faces.

    The family-minded liberal is in a state of crisis.

    They are a strigent liberal in every conceivable measure. Due to polarization they may not know conservatives or chosen to strike these people from their lives. But, they want children.

    This is not really acceptable in liberal circles. I know from experience that young liberals not only do not want kids, they despise them and call them words like crotchfruit and parents as breeders. They also think marriage is a ridiculous institution, but strangely support gay marriage. Don't they hate marriage? Ugh. You see the hypocrisy.

    It's this which causes most liberals who want children to eventually become social conservatives or complete conservatives. This is rare, though, since strong liberals tend to live in very liberal areas themselves are will likely never have this opportunity.

    But if they did not become conservative, chances are these women went in a few paths: casual sex and lots of minimum-wage jobs or college.

    The first is doomed in every conceivable way. Chances are they have dyed hair, tattoos, are overweight or too skinny from drugs, high on every conceivable drug, and an n-count so high I don't even think it could be measured. Probably bisexual or a lesbian too. She'll probably become a single mom like the social conservative woman, except she will never get married. She won't ever deign to sleep with a conservative.

    The other family-minded liberal went to college and had the full liberal college experience. Similar to the previous liberal woman, but a bit more controlled. However, their focus is never on family and they never intend for it to be on family. This means more traditional men will stay clear (unless they are stunning beauties - and few look like stunning beauties). If they don't snag the perfect man in college, they never will... and they know it. If you know a liberal woman who wants a family - make sure they meet someone in college. It's their only chance, if they don't change.

    There are few liberal men who want children and a traditional marriage - much fewer than women - and the only way to find them before they are snatched up themselves is to lock it down in college when everyone is together. You can find someone later, but the woman is likely to put off having children until she is in her mid-thirties, and many men who are college-educated make a good wage and can marry a much younger woman. The liberal man probably doesn't care to marry a social conservative or conservative woman, so the liberal woman isn't just competing with her own political class - she's competing with every young woman.

    A man who goes to college is probably going to make more than the woman who goes to college. Probably. If they don't, it will probably fail for all the reasons we suspect.

    But, back to the primary issue: liberals live in a bubble. Because their problem is that they will never look outside their liberal circles. And if they fail to find a man in college, the family-minded liberal woman will be left with two options:

    • Don't marry at all
    • Marry down

    If they don't marry at all, hopefully they will adopt instead of going through the early childhood process (a stupid economic move on their part). However, most will have a one-night stand and trap a man, or go at it alone. Not a good idea. Especially since their liberal family may not be family-minded themselves, and all their friends will want nothing to do with them once they have kids. That woman will be ALONE from day one. The adopter will still be alone, but get brownie points. NOTE: Adopting a baby is basically the same thing, except for the brownie points. They really need to adopt an older child already of school age.

    Alternatively, they may be in an open-marriage (gag) or in an uncertain state of commitment. Not good for children, and these relationships don't tend to last, in my opinion.

    So, most family-minded liberals who don't find a man in college is going to marry down, like your post. Although in a better position than the drug-addled uneducated liberal woman, this is not a good position to be in. The liberal woman does not respect traditional gender roles - that is the whole point of their political stance.

    So why are they "marrying down" to more masculine men?

    The liberal man who wants children is a rare person, and she isn't going to find that man after college in most situations. Her only option without uprooting her career (which she won't do) is to look locally. Generally speaking, the available men will be low-wage liberals or low-wage conservatives. Perhaps, if she is "lucky" she will marry a tradesperson.

    The low-wage/tradesman liberal marriage will fail for all the expected reasons. Primarily because the low-wage liberal man in a traditionally masucline job is going to want equality in the household. Frankly speaking, a firefigher is exhausted after work. Sure, he can mow the lawn on the weekends - that's exhausting too, but not a frequent task - but spending another hour or two on domestic labor is not really fair when his wife had a white-collar job where she got to sit down all day. Sure, she is exhausted too, but not physically exhausted.

    But that liberal woman wants a 50/50 split. It's not 50/50 though. Eventually the marriage fails, because it was never equal to begin with. It was all about what SHE wanted. She was the captain of the ship, and she can't sail.

    The low-wage conservative marriage tradesman liberal marriage will fail for the same reasons, however they will be an undercurrent of hostility. Fundamentally, this couple probably only agrees on the children. They may have come to terms with religious compromise in the beginning, but other values are much harder to hash out with that kind of polarity. You cannot have a marriage in which you do not respect your spouse, and liberal women, to be completely honest, probably hate their husband in your scenario. She sees her marriage as an inferior option, even though it was the only option she left herself.

    To put it simply:

    • A liberal/conservative marriage will never succeed. Probably only a language barrier could save it.
    • A liberal/liberal marriage probably won't succeed unless the man is actually a beta, since there will be no true domestic diligence on any part of the couple.
    • A social conservative/liberal may succeed, but the social conservative woman really needs to marry up, or there is a high risk of it failing.
    • A social conservative/conservative marriage will probably succeed if the man is conservative.
    • A conservative/conservative marriage has the strongest change of succeeding. But we already knew this.

    [–]BewareTheOldMan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    There's a lot of useful and practical information in your liberal/conservative matching and breakdown. It's good information and I will likely pay more attention to couples as I observe and note this aspect of couple parings.

    I posted this somewhere else on this discussion thread, but the aspect of "dating/marrying down" is a bit of a misnomer.

    It's NOT dating down if you are attracting men at your level, commensurate with a woman's SMV/RMV.

    It's insulting the men these women eventually marry in that she could "do better." It's counterproductive and allows many women to believe the man they marry is "less than" when in fact, he's her best/better prospect.

    If a woman could in fact generate interest and snag a "higher level education, higher salary, higher social status," and Higher Value Man she will make this happen without issue, problems, or hesitation.

    [–]blushdot1 Star 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I agree. No one really "marries down" when it comes to looks (though more liberal couples have different standards of attractiveness which run counter to their actual sexual needs).

    Liberal women run into the problem that they are very aware of the financial pressures of motherhood, but have unrealistic expectations of men and society. Ironically, many of them are very dependent on a high earning man to maintain their high standard of living, yet they don't provide value themselves. Alternatively, they expect society to pay for their motherhood instead if they cannot secure a husband.

    There are liberal women who raise children financially successfully without men, but chances are she is so career focused that childrearing takes the back seat. I don't mean they send their kid off the daycare - I mean this woman neglects to instill moral and ethical character in their children, which is how we end up with maladjusted and mentally ill kids despite having every material advantage in life.

    Of course, this precludes the "heroic single mother" who, despite all odds, raises her children. She probably ended up in her situation through no fault of her own, or at least recognizes the error of her previous ways and refuses to become a welfare queen. She may not wear dresses, but a feminine mindset is at the core of her being, and it shows in the fact that her children, while not having the ideal home life, enter adult society able to succeed.

    [–]ReddJive 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    By traditionally masculine qualities I mean that these men may not have as high of a salary or even the same level of education, but he has physical strength, street smarts, hands-on skills, social skills, athletic ability, a sense of protection. Typically these men can be found in jobs of law enforcement, military, emergency services, aviation, vocational trades or sports/fitness, essentially jobs that are not so academic but require a different set of skills.

    Because of modern society. By and large there are few careers that require the physical capabilities of men. Is this bad? I don't know but where men fail is they don't seek out skills, hobbies, nor activities that allow them to build these masculine traits. Hence the attractiveness of the professions descried.

    Desk jobs, office work anyone can do it. Requires nothing more then a mind and hands. So a beta man comes home thinking he worked hard. Dresses in his baggy basketball shorts and cool T-shirt from college cracks a beer and chills. While is his wife/LTR comes home, dresses in another work out fit, maybe too look good for him, but she sets out on her second work day.

    Alphas look to go beyond and they look to find areas in which their masculinity adds value. Being a volunteer firefighter, paramedic, police officer....these are things and doable.

    Conversely women should be seeking to build community after the workday is done. Men seek value. Women seek community. She does this by building a comfortable, relaxing home. By being the social hub the person and place others come to for advice, community, and fun.

    I have also noticed with these more traditionally masculine men, they could care less about women's intelligence and appreciate her femininity, domesticity and companionship.

    Here's a dynamic I have noticed. In my experience it is because there is a need for a woman to be right. To be feel like she has agency in all things, much like a man. Male qualities? Yes, but not in the sense that she be as strong, but that she can be independent like a man can be. I would argue that men are not so much independent as much as aloof. The trait men look for is self sufficient. Can you? yes. Do you need to? no.

    In truth men don't want independent women. Why would I? Being independent means that you don't need nor want me. Then I am likely to move on and find someone else that is willing to add value to my life in more then just one area. I also don't want to argue and fight over a simple opinion. If I am in a relationship with you odds are I have accepted your view point and it doesn't matter as far as being an obstacle to being with you. I expect us to have a civil discussion over the differences. Ego often gets the way and demands we be right. When really we are missing an opportunity to learn a new view point, and new perspective, and maybe learn something.

    I will know when my girl is right. What I want is her to be agreeable and open to discussion. As a man I have uphill battles to face every day. Other than the occasion shit test, comfort test, I do not expect to fight my girl. if I have to do that then I am going to find someone else.

    You can be right all you want, then it won't be my problem any more.

    [–]lSquaredD1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    have postgraduate degrees, working in white collar jobs with middle to upper middle class salaries,

    I check all of these boxes -- PhD in Oncology, worked for Genentech and commanded a standard salary for that position in Silicon Valley. There are only so many men more accomplished than I.

    My husband isn't as accomplished in some ways (I think his GRE score was lower than mine, and he never took the SAT), and more in others (he was a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, did aircraft maintenance for NATO in Belgium for military service, hob nobs with members of Parliament, etc.)

    The key point here is that we need to view accomplishment as multi-dimensional; e.g. more than the number of digits in the paycheck he brings home. At present, we're both taking time off and living off (mostly his) savings and dispensations from being a partner at the fund for 4 years or so to raise our daughter.