TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

61

Study.

Abstract:

This study reconsiders the phenomenon that married men earn more money than unmarried men, a key result of the research on marriage benefits. Many earlier studies have found such a “male marital wage premium.” Recent studies using panel data for the United States conclude that part of this premium is due to selection of high earners into marriage. Nevertheless, a substantial effect of marriage seems to remain. The current study investigates whether the remaining premium is really a causal effect. Using conventional fixed-effects models, previous studies statistically controlled for selection based on wage levels only. We suggest a more general fixed-effects model that allows for higher wage growth of to-be-married men. The empirical test draws on panel data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1979 to 2012). We replicate the main finding of the literature: a wage premium remains after controlling for selection on individual wage levels. However, the remaining effect is not causal. The results show that married men earn more because selection into marriage operates not only on wage levels but also on wage growth. Hence, men on a steep career track are especially likely to marry. We conclude that arguments postulating a wage premium for married men should be discarded.

I thought this was interesting, as it provides support for some RP ideas, while explaining why the corresponding BP idea was presumed correct. Unfortunately, I don’t have full access to the article, but I thought the finding was worthy of discussion.


[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled34 points35 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

TL;DR : Female nature is so engrained into the world that economists had trouble determining causation because it was so strong that the most likely hypothesis had to exclude it as being influenced by anything other than women selecting and men competing.

So it would appear to lend credence to the long held idea that societies must provide a "high beta" path for men, and that such a thing benefits women as well.

God I don't miss that mind set.

[–]reluctantly_red11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

societies must provide a "high beta" path for men

If they want to maximize economic growth this is certainly true.

[–]321PK 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Aren’t you unemployed? Or do I misremember?

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I would never share something that personal. I always like to imagine myself getting "confronted" some day with my posting history, and have it be so vague that anyone that tried to accuse me of being my posting history looking like an idiot.

[–]321PK 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh ok. I thought I remembered you posting a field report in trp about how you “accidentally” got a girlfriend even though you’re in an Ltr with some other woman and that woman had been supporting you while you were unemployed.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That FR sounds hilarious.

[–]SlimLovin 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

So, "Yes."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be civil.

[–]Kgbeans130 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, a fixed effects model is not equivalent to randomization. We don't actually know whether their is a causal relationship. The only true way to test this is a randomized experiment. I will bet there'll be another paper in a few years to argue the exact opposite.

Source: I'm a statistician.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Most likely hypothesis" not law or even effect.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here27 points28 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

I'd suspect both are at play. There is certainly an aura of responsibility from a married family man that you don't get with a young bachelor. If your boss is a family man as well, he will probably be more likely to promote you.

[–]truedemocracy3Such An Asshole!3 points4 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

On the other side, if a boss is a bachelor type and can make things like frequent happy hours it can pay to be single and flexible

I don't think you should make either decision based on employment prospects and opportunities though. Don't put women on a pedestal but to some degree don't do it for career either

[–]Jammerly1 1 points [recovered]  (17 children) | Copy Link

There are also female employees to consider. Why do you think women would trust the leadership of a man who hasn’t shown he can manage his own family?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Lmao is this a serious comment? If you are making fat stacks in a leadership position you can clearly manage your own life.

[–]Jammerly1 1 points [recovered]  (12 children) | Copy Link

Yes but women won’t trust you.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Most professional women aren’t gonna give a fuck lmao especially if you have a good track record and reputation already

[–]Jammerly1 1 points [recovered]  (10 children) | Copy Link

It really depends. If it’s your company then you get to set the rules. But generally, the problem with bachelor leaders is they tend to create toxic workplaces. Why? Too much tolerance of ManChild Immaturity, sexual harassment, spergy dealings with clients and women, selfishness, workaholism, arrogance - etc. I mean there are multiple companies that have gotten dragged through the coals because it was led by some smart man with zero social awareness who let terrible behavior from his underlings slide, or created bullshit incentives. Women especially are going to be pissed if the leadership lets this shit slide and when it hits the fan they’ll oust those dudes right up outta there.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Sounds more like a social retard problem than a bachelor problem. But I agree social retards should not be at the top of any food chain or there is gonna be some shit antics you’ll have to put up with.

[–]Jammerly1 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

Sounds more like a social retard problem

AMALT.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Men have dictated what forms the parameters of what is deemed socially acceptable. Saying men are socially retarded especially in a workplace environment is pretty clearly offbase.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

ut generally, the problem with bachelor leaders is they tend to create toxic workplaces.

Uh, no it doesn't. It creates an unfavourable work environment for women.

Too much tolerance of ManChild Immaturity, sexual harassment, spergy dealings with clients and women, selfishness, workaholism, substance abuse, arrogance

With the exception of sexual harassment, which as I said, is mostly an issue for women, not men, there is nothing wrong with any of the other things you listed. This is a company, it's purpose is to generate a profit and that profit is generated by reducing costs. It has been proven time and time again that when it comes to labour, efficiency reduces costs. You need to realize the difference between an environment that is favorable to men and an environment that is favorable to women. I've had a few jobs, first job had a female boss, second 2 male bosses (one older, and one younger bachelor) and now I work in an office with a female boss and 2 other women. By far, the best environment I was in was with the bachelor. Yeah, he made inappropriate jokes, and yeah he crossed some lines, and yeah, we went out and spent $5000 for a night between 5 workers on alcohol and food, but that created a level of comfort between me and him. He was my boss, but by showing me that he is comfortable enough to behave with me in the same way that I behave with my friends, I was comfortable enough to talk to him about any business issue I had. These things that you are listing are only a problem for women, not men.

My least favourit position was the one where I had a female boss, not my current role, but the other one. It's funny that you have this stereotype that only male bosses make inappropriate jokes and commit sexual harassment. I remember that job the boss slapped my ass a few times. I remember the women talking about sex with their husbands and boyfriends and wanted me to participate. And one time, one of the female workers had a crush on me, and she and my boss made a plan where she would follow me into the filing room and the boss would lock the room. That happened, and when I told her I just wanted to do my job (ie. rejected her), she started crying. My boss came in and said "what the hell is wrong with you?". I told all of this to the female HR lady and she said she would issue a memo, but she never did. I called ministry of labour, and they said they would call me back, it's been 6 years and they haven't called back. I called them back a few times in that first year, and they kept saying they'll call me back. I ended up quitting.

I mean there are multiple companies that have gotten dragged through the coals because it was led by some smart man with zero social awareness who let terrible behavior from his underlings slide, or created bullshit incentives to terrible results.

OF course there are, because people like you have a stereotype that only men behave terribly in corporate leadership positions. That is why sexual harassment seminars and university HR courses always discuss female victims and male harassers.

Here is an example of an unfavorable environment for men. As I said I currently work with 4 women, one of which is my boss. A few weeks back, my boss assigned a very big client to me and one of the women. The woman had discussed her interest in gaining experience as she wanted to move up in the company. The services provided to this client were time sensitive and recurring on a daily basis, but were also the type of experience that the woman was looking for. As she was assigning it, the coworker said "oh, I can't do it on thursdays because I can't be here that early in the morning since I have to take my baby to child care". My boss turns to me and says "okay, /u/darksoldierk, I'm going to need you to come in extra early and do her part of the work on thursdays. I know it's not fair, but this is what we have to do". This is how female bosses behave, instead of holding their employees responsible for their jobs, they try to cater the employees needs by making other employees compensate. If my boss was male, he would have said "okay, if you can't do it then you are off this project, I'll reassign someone else" and the co-worker would have missed out on experience that could help her move up. But instead, I was forced to compensate. Believe it or not, this happens to every man in an environment with a female leader

Women especially are going to be pissed if the leadership lets this shit slide and when it hits the fan they’ll oust those dudes right up outta there.

It's funny that you say that. You would think that these women who get pissed off would go and start their own companies and create whatever work environment that they want, but I guess women are too lazy or incompetent to do that. Instead, like you said, they'll bitch until the government creates a gender quota or until the government enacts a law that caters to women's feelings.

[–]Jammerly1 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

which as I said, is mostly an issue for women, not men, t

If it’s an issue to 50% of your workforce and clients, then it’s an issue for everyone.

women talking about sex with their husbands and boyfriends and wanted me to participate. And one time, one of the female workers had a crush on me, and they had a plan where she would follow me into the filing room and the boss would lock the room. That happened, and when I told her I just wanted to do my job, she started crying. My boss came in and said "what the hell is wrong with you?". I told all of the female HR lady and she said she would issue a memo, but she never did.

Oh wow shocking an HR department is incompetent and wants to sweep things under the rug and make it go away. You think women haven’t experience this? This is what #metoo is all about.

My boss turns to me and says "okay, /u/darksoldierk, I'm going to need you to come in extra early and do her part of the work on thursdays. I know it's not fair, but this is what we have to do". This is how female bosses behave, instead of holding their employees responsible for their jobs, they try to cater the employees needs by making other employees compensate.

Bullshit. I’ve worked for plenty of weak ass male bosses who are too afraid to rock the boat and push work off on certain subordinates bc they can’t manage a team worth a damn. Also worked for very stupid ones who only got their job off being tall and male and usually white. You need to stop thinking men are better at management by default. You’re not. Or They might better at managing men - but shit at managing women. Tough nuts - we’re 50% of the workforce so you better learn.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If it’s an issue to 50% of your workforce and clients, then it’s an issue for everyone.

No, it isn't. If it's an issue for a portion of your workforce, then it's an issue for a portion of your workforce. It's cheaper to replace the workforce where the issue exists than it is to change the corporate culture and environment so that the other 50% of your workforce is unhappy.

Oh wow shocking an HR department is incompetent and wants to sweep things under the rug and make it go away. You think women haven’t experience this? This is what #metoo is all about.

The point of that story wasn't the issue with HR. You missed the whole point. The point is that you, and society, have a stereotype where you think that only men behave poorly in leadership roles. The difference between males behaving poorly and females behaving poorly is that males are put in the spot light whereas females behaing in the same way are excused. IT's a form of sexism that our society has in the workplace. You know why it's excused, because women say "that's not a problem for me, that's a problem for men in the workplace". That is why I say that a problem for a portion of your workforce is a problem for that portion, not everyone. Women don't care about issues that affect men in the workforce, so men shouldn't give a shit about issues that affect women.

Bullshit. I’ve worked for plenty of weak ass male bosses who are too afraid to rock the boat and push work off on certain subordinates bc they can’t manage a team worth a damn.

Yeah, except my boss isn't weak. She has a very dominant personality. She has no issues telling clients off , I've been in those meetings. She did what she did because she is a woman who was sympathetic towards another woman's desires and, like other female leaders, caters to her female employees desires and expects her male employees to either tolerate it or find another job.

You need to stop thinking men are better at management by default. You’re not. Or They might better at managing men - but shit at managing women. Tough nuts - we’re 50% of the workforce so you better learn.

That's fine, you want an environment where you are catered to and comfortable? Then start your own business and behave in whatever way you want. Don't sit there and expect men to tolerate less comfortable environments in order to cater to you. I find it mind boggling how self centered and entitled women are. You literally just said "well I'm here now, and the entire environment needs to change in order to make me comfortable".

Don't forget, women might be good at managing other women, but they are shit at managing men. Or I actually think I read an article that said that both men AND women prefer to have male bosses, I'll see if I can find it. So apparently, women don't even know how to manage men OR women.

[–]Archibald_Andino0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

it was led by some smart man with zero social awareness who let terrible behavior from his underlings slide, or created bullshit incentives to terrible results.

Jordan Belfort, Stratton Oakmont Inc

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't say he had "zero social awareness" considering he had such excellent selling skills. You need strong social skills to be such a successful salesman. He just got too carried away in his ego more than anything. If he had just toned it down a little he'd be no different than any other merchant banker on Wall Street.

Subprime mortgages and CDOs were far worse for the global economy than any of the shit Jordan Belfort did, and yet look Goldman Sachs and the rest are still humming along nicely.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Uh, first of all, in addition to what you are saying, there are also female leaders in the business world. I've worked for both, I currently work for one. You don't trust your boss, you do your job so you can get paid.

Managing a business is nothing like managing a family. That's the problem that I find with most female leaders, they think it's the same, but it isn't.

[–]Jammerly1 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Um, second of all - you do have to trust your boss, that’s what seperates the shitty ones from the good ones - your ability to get your employees and the higher ups to buy in to your initiatives. It’s also your ability to sell an image of success. I mean if you want to be like Michael Scott and fail upwards you might get lucky but you better be excellent at ass kissing. And female leaders run the gamut of personalities just like male leaders so I don’t what you’re talking about.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

second of all - you do have to trust your boss, that’s what seperates the shitty ones from the good ones -

Trusting your boss in a professional sense, not on a personal level. And being able to trust them makes them a "good boss" not a "good leader". The term "boss" is personalized. He or she is MY boss or John's boss, or Jane's boss. The term "leader" is not contingent on their ability to make people trust them. A good leader is transferable, as in they know how to be a good leader in any team. A good boss is not necessarily transferable, it's subjective. Jane may think that her boss is great because he lets her leave early to pick up her kids whenever she needs, but the company may not see him as a good boss because of the same reason.

You can sell an image of success and create a successful working team without being trustworthy. Some of the best leaders I've seen and worked with have messed up family lives. I could care less about the bosses ability to mange his/her family.

[–]rathyAro2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps this is due to the biases that exist in software, but bosses seem to want to prey of the free time of young bachelors. Having a wife and kids means they have to actually respect your boundaries.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Most businesses in general prefer to hire young people with a little bit of experience. The reason is because young people are paid in experience instead of money (ie. they are cheaper). Also, because young people tend to work harder because they are focusing on building a career. Middle aged people have this mentality that they already established their career and tend to be more family oriented. A business is a business, it's not there to cater to your family, it's there to make a profit. If a young bachelor is willing to put in more time and get paid less but be a little bit less efficient, then the company is going to go with the bachelor.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're one of few people on PPD who actually knows your shit and isn't just talking out their ass when it comes to business, quality comments.

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Par for the course.

Edit: I would like to add that HR strategies are really to give the brand or business brownie-points within their PR, which in turn can attract certain investors, and customers to use their services or purchase their products.

Most people don't seem to grasp why so many businesses shell out tons of cash on bloated HR programs. It's all branding lol.

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I tried to explain this to one of my feminist friend.

"You want no "wage gap", then convince your gal-pals to marry less successful men."

[–]Archibald_Andino9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"You want no "wage gap", then convince your gal-pals to marry less successful men."

Their lack of self-awareness is fascinating. Women very clearly set up a very rigid punish/reward system based on a man's status. Yes, always a few rare exceptions but overwhelmingly they demand (and get) men to compete for them, creating a system where the more successful a man is with women is in direct proportion to his status ... next they freely and happily choose to have more work/life balance, working less hours in less demanding jobs - all without the same social penalty and shaming that men face from them.... then, amazingly, at the end of the year when it turns out that men earned more income, they get to claim oppressed victim status which leads to yet more demands (which they usually get) for even more preferential double standards in their favor.

Surreal.

[–]Aaren_AugustineWants a Cookie13 points14 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Married Men, the accessory of all valuable women

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

19 year old submissive women with n=0? Or 28 year old female lawyers trying to make partner with n=5?

[–]SlimLovinHigh Value to Own the Libs10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

19 year old submissive women with n=0?

What world are you living in?

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm just poking at what I know is a woman trying to point to her degree as making her valuable. I know these women are extinct.

[–]Aaren_AugustineWants a Cookie4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha. That lawyers trying to marry the law firm

[–]Jammerly1 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Oprah would like a word with you.

[–]Aaren_AugustineWants a Cookie1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What's her bf's name? I know it's not Mr. Oprah.

[–]Uncommon_Sense_12345 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

"Hence, men on a steep career track are especially likely to marry." Study

This would also relate to marriage rates declining for the low income classes.

It would be interesting to see if married men accumulate more wealth than single men, with adjustments made to comparative incomes.

On another note, I never really bought the marriage makes men earn more theory. If that was the case, marriage rates would be increasing just for the personal economic boost alone, not stagnant or declining.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Very chicken and egg phenomenon for sure when it comes to married men earning more. Especially married men with children. I have a much higher earnings potential based on education, without children I have felt free to take a path with less income and more free time.

[–]truedemocracy3Such An Asshole!4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Being a high earner is also correlated with intelligence, personality, often altruism, etc. all make a guy a better marriage material

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That makes sense.

So... even more proof of hypergamy and women nature? Nice.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting. Anyone have a link to the actual PDF?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am not surprised in the least. Most of those stats about the so-called "benefits of marriage" rely on faulty data and biased studies.

The claim that marriage makes you happier is also bogus, for example, and the majority of studies into this had to exclude divorced couples to come to that conclusion, and even then it doesn't actually hold up to analysis.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same with the married men are healthy stat, women just marry healthier men.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Something tells me that eventually bloops should be branched away into their very own corner of the academia.

[–]SlimLovinHigh Value to Own the Libs2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That already exists. It's called "Academia."

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, and it's sad.

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably want more data before I actually say anything, since I could see both things affecting the wages of men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Married men especially with child are more likely to work hard to support the family?

[–]25russianbear257 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You got this backwards. You need to get married to have a family. You need to be well off financially to find a woman.

[–]TedescheMRA[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My understanding of the wording in the abstract is that that is not the case. What they found through statistical analysis was that being married did not cause men's income to increase, but rather women were actively selecting for men with salaries that were likely to increase, regardless of being married.

[–]TwentyX40 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. I've seen statistics on how the birth of a child affects men's and women's wages. The study showed that women tend to see a flattening of wages when they have a child (probably by reducing work hours or being less available). They compared this to men's wages, which showed no decline after the child was born (edit: showed the same increase with or without children). The data was used to show that women's earnings show a decline (a "cost" of having children), but it also inadvertently shows that men don't earn more when a child comes along.

Look at the chart below the text "Earnings of Danish men, before and after having children" which compares men with and without children.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/upshot/even-in-family-friendly-scandinavia-mothers-are-paid-less.html

This shows that your hypothesis probably isn't what's going on.

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So we really needed a study in the end to confirm what we already knew...

That hypergarmy makes the game not worth it, and males playing it are total idiots.

I am ashamed of my peers. Males are really the weaker sex.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yet men still propose 95% of the time. If this bothers you, stop proposing and stay single. It’s never been easier or more socially acceptable to do so.

[–]TedescheMRA[S] 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don’t really understand what that has to do with the study’s finding. It’s not about who’s proposing, it’s just debunking a particular claim about how marriage benefits men economically, and noting that the effect is really the result of women preferring rich men to poor men. The finding doesn’t imply that men shouldn’t propose, it implies that men should focus on making lots of money if they want to increase their SMV.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If the “blame” for married men making more money than single men is on women for selecting richer men they want to marry in the dating market, then men can put a stop to that by not proposing to and marrying women.

Another attempt to boil everything down to big bad hypergamy while 1) giving a dick pass to men for their role in perpetuating the problem and 2) shaming women for having preferences. You didn’t out right say it but you knew that was what was coming in the comments.

[–]TedescheMRA[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If the “blame” for married men making more money than single men is on women for selecting richer men they want to marry in the dating market

But it isn’t. That’s what the study is saying, that marriage doesn’t increase men’s wealth. Those high-earning men would still be high-earning if they weren’t married.

Another attempt to boil everything down to big bad hypergamy while 1) giving a dick pass to men for their role in perpetuating the problem and 2) shaming women for having preferences. You didn’t out right say it but you knew that was what was coming in the comments.

LOL, you clearly see me as having a dog in this BP vs. RP thing. I don’t. That’s why my flair is “MRA,” rather than one of the pills. I made this post, because I do think it supports RP thinking and debunks a BP belief, but I don’t particularly care.

And what problem are you talking about? The fact that women select for high-earners, which pressures men to make more money if they want to attract more women? Well, yeah, women contribute to that most directly by selecting for rich men, but the fact that women like being financially dependent on men in some ways is a cultural norm that everyone contributes to. And men definitely contribute to it by lavishing women with gifts.

Stop projecting.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes I know — your OP is saying that richer men are selected in the dating market by women far more often and are more likely to get married and that’s why married men statistically make more.

Those high-earning men would still be high-earning if they weren’t married.

That’s not at odds with your OP not is what I was saying and you know it.

LOL, you clearly see me as having a dog in this BP vs. RP thing.

No you have a motivation to blame everything on women and feminism because you’re an MRA. TRPs and MRAs happen to agree on this point, which is that women are hypergamous.

BP belief

That women don’t generally prefer a richer man to a poorer man? Who denies that? What people are saying is that it isn’t always a matter of going after the money (unless she’s truly a gold digger) and that all things are never equal.

Stop projecting.

Stop posting threads and being disingenuous about your intent when called on it.

[–]TedescheMRA[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No you have a motivation to blame everything on women and feminism because you’re an MRA. TRPs and MRAs happen to agree on this point, which is that women are hypergamous.

I’m an anti-feminist, and thus very critical of feminism, yes, but I’m not one of those MRAs that thinks it’s 100% evil and misandrist—far from it. And MRAs aren’t anti-women, that’s just you buying into feminist propaganda.

As for hypergamy, I don’t really think about it enough to have an opinion on it.

That women don’t generally prefer a richer man to a poorer man? Who denies that? What people are saying is that it isn’t always a matter of going after the money (unless she’s truly a gold digger) and that all things are never equal.

No, the BP belief I was referring to was that marriage is good for men, because it makes them richer. That’s the belief the study was debunking.

Stop posting threads and being disingenuous about your intent when called on it.

LOL, as I said to a RPer in a different thread, I’m neither RP nor BP, and I don’t have a dog in that fight. I posted this because I thought I was an interesting finding that the community might like to discuss. That you’re so committed to thinking I’m lying, and am sitting here cackling at how this is another notch on the board for RP is your issue, not mine.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter