How Conservatives Are Winning Young Women

Post Reply New Topic

The article was originally printed in the New York Times.

Meanwhile high society sent their daughters to university primarily so they could find educated, high society husbands.

An entertaining movie, somewhat relevant to the topic at hand is Westward the Women (1951)--about a group of women traveling via wagon train from Chicago to somewhere out west to marry men they never met. I think that it was fairly common, back in the day. I guess the ladies didn't have any better options in Chicago.

Nowadays, I think that it is primarily Islamic countries that discourage women from pursuing education. Elsewhere, women are basically beating the pants off of men, academically and professionally.

It's not just older folk, on podcasts it's terribly amusing seeing young single men on manosphere platforms talking about finding a woman who will not work as a gem or keeper. At least in Melbourne (a city with one of the highest cost of living in the world) a single income household will guarantee a life of struggle. No sane person here would choose to live this way anymore.

It sure seems like conservatives are only winning a small fraction of young women, they're mostly losing them.

It just occurred to me that there are probably more women than men who would be able to support a non-working spouse.

The old sitcom All in the Family featured a patriarch, Archie Bunker, who was able to support his nuclear family on his longshoreman's salary. The stay-at-home wife used to be the standard.

Women used to be programmed to pursue hypergamy--perhaps there is still an element of that in the female makeup.

Now, there aren't that many men who have higher incomes than women. I haven't heard a whole lot about hypergamous men. I haven't heard anything, actually. Dreaming of having a wife who works hard all day, and receiving food, shelter and support in exchange for sexual favors.

Maybe being a househusband wouldn't be so bad--just play video games and watch porn all day while the wife is away at work.

The problem with house-husbands is that they don't know how to maintain a household, so they are pretty much useless. I remember when women tried that, hooking up with men when they earned more, but the men didn't make themselves useful enough for the relationship to continue.

there is a minefield you've setup in these points that if one attempts to engage there's a good chance they will trip a switch.

Actually depends, men often have to cover for their partners due to circumstances around childcare/childminding and women being forced to go back to work once they have used up paid/unpaid maternity leave. In the cases I've known
"Mr Mom" does a reasonably decent job.

An interesting observation was the 6.7 per cent increase in the number of babies born in Australia in 2021 from the previous year due to work from home provisions meaning women could now draw a salary while being housebound.

Bit of an overgeneralization, it seems to me. "House husbands" vary, both in how competent they are and how motivated they are. What you say above is likely true in many but not all cases.