Taylor Swift shows us love in the 21st century

Summary: We spend too much time seeing the world as abstractions. As polls, statistics, satellite photos, arrows on maps — dry and lifeless data. Here we also show culture in motion by our popular art. It gives us a living mirror to see who we are in real time. Today Taylor Swift explains how women deal with men in the new world of the 21st century. She speaks to her peers, which has made her one of the top singers of her generation. This is another in a series exploring this new world.

Taylor Swift

“Cause darling I’m a nightmare dressed like a daydream.” {From “Blank Space”.}

Contents

  1. Beta males: use ’em and dump ’em.
  2. Alpha males: bad but fun.
  3. The game is fun but doesn’t work.
  4. For More Information.

(1)  Beta males: use ’em and dump ’em

Taylor Swift gives us a brutally honest account of beta male’s role in the new gender economy, providing high status women with ego boosting light entertainment. Betas are the warm-up act before the real action. AKA, they’re exploitable fools, wining and dining a girl while she waits for a booty call. Here we see why “hook ups” replace dating, and the genesis of the blowback known as game.

“The Way I Loved You” (From Fearless, 2008).

He is sensible and so incredible
And all my single friends are jealous
He says everything I need to hear and it’s like
I couldn’t ask for anything better
He opens up my door and I get into his car
And he says you look beautiful tonight
And I feel perfectly fine

But I miss screaming and fighting and kissing in the rain
And it’s 2am and I’m cursing your name
You’re so in love that you act insane
And that’s the way I loved you
Breakin’ down and coming undone
It’s a roller coaster kinda rush
And I never knew I could feel that much
And that’s the way I loved you

He respects my space
And never makes me wait
And he calls exactly when he says he will
He’s close to my mother
Talks business with my father
He’s charming and endearing
And I’m comfortable

He can’t see the smile I’m faking
And my heart’s not breaking
Cause I’m not feeling anything at all
And you were wild and crazy
Just so frustrating intoxicating
Complicated, got away by some mistake and now

And that’s the way I loved you oh, oh
Never knew I could feel that much
And that’s the way I loved you

(2)  Alpha males: bad but fun

Taylor Swift provides a remarkably candid account of lower class life in 21st century America, locked into patterns that provide emotional highs but no foundation for the nuclear family.

“I Knew You Were Trouble” (From Red, 2012).

Once upon a time a few mistakes ago
I was in your sights, you got me alone
You found me, you found me, you found me
I guess you didn’t care, and I guess I liked that
And when I fell hard you took a step back
Without me, without me, without me

And she’s long gone when she’s next to me
And I realize the blame is on me

‘Cause I knew you were trouble when you walked in
So shame on me now
Flew me to places I’d never been
‘Til you put me down, oh
I knew you were trouble when you walked in
So shame on me now
Flew me to places I’d never been
Now I’m lying on the cold hard ground
Oh, oh, trouble, trouble, trouble
Oh, oh, trouble, trouble, trouble

No apologies. She’ll never see you cry,
Pretends she doesn’t know that she’s the reason why.
You’re drowning, you’re drowning, you’re drowning.
Now I heard you moved on from whispers on the street
A new notch in your belt is all I’ll ever be
And now I see, now I see, now I see

She was long gone when he met me
And I realize the joke is on me, yeah!

When the saddest fear comes creeping in
That you never loved me or him, or anyone, or anything, yeah

Swift recorded several songs with this message. Another is “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” (2012). See the lyrics and the music video.

(3)  The game is fun but doesn’t work well

Taylor Swift shows us dynamics of the next generation’s gender relations, as the increasing number of higher income women date poorer alpha men. Biologically programmed for hypergamy (seeking high status men), what will they select for when there are relatively few high income men (in a society with far more educated women and high levels of inequality)? Swift suggests they’ll select for alphaness. The type of men colloquially known as “dicks” and “assholes”.

These will usually be stormy and transitory relationships. We’ll see the households of economically self-supporting mothers with serial partners, a unpleasant environment for her children (especially for her daughters, who will have a high rate of sexual abuse). Like so many forms of destructive social trends, liberals applaud. See “Just Say No. For white working-class women, it makes sense to stay single mothers” in Slate.

As we see today, stable marriages will remain common in the upper classes, a class-based analog to associative mating. It’s already happening, and a major driver of income inequality. To see this explained in art: Beckett shows our future. She chooses wisely & marries Castle, but dreams at night of her alpha ex-boyfriend.

“Blank Space” (From 1989, 2014).

Nice to meet you, where you been?
I could show you incredible things
Magic, madness, heaven, sin
Saw you there and I thought
Oh my God, look at that face
You look like my next mistake
Love’s a game, wanna play?

New money, suit and tie
I can read you like a magazine
Ain’t it funny, rumors fly
And I know you heard about me
So hey, let’s be friends
I’m dying to see how this one ends
Grab your passport and my hand
I can make the bad guys good for a weekend

So it’s gonna be forever
Or it’s gonna go down in flames
You can tell me when it’s over
If the high was worth the pain
Got a long list of ex-lovers
They’ll tell you I’m insane
‘Cause you know I love the players
And you love the game

‘Cause we’re young and we’re reckless
We’ll take this way too far
It’ll leave you breathless
Or with a nasty scar
Got a long list of ex-lovers
They’ll tell you I’m insane
But I’ve got a blank space, baby
And I’ll write your name

Cherry lips, crystal skies
I could show you incredible things
Stolen kisses, pretty lies
You’re the King, baby, I’m your Queen
Find out what you want
Be that girl for a month
Wait, the worst is yet to come, oh no

Screaming, crying, perfect storms
I can make all the tables turn
Rose garden filled with thorns
Keep you second guessing like
“Oh my God, who is she?”
I get drunk on jealousy
But you’ll come back each time you leave
‘Cause, darling, I’m a nightmare dressed like a daydream

Boys only want love if it’s torture
Don’t say I didn’t say, I didn’t warn ya
Boys only want love if it’s torture
Don’t say I didn’t say, I didn’t warn ya

Gender Roles

For More Information

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender issues, especially these about our new world of romance (section 2). Watch the TV show “Castle” for a clear vision of our future.

  1. Spoilers for “Castle”: explaining the finale & season 7. It’s a metaphor for America.
  2. The TV show “Castle” challenges us to see our changing values. Most fans decline, horrified.
  3. “Castle” shows us marriage in America, a fault line between our past & future.
  4. “Castle” shows us a dark vision of Romance in America.
  5. “Castle” helps us adjust to a new America, with women on top.
  6. Beckett shows our future. She chooses wisely & marries Castle, but dreams at night of her alpha ex-boyfriend.
Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Taylor Swift shows us love in the 21st century

  1. epagbreton

    Another in the Series, good examples from Taylor’s musical library. Clear to see if you missed it before. And the first one is from 2008….a very long time ago. Ha. And it started in its current form in maybe the early 70’s. Plus Germain Greer did not “invent” this trend, just this time. This trend in the world of women is so deeply embedded now, so ubiquitous at so many levels in their world, that it will go on for a very longtime.

    One commenter in a prior post offered that we will need millions of beds in Psychiatric Hospitals to house so many lost women. Social consequences are already profound. The Self focus, self promotion among women to each other…self….is deeply assumed as the Way.The antithesis of relationship and mutual support and caring is eroding of social cohesion, by definition.
    Women after their early thirties are showing residual confusion but also stubbornness in the face of the world they have engineered. Wherever you go, there you are.

    Good one about this subject, fine unarguable examples from pop culture, FM.

    Thx

    Breton

    Like

    Reply
    1. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      epagbreton,

      For an advanced course in these things I recommend reading Chateau Heartiste. Like much Street wisdom in America it is sexist, racist, ethno-centric, etc (e.g., see early writings by union activists). The guy writing it agrees with you (wisely remaining anonymous, as his content makes my occasional wildly controversial content look like the cover of Readers Digest).

      A wonderful but lost bit of supporting evidence is the work of a feminist columnist for Playboy during the late 1970s or early 1980s (I can recall or find the name). Her writings shows what’s known today on the street as the “woman’s hamster” running at warp speed. Much as Marx said that the internal contradictions of capitalism would bring it down, similar dynamics of feminism might have ill effects on its believers (men and womyn both).

      Like

  2. Interesting Times

    I would like to point out that the first beta chump girls learn to exploit, is their dad. It is sad, and not politically correct, but it is that way. Being the dad of an adolescent girl nowadays is to be their beta male training punching bag, They will use any resource to exploit you better, even their sexual appeal. (yes, you read right). So. in part, dads are helping create these kind of “women”.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      Interesting,

      Speaking as a dad (of 2 boys), raising a girl these days must be difficult. Much research shows that girls do better when raised by strong involved Dads, but our culture makes that quite difficult. Countless TV shows and commercials show the Dad as buffoon, received instruction in life from his wise Wife and superior Daughter. More broadly, there is little basis in our culture for Dad to manage their daughters once they’ve had their menarche.

      Fifteen years as a Boy Scout leader gave me a hint of the stress on Dads of girls. I’ve heard countless Dads talk about their daughters. Consistently overwhelmingly their pride shines out most strongly when they say their girl acts like a boy. Does boy things, acts like a boy, sounds like a boy, outperforms boys. When I think about it, I wonder how much stress this puts on the girls…

      Another snippet from the front lines. Girl Scouts — and Girl Scout leaders — are often seen as superior by adults in Boy Scouts. One excellent Scouter (an impressive man by any standards) was discussing his daughter’s troop leader and mentioned (apropos of nothing) that she “could kick my ass.”). I replied that I had been in many fights, usually had my ass kicked (fighting bigger boys), and once smashed a guys teeth out with a crowbar (my last fight) — none of which I was proud of, and considered “kicking ass” a negative behavior in civil society. Actually I said none of that, but smiled deferentially before someone repeating our cultural wisdom.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. epagbreton

    Ha….”….actually I said none of that…”

    Can certainly admit to such also. Lately, though, I am far less deferential to almost anyone, In such open discussions. Age in my view gives me that permission!

    Breton

    Like

    Reply
    1. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      Breton,

      I said none of that because I was in charge. They key thing I learned (slowly, by painful trial and error) is to shut up. Saying less is in fact more. Example and setting rules is 99% of leadership. My son — a Scout during most of my time as the leader of the troops, said that “instilling fear” was the remaining 1% of my formula. I disagree, of course.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Interesting Times

    Breton, It does in deed depend also on the orientation of the mother, but here is another thing, just as the manipulation power of the mother fades the manipulation power of the daughter begins its prime. Mothers know this and will promote, encourage and celebrate their daughters ability to manipulate their father. It allows the mother to conduct manipulation by proxy, while vicariusly enjoying her lost manipulation powers.

    While mother and daughters dont usually have very good relationships, this is a common ground in which they usually cooperate and agree on, the exploitation and manipulation of Dad.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      Interesting,

      I disagree with this 100%. For a more useful perspective I suggest this from Shaw’s Man and Superman (1903):

      I know perfectly well that all this about her {Ann} being a liar and a bully and a coquette and so forth is a trumped-up moral indictment which might be brought against anybody. We all lie; we all bully as much as we dare; we all bid for admiration without the least intention of earning it; we all get as much rent as we can out of our powers of fascination.

      If Ann would admit this I shouldn’t quarrel with her. But she wont’. If she has children she’ll take advantage of their telling lies to amuse herself by whacking them. If another woman makes eyes at me, she’ll refuse to know a coquette. She will do just what she likes herself whilst insisting on everybody else doing what the conventional code prescribes.

      In short, I can stand everything except her confounded hypocrisy. That’s what beats me.

      Like

  5. Interesting Times

    FM, What I said and what you quote are not mutally exclusive, especially when we are talking about beings with a characteristic duality in their interpersonal relations, emotional and mental states, namely, women.

    At the same time that -as her manipulation powers fade- a mother encourages and celebrates her daughter’s ability to manipulate Dad, using her as a by proxy manipulator and vicariously enjoying her daughter’s power. At the same time she does that, she will also envy her daughter for the very same reasons, because she stole the thunder from her, resent her for having what she once had, youth and Dad’s attention. As she begins to date boys serially, she will celebrate the empowerment of her daughter and she will also call her a slut for it, she will envy the party years of her daughter while at the same time shaming her for it.

    In deed, a very confounded hypocrisy.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Interesting Times

    Coming full circle… “Much as Marx said that the internal contradictions of capitalism would bring it down, similar dynamics of feminism might have ill effects on its believers (men and womyn both).”

    If Im allowed to be colloquial F**king with feminism has a lot to do with counterinsurgency, playing on the internal demons, dualities and contradictions inside women’s minds, with the nuance that it is a counterinsurgency in relative estrategic disadvantage. Counterinsurgencies usually have strategic advantage.

    This is the reason why the Men’s Liberation Open Source CounterInsurgency is so effective, its a counterinsurgency placed in strategic disadvantage, forced to employ tactical advantages, its a counterinsurgency that actually surmount the insurgency in 4gw Innovation works this way.

    Like

    Reply
    1. EdwardN

      Ok I don’t read FM much but this is the second really good article that I’ve read on FM today and “Thomas More” has taken the time to post to discredit and dismiss both articles.

      Thomas, I do not respect your intellect. I think that you are young and that literally your brain has not developed politically. There are connections that you are clearly not making, which the rest of us are taking for granted. I don’t want to dissuade you from reading and posting but you are wrong.

      For instance, in your comment you state that FM wasted his time analyzing Taylor Swift because the Spice Girls are no longer popular, and therefore T. Swift will someday be equally irrelevant. Somehow you have forgotten that today matters; the values and political messages that are being broadcast to millions of ears every day have an effect on us all.

      Your posts on “the dark triad” revealed quite a lot about you: young, sometimes depressed, desperate for others to see you as intelligent. Yet your writing is unoriginal and dumb, such as when you state “I stopped reading at____” (the suggestion here is that you’re so smart you had the whole article sussed right then and there…) but then you quote lines from paragraphs later in the piece. Is it possible for you to not use tropes? Is it impossible for you to be honest?

      I don’t want this to turn into a whole THING but let’s analyze you psychologically for a moment. You claim that you studied the game for 2 years without any success. You then ask “how many men are actually going to approach a woman on the street and just start talking to her”? BINGO. I think we’ve figured out what’s holding you back intellectually, socially, and morally, you’re AFRAID. I read the game and some of the other books I stopped using them because they work TOO well. But only if you actually do what they say to do: get over your fears and start talking to women, and use the tools that were given to you in those books. That means opener, creating value, kino, creating emotions, intimacy, and finally sex. You said that you went out 5-6 nights a week for 2 years and had no success. You also said that you don’t believe many men have what it takes to approach a strange girl. Well this is creating cognitive dissonance because either a) you practiced the game and you proved to yourself that anyone CAN approach a woman or b) you were too scared and your failure, combined with your ego, has convinced you that no one can do it.

      Let’s bring this full circle to this post about Taylor Swift. Because YOU fail to see the connection between Swift’s work and the bigger picture, you have convinced yourself that there is no picture. Your intellectual failure was in asserting that this article was a waste of time without realizing that the authors are probably smarter than you, and since they didn’t deem it to be a waste of time there must be some aspect that you aren’t comprehending.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      Edward,

      While I appreciate your support, please don’t discuss other people in personal terms. It’s easy to do, most of us have been guilty of this at some point, but it’s still a bad thing. Reading comments doesn’t tell us much about the people writing them. So let’s stay focused on people say, not guessing at what they are.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. K.A.

      I afraid I am going to have to agree with Mr. on this one. If searing the “stars” for poetic or lyrical inspiration that has a purpose beyond getting one’s name in lights; I would be more likely to go with someone like Ellie Goulding who writes her own lyrics.
      As far as the rest of the post; I think its mostly inaccurate in its analysis of the mating rituals among homo “sapiens”. As I have stated before much of our mate matching tendencies are biologically driven and especially in younger people highly irrational. Just more unfortunate evidence that we are more like of designer hybrid monkeys then sentient beings.
      But…it’s always fun to vent about the opposite sex; so to you Mr. Maximus I will wish the best of luck in securing a female who doesn’t reduce you to posting Taylor Swift tear jerkers on your site.

      Like

    4. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      KA,

      First, centuries of western scholarship disagrees with you.

      Second, like Thomas you totally missed the point of the post (actually you give no evidence of having read it). The significance comes not from the purpose by which the star acts, but that millions find it of interest. That’s how we know it reflects something within the audience.

      Third, belief that all the vast range of relations between the sexes — varying so greatly over time and across the world — can be reduced to “biological driven” factors is too silly to discuss.

      Liked by 1 person

    5. K.A.

      Perhaps silly but scientifically proven in both neural and psychological studies. There are a great number of them out there I will try to locate some of the more recent and post links.
      As far as the public taking the lyrics seriously…of course they do anything that’s published is true it is the age we have entered. I owe it to years of lying on behalf of what were once reputable news agencies. If you can’t believe anything…what the hell just let everything influence you. At some point your bound to get it right.

      Like

    6. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      KA,

      “I will try to locate some of the more recent and post links.”

      Please don’t; you again miss my point. I refer not to the commonality of human behavior I refer to, but to the wide range of variation — which can obviously not be biologically based.

      “As far as the public taking the lyrics seriously…of course they do anything that’s published ”

      False. Only a tiny fraction of what’s published sells in the millions, even from the large firms. Most sell only small numbers.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Global Guerrillas

    “While I appreciate your support, please don’t discuss other people in personal terms. It’s easy to do, most of us have been guilty of this at some point, but it’s still a bad thing. ”

    I disagree 100%. The impersonality of modern life conspires against honesty, making things personal has a bad reputation but we are all persons, naturally it follows that we address each other personally, at least in some proportion, and on certain occasions.

    We are told that the professional thing to do is to take things impersonally, but the very last post was talking about considering the sources of news, this would be the equivalent of that, instead of looking at which news agency said what, looking at the person saying something.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      Global G,

      While I agree in theory, I’ve run the FM website for 8 years — and 38 thousand comments. I’ve tried several different modes of these, exploring different ways to manage them. I’ve found a formula that works moderately well, which requires strict limits on personal invective. It limits the food fights.

      For more about this see the page About Comments.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Global Guerrillas

    “Breton, It does in deed depend also on the orientation of the mother, but here is another thing, just as the manipulation power of the mother fades the manipulation power of the daughter begins its prime. Mothers know this and will promote, encourage and celebrate their daughters ability to manipulate their father. It allows the mother to conduct manipulation by proxy, while vicariusly enjoying her lost manipulation powers.

    While mother and daughters dont usually have very good relationships, this is a common ground in which they usually cooperate and agree on, the exploitation and manipulation of Dad.”

    JFC
    “Godmdamn, well I declare:
    Have you seen the like?”
    ?

    Like

    Reply
  9. epagbreton

    I see this Discussion keeps going on….it’s fun, to finally start to awaken and start to gain some semblance of meaning out of some seriously weird events overtime. And that’s what wisdom entails.

    “What did your ex say after he left you? Well, he only kept telling me he felt like a Paycheck most of the time and me and the girls never showed him he was essential. I guess thats why he took that young chick and they now have two little babies. I got maintenance for five years and the girls until they were twenty-one….that lasted all of five years total. Then my VP of HR job….well, they sold the Company, as you know.”

    “I got this new Mini Cooper, orange and black. My husband says it’s perfect cause all I’ll attract are gay guys. You know my son and I will drive all over and then go back to London in July without him as he has to work. Yes, I really couldn’t live like this without the paycheck…..and have for 29 yrs. He has fun with his friends and they go to old heavy metal concerts. I just hope he does not stop taking his meds….he’s insufferable when he stops even for a few days.”

    “Well my divorce attorneys resigned….I’m a few months behind and at $25,000.00 per month it adds up. Plus you know my maintenance to Becky is $10,000.00 per month (she signs the check over to her attorneys each month!). My new guy wants a retainer for $25k as mediation and Court are in mid June. Maybe her Attorneys will pressure her to settle when they find out I’m cashed out?! As you know sales of new homes have started to crater again…..my God has she aged and she’s only 38!”

    Why do they call this Game? Ha. When men have now started to go their own way….MGTOW. Oh my goodness. Look out.

    Breton

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Editor of the Fabius Maximus website Post author

      Breton,

      “When men have now started to go their own way”

      This is the big issue. Much ink has been spilled about women not needing men. That’s true, except in the sense of supporting the children — both as a parent and paycheck. Most of the feminist literature has been written either by single women or upper class women (who often have sufficient income to not only support their family but also pay for assistance in maintaining the home and children). But for the majority of women being a single mom without child support is difficult (these are among the hardest working people in America).

      What has gone largely unnoticed is that with the easy availability of sex men don’t need women as long-term partners. And under our laws having children is a dangerous commitment, with high odds she will take the kids and leave — with the courts and IRS ruthlessly enforcing the child support order. What happens when men opt out?

      Attempting to shame them — “peter pan syndrome” — is ineffectual (as much as calling climate skeptics “deniers”). Stick and stones… This might be the first wave of a social revolution as large as feminism, and with equally unknown consequences.

      Like

  10. epagbreton

    You’re Last sentence is certainly of some relevant consideration. And the preceding paragraphs set the frame, as they say, quite well.

    Going their Own Way is a trend, an antidote and is a response of some wisdom in a power relationship such as contemporary male and female things have devolved into.

    Good “reply” FM.

    Breton

    Like

    Reply
  11. Illimitable Men

    Assortative Mating – why women should make less than men, at least if you disdain high rates of poverty and rising wealth inequality.

    by Dark triad expert: – http://illimitablemen.com/

    Women in high paid careers or professions promote wealth inequality at the societal level. She will never be expected to provide for a family (an adult and a child) like a man would. You can make many claims about women being breadwinners (typically single mother households where a man does not economically benefit from a woman’s labour or expertise) but the tendency remains that women do not value men who are less successful than them. Successful pairings tend to occur when the woman earns less than her partner. High-earning women = bad for the nuclear family (mother and father stay together with 2.1 kids) on a macro (societal) scale.

    Say in a hypothetical dystopic future that women had 80% of high earning jobs and men only had 20% (sadly somewhat plausible in a future dominated by a service economy where there are more females in higher education than men.) 20% of those high earning women would marry all the high earning men. The women left would either stay single, spending their money on themselves and not spread wealth by marrying down, or they would have a short, failing relationship with a low earning man. In that instance, the low earning man is middle class for a few years (in terms of wealth rather than profession,) before he is demoted back to the working class. In a long marriage where the male is breadwinner, the financially dependent partner (the woman) does not lose their social mobility as easily, as the marriage is more likely to last the long haul (because the man is of higher status, and her lower status is not a stressor on the marriage’s chance of success.)

    Rising social inequality (definition: rising gap in wealth between households) is due to well-educated high earning women marrying exclusively well-educated high earning men. This phenomenon is called assortative mating.

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/27022014-us-inequality-due-assortative-marriages-analysis/

    http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595972-how-sexual-equality-increases-gap-between-rich-and-poor-households-sex-brains-and

    Effectively, the false conclusion many draw is that women earning more = higher social equality (that the wealth gap between rich and poor is reduced.) But in fact, it has lead to the opposite, an increase in the overall wealth gap between households. Middle class households make less, working class households make less, and upper class households make more than ever. Now without accounting for how doubling the labour force in low skilled roles and service roles effectively drove down wages in a multitude of industries, I contend that independent of this, this is explained rather simply by women’s dating/attraction preferences.

    The hypergamous axiomatic generalisation:

    A man with a yearly income of £100,000 can be easily attracted to a pretty woman who earns £10,000 a year. He marries her, and effectively, he elevates her to the upper middle class.

    Marriage has long been a form of social mobility for women. A woman with a yearly income of £100,000 will not find (bar anomalous exceptions) a man who earns £10,000 a year very attractive. He appears lower status, he cannot “keep up with” the type of expenses/circles/culture she entertains, and thus she shuns him.

    She will not marry him because she finds a lack of status unattractive, therefore she will not spread wealth (exception: the starving artist cliche – assume some rich girl reads my blog, loves it, sends me a marriage proposal, and that I’m a bum writing in scruffy clothes hijacking wifi in a noisy starbucks.)

    Exception aside, and representative generalisation asserted: she will look to marry the gentleman earlier described as earning £100,000, a man who otherwise could have married the lady who earned £10,000. So as you can see there is a compounding effect in play. You have two high wage earners staying together, the high-earning woman has a job a man otherwise would occupy (which would allow said man to provide for a low-earning woman,) and said high-earning woman is married to a high-earning man who otherwise would have redistributed wealth by marrying a low earning woman.

    So effectively, whenever two high-earners mate with each other, two low-earners are deprived a potential mate that would have collectively made them middle class. If those two low-earners now get together, you at best, have a upper working class/lower middle class household (eg: dad is a bus driver, mother is a secretary in a hotel.) Yes, the middle class was formed on the back of a one high-earner/one low-earner (housekeeper) household. The middle class is disappearing along with the nuclear family (too many singles and dual low earner households,) due to female education. Naturally, on something of a tangent, birth rates have suffered too (it’s a wide, colourful picture.)

    Women earning more correlates with an increased gap in household wealth, this is to say, richer households are richer and poorer households are poor. Cause is not correlation, but let’s say the cause and correlation are sharing a significant, but perhaps not sole causative relationship. This would indicate that women who earn a lot do not as evenly redistribute their disproportionately high incomes through mate pairing as men do.

    To condense the point further:

    – Pre-feminism you had a high-earner and a low-earner, women marrying up, men marrying down. This created the middle class.

    – Post-feminism you have this to a lesser degree of frequency, but you also have many high earning career women who will only marry high earning men (they don’t marry down, much.) You also have more low earning men marrying low earning women. The remainder of women won’t pair with the remaining men because those men don’t make enough. One could argue that a reasonable number are pushed out of university places by affirmative action policies, and subsequently, job positions. This does not even take into consideration the outsourcing of manufacturing to developing nations, robbing less intelligent men of a learnable skill to make a living wage from. The drop in manufacturing however is a factor somewhat redundant in describing the phenomenon for what it is. Accounting for said redundancy, you will find this: women date up or across, men date down or across.

    Conclusion #1: Men need money to be deemed eligible to start a family, women do not. Gym pretty boy game will get you laid in youth, but if you ever want to start your own family, to be a patriarch, you’re at best, going to raise kids in poverty.

    Conclusion #2: Women look for a provider regardless of their own income, men do not. So giving women lots of income reduces the likelihood they will find what they deem an eligible partner to start a family with.

    Conclusion #3: Highly educated men are better vehicles for wealth redistribution (as they will marry poor women who are pretty enough) whereas highly educated women are good for wealth consolidation (as they will only marry those equally or more wealthy.)

    Like

    Reply
  12. Alfred Woenselaer

    Reblogged this on Alfa NL and commented: “On point. I’d add there is also a sense of self-delusion among millenial women Taylor embodies.”

    “… go on too many dates, but I can’t make them stay
    At least that’s what people say, that’s what people say
    I shake it off, I shake it off.”

    Women are expected to enjoy independence which is what Taylor tries to portray, but it is plain as daylight that she worries about all these sexy men pumping and dumping her.

    Beyonce shows similar self-delusion in the intro of “Hold Up”, where she talks for 90 seconds about levitation, the devil, the bible, finding her soul and whatnot before finally coming to the only point she really cares about: ‘is he cheating on me?’ The rest of the video she supposedly hands out Woman’s Righteous Fury, but really she is just acting like a messed-up child.

    The song itself is good. The dress is horrible.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  13. Pingback: But I should be enjoying this! | Alfa NL

Leave a comment & share your thoughts...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s