Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Pick a Mate (1946)

gutenberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 155 posts

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#81

Post by matheusmoreira »

Veraticus wrote: post #43
judge2020 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, given the author says this: > A basic argument for marriage is that it offers a logical division of labor. Imagine how much more complicated and inconvenient life would be if men had to do their own cooking and sewing, and women—all women—had to compete with men for a livelihood! Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages.

This is a weird way to frame women working.

Nothing weird about it. Women are 51% of the population. Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#82

Post by charles_f »

aaronscott wrote: post #16

I was curious for a summary of what the book suggested. Here is Kagi’s summarizer: - Emotional maturity and stability are key traits for a happy marriage. People who are well-adjusted, have good self-confidence, and can handle problems well tend to have more successful marriages. - Communication and companionship are vital for a happy marriage. Couples need to develop a strong bond through sharing interests, aspirati…

Thanks, that's very helpful.

Any indication per whether this is data based or just "common sense driven"?

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#83

Post by Veraticus »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #81
Veraticus wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird way to frame women working.

Nothing weird about it. Women are 51% of the population. Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation.

Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men is indeed a pretty weird framing in my opinion.

> Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation.

It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women who could even enter into those negotiations, whereas before those doors were entirely closed to them.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#84

Post by FredPret »

medvezhenok wrote: post #70
FredPret wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, in real terms, everyone is now vastly better off than in 1946?

Everyone is likely better off, but not everyone is vastly better off. Some people are likely a bit better off economically but way worse off socially (since the dating market is much more "efficient" and competitive than it was in 1946, which will be a win for some, and a major loss for others). And some people's/professions economic potential peaked in the early 1970s (truckers, for example, and some other blue coll…

Comments like these used to infuriate me. How can you look at the massive wave of prosperity that has been hitting humanity since the Industrial Revolution and complain?

But now I realize that the infinite human capacity to find fault even with paradise is key to the infinite human capacity for growth and new solutions.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#85

Post by Jeff_Brown »

RedShift1 wrote: post #48
Jeff_Brown wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search does come first. Someone would be happy to have you, I'm almost sure. And if not, well, you know what to work on. I thought I was unworthy for a long time, and basically invested in myself until my 40s. Then when I started looking in earnest, I got married scary fast.

Where do you look? Inside my friend circle there's nobody (all married or in a relationship), Tinder is a bust (I don't even remember when my last match was). I used to attend some Linux clubs but even if they are available they are so defensive about a man coming over to chat that the best thing I can muster is saying how good the cola is... Nobody at workplace either...

I used Tinder in Colombia. (I'm from the US, but I live here now -- to which fact my wife surely deserves some credit.)

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#86

Post by wnolens »

Veraticus wrote: post #79
jjkeddo199 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real sexism against women is the failure to treat motherhood as less valuable/noble than a 9/5 office career. Motherhood, collectively, is the most important job in the world.

Isn't the real sexism against women still ... sexism? If a woman wants to be a mother or wants a successful career, that's the most valuable/noble job in the world to that woman.

Motherhood (and fatherhood) seems way more noble to me than optimizing ad-spend or whatever the hell half of us here do (either directly or indirectly).

But no one is making a modern Western woman do anything.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#88

Post by matheusmoreira »

Veraticus wrote: post #83
matheusmoreira wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing weird about it. Women are 51% of the population. Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation.

Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men is indeed a pretty weird framing in my opinion. > Doubling the number of job applicants didn't do anybody any favors during salary negotiation. It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women who could even enter into those negotiations, whereas before those doors were entirely closed to them.

> Framing women's ability to work as being bad for men

I framed it as bad for everyone because it essentially doubled the number of workers looking for jobs. Simple economics.

> It seems like it might have done a few favors to the women

They're certainly a lot more independent now but my point is it did not come without cost. Nowadays both husband and wife have to work to maintain a good standard of living.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#89

Post by judge2020 »

Veraticus wrote: post #65
judge2020 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a quote from chapter one of the linked book. Not my words.

> Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages. That is your words and is a weird way to frame women working.

In the context of

> But treats it like a game all the same, and treats women like pawns in that game.

I point out that the author sees a positive of mating as how the woman is a "pawn" to do things like cook and sew for you.

My words are only to show that "despite" this being an advantage in '46, women have since entered the workforce, but the point I make is how this only really happened because the forces of capitalism demanded/allowed them to, in order to drive down everyones' wages with the increased competition.

This doesn't downplay the reasons women participated in the move towards both parties in a family working to make a livelihood. Just that capitalism saw an opportunity to thrive with the addition of women in the workforce; that benefit being either (A) they can increase total velocity within an organization without necessarily spending double the money by hiring 2x the amount of workers, or (B) can achieve the same output for less money. The benefits for the wealthy capitalists are compounded when you factor in how they were/are paying women less than men in general.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#90

Post by kelipso »

sandworm101 wrote: post #64
ble wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. What personal experiences or survey data are you drawing on for these conclusions? All of what you say sounds like solid, believable inferences but I doubt most people are exposed to enough data about the interaction of family life and work to draw meaningful generalizations. (If you turn out to be a professor of quantitative sociology, my face will be bright red :) ).

I am not a sociologist, but I do have a number of subordinates. I have people with domestic violence issues, people who cannot work late due to child custody handover times and even restraining orders between divorcing partners who both work at the same company. The single people seem to be more stable, the confirmed bachelors even more so.

You work in the military though, so not exactly the same culture as the average white collar worker.
Post reply on HN