How to Pick a Mate (1946) • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#91

Post by drewcoo » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

Aachen wrote: post #38

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…

Non-native speaker here. Is there a ranking to "key", "vital", "crucial", and "important", or should I read these as being equivalently important? I'm taking the latter as lesser than the former three, though that also depends on what Kagi is I suppose.

Mostly, they're used interchangeably by native speakers.

I recommend searching the original text to see how they're used in context.

key - not used in the text

important - seems to be used when comparing things: more important or less important

vital and crucial - used in the text, both of them seeming to indicate the highest priority

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#92

Post by drewcoo » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

readthenotes1 wrote: post #51

Aachen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what this is getting at

Gay marriage wasn't legal back then

Gay men often "took beards."

https://thewisdomdaily.com/are-you-a-beard/

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#93

Post by Veraticus » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #88

Veraticus wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own.

For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#94

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #88

Veraticus wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#95

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

Veraticus wrote: post #93

matheusmoreira wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.

The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is elderly with fewer and fewer young adults available to participate in innovation and economic growth.

I'm not saying that any of this is bad in general, just that the U.S., and probably the world in aggregate, has paved its own path to a stagnant economy and an eventual declining population. And this isn't the fault of the individuals choosing this path, just that wealthy capitalists have put their own needs over incentivizing people to keep the world populated and participate in the end game of motherhood/fatherhood.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#96

Post by Veraticus » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #89

Veraticus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 capita…

> 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.

Right, this is the part with the weird framing.

Women work in order to achieve happiness, financial independence, have fun, give their life meaning -- all the reasons men do. Framing this as "capitalism forced women to work" seems entirely to ignore that women want to work just as much (or as little) as men do and for the same reasons.

Saying that the result is everyone's wages being driven down entirely ignores the fact that prior to this many women had zero ability to make any wages. So, their willing participation in the workforce is just a net benefit to them and to society as a whole.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#97

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

Veraticus wrote: post #96

judge2020 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 capita…

> 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. Right, this is the part with the weird framing. Women work in order to achieve happiness, financial independence, have fun, give their life meaning -- all the reasons men do. Framing this as "capitalism forced women to work" seems entire…

True, but in the end it's not real, even for men. You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive. Capitalism glamourized working for these corporations, working to achieve this level of financial independence, in order to increase their own profits. Relevant clip from 1923: https://youtu.be/JZx5yiF-nPA

My point is that motherhood/fatherhood shouldn't be downplayed. It's the real end game of life, and is what this book is speaking about - even after you die, your child(ren) will possibly reproduce as well, leaving you with dozens, hundreds of eventual offspring.

By allowing any women to enter the workforce, all wages got pushed down, so now instead of a married couple being able to have the mother permanently at home, rearing up their child in the way they see fit and forming a human connection for them, both parents are forced to work to make ends meet. By capitalism forcing/allowing women to work, they removed the option for a parent be a full-time caregiver for their child. Everyone must work now - if you don't, and the single earner isn't making bank, be prepared to eat off food stamps and sacrifice your convenience, health, and safety.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#98

Post by Veraticus » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #95

Veraticus wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not bad for everyone, because as I just pointed out, it provided a lot of women the ability to work and achieve financial stability on their own. For unmarried women, there is no cost, only benefits.

The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is…

If economic growth is a byproduct of population growth, then we need to find new patterns for economic growth. There was never a future in which human populations would (or could) increase forever.

Blaming wealthy capitalists for ruining motherhood/fatherhood seems rather conspiratorial. Why do you believe men and women are not rational actors working in their own self-interest? Again, women want jobs not because capitalists forced them to participate in the workforce, but because being forced to be a dependent of the men in your life truly sucks.

And this discussion in the context of women having jobs is my problem with the framing. Forcing women to be birthing factories permanently hitched to a man for their own safety and security is a worse outcome than the cessation of economic or population growth.

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#99

Post by Veraticus » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #97

Veraticus wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Right, this is the part with the weird framing. Women work in order to achieve happiness, financial independence, have fun, give their life meaning -- all the reasons men do. Framing this as "capitalism forced women to work" seems entire…

True, but in the end it's not real, even for men. You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive. Capitalism glamourized working for these corporations, working to achieve this level of financial independence, in order to i…

> You can increase Google's stock price by $x by serving better ads or implementing the next killer YouTube feature, but those things will eventually cease to exist, and your name will most likely not be tied to that any longer than you're alive.

Humans overall will eventually cease to exist. All of us will be forgotten within a few generations, even if we have children. Motherhood/fatherhood is not the "real end game of life." You might believe so, but many others do not. Why are their points of view less valid than your own?

You continue to push the framing of this being bad for married couples. But again, it's simply better for unmarried women. Why should they be forced to suffer because we want artificially higher wages or because you have this idea that we need more babies?

Re: How to Pick a Mate (1946)

#100

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:39 PM UTC

Veraticus wrote: post #98

judge2020 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The externality of this is that fewer women are having kids. Even if it's overall a good situation for the individuals, in 30 or 60 years we may see the overall quality of life dwindle as the population stagnates or begins to decline. Economic growth is a byproduct of population growth. This doesn't bode well for the US if it means its population could soon become similar to that of Japan's, where the average age is…

If economic growth is a byproduct of population growth, then we need to find new patterns for economic growth. There was never a future in which human populations would (or could) increase forever. Blaming wealthy capitalists for ruining motherhood/fatherhood seems rather conspiratorial. Why do you believe men and women are not rational actors working in their own self-interest? Again, women want jobs not because cap…

I'm framing this in the sense that capitalism forced nearly all women into the workforce. Without any women in the workforce, a woman could be a full-time mother to their child. Now, they must work to achieve the same level of pay and standard of living as when men were paid enough to sustain a family at home off their single paycheck.

It's not a bad thing that women are able to become independent today with no spouse or children. In fact I agree that it's better now that women are no longer literally forced to find a man to live separate from their parents. It's just bad that capitalism made it impossible to be a mother without two incomes (as in, forcing both parental figures to have enough of an income to provide for the child). To add, this is partially what the school system is for - not just to educate the workforce of the future, but to babysit them during the day so that their parents can work their 9-5.