Schlafly suggests increasing wage gap to help women find husbands

[RavenSky]

Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don’t have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.
While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.
Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.
Obviously, I’m not saying women won’t date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. [...]
The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...less-than-men-so-they-can-find-good-husbands/

 

[RavenSky]

In 2013, the Republican National Committee... promising to “addresses concerns that are on women’s minds in order to let them know we are fighting for them...” Schlafly’s comments appear to undermine that effort.

I suspect Schlafly believes she is actually addressing the concerns that are on women’s minds. LOL

 

[Nexus]

While I recognize the silliness of her suggestion, if in fact she intends it seriously, it does make an interesting paradox for women. In those two aspects their desires are in conflict.

ETA

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

I didn't read her entire quote before I posted. But appears she didn't post this as a theoretical pursuit to life happiness. But this quoted section is clearly flawed. How does she figure a loss in pay due to a increasing gap would mean a greater dividend from a higher paying husband? At best the net family income would be equal.

 

[RavenSky]

While I recognize the silliness of her suggestion, if in fact she intends it seriously, it does make an interesting paradox for women. In those two aspects their desires are in conflict.

You assume her assumptions have any basis in reality. I don't

 

[Nexus]

You assume her assumptions have any basis in reality. I don't

Well hypergamy is established sociologically. I would need to see multiple studies disproving it before I assumed on average women didn't want a wealthier mate than themselves.

 

[Toni]

I can't believe she's still alive.

 

[RavenSky]

Well hypergamy is established sociologically. I would need to see multiple studies disproving it before I assumed on average women didn't want a wealthier mate than themselves.

So I assume you also believe that the majority of men have self-esteem issues if women make more money than they do?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Not me, I wish my girl made 10 times what I did. A hundred! Seriously, I tweeted this earlier today. I am continuously amazed at how backwards and primitive some of our fellow human beings are.

 

[maxparrish]

Mathematically she is incorrect (only bottom earning males and top end earning women ) would be unable to find a mate. But she does have a point - men and women tend to be much happier with men being the provider and women the provided. Perhaps it is best that men make the living and women stay at home to do housework, cook, and raise the kids. We tried female equality and it just didn't work, folks are unhappier that ever - heck, the President is making female unhappiness a new national issue.

Yep, they had it right in the 1950s. Men were happier, women were happier.

 

[Bronzeage]

I can't believe she's still alive.

My exact thought.

 

[maxparrish]

I know a few men who felt that same as you, until their wives started earning a lot more and dumped them.

 

[bilby]

This whole silliness is predicated on the demonstrably false assumption that all women want a husband more than they want a career, and that society should therefore be engineered to facilitate that universal desire.

In reality, if social engineering is avoided, each woman (and indeed each man) can make their own decisions about their personal priorities.

Of course, most people cannot have all they desire from life, and will need to make some compromises; however it is up to individual women (or man) to chose whether they wish to pursue wealth, partnership, marriage, children, or (most plausibly for most people) some combination of these things, and what weight to give those various preferences.

Attempts to force anyone to choose one option by denying them equal access to other possible options, simply because one person or political faction thinks that is how things 'should' be make no sense at all.

 

[maxparrish]

She is 89. She went to work for AEI in 1946, went to her first Republican convention in 1952 (when running for Congress). She wrote her first book in 1964, and still writes.

 

[bilby]

I know a few men who felt that same as you, until their wives started earning a lot more and dumped them.

I know a few women who married for money, only to be dumped by their wealthy husbands on a whim.

All this demonstrates is that some people are assholes, and that being financially dependant on a partner, rather than going out and earning an income in your own right, is a high-risk strategy for wealth acquisition, regardless of your gender - none of which should come as much surprise to anyone.

 

[maxparrish]

Of course, social engineering should be avoided - and freely evolving culture and society unencumbered by the force of government will eventually settle upon a pattern of choice. Therefore we need to get rid of this equal pay engineering, restrictions against sex discrimination in the workplace, (as well as daddy state welfare for single mothers). Such will facilitate accommodation to evolution's design.

 

[bilby]

Of course, social engineering should be avoided - and freely evolving culture and society unencumbered by the force of government will eventually settle upon a pattern of choice. Therefore we need to get rid of this equal pay engineering, restrictions against sex discrimination in the workplace, (as well as daddy state welfare for single mothers). Such will facilitate accommodation to evolution's design.

Evolution has no design; and even if it did, the best of human endeavour has always been in our defiance of the natural world, not our acquiescence to the strictures that have constrained our species.

If the best thing to be said of a plan is that it "will facilitate accommodation to evolution's design", then the plan belongs in the trash-can; and the planner who started with that design objective belongs back at school.

Evolution and nature are not an authority to whom we should bow; they are a hurdle we should seek to overcome.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Yep, they had it right in the 1950s

This is why I should probably stay away from this forum.

 

[maxparrish]

Evolution has no design; and even if it did, the best of human endeavour has always been in our defiance of the natural world, not our acquiescence to the strictures that have constrained our species.

If the best thing to be said of a plan is that it "will facilitate accommodation to evolution's design", then the plan belongs in the trash-can; and the planner who started with that design objective belongs back at school.

Well yes, they do need someone like me to teach their students. That said, man is not a blank slate - that old shibboleth has finally been crushed under the weight of biological research. Humans are shaped by their biology, their innate needs, wants, attractions, and even values. Socio-biology and related disciplines have illuminated our nature, and it is to that nature civilizations and cultures adapt.

Of course, what is optimal to the evolution of man as hunter-gather and/or clan member is not always a fit within the modern civis - but as we learned with the Victorians, a denial of our nature with incompatible ideologies only leads to greater unhappiness.

If men want women as sex objects, and women want me as success objects who are we to denounce our nature? If men work and women are in the kitchen, perhaps that is best for the majority.

 

[bilby]

Well yes, they do need someone like me to teach their students. That said, man is not a blank slate - that old shibboleth has finally been crushed under the weight of biological research. Humans are shaped by their biology, their innate needs, wants, attractions, and even values. Socio-biology and related disciplines have illuminated our nature, and it is to that nature civilizations and cultures adapt.

and vice versa.

Of course, what is optimal to the evolution of man as hunter-gather and/or clan member is not always a fit within the modern civis - but as we learned with the Victorians, a denial of our nature with incompatible ideologies only leads to greater unhappiness.

I dunno; it's been a while since I was last in Melbourne, but the Victorians seemed happy enough with their lot back then.

If men want women as sex objects, and women want me as success objects who are we to denounce our nature?

And if they don't, who are we to impose it upon them?

 

[Underseer]

While I recognize the silliness of her suggestion, if in fact she intends it seriously, it does make an interesting paradox for women. In those two aspects their desires are in conflict.[...]

If the logic of your argument is valid, then it is still valid when we reverse the genders in your argument.

So would it be a good idea to pay men less in order to force them to rely on women? How would society be improved by such an arrangement? If you feel that society would be improved by doing this to women but would not be improved by doing this to men, then how do you account for the apparent _special pleading_ fallacy in your claims?