This is not a particularly interesting leftover, but that title shows how women think differently than men, doesn't it? Paying our own bills is nothing remarkable to us. Another interesting tidbit is the "intimidating woman" paradigm when she tells men she's a 40 year old woman with a mortgage. Wow!

Men generally ask what a woman does for a living for a totally different reason than women do: Men use it as a conversation opener. I personally think it's a lame, but it's not that these guys are so impressed about her having a job and "owning" a home.

I also despise the cancer that is "Lived Experience", "Emotional Labor", "Problematic" and for some fucking reason TikTok loves "End of the day".

I actually have one just like that who rejected a bailout because he's a Trumper that I need to post for weekend content because of issues with her pretending she wasn't looking for commitment. I'll have to post it next weekend because I have the Queen of all Weekend Content in the queue. If you want a sneak peek, it's on this forum.

I wonder what her n-count is.

Eleventy-Seventy Billion. If I had a dollar for every notch on her bedpost, I could buy a new submarine.

The trouble will be distinguishing which ones are worthy of posting.

We already have frequent occasions of that.

I’ve given some thought to that “men are intimidated by successful women” thing. I’m speaking as a married guy, but if I were single I doubt I’d want to date a woman with much higher social status and / or a much higher income. But that’s not because I would be “intimidated.”

It’s because I don’t think that she would know her place in the relationship. Since the law grants wives immense power over husbands that they shouldn’t have, pairing off with a “high achieving” woman is a huge gamble.

The man leads. Would a woman who perceives herself to be a boss babe understand that her role is to follow me?

The problem isn’t on my end: as a military officer I have led men who were (in some ways) far more capable than I was. Those men followed my orders because they understood that the hierarchy we were in placed them under my command. No leader is better at everything than everyone beneath him, but that doesn’t mean his subordinates don’t have to follow his orders.

Let’s say that one of my subordinates is much stronger than I am (not a theoretical: although I’m strong for my size, I’m pretty small). I’ll take my turn carrying the ammo because that’s what leaders do, but at the end of the day, some big moose of a guy is going to have the heavy machine gun and I’m not. That doesn’t mean that he gets to emplace it where he wants and shoot it where and when he wants: that’s MY call. His superior ability is mine to command, and his role is to use that as an extension of my will.

I’ve been on the other side, too. I’ve been subordinate to men who were (in some ways) far less capable than I. I still followed their orders.

Most men understand that concept: we’re used to being in hierarchies in which someone leads and all others follow. If I’m better at X than my superior, then my superior has that much more X-capability to work with to accomplish the mission. I may advise him on the best way to deploy X because I have expertise that he lacks, but ultimately the decision is not mine.

But with women it’s different. In a mating relationship, the only stable state is when the man is the head and the woman accepts that. Husband and wife are ranks in the marital hierarchy… and the husband is the superior while the wife is the subordinate.

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands as unto the Lord.”

The mistake people make (especially feminists of both sexes) is that they equate rank with worth, and get offended by the blunt language of hierarchy. They also don’t understand the logic of hierarchy, in which the subordinate is not a doormat or an expendable commodity, but rather a valued and valuable member of the team who brings unique skills and capabilities.

Authority must match responsibility: it’s the superior who bears the greatest burden of all.

But feminism is based on women having authority without responsibility, with men having responsibility without authority.

Most women have no problem following a man they look up to: hypergamy means that they actively seek those men out. But if a woman makes twice as much money as I do, she will probably have a very hard time internalizing the fact that her superior capability in that area doesn’t give her authority in that area. If she’s my wife, then the resources she acquires are mine to direct.

Obviously I would be responsible to God to direct those resources wisely, but if she’s going to have a hard time trusting me to do so, she shouldn’t marry me. A woman who thinks that she doesn’t have to submit to me because she perceives herself to bring more to the table doesn’t understand the marital hierarchy (nor the need for it), and is not a woman I would want to marry.

I have no desire to contend with a subordinate who thinks she should be able to exercise authority whenever she feels like it. A contentious wife is a terrible wife and a constant source of strife and drama. Intimidation has nothing to do with it.

What's funny is women in other countries know this. Western women had this hay day for a while where men were a captive audience, so they got used to with-holding sex for attention and money. Somewhere around 2000 everyone had decent enough internet to start chatting, maybe even do video calls. You could meet a woman from another state, fly her out and send her back home to her husband with a new baby inside her. Then it became other countries.

But the women decided to double down to the point that they're going single for 7 years. Passport offices are flooded with requests. Entire airplanes full of passport bros. So they double down again and marry themselves. In Korea we're seeing an extinction level event with regards to fertility rates.

Tingles