Professional antifeminist Phyllis Schlafly – perhaps best known for her fervent opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment – seems to have been channeling the manosphere in a column she published yesterday on the issue of “paycheck fairness.” Turns out she thinks such fairness is actually a bad idea, because ladies love marrying rich guys more than they love earning money.
According to Schlafly, equal pay messes with the fundamental female desire for “hypergamy” – that favorite manosphere buzzword – and undermines marriage:
[H]ypergamy … 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.
Indeed, Schlafly argues, women love marrying men who earn more than them so much that when the pay gap is eliminated some of them just won’t marry at all. Which is apparently the end of the world, or something.
The pay gap between men and women is not all bad because it helps to promote and sustain marriages. …
In two segments of our population, the pay gap has virtually ceased to exist. In the African-American community and in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 32), women earn about the same as men, if not more.
It just so happens that those are the two segments of our population in which the rate of marriage has fallen the most. Fifty years ago, about 80 percent of Americans were married by age 30; today, less than 50 percent are.
So it’s not enough that most people end up getting married; civilization will crumble if more than half of them don’t marry before the age of 30!
And so, she suggests, if American women knew what was good for them they would be begging for employers pay them even less, relative to men.
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.
Hmm. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Schlafly – a best-selling author and popular speaker on the right – didn’t send back any of her royalties or speaking fees so that she would feel more like a woman and her late husband would feel like more of a man, and I doubt she’s doing so now, as a widow. She’s also been unmarried for more than twenty years. Coincidence?
NOTE TO MEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS: When you find yourself agreeing with Phyllis Schlafly on pretty much anything (beyond, say, the existence of gravity, the need for human beings to breathe air, and other widely accepted beliefs of this sort), this is an indication that perhaps your movement isn’t the progressive, egalitarian movement that you like to pretend that it is, and that in fact it is sort of the opposite.
That said, I should also note that Schlafly’s notion of “hypergamy,” while sexist and silly, is decidedly less obnoxious than the version peddled by PUAs and websites like A Voice for Men — congrats, Men’s Human Rights Activists, you’re actually worse than Phyllis Schlafly!
She just uses the term to indicate a desire to marry up. For many manospherians, by contrast, “hypergamy” doesn’t just mean marrying up; it means that women are fickle, unfaithful monsters who love nothing better than cuckolding beta males in order to jump into bed with whatever alpha male wanders into their field of vision. (I’m guessing Schlafly hasn’t actually been going through the archives at AVFM or Chateau Heartiste looking for column ideas.) While many MRAs love to complain about hypergamy, many of them also seem to think that it’s unfair that “beta” males with good jobs aren’t automatically entitled to hot wives.
In case anyone is wondering, the actual definition of the word “hypergamy” involves none of that. According to Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, the word means “marriage to a person of a social status higher than one’s own; orig., esp. in India, the custom of allowing a woman to marry only into her own or a higher social group.”
That’s it. It refers to the fact of marrying up, not to the desire to marry up, much less to the alleged desire of all twentysomething women to ride the Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel. The manosphere’s new and not-so-improved definition came from a white nationalist named F. Roger Devlin.
ANOTHER NOTE: Big thanks to the people who emailed me about this story. If you ever see something you think would make for a good Man Boobz post, send me an email at futrelle [at] manboobz.com. I get a lot of ideas from tips!
O RLY? Then why are they so busy looking for “submissive” women?
Don’t you just love how Pinky’s last sentence just completely undermines the proceeding sentences? Because, if the wage gap is a myth, then nothi g needs to be done to fix it. Status quo maintained!
Oddly enough, it seems Elam & co. over at AFVM support the ERA. From what I can tell, he seems to think it will end “feminist governance and puppetry” and deliver men from “deadly servitude to their culture for the benefit and enjoyment of women.” I’m not real sure, it’s not too clear an argument:
http://www.donotlink.com/gvc
Neo-traditionalism and the concept of hypergamy can be found among all strains of MRM thought. Just because not all MRAs are conservative doesn’t mean that social conservatism isn’t the driving force of the MRM as a whole.
Schafly’s ERA problem is that she feared that it would take away special protections for women and make gender specific restrooms unconstitutional. She doesn’t want women to ever be drafted and wants women to have the advantage in child custody cases. Schafly supported the Hayden Rider.
Schafly’s ERA problem is that she feared that it would take away special protections for women and make gender specific restrooms unconstitutional.
No. Her schtick was that men and women would be forced to watch each other pee. Her complaint (as defined in decades of writing) is that women don’t deserve to have rights equal to men.
Since there isn’t a draft, and wasn’t even registration, when the ERA was being debated (the draft was stopped in 1973, registration was stopped in 1975, reinstated in 1980) so when Shafly was saying, OMG, HOW AWFUL TO MAKE WOMEN THE LEGAL EQUAL OF MEN!!!!!!!!!, the draft wasn’t an issue.
It’s an MRA talking point to pretend the draft (a non-issue) and registration (a different non-issue, at least as it relates to women and military service in wartime; there is an issue to address, in terms of equal protection regarding the ways in which men are penalised for not registering, but that wasn’t imposed until well after the reinstatement of registration (because so many people were not registering). The total of prosecutions, to date; in the 34 years of post-draft registration) has been 20, of which 19 were the result of people insisting they be prosecuted (either as a form of protest; or in the hope of getting the law declared void). No one has been prosecuted since 1986.
So that dog don’t hunt.
Snarf!
Then again, you’d have to be about as informed and worldly as said cartoon mouse to try and pass off Schlafly as a feminist, as this Pinky seems to be doing…
Schlafly got a point, many females hope to marry (not same as dating) THE ONE, and this fantasy male must be taller, richer, darker, stronger,… etc. than they are, basically, a “prince”.
Ahhh, “many”. The ultimate weasel word. How many is “many”, dear Guest? 12? 30? 400? And even if these “many” “females” have a specific fantasy, surely some subset of “many” “females” would still marry someone who hit their buttons in all the right way but fell short of their “fantasy”.
Also, let’s be honest here. Do you think there aren’t “many” men who also have fantasy girls? Or is it your position that any man would gladly marry literally any woman who would have him?
^^ First paragraph should be in blockquotes. 🙁
Most MRAs seem to agree with her.
RE: pecunium
Her schtick was that men and women would be forced to watch each other pee.
Oh the horror. The humanity. Anything but that. *rolls eyes* Seriously, what is WITH cis people and bathrooms? You’d think there was some magical gender force field keeping people out, rather than sheer social conditioning.
That is, if the MRAs weren’t whining about how the government is sending all men to die and about White Flower. *rolls eyes*
LBT – BUT BUT PENIS. YOU CAN SEE PENIS. WHY ARE YOU NOT HORRIFIED YET???
[/sarcasm]
Have these people never heard of stalls, with, y’know, doors? I’ve never seen another woman peeing, why would I see a man?
That said, I don’t want mixed public loos, not from embarrassment but because of the increased odds of assaults.
Eh, the ladies’ room can be handy for escaping from creepy dudes (though as you say, it’s only social convention keeping them from following you).
But in Schlafly’s case, I suspect is has more to do with genitals and “impure thoughts” than anything else. And also, it’s a ridiculous slippery slope argument, right up there with “if men can marry men then next they’ll want to marry toasters”. [insert Cylon joke here]
I can see MRAs reacting several ways to the mixed-loo prospect:
All those slutty women will see my mighty PENIS and want sex immediately – good
All those slutty women will see OTHER DUDES’ PENISES and want them instead – bad
Chance to perve at women who don’t want it – good
GIRL COOTIES!!!11!!eleventy! – bad
Stalls? They real? I thought the men’s room was just for urinals. You’re telling me that men actually poop now? :O
[/sarcasm]
Hey, men can marry toasters if they want, for all I care. I just hope they remember to pull the plug from the wall before they try consummating it, though.
It haz been discovered in a great sciency breakthrough! The reason it was unknown until now is that their shit don’t stink.
kittehs – in a place where people get married 30 years from now:
Judge: “Kim, will you take this toaster to be your lawfully wedded spouse?”
Kim: “I do.”
Judge: “Toaster, will you take this man to be your lawfully wedded spouse?”
Toaster: *ding!* *pops out toast*
LBT: At a guess, she was afraid it would undermine the social pressures leading toward the equality she is so against. Recall this was in the tail-end of the huge levels of social change we think of as, “the Sixties”. A lot of the gains which had been seen in the ’20/’30s (and been undone in the postwar years, up to about 1965) was being reclaimed in the course of less than a decade.
The things which had made her comfortable (which includes structural racism, as well as the sexism: Schalfly has no problem with Jim Crow) were being undone. The ERA was the single thing most certain to make rollback impossible.
So the “ermaghod! people will be in the same rooms, there will be sex everywhere, all social more’s are going to be dissolved, and anarchy will reign.” It was useful as a dog whistle for, “No one will no their place, ‘those people’ will expect to be treated as equal to me!”
Whoa
OT but I just saw this and had to share. I want to sign up!
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3324382720/hB606AFB0/
Said “special protections” are part and parcel of the ‘traditional’ gender roles she defends, cupcake. You’re not surprising anyone here.
I got the other cat lady starter kit. The one that comes with red wine and jigsaw puzzles.
Oh lovely!
They really ought to make twin packs, y’know.
There should also be cat gentleman starter kits. (Tip: look at the knitting, then slightly left.)