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!
I assume it’s this toaster.
0_0
Rule 34 strikes again!
The social conservatives as “feminists” thing I figured comes from a(n insane troll) logic like this:
1) Feminist say: women > men.
2) Social conservatives want to keep the gender roles which grant women some advantages/protections.
3) Women + some advantages > men
Q. E. D. Social conservatives are feminists!
Yeah. This post contains a lot of sarcasm. :]
Well, as an observational statement it’s true that statistically women are more likely to marry men that have a higher income than them. That is an is-statement. The problem is Schlafly then concludes an ought-statement from it, which is invalid.
Even with the context of this conversation, I still clicked on the link, looked at the picture before reading the product name, and thought “what is that, a candle flame? Why — ooooooh.”
What I want to know is how katz knew about that toaster.
No, wait, I don’t.
😛
I never stated nor implied that Schlafly is a feminist. She is clearly anti-feminist in a way that is common among the very conservative such as Ann Coulter.
She shares the view with feminists that women should get special protections, but she is not a feminist.
Pinky, There are no such “special protections” that feminists think women should have. If you truly believe otherwise, you’ve been misinformed. No, Schafly does not “have a point” no, feminism is not about ebil, unfair wimmenz stealing rights from men.
I’m so bored with people like this. The trolls never say anything clever or new.
What special protection do feminists want women to have?
Hint: Not being able to rape or harass us isn’t a special protection, That should be a basic human right that both women and men have.
You don’t say. I learn something new every day.
Ah yes, women being equal to men is women getting “special protections.”
Pinky, you know bubkis about feminism.
Maybe before women felt they had no choice but to marry because they couldn’t make enough money to support themselves. and now they can. so that’s why they don’t marry. not because men who make the same amount of money as them don’t turn them on, but because now they are freer.
Adele Mercier argued that unforced sex between boys in juvenile facilities and staff is not criminal, yet wouldn’t make the same assertion for juvenile sex between girls and staff. VAWA is geared toward women despite men being the create r victims of violence.
… lolwut?
Something a woman said =/= feminism
Does anyone know what this Adele Mercier actually said? I keep reading her name come up from MRAs and I’m confused. Direct quote please?
What this has to do with Schlafly? And I hope that the second sentence is not supposed to follow logically from the first, because it doesn’t.
Adele Mercier. Who the hell is she, and how did she get to speak for all feminist everywhere, and to define feminist thought and philosophy for all time? Because, last I checked, feminists were opposed to rape. But whatever. One woman said something awful, so therefore feminists are all for special protections for women.
I guess now is not the time to bring up some of Paul Elam’s choice quotes, from “the thought of fucking your shit up gives me an erection” to “Bash a Violent B*tch Month” to the whole “begging to be raped” thing.
What VAWA does:
http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/vawa_factsheet.pdf
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act
Federal rape shield laws. Rape victims not having to pay for their own rape kits. Orders of protection being recognized in all jurisdictions. Stalking being a crime. Date rape and marital rape not being considered “lesser” crimes than stranger rapes. These are the “special protections” that women get out of VAWA.
The majority if domestic violence victims and rape victims are women:
http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf
https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
So tell me, how exactly is a law that is intended to reduce domestic violence and rape, the majority of which victims are women, special protections for women? That’s like arguing that the Clean Air Act provides special protection for air, and what about the water? That a law focused on reducing victim good would focus on the actual victims of the crime. I don’t even.
And, just for shits and giggles, guess what? VAWA is gender neutral. No, really. The reauthorization includes a non-discrimination mandate. VAWA apies to both male victims and female victims of domestic abuse and rape.
http://www.saveservices.org/inclusive-vawa/inclusive-vawa/
So how is VAWA “special protections” for women again?
Wasn’t that Adele Mercier quote from an internet comment? Which means that it could have been somebody posing as her. That was my impression although I don’t know a lot about it.
Also, I’ve got to call bullshit when anyone insinuates that feminists don’t believe that boys can be statutory raped. Whenever the issue comes up, it’s always dudebros saying the boy was soooo lucky someone wanted to have sex with him and it’s always feminists arguing that the adult was a predator.
Fuck right off if you’re trying blame feminists for the attitude society takes about male rape victims.
Well, I’m in moderation probably because I tried to fit to many links into one comment….
Anyway, VAWA is gender neutral. Even these guys say so:
http://www.saveservices.org/inclusive-vawa/inclusive-vawa/
Pinky: where’s this quote you MRAs are so het up about?
VAWA is gender neutral in content, despite its name. You’re not too bright, are you?
A woman who is a noted feminist philosophy professor.
If Adele Mercier did say what she is purported to have said, which she may have, then she was wrong. That doesn’t mean feminism is all a sham, you melon. I am a feminist who absolutely recognizes that adult authority figures, women and men, who force sexual contact on boys under their care are rapists. I am disgusted by anyone who would disagree. I feel confident that all the other feminists you are pointlessly arguing with right now feel the same way.
Ok, I’ll ask one more time: what did she actually say?
Pinky: And again, one woman saying something bad is not feminism. I’ve never heard of this Adele Mercier before. One comment from one feminist college professor does not a modern social/political philosophy make. Do you have any proof, beyond a comment on an article, that feminism supports the rape of boys and excuses women rapists?
To the thread: Here’s the actual article with the comment:
http://queensjournal.ca/story/2014-03-30/opinions/letter-editor-march-31/
Adele Mercier’s response:
http://www.thewhig.com/2014/04/09/queens-prof-targeted-by-group
Oh, so MRAs can’t stat, Mercier tried to correct them and the MRAs got in a snit. Sounds about right.