I think these men being inspired to not let their kids starve is the best case scenario. It's also that women have to become amazing social workers or face starvation and violence. And violence in the home is orderly while violence in the streets is chaotic. The crankest part of my crank theory is that crime control is one of the places government had to step in when women won't do it for free. Not a life I want for my daughters!
Also, the whole success sequence is don't have kids. The more obstacles you put between yourself and having kids, the less likely you are to wind up poor. Conservatives just don't want to admit that our economic system is extremely anti-natalist
These men being inspired to not let their kids starve is the best case scenario. The worst case is not what I want for any woman.
"Also, the whole success sequence is don't have kids." Lol. I love that. But it's really only true for women and unmarried men though, right? Married men who have kids see a pay bump, on average.
You make a true and important point, but I don't think it matches your title. Marriage motivating ambition *in men* is not the same as ambition being feminine. Otherwise, it would be women who feel pressure that "my husband and children will starve if I don't get a job."
I suspect that neither sex is innately more ambitious. Ambition is rather a response to social incentives, which are what's truly unequal between the sexes.
If I'm right about that, the trend you describe may actually reflect that men are more stigmatized than women for being unable to provide for their families. The fear you describe - "my wife and children will starve if I don't get a job" - has ingrained assumptions about which partner is active/responsible and which is passive/dependent. Men are disproportionately judged for their family's economic status. The median woman's ambition and work ethic depend less on their relationship status than vice-versa because women do not suffer a comparable stigma.
It could also imply that ambition in men is more necessary to satisfy women than ambition in women is necessary to satisfy men. This could be an aspect of sexual attraction, or it could be that women are economically needier; either would explain why meeting a partner's needs requires more *additional* effort from men than from women.
And insofar as it's the latter, "bottom half-men depend on women to motivate them to get off their asses" inverts the real dependency at play. Another way to say it would be "bottom-half women depend on men to meet their economic needs." If they didn't, their unmet needs would not be such a strong motive for the men, who were seemingly able to meet their own needs with considerably less effort.
That said, I suspect that providing *for kids* is a bigger motivation for both sexes than providing for a partner. It would be interesting to see the statistics you reference disaggregated by married parents/non-parents.
I think these men being inspired to not let their kids starve is the best case scenario. It's also that women have to become amazing social workers or face starvation and violence. And violence in the home is orderly while violence in the streets is chaotic. The crankest part of my crank theory is that crime control is one of the places government had to step in when women won't do it for free. Not a life I want for my daughters!
Also, the whole success sequence is don't have kids. The more obstacles you put between yourself and having kids, the less likely you are to wind up poor. Conservatives just don't want to admit that our economic system is extremely anti-natalist
These men being inspired to not let their kids starve is the best case scenario. The worst case is not what I want for any woman.
"Also, the whole success sequence is don't have kids." Lol. I love that. But it's really only true for women and unmarried men though, right? Married men who have kids see a pay bump, on average.
I suppose it's the raising kids more than having them...
I guess I always assumed meeting women was the best motivator to get out of the basement, but this makes sense.
You make a true and important point, but I don't think it matches your title. Marriage motivating ambition *in men* is not the same as ambition being feminine. Otherwise, it would be women who feel pressure that "my husband and children will starve if I don't get a job."
I suspect that neither sex is innately more ambitious. Ambition is rather a response to social incentives, which are what's truly unequal between the sexes.
If I'm right about that, the trend you describe may actually reflect that men are more stigmatized than women for being unable to provide for their families. The fear you describe - "my wife and children will starve if I don't get a job" - has ingrained assumptions about which partner is active/responsible and which is passive/dependent. Men are disproportionately judged for their family's economic status. The median woman's ambition and work ethic depend less on their relationship status than vice-versa because women do not suffer a comparable stigma.
It could also imply that ambition in men is more necessary to satisfy women than ambition in women is necessary to satisfy men. This could be an aspect of sexual attraction, or it could be that women are economically needier; either would explain why meeting a partner's needs requires more *additional* effort from men than from women.
And insofar as it's the latter, "bottom half-men depend on women to motivate them to get off their asses" inverts the real dependency at play. Another way to say it would be "bottom-half women depend on men to meet their economic needs." If they didn't, their unmet needs would not be such a strong motive for the men, who were seemingly able to meet their own needs with considerably less effort.
That said, I suspect that providing *for kids* is a bigger motivation for both sexes than providing for a partner. It would be interesting to see the statistics you reference disaggregated by married parents/non-parents.
It’s hilarious that you think this is a revelation. Yes, women are high maintenance… duh.