That's always been so perplexing to me. Most churches are fairly hostile to women's interests, yet women are the backbone of churches! It's so perplexing.
It’s so interesting and complicated. On the one hand, yes. On the other, the idea of a loving, supportive husband who allows you to stay at home and makes good decisions for you and is a servant leader… it’s not for me but I do understand the appeal. Now only if that’s actually how it worked out most of the time.
I also suspect that for women who want that, and for women who think they have to want that, church work gives an outlet for their creativity, intelligence, ambition, desire for power, and all the other things that people try to get from careers.
So here is an interesting question? Why are there so many "conventionally" attractive female escorts who work in San Francisco and Boston cities known for a lot of high income high status males with poor physical appearance?
In fact if I was arguing against decriminalization of sex work(I believe the opposite in reality) I would use the whole conventionally attractive female escorts and physically unattractive but high income males in SF and Boston as an emotional argument "against" decrim.
BTW, on forms of social media where escorts often post there is a longstanding claim that Boston and SF have the "nicest" clients compared to NY, LA, and DC. I think you can imagine what is going on behind the scenes.
Well most marriages are assortative. But besides emotional labor, sex work is essentially a beauty/status trade. (This is part of why "traditional marriage" is sex work in every way except name.) So it makes perfect sense that clients of sex workers would be high-status/low-beauty and sex workers would be high-beauty/variable status.
I'm not sure why a status/beauty trade would be an argument against decriming sex work. Unless you're making the point that the status discrepancy makes the work either more likely to be exploitative or more fundamentally exploitative. To which I would say that in any employment the employer has more status, all else equal, than the worker. And, that criminalizing sex work makes the worker even more vulnerable and therefore exploitable.
I think a radical feminist would say exactly what you just said that the status discrepancy whether in sex work or traditional marriage is a form of exploitation(and I think some of the really radical ones actually do make this case). The thing is when push comes shove over a certain age I don't think many conventionally attractive women are that into say conventionally attractive males that are say dirt poor(For reasons I suspect most people would understand) . Most conventionally attractive women regardless of there own education/status are going to seek high status men no matter what outside of high school/college.
It feels like who the radical fems really don't like are conventionally attractive women who they want to "only" have relationship with conventionally attractive men even if they are dead broke conventionally attractive men.
Lastly beauty and status do have a natural correlation anyways at the end of the day. The highest status males might not be the most physically attractive but they are not most of the time the least physically attractive either. And the most physically attractive sex workers are far far more likely to work as VIP Escorts/Companions and NOT say streetwalkers(or increasingly even other forms of SW like Webcams, strip clubs, porn etc). And lastly I would argue and I have some first hand knowledge that high status clients of sex workers(in place like BOS and SF) are increasingly seeking not just beauty and appearance in SWers but also a certain degree of status and educational background as well which as sex worker becomes more diverse is increasingly common.
A specific example I would give a radical feminists even opposing certain types of traditional marriage is this article in Glamour UK Magazine suggesting that some day in the future marriages between two individuals(mostly where the male is the older partners) where there is an age gap over a certain amount will be criminalized just like how author argues that marital rape in Britain was "only" criminalized in 1992.
I personally consider this a pretty dystopian view of individual liberty and what radical feminism wants to do with it. It also in my opinion in Canada and the US at least raises deep constitutional question and would effectively be the overturning of past decisions like Virginia vs Loving.
How did these churches end up with these gender ratios in the first place?
I don’t know, but it’s pretty consistent over time and space for Christianity
That's always been so perplexing to me. Most churches are fairly hostile to women's interests, yet women are the backbone of churches! It's so perplexing.
It’s so interesting and complicated. On the one hand, yes. On the other, the idea of a loving, supportive husband who allows you to stay at home and makes good decisions for you and is a servant leader… it’s not for me but I do understand the appeal. Now only if that’s actually how it worked out most of the time.
I also suspect that for women who want that, and for women who think they have to want that, church work gives an outlet for their creativity, intelligence, ambition, desire for power, and all the other things that people try to get from careers.
Absolutely. It certainly did that for me to a great extent when I was in it
Apologies for the correction, but I believe you mean "yoke" as opposed to "yolk" throughout (2 Corinthians 6:14 being the reference).
Ty!
The obvious solution for lonely men then is to join church. And get really serious about it.
At least serious about connecting with the people there and seeming as serious about faith as whoever they’re after 😂
So here is an interesting question? Why are there so many "conventionally" attractive female escorts who work in San Francisco and Boston cities known for a lot of high income high status males with poor physical appearance?
In fact if I was arguing against decriminalization of sex work(I believe the opposite in reality) I would use the whole conventionally attractive female escorts and physically unattractive but high income males in SF and Boston as an emotional argument "against" decrim.
BTW, on forms of social media where escorts often post there is a longstanding claim that Boston and SF have the "nicest" clients compared to NY, LA, and DC. I think you can imagine what is going on behind the scenes.
Well most marriages are assortative. But besides emotional labor, sex work is essentially a beauty/status trade. (This is part of why "traditional marriage" is sex work in every way except name.) So it makes perfect sense that clients of sex workers would be high-status/low-beauty and sex workers would be high-beauty/variable status.
I'm not sure why a status/beauty trade would be an argument against decriming sex work. Unless you're making the point that the status discrepancy makes the work either more likely to be exploitative or more fundamentally exploitative. To which I would say that in any employment the employer has more status, all else equal, than the worker. And, that criminalizing sex work makes the worker even more vulnerable and therefore exploitable.
I think a radical feminist would say exactly what you just said that the status discrepancy whether in sex work or traditional marriage is a form of exploitation(and I think some of the really radical ones actually do make this case). The thing is when push comes shove over a certain age I don't think many conventionally attractive women are that into say conventionally attractive males that are say dirt poor(For reasons I suspect most people would understand) . Most conventionally attractive women regardless of there own education/status are going to seek high status men no matter what outside of high school/college.
It feels like who the radical fems really don't like are conventionally attractive women who they want to "only" have relationship with conventionally attractive men even if they are dead broke conventionally attractive men.
Lastly beauty and status do have a natural correlation anyways at the end of the day. The highest status males might not be the most physically attractive but they are not most of the time the least physically attractive either. And the most physically attractive sex workers are far far more likely to work as VIP Escorts/Companions and NOT say streetwalkers(or increasingly even other forms of SW like Webcams, strip clubs, porn etc). And lastly I would argue and I have some first hand knowledge that high status clients of sex workers(in place like BOS and SF) are increasingly seeking not just beauty and appearance in SWers but also a certain degree of status and educational background as well which as sex worker becomes more diverse is increasingly common.
So one might say it is a bit of wash in the end
A specific example I would give a radical feminists even opposing certain types of traditional marriage is this article in Glamour UK Magazine suggesting that some day in the future marriages between two individuals(mostly where the male is the older partners) where there is an age gap over a certain amount will be criminalized just like how author argues that marital rape in Britain was "only" criminalized in 1992.
I personally consider this a pretty dystopian view of individual liberty and what radical feminism wants to do with it. It also in my opinion in Canada and the US at least raises deep constitutional question and would effectively be the overturning of past decisions like Virginia vs Loving.
https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/age-gap-relationships-debate