The Upper Middle Class Career Life Script Model

Based on the notion that women can become upper class simply by getting an education.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: I’ve described the Upper Middle Class Career Life Script Model before in several places, including Cane Caldo, Dalrock, and here at Σ Frame. Links to some of my original comments are embedded in the first word of the paragraphs. Because this seems to have been a topic of discussion in the comments of several different threads, this post compiles the basic information from these comments into one place.
Length: 2,000 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes

A description of the Upper Middle Career Model

Under the current professional/managerial Career Model, women compete with men in their jobs and careers from the time of pre-school. Women study, train and work alongside boys and men, competing for jobs, money and status. In this competition, recent generations of women have been besting men in a few instances, such as the current imbalances in favor of women in college matriculation and graduation rates, and in starting incomes in the larger metropolitan areas in the United States.

This behavior is generally fully supported and heavily encouraged by the families of origin of this generation.

Portrait of a couple of proud parents hugging their daughter and celebrating her graduation.

In general, there are a few motivations mutually reinforcing this behavior among Christian fathers.

One is the well known “need for Plan B” — the idea that Dad needs to make sure his daughter has a gold-plated divorce insurance policy even before she starts looking for a husband. That is certainly a thing and it is also almost always the thing that the fathers themselves will say if you ask them about it, often coupled with a condescending and unimpressed sneer directed towards the males of his daughter’s age.

Despite this rhetoric, in a lot of ways, encouraging the Plan B approach is about furthering their daughters’ achievements for their own sake, and not primarily as a Plan B mechanism that serves as a back-up plan for a different “Plan A” life script. In other words, taking great pride in their daughter’s Ph.D. or M.D. practice or corporate executive jet setting life has itself become a middle class/upper middle class life norm, quite apart from any divorce insurance/Plan B element.

I would suggest, in fact, that for almost all fathers of upper middle daughters who claim that the “Plan B” approach is the reason why they have raised their daughters the way they did, the actual intention is not for the resulting education and career to form a “back-up plan” in any meaningful way other than rhetorically — rather, the main motivation is to establish a strong, dominant, professional and financial position for their daughters as a primary life plan, regardless of what happens in their relationship lives.

However, even leaving aside this rhetorical evasion, there is another substantial motivating factor as well — expectations of one’s social class peers when it comes to “how one lives”, which includes, to a substantial degree, how one chooses to orient one’s children and mould their trajectory in life.

Last week, we looked at Sticking the Landing is for the Elite and how that approach often doesn’t work out so well for quite a few of them. However, the review of this circumstance can help us understand why the Career Model has gained significant traction among the “striver” population in the United States who take cues from the elite to form a personalized expression of the UMC Career Life Script for themselves and their daughters.

The Revolution Created a Conflict for Middle Class Christians

Over the course of much of the latter 19th to latter 20th Centuries, there was a broad overlap between respectable middle class American lifestyles and Christianity, broadly construed. Sin always abounds in any context, of course, but prior to the general social revolution that began in the 1960s and is ongoing, the broad life script for the middle class didn’t bump up against Christian morals in ways that resulted in massive conflict in overall life design. In other words, following the Christian life script in a broad way (allowing that not everyone who looked like they were doing so were necessarily interiorly aligned) did not conflict with the “life progression” script of the upper middle class, such that choices between following one to the exclusion or severe limitation of the other typically did not need to be made. Because of this, there were a lot (maybe most) Christians during this period who were very committed to living their middle class lifestyles, and standard America Christianity (at least in terms of outward life design and script) fit in with that because there really wasn’t much of a conflict in many areas — at least not when it came to the overall life script.

That changed radically with the coming of the latter 20th Century and the changes wrought by the resurgence of aggressive feminism, the economic shift to service, and then to the knowledge-based economy, the rise of cheap, safe, legal, and ubiquitous birth control and abortion, the resulting widespread relaxation of sexual mores and norms that comprised the sexual revolution and the like. Within the space of a generation (or less) it became a more or less iron-clad middle class norm that your daughters went to college and pursued jobs and careers to be independent earners. The independent woman lifestyle was showcased in the media and education such that it quickly became the middle class norm in the period after 1970 — we all know that. So, most Christians, being committed members of the respectable American middle class, followed along with the new norm and tried to either shoe-horn it into Christian morals or, more often, looked the other way, or outright accommodated breaches of those morals so that the pursuit of the new version of the middle class life script was not impeded.

In summary, prior to the changes wrought by the social revolution, it was quite possible to follow the standard American middle class life script (or upper middle class one; the upper middle was tiny then anyway and had not yet ballooned into the unwieldy behemoth it has since become) while not contradicting conventional Christian sexual morality. The two meshed. After the social revolution, that meshing came apart. The middle class and above started to prioritize education, career and independent financial standing for their daughters — this was, again, often described as the pursuit of “divorce insurance”, but in reality, it simply became a middle class norm for parents, especially fathers, to take pride in their daughters’ achievements and strong independence, educationally and professionally, in a way that had previously been applied to sons. Because the social revolution changed the middle class life script, Christians who were in the middle class were theoretically faced with a conflict — which script to follow, the Christian one (which was previously compatible with the middle class one) or the new middle class one which conflicted with the Christian one because it implied lots of fornication?

Pop culture aimed at today’s youth reflects the various flavors of women’s empowerment as a collective social fantasy — as powerful and dominant as men, but with much more sexual power

The Desire for Elite Status Trumps Christian Morality

We all know how this conflict turned out.

What we learned in the period from roughly 1980 to the present day was that most American Christians, of all stripes, were, and are, more committed to being successful middle class strivers than they were committed to being morally orthodox Christians. So when the life scripts diverged, most of them followed the (new) middle class life script en masse. Essentially, the bulk of the Christian middle class strivers kept on following the prevailing middle class life script, as it changed, and left the Christian one by the wayside where it conflicted, observing the latter with the lips but not with the actions.*

This was almost universally taking place at the time, and it became quickly entrenched to the point where it became the widespread, if unstated, behavioral expectation. The churches didn’t fight it too much — there was some fighting in the 60s and 70s about it, but at the same time most of the “conservative” fathers in the churches were also adopting, de facto, the new middle class life script for their own daughters, and so the active opposition to this from the churches became muted relatively quickly. Then in the later 80s and into the 90s, vocal criticism of this massive, overnight change in behaviors became virtually unheard of, apart from radical separatist elements. For certain, fornication, pornography, rock music, video games, and many other intrinsic elements of the sexual revolution were all fulminated against, with gusto, during this period, but the intimately linked fempowerment script that had been virtually unanimously adopted by parents went almost entirely uncritiqued because it was, in effect, already the overwhelming norm in the churches by circa 1990.**

Simply put, the middle class wholeheartedly adopted the economic/career/empowerment aspects of feminism very openly and virtually universally during this period, and in the end, it didn’t take that much arm twisting between fathers and daughters to do it. To the extent that Christianity conflicts with elements of this script (such as the morally illicit sexual activity that is virtually guaranteed by the script), it is what will get bent in almost all cases, and not the middle class life success script. This will be very hard to change, I think, because it is so long-standing at this point in terms of where people’s actual commitments, in a primary sense, really lie. When forced to choose between economics and religion, in a material era such as ours, most people will choose economics.

* Dalrock discussed this denial further in his post, The season of singleness. (2019 May 1).
** The results of this breakdown were recently reported by Cornerstone: Number of Sex Partners Before Marriage, by Decade (2021 May 16). Things clearly fell apart in the 1990s.

The UMC Career Model cannot satisfy female hypergamy nor the mothering instinct

Even when a woman can succeed at the Career Model, she is often still not satisfied with her life. Although some high-powered career women do “marry down” today, most often these women still try to marry very high value men in order to satisfy their desire for a hypergamous mate.

In general, women still want men who look just like the men from before the Career Model made its debut, only even better. The man has to make even more money than she does. He has to be more capable, smarter, and more ambitious than she is. He has to be smarter than she is, even if he has less formal education than she does. And, in many cases, he has to be even higher status than she is: He has to be partner to her associate, department head to her department member, neurosurgeon to her general practice physician.

She is playacting at being a man, but he has to actually BE the man. She can have a virtual d!ck; but his actual d!ck has to be bigger.

And yet, even when a woman can succeed in the Career Model and land a higher value man than herself, often she still doesn’t like the Career Model. It doesn’t sate her needs and desires. When she can get a man to do all that for her in a way that satisfies all of these needs, it is quite common for such a woman to quit and stop doing it, or cut way back, with the couple “surviving” on one very high upper middle class income while the wife with the law/medical/PhD degree “chooses to stay home” and enjoy the new “lifestyle luxury” of full-time parenting.

Related

This entry was posted in Building Wealth, Choosing A Profession, Convergence, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Determination, Education, Female Power, Feminism, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Generational Curses, Hypergamy, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Protestantism, Purpose, Self-Concept, Strategy, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

134 Responses to The Upper Middle Class Career Life Script Model

  1. cameron232 says:

    I think the career model is divorce insurance AND the parent’s (dad AND mom) egos. Since couples have so few kids, often one or two, dad’s ego is very much invested in girl’s achievement (sometimes he doesn’t even have one son). Mom’s ego is tied to feminist achievement of her daughter and living vicariously through her.
    From a woman’s perspective, she can be dumped/divorced just like that and is vulnerable. Yeah, I know women pushed for this – but it’s true that a woman with no education and job skills is rather vulnerable to easy, no fault divorce.
    I think a better, if not perfect model, is that the men in the family, her blood relatives, are her backup plan, assuming she’s a good woman who gets unfairly dumped and not a ho.

    Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      In the Bible such women return to her Father’s House(Family) and has a right to his protection and provision

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        As a mental exercise, compare how (so-called) Christians live and behave toward each other (whether their own biological families or their church families) and the wider world in today’s Middle Class America with how both Jesus and the Apostle Paul tell them to behave toward each other and the world. It’s not recommended that you do it often or that you dwell on the details of what you see, as it is a sure-fire recipe for soul-scorching despair.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Cameron – A woman with no education or job skills is entitled to hammer her ex in family court for cash and prizes. The economic protection is there, which is a contributing facto to why women feel free to initiate divorce and do so at a much higher rate than men. We need to remember that, on the whole, marriage law and cultural norms should exist in such a way as to keep female sexual nature in check slightly more than men’s. This is God’s model for marriage.

      I do like where you are going with a girl’s male family members being her safety net. That net should be very present in her single life vetting a man who would want to marry her (and for assuring she does not innocently wander into behaviors that bring her to “ho” territory). Approaching the relationship issue pre-marriage might just cut down on needing the safety net for the dissolution of the marriage.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Cameron – The daughter’s career is definitely tied to dad’s ego all too often. As far as women being vulnerable in divorce if they don’t have a career … I’d submit current family law makes a successful man married to a stay at home mom more vulnerable. If she is not haaaapppppyyyyy, she can leave the marriage and take his provisioning with her. This is what Dalrock railed against for years.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        RPA, I anticipated that response. Yes, absolutely. I don’t doubt this basic manosphere truism. A lot of men get divorced raped.

        But in reality, cash and prizes doesn’t always work out this way for the woman. And I don’t think most dads are thinking, “well if her future hubby dumps her she can just divorce rape him.”

        Sometimes child support, alimony isn’t a lot of money. Sometimes the guy doesn’t pay. Sometimes the guy is savvy enough to figure out how to get out of paying. (I know a case.)

        I also know of a case where the father (just last year) was sent to jail for molesting his two daughters (and yes I believe he did it). The (house)wife has no real job skills and is on the verge of destitution. Yes, she picked a bad man (heavy metal vomit band guitarist who told her she was his n=18 when they met). But this doesn’t change the point about some women being financially vulnerable in an easy, no-fault divorce society.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I get what you are saying but it is a little too tyranny of the minority for me. Divorce by definition splits assets and worsens finances because of this. It comes down to what you are protecting against and if you are serious about shifting the odds in favor of marriages remaining intact.

        The career minded woman is already showing traits and choosing options that are bad news for husbands. If marriage, as God lays it out in the Bible, is for the woman to be submissive and reverent of her husband, how does an escape plan for women (because that is exactly what happens in reality) help towards this end? It often serves to embolden independence for the wife and makes it easier for her invert the authority hierarchy. When that happens, the marriage spiral begins, either to the marital mediocrity of numb co-existence or to the death of the marriage.

        The better way would be for a woman to reduce the need for a plan B and that’s where I like your idea of male relatives being involved. Not after the marriage deteriorates, but long before the marriage happens. There is no way that male relatives could do any worse in vetting men as potential mates than women currently do. I think the benefit is twofold. First, men will not have the emotional fog of dating in the way of decision making which would allow for a better assessment. Second, they can tell the boytoy, I mean boyfriend, what she is really like when she is not putting her best foot forward.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        RPA, to be clear, I’m against the backup plan mentality. I’m just saying it’s not surprising given easy no fault divorce. If we got rid of this – if marriage were for life – there’d be less temptation towards backup plans.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        I think if we tightened the divorce regime today, you would simply see very little marriage because very few people today would sign up for a true “no way out” marriage other than through demonstrated bad acts (adultery, abuse, abandonment, addiction).

        People would couple up but not get married, and so the entire marriage regime would simply apply to non-marital couples, as it does in many places today anyway.

        Liked by 4 people

    • elspeth says:

      This comment is going to encompass a range of thoughts in response to several comments, because it’s easier given current time constraints.

      I have seen a lot of the desire to live vicariously through daughters, as well as dads of only daughters trying to raise kick-ass girls, but it’s only a particular set of people who think that way. A larger issue I have witnessed is the tendency to push young adult daughters and coddle young adult sons. While this is a well known tendency in the black community, I’m currently witnessing it to a large degree in white, MC, Christian families. I was kind of surprised by it at first. Now I realize it’s the water we swim in, unless we choose to swim upstream.

      Our fecundity is obviously greater than the normal American family average, yet the Lord still saw fit to present my husband with 6 daughters. It is what it is, so he’s a dad of daughters only. He doesn’t treat them as sons, hasn’t been in any rush to boot them out, didn’t pack ’em up and send them into the college moral cesspool. Although they do have degrees and jobs, that needn’t mean being ball busting feminists.

      Of course, SAM and I were both raised in pretty hard-lined patriarchal environments. Not to be confused with tyrannical or abusive, just very strong lines of demarcation between the sex roles and proper hierarchy. And both our moms worked, at least part-time, throughout their marriages.

      Culturally, with the near total absence of ways for women to materially contribute to the family a la Proverbs 31, a huge swath of men — no matter how traditional — are wholly uninterested in a woman who has not demonstrated any type of skill in the departments of education/employment/money management/lack of laziness. That often translates into finishing high school, going to college, and if she couldn’t manage to get an MRS degree while there, then entering the world of work. The idea that this is a conscious life script for most women outside the UMC/elite is, in my opinion, strongly fallacious. The average young woman is simply doing the next thing, because how else is she going to remain busy and productive?

      Yes, that can — in some environments — be accomplished at home. However as a suburbanite, no matter what any traditionalist blogger tells you, there are limits to staying perpetually occupied at home in the suburbs unless you have 8 minor kids like Cameron, and most MEN don’t even want that many kids. A competent homemaker has certain things she does on certain days. If you have the standard 2 or 3 kids, and any kind of a household regimen, it eventually works like a well-oiled machine, especially if your kids are in school.

      Then, you find yourself either a) bored, b) wasting time, or c) looking for a remunerative outlet. I have done all three and am currently thankful to be successfully doing option C. It’s not enough turn me into an independent woman who “don’t need no man”, but my husband does appreciate the motivation to use some of the spare time to supplement his efforts.

      Also, some husbands do cheat, abuse, or leave. I happen to know two Christian women (one MC, one UMC) whose husbands couldn’t (or wouldn’t) keep it at home, and I know with a fair degree of certainty that one of those wives was pulling out all the stops, often in violation of her own conscience, to keep that man satisfied. Both of those women had 6 minor kids, and they had to go back to work after being at home many years (more than a decade). Child support is often generous, but divorce always leaves both parties worse off financially.

      Someone mentioned the tyranny of the minority. I liked that phrasing. It’s true that we have caved to the tyranny of the minority, and that’s been a horrible development. We shouldn’t treat every case as if it’s the most extreme, and we shouldn’t be giving every person who wants out of a marriage the benefit of the doubt. We most definitely should not be setting our daughters up to approach marriage with the mindset that they need a backup plan.

      Unfortunately, we live in the age of feels. The tyranny of feelings. Women feel deeply, and often loudly. Squeaky wheels get the grease and all that. Somehow I keep coming back to, “Men must stand up and say no.” But there aren’t enough non-feminist men and dads out there to make that happen.

      So here we are.

      Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Somehow I keep coming back to, “Men must stand up and say no.” But there aren’t enough non-feminist men and dads out there to make that happen.

        So here we are.”

        And as has been explained frequently in these parts, those men who have put both feet down and loudly declared “NO!” have, in most cases, wound up absolutely destroyed by Divorce Rape, Inc. This tends to dampen the enthusiasm of other men to follow their lead.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        The men are too busy cheering their daughters along to stand up and say “no” anyway. The men are intimately involved in the life script, after all.

        Liked by 4 people

  2. info says:

    Seems like God permitted such evils to force the revelation of the true allegiances of those who claim to be of Christ.

    Do they Love the World or Christ. And we all know how that turned out.

    Liked by 8 people

  3. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    The end of all this daughter going to get it all is near as the incel insurrection grows every year!They were the beta bux that fueled the alpha fux!They became self-aware of their abuse is the problem for fathers&the foolish ”elites”!Men like myself have always known you will be discarded if needed hence why the remarriage stuff started drying up by the late 90s&because men started having little chance of getting his kids from any previous marriage(Which people forget fueled remarriage back in the 70s-80s!) so most men told the lovely world to stick it then as official MGTOW started even though it had unofficaly been going on with rich men like benny hill since the ’50s&60s! Anonymousage66-72 was right,mgtow was going to accomplish what mens rights activism never could as it put the squeeze on the marriage market
    P.S.Why did’nt ”christian”dads provide for their daughters before&after marriage?They spitted on god,men&children&wonder what happened?God heard the cries of all the innocent blood shead by their wonderful daughters is what happened then&now!People should keep on beleaving only ugly poor uneducated men are the ones dropping out,how has that been working out for them?The timeline is clear if people have eyes to see!

    Liked by 2 people

    • locustsplease says:

      People think these incels are dumb broke and lazy. It’s just not true from what I’ve seen. You get blown off by women for about a decade after high school and that’s about all an average man can handle and he gives up. Even if they meet women, which they do, they have no idea how relationships are supposed to go, and we all know a little awkward conversation is all it takes to get ghosted right now.

      The average woman thought some woman was stringing these guys along with a crumb of pussy and it’s not happening. The top dogs are clearing the table.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Liz says:

    Kind of interesting. (I’m traveling now so this might not be a complete thought.) I remember things changing a bit on the tail end of our military experience. In the beginning, it was kind of understood the spouse’s career wasn’t likely to mesh with the frequent moves and deployments. At the tail end, commanders wives were sort of bragging about how many super achiever women there were in their squadrons/units. One had to marry much later in life to do that, typically. (We did have one pilot with a wife who went to veterinary school in a different state right after giving birth and he did 100 percent of the childcare with a nanny, which is kind of hard to believe and they must’ve had some special arrangement with the grandparents to do it.)

    With this change in paradigm came the concept of the “command team” also. Man and wife were a command team. Ummm, no they aren’t. And that is a nightmare scenario. One outgoing commander said he was proud when people at the base asked him, “Hey, you’re Tammy’s (not her real name) husband aren’t you?” Not knowing who he was but only who his wife was. He said that on the podium to a crowd of hundreds of people. Thought that was weird.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. feeriker says:

    How many men of ANY economic status want a ball-busting, fempowered shrike for even a casual relationship, let alone a wife? No man with any self-respect wants to f**k his competition, a woman who is psychologically trying to pose as a man, which is what high-powered career women are doing, consciously or not.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Any time a man leaves his wife for, or cheats with, a woman that does not appear to be in the same league as his wife in the looks department, what feeriker wrote applies. There is a local radio shock jock type that had a discussion on the hot and crazy curve. It’s like a supply and demand curve in economics, but addressing how hot a woman has to be for a man to put up with her antics. The consensus was, through a process as scientific as a morning radio show could be, that if the woman is really attractive and the sexual relationship is good, this situation can last for a while. But ultimately, if those characteristics of classical femininity where not present, things ended. They basically concluded that a bad attitude makes a really hot woman not attractive over time.

      Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        The incentive is for all women now to have a bad attitude!How bad is it going to get going forward?But then again the future looks so bright I have to wear shades!

        Like

  6. 10x (100x ?) easier for parents to raise corporate career girl vs. virtuous Christian girl ready for marriage and motherhood.
    Women in workforce have destroyed all but the UC’s and UMC’s ability to get by on a single MMC/LMC wage. Raising children is expensive. Houses to raise children in are expensive. Private schooling is expensive. Homeschooling is a great option for some, but not all parents are capable.
    This battle was lost in the 1960’s before some (most ?) of the people on this blog were born. 99% of the population outside of nursing homes basically believe that life was ALWAYS like this (or always meant o be like this).

    Liked by 8 people

  7. locustsplease says:

    One reason fathers push for career women is they dont want them back. Its your chickens coming home to roost. The same reason they support their son in laws getting financially obliterated by princess after divorce. They raised this unfaithful woman and will b dammed if they get stuck with the bill. I have a millionaire relative with single mother daughters and got them to live off govt for the same reason.

    Its insurance for the spineless beta father.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      I had never thought of it the way you put it. Beta dad is already has to deal with the strong independent mommy of strong independent girl on a daily basis. Sure he loves his little girl, but having to live with 2 adult SIWs in the same house every day might do him in.

      Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        One of my shipmates in the Navy years ago was a married father of four daughters and one young son. He once confided to me that he went to counseling one day each week just to be able to cope with all the estrogen he was drowning in at home, along with all the drama that came with it. I REALLY felt for the man.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I am related to a man who had sons, a gap in time and then daughters. He is a wealth of knowledge when it comes to the differences between raising boys and girls. His experience closely resembles that of your shipmate from a drama standpoint.

        Like

  8. feeriker says:

    It’s also a manifestation of the fact that, all of their blather to the contrary notwithstanding, most American parents HATE being parents and see their children as a burden and an annoyance (which is one reason why they’re perfectly fine with forcing them to attend dangerous, dysfunctional, and ingnorance-inducing government schools; the very thought of them being at home to go learn fills most parents with nausea).

    So yeah, OF COURSE Dad wants both little daughter and her brother(s) GONE once they reach majority age. He and Mom hated being parents to them when they were younger, so why on earth would they want to be parents to them now that they’re grown and capable of being on their own?

    Liked by 5 people

    • It makes me sick to think you are correct, but maybe indifference is the case more so than actual hate? Otherwise why would they do just as you say they do? I don’t understand why so many people of whom I generally have a good opinion send their kids to the HORRIBLE public schools in the area. They say they care about their kids, but their actions don’t align with that sentiment.

      Could we place this on the Boomers as well. They created a generation of latch-key kids, who had to know they weren’t really valued and then those kids are just passing on what was done to them.

      Liked by 6 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Children know when they’re priority and when they’re not. This makes a big difference.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah.

        It’s complicated.

        There are also plenty of parents who are in the ultra-striver upper middle set who have their 1-2 kids, and pour time and effort into their kids like nothing else — think Tiger Moms, but the white/Jewish/etc version. Not religious, though, and follow the secular life script, but they are pouring much more time and effort into parenting than my parents generation did, even with stay at home moms.

        Parenting standards changed. In prior generations like 50 years ago you had stay at home moms more frequently but you also didn’t have said moms doing the same things with their kids that parents do today, and almost none of them were homeschooling, either, then. Now, at least in the upper set, although few of the moms are stay at home (there are some “luxury item sahms” like I mention), the time that they do spend on the kids is very focused, intense, and more directed. A part of that is compensating, to be sure, but it’s also that they are intent on raising super-successful kids, and I can tell you that even among that set, whom I have worked around for 3 decades now, they pour everything that is not at work into their kids — all of it, time, energy, focus, effort and so on. It’s a full-court-press when it comes to parenting. The PTAs and parent teacher meetings are like high pressure business meetings — same kind of tense, competitive, driven atmosphere is everywhere where these parents predominate.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah, I suppose but it’s about more than how much effort you put into their success. You can put all the time in the world into them but I don’t know whether tiger-mom kids feel loved or not. Do you love them for their potential and their successes or because they’re your children?

        Corny, I know, but mom was there every day -after school – with fresh baked cookies or hot chocolate when it was raining. She noticed when things were off and put notes in our lunches – telling us she knew something was wrong. I saw the sacrifice -that she and dad did without material things so that we had a good childhood.

        My boss for example. Executive who makes doctor-ish money I think. Yeah, kids are high achieving, parent go to PTA meetings, etc. But he tells them (2 daughters) he’s kicking them out as soon as they turn 18 because they won’t follow his rules anyway – as if this is an inevitability.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        I think in such cases it’s less about the wellbeing of the kids and more about a reflection on themselves. The kids are decorative, another way to compete. In some cases it is a job requirement. If you’re a hedge fund manager your kids can’t go to the local community college you have to get them into an Ivy League school so your clients are suitably impressed

        Liked by 5 people

      • Elspeth says:

        This. It is almost always more about being able to say, “Suzy got into Yale” than it is at all about what kind of human being Suzy is.

        And we wonder why we are being ruled by mostly narcissistic GenX-ish corporate oligarchs. We live in a corporatist structure more than anything Constitutional, as evidenced by the constant striving for more status markers and more prestigious titles.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        If you think about child rearing throughout history, the idea that all children go to school is a modern expectation. Most families could not afford schooling outside of the home and many needed their kids to work at the family business/farm so they could all eat. We are only 80ish years into being wealthy enough that all children are expected to be at school so the social and family relational consequences are relatively new to human history.

        While I don’t know definitively, my guess is that fathers and sons working together was both bonding and education for the child with the same applying to mother’s and daughters.

        Liked by 7 people

      • I was just trying to explain to someone that the modern system of education didn’t exist before the Industrial Revolution, but being a product of said system, they weren’t able to understand my point.

        Liked by 7 people

      • thedeti says:

        “…even among that set, whom I have worked around for 3 decades now, they pour everything that is not at work into their kids — all of it, time, energy, focus, effort and so on.”

        Yeah, this has really changed. There’s a particular demand on fathers to spend “quality time” with their children – to carve out time, scheduled time, specifically for the purpose of interaction with their children. This is something my father just never did, with me or with my sisters. It’s a new thing with families.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        I suspect the concept of “quality time” came about with the dual professional career parenting. Kids are in day care or with the nanny instead of a parent or close relative, almost all the time. Often there are multiple changing caregivers, but… “Hey… It’s not about how much time you spend with your kids… It’s the quality!” This reassures the parents.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Liz, you are 100% correct about that phrase. It was invented to suggest that parents with little time for their kids could make up for it with “quality.”

        It’s common around here for the women to go back to work a few weeks after birth. Which means they leave their babies every day with a stranger-woman. I have stronger mothering instincts that that and I’m a guy.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        It’s in part compensating for dual working parents, yes, but the reality is that the substantive content of the interactions has also radically changed.

        For the upper middle dual-income couple, these interactions are intensely of the developmental/enriching/educational kind. It’s not only compensating for lost time due to work away from the kids, it’s a different approach to interaction with children, and how children’s time should be spent and structured. It’s why the SAHMs of this class don’t raise radically different kids than the non-SAHMs do … they are also doing the same developmental/enriching/educational types of things which in prior generations … just were not nearly as emphasized to anything like the same degree, having lived through those years myself as a child.

        Liked by 5 people

  9. redpillboomer says:

    Very interesting post and comments. I, being a Christian dad of a daughter, now 29 and engaged to get married next April, had a little different view than the one presented above, “The parental Plan B (feign this), but really Strong and Independent!” I raised my daughter to be smart, go to a Christian college, AND I had the idea that she’d meet her future husband there and get married by age 24 or so. When I visited the school on parents’ weekends, it did seem like a plausible outlook because the number of young men was about 45-50% of the student body, and they seemed like they were self-motivated, achieving young men with goals, e.g. potential marriageable men and future husbands, fathers.

    I wasn’t wrong, but I found out my Millennial daughter and her peers were following a somewhat different life script than the one I had in mind, or that was mentioned in the blog post. It was something like, graduate with boyfriend, live together for most (or all) of their twenties while they established themselves in their careers, and then when the timing was ‘right’ get married. Btw, my son, one year older than my daughter, followed the exact same script. In my ‘blue pillness’ and traditional mindset, I struggled with it–the ‘playing house’ part without a marriage certificate, for my daughter especially — e.g. the insurance live-in lover/boyfriend wouldn’t dump her after five years for a younger chickie. Once I got red pilled, and became aware of what a large portion of the Millennials were doing, hooking up, riding the CC, etc., I was like, “Okay, I didn’t get the ideal, but at least I avoided the crazy N-count scenarios. I didn’t end up with a daughter with a double digit N-count and an inability to pair bond due to being an Alpha widow.” I believe it was Novaseeker who replied to me in an earlier post when I mentioned my daughter’s situation, something like, “Consider yourself lucky. It worked out fairly well for you, given where we’re at culturally these days.”

    I’ve had the opportunity to deal with a number of Millennial women in the education program I’ve been involved with for a number of years, who followed the current feminist life script. They’re in their early thirties and some are in their early forties now. All of the one’s I know about, and am at least somewhat familiar with their situation, ALL of them (save one) are either trying to hypergamously stick the landing, or they are settling for a guy in their age range that appears to me to be of lower value than they were accustomed to in their twenties. Several I’ve noticed have defaulted to Hispanic and other ethnic men, who occur to me as somewhat Alpha, but mostly occur as SIMPs to me, e.g. foolish idiots who think they’ve landed a prize in the Ms. former CC rider.

    It seems to me, Novaseeker, you might want to elaborate on why the original script that worked in earlier times (circa 1990-2010), where the young women follow the feminist life script AND land Mr. BetaBux between the ages of 28-34, is breaking down now. I only know of one female, now 40, who married one of the few Alpha men in the educational program, he’s 40 too, and she landed him at 34 years of age. They have been married six years and have two children; so she pulled it off, but she is the ONLY one I know of. The rest of the ladies, not a one of them have pulled off something similar; AND they appear to becoming a bit desperate and or sullen about it when they, on rare occasion, let down their mask, usually on a social media post, a rare one in-between all their posts about how ‘wonderful’ their lives are that they post regularly on social media.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      “It was something like, graduate with boyfriend, live together for most (or all) of their twenties while they established themselves in their careers, and then when the timing was ‘right’ get married.”

      This is one variation of the UMC Career Life Script which appeals to the “natural mating” process, and offers a rounded compromise on many aspects. It tends to be practiced by the better segment of those who take this path. By better, I mean they tend to be more mature and emotionally healthy, and they are not looking for the thrills surrounding the hook-up culture nor to “find themselves”. Instead, they are more serious about cultivating their relationship, and they take marriage seriously enough not to rush into it. My sister did this too. If you think about it, you can’t really get into hook-ups when you have someone waiting for you at home. It also serves as a lengthy and thorough vetting, although it does come at a price.

      I was always curious about the timing aspect. The “right time” always tends to be at least 3-5 years into the relationship, and near the end of their 20s. I suspect that in the majority of cases, this is more because of the woman’s uncertainties about whether she is truly maximizing her opportunities than the man’s uncertainties about commitment. (It should be the other way around, BTW.) But by the time she approaches the wall, she’s well acquainted with what opportunities are available to her, so there is much less “existential fear”, as Rollo calls it.

      Sorry if this sounds crass, RPB. Not intended towards your daughter.

      Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        Not at all Jack. My daughter and her beau have been together for five years now, living together for the last two or three. Nice place, dog and all. They were waiting for him to finish Law School which he just did. So, they’ve had a plan. Just knowing RP stuff, it is a bit risky on my daughter’s part because she has spent the second half of her twenties committed and waiting on him to finish school. However, getting him into a house with both of their names on the mortgage, seems to have helped. He’s acting like a husband. But still…her dad will feel a bit better for her when she officially locks him down. This script seems to be a compromise script between having an earlier marriage, e.g. 24-25 years old, and running around bf & gf throughout their twenties with the Tinder ‘Netflix and chill’ and CC lifestyles swirling all around them with their peers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        There is a show called Married at First Sight that is both offensive to marriage and wildly educational about the current state of the marriage market. The concept is that experts create arranged marriages for people who have not figured it out on their own. A disproportionate number of the men and women on the show are red pill concept stereotypes. The woman in a “serial monogamy” relationship that unexpectedly (to her) ends in the woman’s late 20s or early 30s, thus blowing up her life script, is one that comes up often.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @redpillboomer

        It seems those women who would seek to marry in their early 20s would have to find a Husband who already got it made if they don’t want to delay marrying close to the wall as your daughter has done.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        @info,
        A woman in her early 20s marrying a man about 10 years older is a good working plan that’s been used successfully for centuries in the past. However, this idea is very unpopular in today’s culture. We discussed some of this before in this post.
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/on-the-ethics-of-teenage-marriage/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        “A woman in her early 20s marrying a man about 10 years older is a good working plan that’s been used successfully for centuries in the past. However, this idea is very unpopular in today’s culture.”

        Indeed.

        The ironic thing is that it’s the same age/type of guys that the girls eventually end up marrying — guys around 30, with something to show for themselves. What has changed is that the 20’s years of these women — their most attractive years — are not to be shared with these men, but with different, more sexually attractive men, before they decide to “settle down” into the “boring” life of husband and kids.

        That is the shift. The idea is to marry the same kinds of guys who are the same age more or less when the girls are marrying them. But by moving up the girls in age, the entire 20s years are reclaimed sexually by the girls for their own exclusive benefit, and that of men who are not “marriageable”, but are sexy and fun and who will be her best sexual memories for the rest of her life.

        Over time, this has reduced, on the margins, the incentives for a certain percentage of men to participate in this system — not that many, but as has been pointed out. it doesn’t need to be many for it to have a felt impact. And this is why women are feeling more of a squeeze in the lane changing years now.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        “But by moving up the girls in age, the entire 20s years are reclaimed sexually by the girls for their own exclusive benefit, and that of men who are not “marriageable”, but are sexy and fun, and who will be her best sexual memories for the rest of her life.

        Over time, this has reduced, on the margins, the incentives for a certain percentage of men to participate in this system…”

        Yes, because this makes all the difference in terms of sanctification, overall satisfaction, sexual authority, Headship structure, and the bonding necessary to establish a good marriage. It removes/destroys all the best and most valuable aspects of what a woman brings into a marriage, transforms the woman into a b!tchy psychotic mess, and leaves the man who marries her with no fewer responsibilities and greater liabilities. Heaven help the children who never get to see their father being deeply loved and respected by their mother, and thus, never get to experience God in their formative years.

        It’s obviously a carefully contrived strategy of Satan, and those who willingly follow after this life script are doing the will of Satan.

        I wish somebody would have explained the cause-and-effect so plainly as this to me when I was younger. But of course, we’re never allowed to think of it this way. We’re never allowed to say anything negative about the choices women make. We’re never allowed to talk about the consequences (except when we’re trying to blame someone or hold them responsible). Not even the church will call it what it is, because that would be unacceptably anti-PC, and it would ‘uffend somebody’s feeelz!

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @nova,

        More or less how both sets of my grandparents did things. The men were 7 years older than the women.

        Grandfather who was a doctor married at 28 – grandmother was 21.

        Grandfather who was a diesel mechanic from West Virginia married at 23 – grandmother was 16.

        Given how women mature more slowly these days, I’d say the ideal would be a man in the latter half of his twenties marrying an undergrad-aged woman (18-21).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        “Heaven help the children who never get to see their father being deeply loved and respected by their mother, and thus, never get to experience God in their formative years.

        It’s obviously a carefully contrived strategy of Satan, and those who willingly follow after this life script are doing the will of Satan.

        … But of course, we’re never allowed to think of it this way. We’re never allowed to say anything negative about the choices women make. … Not even the church will call it what it is …”

        Hallelujah! Preach it brother Jack! That’s the Spirit! Nothing will change until men get filled with the zeal of the Lord, and pissed off at churchian White-Knighting for satanic Feminism. Societal discipline must start with self-discipline and church discipline. Otherwise the sons of lawlessness will continue to run our churches and society like a Special Olympics, where every sinner goes home a winner!

        Liked by 4 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      …why the original script that worked in earlier times (circa 1990-2010), where the young women follow the feminist life script AND land Mr. BetaBux between the ages of 28-34, is breaking down now.”

      I think it’s the effect that Dalrock talked about: gradually incentives for men to be the kinds of guys they want to marry has decreased. More guys are opting for either PUA/sexmax in the 20s/early 30s, or opting out in favor of Guyland/X-Box/DraftKings, etc., because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze in the 20s, so the number of guys who are “working on themselves” in their 20s so that they are the kinds of guys that women want to marry when they are ready to change lanes is smaller than it used to be. These guys still exist, but there are fewer of them, and in the dating market even marginal changes in numbers in terms of who is in the pool have a significant and noticeable effect on how others experience the market overall. Women are having a harder time because, at the margins, more men are basically opting for one of the other options in their 20s that takes them off the track to be “prime marriageable” guys in the right timeframe.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        It won’t take much of a male marriage dropout rate or even a marriage delay rate to cause painful disruptions. If you think of the Great Depression and all the fear based lasting changes from it, my grandparents would keep cans years beyond expiration after living through the depression, the economic contraction was in the high single digits for a few years. Other recessions in my lifetime were not even a 1% contraction, but they still caused fear and uncertainly that people acted on. So if marriageable men and women are about equal in number and 3-5% of men opt out, that is a sizable contraction.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Sharkly says:

        @Red Pill Apostle,
        I wish I could say that women’s decreasing chance of a holy heterosexual marriage is going to turn them all to the narrow way, but Romans 1 predicts the sexes just becoming more avoidant of each other and more sexually perverted and receiving the due penalty for the error of their ways.

        I will give you a sign! Feral women will complain more against men and demand that either men pay more in unsustainable taxes, or the government to print more money to fund their irresponsible descent into the depths of a primitive matriarchal bitcharchy and a general breakdown of law & order, as men no longer care to comply with an immoral system that has bitched at and degraded them from birth. You can judge the preceding oracle of mine by the following sign. If I am right, the Democrats will either try to raise your taxes, or to print more money, leading to inflation. 😉 And if they do both, surely you will know that there is a sage among you! 🎓

        Sorry if my oracle is a little late and they’re already doing both.
        ~ Sharkly ☣♂(toxically masculine)

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Sharkly,

        “Sorry if my oracle is a little late and they’re already doing both.”

        You are by far the finest history book oracle I have ever read! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe2 says:

      “It was something like, graduate with boyfriend, live together for most (or all) of their twenties while they established themselves in their careers, and then when the timing was ‘right’ get married.”

      But if they happen to live in a “common law” state such as Texas or Rhode Island, they may find themselves married sans the certificate. At least this is a possibility should the relationship head south and the couple has accumulated assets that need to be divided.

      Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “That is the shift. The idea is to marry the same kinds of guys who are the same age more or less when the girls are marrying them. But by moving up the girls in age, the entire 20s years are reclaimed sexually by the girls for their own exclusive benefit, and that of men who are not “marriageable”, but are sexy and fun and who will be her best sexual memories for the rest of her life.”

      Right! The 20’s belong to “Me, Myself and I… plus forays with the Chads”, and the thirties now are what the twenties used to be just a few short decades ago, viz. finding a husband and starting a family. However, other than the one exception I mentioned earlier (the 34-year-old who locked down a good man her age), ALL the other females I know, or am somewhat familiar with, are having a problem ‘switching lanes’ as Novaseeker put it. As they have hit the wall and worked their way through to the post-wall years (35 plus), the refrain is “I’m done with Chad now (except maybe on the side… Hee hee), and I’m ready for Mr. Beta Bux to wife me up, give me the white picket fence, and my 1.5 kids.” This is where the thirty somethings I know seem to be running into problems, as in “Where the hell is he? He’s supposed to be here!!!” As in, “Where have all the good men gone?” I think this decade is the decade where the ladies increasingly experience the laws of supply and demand, and what a b*tch reality is to deal with on a daily basis.

      Like

  10. “But still… her dad will feel a bit better for her when she officially locks him down.”

    I’m not able to parse out what might supposedly be “red pill” in that statement. Her Dad wants somebody else to become legally responsible for Princess…

    Ok, then.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Scott says:

    I have 2 daughters. I am planning on being flexible with what the “right” man looks like, and I also know I ultimately have no control over it.

    Right now, the oldest one says, “I want to marry a man just like daddy.”

    So I guess that’s good.

    Liked by 6 people

  12. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Scott you are indeed a wise father!Alpha-MGTOW dos’nt care about what anybody likes or dos’nt like!
    We strut in everybodys face as we show off our glock knives&pistols as women blush&betas wish they were us!

    Like

    • Scott says:

      I don’t know much about being an alpha-MGTOW. I just think the whole world and everything in it is pretty stupid so I try not pay much attention to it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        You basicaly described being an Alpha-MGTOW!DaGBFMtm&I have beleaved the whole world is foolish(&have been amplifying it!)&just pay attention to what needs to be looked after instead since the begining of our respective carreers in the manosphere&I outside of it!But this dos’nt sell that good for unknown reasons!

        Like

  13. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Do I have to point out the sin pf persumption is obvious in many fathers comments&raising of daughters?Bad behavior on display in this thread wheres the decency police at, like in a previous thread?I wonder where the push for ”legal” baby-murder came from?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Scott says:

    In 10 years, I will be 59. My OLDEST daughter will be 22. I started really late. Youngest daughter will be 13.

    I do not expect to be around long enough for this to look anything like the way I imagine it in my dreams.

    Sure, I am aging well. (So Mychael tells me.) But I burn the candle at both ends, charging hard, taking big risks, never taking my foot off the pedal. I will probably die falling down into a rocky Montana gorge on my horse trying to save some stranded hikers.

    After that, I wont really care much what happens. But I will have the satisfaction of knowing I raised them to the nearest approximation of ideal nuclear family with dad in charge, and I died doing something good.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I’ll be 57 when my youngest daughter is 13 – not far behind you as far as being old dad.

      “Sure, I am aging well.”

      For perspective, you’re the same age as “uncle Frank” from the original Home Alone movie and two years older than Joe Pesci when he did same movie.

      Wife and I happened to watch one of those “Where are they now?” videos on YouTube last night.

      Like

      • Liz says:

        My dad was fifty when I was born. He lived to be 90.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        These ages are super-common around here in DC. My son’s peers (he is 22) have parents generally 10 or so years older than me, in their early 60s. The script here is a bit later than the national average, so marry early 30s, have kids in the mid to later 30s for the woman, around 40 or so for the man (sometimes guy is even older). So when the oldest is 20 the mom is in the mid 50s and the dad is late 50s to 60ish. I am guessing that it isn’t that different in other similar cities like Boston, Manhattan, SF and so on.

        Liked by 2 people

  15. cameron232 says:

    Years ago, we attended a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church. More conservative than LCMS. Pope is the antichrist, dinosaurs on the ark, etc.

    But they’d e.g. announce in service when so-and-so’s daughter got an appointment to the air force academy or whatever. I remember thinking that that should be a source of shame not pride in a fundie church but hey I’m really misogynistic.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ray says:

      Cameron 232 at 12:18, and all —

      When I lurk on Christian sites, especially those concerning eschatology (meaning, now) inevitably the occasion will arise where some dad, mom, granny or whoever will brag about how their Precious Pumpkin just “smashed the old boys network” or “took the patriarchy down a peg”. Other Christians, usually men, then chime in, in support of this marvelous feat of courage and endurance, praising “You go girl!” America. Get it? It’s as if THE ENTIRE SYSTEM isn’t rigged to benefit, empower, and encourage their Precious Pumpkins!

      Do not be deceived: God HATES this, and hates it the most in Christian men, who are supposed to be DEFENDING the patriarchy from the schemes and works of this hiveworld, and of its current ruler. Defending the patriarchy that GOD ALMIGHTY created and established on this planet.

      Of all things today, even beyond abortion, beyond the Plandemic Globo Takeover, King Jeshua is focused on this issue of feminism, and on the formerly Christian nations now following the demonic spirit of the tsah-rah, instead of following HIM. Even as Adam followed the voice and will of Eve, and not the voice of Jehovah.

      There are many things that need my attention, but always He wants this, this, this, over and over. However much I counsel and persuade concerning the Father/Son (dads & sons), it’s never enough for Him. He’s intent on Malachi 4 in this hour, and woe to any individual or nation that rebels against the restoration of the dads and the sons. America, lookin at you, bigly. You’re her adopted Homeland.

      The Christians on eschatological webpages are expecting imminently to be raptured to Christ’s side, before the major Troubles commence here. But I tell you this will not happen, and their hearts will be crushed thereafter. Because the Lord will not bring them up out of this place while they followed, and follow, the feminist (tsah-rah) ‘life-script’ of the Western World. The Luciferian Script. Because these men and women carry ‘written’ in their spirits a demonic script, He will not pollute heaven with their presence, not in that particular hour. They will pass through at least some part of the cleansing.

      Therefore, you few who have not turned away from your brothers these years — while our feminist nations trampled their sons down, and elevated their daughters over the brethren in all things — you rare Philadelphians certainly WILL escape the worst ravages of this planet, when the King turns to punish the nations for abandoning their sons, and instead elevating their daughters over them. Not for having sin, which we all have. But for willingly, indeed proudly and gleefully, living under the life-script of God’s ancient enemy, the tsah-rah.

      Those of you about Father’s business, who have already walked through the wilderness, preaching, will not be required to walk through it again. For you, all things lost will be restored. ALL things. Go forward against this world in that comfort and surety, and in the assurance of your great rewards.

      Liked by 3 people

  16. thedeti says:

    “…it was quite possible to follow the standard American middle class life script (or upper middle class one; the upper middle was tiny then anyway and had not yet ballooned into the unwieldy behemoth it has since become) while not contradicting conventional Christian sexual morality. The two meshed.”

    Good point. And a couple of points to make here.

    1) Those who weren’t born into the professional/managerial/UMC class were shown the real potential to work themselves into that class. If you worked hard, got the education, got the jobs, made the connections, you could move into that class. It wasn’t an empty promise – if you did all the “right things” you could get in. I did. Millions of men and women in GenX did that. Maybe this was a GenX – GenY thing. Now, many younger adults either aren’t interested in it or cannot do it.

    2) For men and women it was, “Work yourself into the professional/managerial/UMC class.” But women retained all their options: to possibly marry into the PM/UMC. Or, they worked themselves into that class, married men who were also there, and then quit or scale back their jobs/careers. Or they gave up their careers and worked “jobs”.

    For men: You work yourself into the PM/UMC class, you’re truly a striver. You can’t ever let up. You worked like hell to get there, you have to work like hell to stay there. Mostly it’s because if you worked into it, you’re an outsider and it takes a long, long time to become an insider. The way you become an insider is either building up connections or just plain hard work. You have to cultivate both.

    3) There are lots of blurred lines and lack of clarity about who is in the PM/UMC class. It usually isn’t about money. It’s more about pedigree and educational level. Physicians, lawyers, high level academics, finance, mid to high level government, investment banking, Big Five accounting, C-suite people are in this class. Tradesmen are not – even tradesmen who outearn the professionals. Generally, if you do any kind of manual labor, you aren’t in the PM/UMC. The military is not in this class unless they obtain a high level command post and reach at least full colonel or its equivalent. The people who support the PM/UMC and work closely with them aren’t in this class. Nurses, paralegals, clerical, junior and middle management are not in the PM/UMC. Just because you’re a white collar worker who sits behind a desk does not put you in this class. Sales, insurance agents, actuaries, bean counters, claims adjusters, public relations, human resources, government analysts…

    4) There was the overlap between the PM/UMC and Christian values. I think that most in the PM/UMC might have been engaging in sexual immorality but kept it extremely quiet, because there was still the hard expectation that this class publicly observed those rules. Maybe you break them quietly, but you keep it very discreet. The shifts happened, I think, because the ownership class was breaking those rules more and more flagrantly as time went on. JFK was the last president for whom the media avoided covering his extramarital affairs. It’s become clear through historical documentation and “tell all” testimonials that the ownership class has been breaking the rules since time immemorial, and being more brazen about it. The PM/UMC acts like they can do whatever they want, but were kept in check because their positions were precarious. But the ownership class really can do whatever they want, in large part because their money, connections, power, and influence insulate them from the temporal consequences of their conduct, no matter how illegal or immoral.

    American society, being what it is, deemed that this was “not fair”. If the owners can sleep around with impunity, so should everyone else. First time this really got exposed was 1984, Gary Hart and Donna Rice. The debacle scuttled his presidential campaign. But at that time, it was still absolutely verboten for high level politicians to sleep around openly. Hart got caught because he wasn’t discreet enough. But by then the cat was out of the bag – we all knew our male politicians were immoral horndogs. The Monica Lewinsky affair laid this bare — It’s not sex, and even if it is, it doesn’t matter because, “It’s just sex.” It’s not even sex; It’s just lying about sex, and everyone lies about sex. And if Bill Clinton can do it, then why can’t everyone else? It’s been downhill from there.

    Liked by 7 people

    • thedeti says:

      Hit post too soon.

      Par 3 should be:

      Sales, insurance agents, actuaries, bean counters, claims adjusters, public relations, human resources, government analysts are not in the PM/UMC.

      Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        Ownership classmen might as well have their own harems of nubile women to have children with, as well as for enjoyment. Since they are polygamous with impunity.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      It’s been said that how you see class is an indication of which social class you’re in. Lower class people see class as a function of how much money you have. Middle class people see class as a function of how much education/credentials you have. Upper class people see class as a function of inheritance – and the norms that come with that inheritance.

      I am around a fair number of lower class people and they like to ask you how much money you make and talk loudly about how much money they make assuming they’re not dirt poor.

      Liked by 4 people

  17. Jack says:

    I’d like to add that those who push the UMC Career model hardly mention that these women also get caught in the undertow of student loan debt to a greater degree, presumably because they choose fields which don’t pay much. The boilerplate response is, “You’ll be making so much money after your career takes off, that you’ll have it paid off in 5 years!” Heh…

    Liked by 4 people

  18. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Student loan debt will be the wedge issue between men&women coming up!Just like asians telling BLM FU in cali!Most men are not going to riot over women getting a bailout paid mostly by them?Why nobody ever mentions how many women said FU to free college in STEM in australia?They were sure they were going to win idol&become the next jlo or beyonce&eff all the hawt guys!What went wrong?

    Liked by 1 person

  19. lastmod says:

    I left employment with The Salvation Army when I was hired by a higher end California commercial / retail property management company in 2018. My career has moved leaps and bounds since…and will continue to grow. Why?

    Was it my exceptional status, and private school, undergrad and graduate education? No.
    Was it my exceptional social skills? No.
    Was it my good looks (as if)? No.

    It was a very, very rock iron work ethic. Sure, I had some potentials but no past employer post IBM could find zero fault with my work. At 7-11, at The Salvation Army, at the record shop, harvesting almonds…….

    The Slavtion Army would not promote me in better work than a janitor because I did it very well. Exceptionally well. I tried to apply for other jobs many, many times….what did they tell me????

    “God has this amazing plan, and its on his timing for you to get another job. Be thankful and grateful”

    The real issue was that they didn’t want to lose a good janitor. I shut up and did the work. After meeting that one manager in a Starbucks for the company I work for now…he encouraged me to apply for work at his company. I did.

    The Salvation Army, and most Christians would have kept me as janitor forever because of their own class / cultural biases. In that culture, they didn’t want any upstarts, they wanted a former addict to “stay a former addict” and not improve himself, and again “wait on God” and when I announced my departure from the job I had held for six years “Was it God’s plan? Not a good idea, secular company……..you don’t have the skills / you need to wait on God and grow here….” type of thing.

    Class isn’t limited to the feminist life script. Most people in charge or who do have established careers basically bring “high school” with them to their adult life and try to implement this in work status, and career.

    Thankfully with me, I didn’t let that stop me. Most of the “elect” don’t like anyone who doesn’t fit their means to move. No matter the color, gender or potential.

    I am not a rebel in my career, but I do have an “over around or through” mentality and I honestly KNOW how to speak, treat vendors, and contractors. I also am fully aware that my paycheck comes from full properties, and satisfied tenants. Many of my coworkers in this field seem to think their job is about them and them alone.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      “Class isn’t limited to the feminist life script. Most people in charge or who do have established careers basically bring “high school” with them to their adult life and try to implement this in work status, and career.”

      This is a really good point. It is actually a by design, hi-level issue across the professions.

      For example, in clinical psychology, APPIC controls the national APA internship matching process. The APA artificially keeps the number of available accredited internships low (you must go to an APA accredited internship if you hope to have a real job after PGY1). I don’t know the numbers off the top of my head, but if there are 800 internship slots available nation wide, there are 1,100 4th years trying to match in the extremely competitive APPIC/APA match. When the dust settles every year, 300 graduate students become 5th years with no internship. And the bottle neck gets smaller for them, because now, assuming they stay with the program they have a huge red target on their back–why did this person not match last year? 4 years of graduate school, 1/2 million in student loan debt. Red fail light blinking in the corner of your eye.

      In fact, every single hoop you jump through is considered a one-trial pass/fail scenario. Competency exams every year in graduate school, defending your dissertation proposal, orals, licensing exam, the aforementioned internship match. Didn’t get through one of those sentinel events? Go flip burgers, loser.

      So you can bet once you emerge with your license in hand, the system is going to protect it, keep it small, and that’s why there will always be a shortage of medical providers. The demand must be higher than the supply, because money.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        On the flip side, in some formerly exclusive professions the supply so much exceeds the demand they have a big problem paying their students loans back. Thinking of law school and MBAs off the top of my head.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Liz-

        Then they should get better professional associations.

        Ha! Losers!

        Just kidding.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        For folks who might be interested, this is a good book that describes the deluge of law school graduates into the market.
        It convinced Mike not to go to law school (which he had been considering).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Liz – The secret with JD or MBA crowd is not that you have the degree, because the subject matter is largely the same regardless if you went to Harvard or the local state university. What you compete like crazy for in getting into the right law or business school is access to the alumni network which can make a substantial difference in career earnings.

        If you get into Stanford’s business school, you’ll have a chance to interview with recruiters from Silicon Valley. If you go to Harvard, you’ll have access to banking, Wall Street and consulting firms. Starting salaries for newly minted MBAs from these schools average close to $150k depending on the economy. They they are on the fast track to leadership because they are part of the group.

        It’s similar for law schools and their alumni base. If you go to the right law school, you get a chance at certain internships, law firms, etc that state U law does not have access to. There is a reason that the disproportionate amount of higher ups in government have degrees from a handful of schools and it’s the network.

        So you don’t go into debt for the local college MBA or JD, but you do for an Ivy, or one of the other top ranked schools with exclusive alumni networks. To drive the point home, of my college roommates from my last 2 years at college there is a doctor, 3 lawyers, high ranking DEA agent and the rest of us went into business. One attorney has argued cases in federal district courts, one just took a federal judgeship and the 3rd works at a big firm out west. On the business side 2 of us went to graduate school, one got his MBA from an Ivy League school and has been a partner at an exclusive consulting firm since his mid 30s. We all went to schools ranked at least in the top 30 nationally for our specific subjects.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        There was a guy working at the base a couple of assignments ago who had an MBA from Cambridge (yes, that Cambridge). He got a job as a Reservist because it paid more than anything he could get elsewhere. I don’t think the market is what it was twenty five years ago, not even for Ivy league folks. But I might be wrong.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        RPA is correct.

        Law school makes sense if you are going to a top law school — I would be a bit more restrictive and say it makes sense if you are going to a top 20 (or so) law school, and of course the higher the better. You don’t want to go to a law school outside the top schools — it is quite literally a waste of both time and money. The jobs that exist that justify the investment into a law degree today overwhelmingly are reserved for the people from the top schools — if you don’t go to one of them, you literally are locked out of these jobs. In this way, it is unlike, say, nursing, where you can get a nursing degree from a local nursing faculty and get a good job — not with lawyers. There are only so many well-paying law jobs, and they go to the grads of the top schools.

        In part this is alumni networks (people like to hire from the same general caliber as they came from), in part this is just a question of how many spots there are in these firms (because for starting lawyers, it’s mostly big law firms at first), and in part it’s that the law is, indeed, glutted and as a result it’s become extremely paper-conscious when it comes to credentials due to the need to sift through the glut of law grads.

        I would also add that unless you are at one of the tippity-top law schools (which I would define as Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Stanford), which if you are you can pretty much write your ticket as you like, you’d better be in the top 20-30% of your class, as well. The bottom half (certainly the bottom third) of the class at Duke and UCLA and Michigan (and similar) are also struggling to get the jobs that pay off the cost of law school in a way that the top third from these schools is not. So you’d also better be quite capable of competing your ass off, especially in first year law school, so as to win that derby — it’s a competition that will never really wane in importance during your career, as strange as that is.

        In all as someone who has been a lawyer now for about 30 years I strongly discourage people from going to law school unless they are headed to one of the top schools and are clearly positioned to blow the doors off once they get there. Otherwise? Skip law school.

        Which gets to the underlying problem of why do we have so many law schools and law students to begin with? That’s the overall problem with education. The education system is bloated. What does someone who has a degree in philosophy or english or history or political science do with their BA? Mostly these days they go to law school. Like a large percentage of them. Yes, there are fewer people majoring in these today than in the past (smartly), but almost all of the people who DO major in them end up looking at law school because otherwise it’s basically barista-ville. You can try to go into corporate America, but the people with these degrees (again assuming they didn’t get one from a top undergrad) are not that competitive with the legions of graduates in economics and finance and marketing and computer science and engineering and so on. So they end up working the front desk of a hotel or as a receptionist or as a secretary or what have you, which they don’t want to keep doing, so they go to law school. In the past some went into journalism, but journalism is now basically dead — it’s even harder to get a decent pay job as a journalist than it is as a lawyer these days. So law school is what people do who have the “reading/writing/analysis” skillset but aren’t either independently wealthy enough and/or lucky (in terms of scholarship) enough to become a successful academic end up doing, because that skillset has no real value outside of law practice. Simply put, there are too many people with these degrees, because they are not good enough at math and science to get other degrees, and they end up in one of the many law schools around that are set up to suck up people’s money but provide no jobs for their graduates. The whole thing is an indictment of the entire education system, from the very beginning, because it gets back to how terrible our entire education system is at teaching math and science, and how this tends to result in a glut of people towards the humanities and social sciences in universities, which tends to glut them towards law school.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Liz – The median starting compensation for a Harvard MBA (class of 2020) is in the $170’s. Some are more and some are less. But there’s the reason to pay the tuition.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Not bad. With my army pension (tax free because I am a “disabled” combat vet) PLUS what I have been able to put together with my practice, I am projecting to net around 216K this year. But I have had to really hustle to build up that level of anti-fragile income over the last 3 years since I opened it.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Not to be argumentative, but here is Harvard’s own assessment (which I think is likely to be partial to optimism)
        https://www.hbs.edu/mba/financial-aid/tuition-assistance/Pages/cost-of-attendance.aspx

        Median starting salary 143k. Tuition plus expenses for nine months of study, or one academic year: 111k.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        But I am also 10 years post licensure. 12 years since PhD.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        What happened to private practice small town lawyers? My great grandpa and his son did this in Melbourne fl. Not enough money to pay off U of F law school anymore?

        I know a lawyer who works in business development – not as a lawyer. Sometimes they can get other jobs.

        216K sheesh I don’t even make 6 figures ( with 8 kids)

        Like

      • Liz says:

        “What happened to private practice small town lawyers? My great grandpa and his son did this in Melbourne fl. Not enough money to pay off U of F law school anymore?”

        That’s right, there isn’t.

        The professor who wrote the book above went to the most expensive public law school in the country at the time (Michigan), and his first job, for the first year, paid five times that amount owed for his law school tuition payments in their entirety.

        The average graduate of Harvard from what it looks like above will have around 350k in debt by the end of it. This will take a long while to pay off even with a starting salary of 145k…or 175k. And firms that pay that much won’t be found in small towns they’ll be in the places that are expensive to live.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah Harvard. I wondered about U of Florida for example where my great grandpa went. Somebody has to do the small town lawyer thing – do your will, set up trusts, all that lawyer stuff.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        I went to UF too (undergraduate stuff).
        https://www.law.ufl.edu/admissions/costs-and-financial-aid
        About 125k in all.
        That’s a lot to pay back on a small town salary.

        Like

      • Joe2 says:

        Law school, MBA, Phd….

        Law school, MBA, Phd., as Ralph would tell Alice on the “Honeymooners” – a mere bag of shells, Alice. A mere bag of shells.

        Take a look at the incomes of Los Angeles Lifeguards, as an example.
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/03/27/top-paid-la-lifeguards-earned-up-to-392000-in-2019/?sh=121e97234012
        Not too shabby for spending your days on the beach.

        Years ago, I knew a young woman who just graduated with her masters degree in elementary education with an emphasis on computers. She couldn’t wait to get to California because, at that time, the schools were introducing computers in kindergarten and there was a shortage of kindergarten teachers trained in computers. Needless to say, she had a very lucrative job waiting for her, plus civil service benefits and a pension.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        “Yeah Harvard. I wondered about U of Florida for example where my great grandpa went. Somebody has to do the small town lawyer thing – do your will, set up trusts, all that lawyer stuff.”

        Sure, but there’s already lawyers there doing just that, and they don’t need help, generally. There is a market for small town lawyers, or small-time lawyers … it’s just a small market, doesn’t require a lot of lawyers to service it, and therefore there are very few “openings” in that area, especially for someone who has the debt profile of a law grad, even at UF.

        Really, just avoid law school unless you’re the caliber to go to one of the very top schools and also excel there.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Nova is right.

        If you go to Third Tier State U Law School, you’ll go into debt. When you get out and pass the bar, you will be able to get a job. You’ll find a job somewhere doing something. You’ll get a job in a small city, probably. The best you’ll do is private practice in Paducah or Pocatello or Wheeling WV or the Quad Cities. Maybe Des Moines, maybe Lincoln, Nebraska. If you’re in California, forget it – you’ll never be able to make a living there.

        If you’re at anything other than a top 20 law school now and getting ready to get out, you better be law review and Order of the Coif. If you can’t do that, you need to network and start making connections. Your only hope is to connect with practicing lawyers who graduated from your law school, or through a political party, or through family or friend connections.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Liz – First, GO GATORS! A little over 3 months until football season … can’t wait.

        Most of the top MBA/JD grads make way more than starting salary within a decade of graduating. Income progression is actually a stat that business schools keep and use to sell their program and it comes back to this. It’s all about the network. That is what drives incomes, which is what allows schools like Harvard to fill up every class even at 111k per year.

        One of my undergrad college roommates has his MBA from Harvard. The alumni network includes big name firms and he ended up at one of the consulting firms that pulls talent from Harvard. He’s been a partner at the firm for close to a decade now. The typical partner compensation is between 300k – 400k annually. 2 years education expenses, even at 111k per year, can be paid back quickly when you make that kind of money.

        Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      “Most people in charge or who do have established careers basically bring “high school” with them to their adult life and try to implement this in work status, and career.”

      Ain’t THAT the truth!

      Liked by 2 people

  20. lastmod says:

    I had zero experience in property management when I entered in 2018. Sure, as a janitor I “knew” property (knew that the boiler was not sounding right…. The elevator making a noise that wasn’t there the day before…… Stuff like that.).

    I think what landed me the job in Santa Rosa that “country bumpkin” thing. Okay, I didn’t know every rule, compliance regulation, or what systems were used internally to “run” the business… But I did have a drive to make it work….. No matter what. I was given a chance, and I wasn’t going to blow it. Kind of like that “country bumpkin” who heads to the big city….. Doesn’t know what he is going to do…. or how to make it work… but has a drive, and child-like purity to do what is right, and learn from it.

    I was given an opportunity at the age of 47 to “last chance” a career. I took it, and the company has not regretted it.

    I view everything “client first”. Now, with that said….. “Sorry Mr. Client. I have to charge the rent, and yes… There are things I cannot do just because you are the client.” However, I took ownership of the property I managed. Looked folks in the eye, make sure a handshake and promise that I was going to do something concerning an issue they had… Well, dammit… I made sure it got done or got them an answer.

    Clients could call me at personally at 2am if they were working late and the heat went out in the building. Staff could come talk to me about a problem, and I would listen… Not just “She’s just a janitor” or “He’s just a clerk at the desk.” I never used the phrase, “He needs out of the business” on any client, or co-worker, or anyone I supervised. I took the attitude that these tenants ARE our business.

    The whole workforce world is BEGGING for leadership, begging for accountability….. They are just wanting people to get things DONE. They ask, “Where are these people?” Many are right under their nose. Many are not considered for obvious reasons…….

    I take fully, “Have your yes mean YES, and your no mean NO” in the work environment. I am still shocked how well that works in the industry / profession I am in.

    I also have a killer work ethic. My name is on it? It’s mine. I am the one in charge. I am the one who takes account. Not just for the “good things” (which most people only seem to do), but with the bad things too, at work in a supposed leadership role. How many times, when something wrong happens, almost everyone says, “Not my fault! It’s Obama, Trump, this contractor, that person…”

    I plainly say, “Whose name is there? Mine? Well, that’s me. Let’s fix it, have a solution…… and if you want to yell, and get it off your chest, then have a go…… But let’s get it done so “I” can own this.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Lastmod the way you are at your job is the way I’am in the christian-manospere!The name is GREATBOOKSFORMENtm&I’m trying to fix the effed up christian-manosphere for all the young turks/dudes out here!Thats why I strut to my own beat as the puas say DAMN!!They always say ”damn how you get that strutting badass roll&I say I was born with it!!That&the GREATBOOKSFORMENtm!!
      P.S.Neil strauss is always stunned when I tell his averaged frustuated chump ass I’m theGAMEtm!!!Strauss that dumb wannabe!!

      Like

  21. lastmod says:

    My income when I left IBM was about 125K a year gross with my Variable Pay (bonus) in 2005. After that it plummeted to under 30K, then down to about 20K. In 2008, I didn’t have a “legit” job at all. I hustled fully on the “free market” and probably pulled in around 12K.

    When The Salvation Army hired me, in 2010 I made that standard 19-20 K a year with some benefits.

    In 2018, my income went from that to about 40K. Then moved back to Fresno to run their largest property in the whole San Jocquine Valley, got about a 5K raise. With my recent promotion, my base will be over 100K before bonus.

    So, sixteen years to “get back” to where I was in 2005. It took a ton of hard work, a lucky break and a drive to work instead of “eh…so what, I’ll just be a person who points at others as to why”

    With that said, its really hard to get back if you lost it due to your own problems. I’ll admit I am an exception but in the end my work ethic saved me. Not my degree or supposed intellect (lack thereof), nor my connections. If that man at Starbucks didn’t ask me some questions, I would still be mopping floors more than likely. He took the initiative with me. It wasn’t the other way around.

    Like

  22. Scott says:

    “[…women who are] as powerful and dominant as men, but with much more sexual power…”

    This part has always been a mystery to me. I have to admit, I think it is conditioned.

    A scantily clad woman with guns is not a turn on to me. And when I confront men about it, I can usually change their minds. They have been told this is sexy for so many generations, they believe it. Its a multi-generational lie that has taken hold of the collective consciousness.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      And there is a very effective social pressure that is attached to it.

      If you say, “Yeah, the whole kick ass girls with guns thing just doesn’t do it for me”, then you are told that “You can’t handle a strong woman.”

      Yawn.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yep agree 100%. Girls with guns not sexy.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Cameron-

        Not sure if you have been around long enough to remember, but there is a big rift between the Conservative-Red-Pill-Christian-Dad crowd on this issue. It has something to do with, “Well, I want my wife/daughter/whatever to be able to handle herself if she has to shoot someone/thing/threat/whatever.”

        My wife is strong in her own way. But she has ZERO killer instinct. I can teach her to shoot, shoot accurately, hit targets. But I know for a fact that if she found herself in a true tactically challenging situation, she would crumble from panic. This is not character flaw.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        It is absolutely not a character flaw. That is a sign of feminine inner beauty IMO. You are a blessed man.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        If God wanted women to fight in battle he could have conscripted the most capable women alongside the Men to fight in the Book of Numbers. But he didn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “[…women who are] as powerful and dominant as men, but with much more sexual power…”

      This IS actually attractive to SIMPY men who would prefer to let a woman run the show. But when the larger culture presses this archetype forth as the preferred norm, then younger men get confused about how authority works in the spiritual sense. As a result, the younger generations are unwittingly shoved towards Satan.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Since you’re in Asia, here’s a question about this issue relating to that culture.

        The image in the post that is referenced in this specific sub-discussion is from a 2020 video game created in Poland called “Cyberpunk 2077”. I don’t play games, but in searching for that image I came across a number of other ones, including many from Asian-made video games — Japanese and Korean mostly — featuring similarly “kick-ass” female hotties-with-guns as power/sex symbols for what I assume are mostly male players. Especially some of the Korean ones seemed to be extremely sexualized/feminine in appearance yet doing very “powerful”/masculine actions (as you would expect in a video game I suppose). I thought that even in Korea and Japan, which are more West-influenced than some other Asian countries, the norm was still feminine women — in other words, the “kickass woman with sexual authority, too!” arises from Western feminist culture. It appears that this also is a common trope in cultures like at least Korea which, while probably considered off the charts feminist for Asia are not particularly feminist from an American or European point of view. Why has this happened there as well?

        I mean I realize gamers everywhere are lame and passive and tend to prefer “dominant woman” stereotypes — is that all there is to it, and it has very little to do with the ambient cultural feminism, which is clearly very different in Korea than it is in California? It’s a puzzle to me, given how other aspects of Asian culture don’t mesh with it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        NovaSeeker,
        In response to your question, I did a little research, and I found that there’s a long history that goes back 50 years or more.

        Female heroine characters in the arts and literature date back to antiquity. But in the area of comics and video games, it seems the sexy kickass woman was originally inspired by Marvel comics’ Red Sonja, which first appeared in 1973. The Red Sonja character, and similar characters have reappeared in many comics since then, and later was made into a film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

        I read some articles about this phenomenon (in Chinese).

        One author pointed out that wearing armor on the breasts has little benefit if the rest of the body, including the midsection, is exposed. However, the sexual authority of this type of character plays into the overall power of the character, that is, cleavage and lots of skin have the effect of distracting and confusing a male adversary and thereby weakening him.

        The authors state that these sexy characters were intentionally designed to appeal to a male audience, and yes, the kinds of guys who are into comics and video games tend to be attracted to dominant women.

        One source said that this type of character is a representation of the “Strong Independent Woman” archetype. Another author said that western feminism is trying to kill this type of portrayal of women, because it objectifies women’s sexuality. So the reaction is a mixed bag, which I think reflects the inherent confusion in feminism.

        Overall, I would say that ultimately, the comic and video game industries are businesses that try to produce content that will sell, and the sexy kickass woman archetype definitely sells to teenage males. It is charming. It appeals to their curiosity and desires. It conveys “heroine psychology” (which is seen as a mysterious anomaly). It transports them to an ancient, distant world which has different norms and rules of engagement. However, it is a microculture of fantasy. Outside of this targeted demographic, these characters are not popular at all.

        Another thing that plays into the cultural interpretation of this, I think, is how different cultures regard the archetypal mythos of the knight who saves the woman. According to western chivalry, the knight does this out of a sense of honor, cultural preservation, and because it is the right thing to do. Asian audiences read this type of story and see through all the talk about honor as mere posture posing. It is tacitly understood that the real motivation is for him to have the woman, and everything that entails. But again, all of this is regarded as archetypal mythos — stories that convey the basic nature of men and women. When men and women actually behave like the mythos, in Asia, it is usually seen as playacting or being over the top. The exception would be when it is done in a truly dangerous situation that would require true courage and bravery.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Sharkly says:

        @Novaseeker,
        The feminazis would have a sh!t-fit if there was a video game where all the sexy bikini clad female characters were unarmed and the male characters just boinked them to spawn new heroes or for “sexual healing” à la Marvin Gaye. I’d buy a copy just to torment feminists with the truth that they exist for men.(because unlike the never aging angels, men die)

        1 Enoch 15:5 It was for this reason that I gave them females, in order that they might cast seed into them, and, in this way, beget children by them, in order that descendants should never fail them upon the earth.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Ha! My uncle had a game for the Commodore 64 (in the 1980s). Pretty sure it was some sort of bootleg thing not sold in stores. Entire game was a cartoony guy with a giant unit – you moved the controller back and forth to make him do his thing to a series of different women. Really crappy, pixel-y raster graphics. Probably written by the guys from Revenge of the Nerds. It came on a 5-1/4“ floppy disk -remember those?

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Sharkly
        “The feminazis would have a sh!t-fit if there was a video game where all the sexy bikini clad female characters were unarmed and the male characters just boinked them to spawn new heroes or for “sexual healing” à la Marvin Gaye.”

        Sounds like Gor a fantasy series that caused feminists to pitch a fit.

        Like

  23. lastmod says:

    Scott,

    I see it with that one former Fox News presenter… Kelly Meghan? Meghan Kelly? (sue me). She was always dressed on Fox like she was going out to a nightclub……. the old checkered-pants / Rush Limbaugh type of men would say, “She’s sexy! She’s hot! She actually is the kind of women men should be looking for.”

    I made more than a few upset by stating that her views are hardly “conservative”, but she is on Fox, and she gives some “visual swank and eye candy to many of you.”

    I, of course was “gay”, and “not a real guy”, and “not a conservative”. (Thank goodness! The conservatives of today are the liberals of the Jimmy Carter era.)

    Sport shows always have the commentator gal in the cute dress, the heels, and “Her opinion counts just as much” attitude when all the while, you know, she reads off a teleprompter and could probably care less about the issue. She causes envy with women, “Who does she think she is?” and most “guys” give her “The passover” because she’s hot and can “hang with the guys”.

    I always viewed that woman on Fox like this. She’s just there because she knows the type of guys who watch Fox WANT to see her like this. Sure…. She needs to have a ‘republican’ type of view or stance thrown in here and there, and now, “She’s the best reporter on Fox!”

    She also is a lawyer evidently….. and she’s was working on Fox……. SMH, but it’s fitting actually.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      “[Meghan Kelly is] just there because she knows the type of guys who watch Fox WANT to see her like this. Sure…. She needs to have a ‘republican’ type of view or stance thrown in here and there, and now, “She’s the best reporter on Fox!”

      It appears to be like this, but actually, it’s just her sexual authority, nothing more. If she was only half a point less hot, then we wouldn’t be seeing her assets on the BOOB Tube. And yes, it is powerful enough to convince the wider populace that she does have her own viewpoints that should be heard. But actually, she is just a very effective mouthpiece for the producers.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Meghan Kelly actually worked as a lawyer for about a decade, most of it for Jones Day, which is a large national law firm. That’s a pretty good “land” for someone who went to her law school, and the fact that she lasted as long as she did at Jones Day indicates she was at least moderately competent as a lawyer.

        Of course, she’s extremely attractive (very pretty face). She eventually switched to being a TV reporter (more money I am sure, even as a new TV reporter) and then worked it from there because she is both beautiful and at least passably smart. I’m not claiming Kelly is a spoon-bending intellect — she clearly isn’t. But she’s certainly much smarter than the average newsie face out there, and so she worked that angle as well.

        In general, though, I don’t think it’s surprising that hot people are strongly preferred for jobs where their primary role is sitting in front of a lot of eyeballs and the employer is interested in attracting and keeping men’s eyeballs glued to the screen. It’s to be expected, and it’s why Hollywood actresses, for example, were always much hotter than stage actresses, or why “game shows” since the 1960s-70s always had a hottie or two strutting around not doing anything actually “necessary” but interesting male eyeballs. Yes, in that era women were not as involved in TV journalism and reporting, but once that changed it was to be expected that there would be an absolute premium set on hotness for those jobs, and that is what has happened. Not surprising and not upsetting.

        I mean, I stopped looking at TV news as a source of valid information on anything at some point in the late 1980s. So I don’t really have much of an issue with the fact that it is dominated by good looking airheads. In the grand scheme, Kelly is less of an airhead than most of them, for what it’s worth.

        Liked by 3 people

  24. Lastmod says:

    No clue…but she’s “cute” right…deserves to be on the field after the supposed “biggest game of the year” to ask the hero quarterback of the winning team….she got the spotlight. The nerve of women like this, being placed in position like this…everyone got mad at this tosser, but the anger should have directed at this women. Someone who had no idea…but she’s cute right?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. lastmod says:

    ‘scuse me… Sherman is a cornerback… not the QB……. My bad to all football fans. Shame on me. 😉

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Scott says:

    Since I haven’t watched or followed professional sports in over two decades I am struggling to contextualize that video.

    All I see is an attractive woman with a microphone standing next to an enraged black man grunting obscenities and unintelligible sentence fragments into a camera.

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      I hav’nt watched a football game since 1995&it was the only thing on!

      Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      Maybe not the best example. Every sporting event in recent memory always a female reporter on the field in the locker room full of men. No depth. Questions about feelings / feelz. Confused clueless and awkward.

      The death of sports journalism. Remember Howard Cosell. He would asked about the play….kept it on topic and would gave said “your guys just won and you have all this rage. I’ll talk to someone who wants to discuss football. Back to you in the studio”

      This gal had no clue about football. Yet she is applauded as a sports caster.

      Idk I’m tired of watching every profession get ruined by this

      Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Idk, I’m tired of watching every profession get ruined by this.”

        Gosh, the fact that literally just about every profession is being ruined by this might just lead one to think that it’s both intentional AND coordinated.

        Liked by 2 people

  27. Pingback: YOLO = FOMO | Σ Frame

  28. thedeti says:

    It’s probably helpful to talk about who the ownership class is/was.

    Generally it’s limited to individuals with power, money, influence, notoriety, and connections potent enough to shape the overall narrative and affect national and global outcomes while insulating themselves from negative outcomes that usually cripple others.

    –The Old Money families. Getty. Rockefeller. Morgan. Roosevelt. Carnegie. Kennedy. Pritzker. Hilton. Marriott.

    –The Brahmin families. Peabody. Lodge. Endicott. Cabot. Bradlee. Etc.

    –Those in high political office. Mayors of New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, LA. Governors of New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Texas, California, and maybe Ohio and Pennsylvania. Congress, vice presidents, Cabinet appointees, Joint Chiefs, SCOTUS, maybe DC Court of Appeals. And their spouses.

    –The political dynasty families. Kennedy. Roosevelt. Bush. Cuomo. Weld. Garcetti in CA is an emerging one.

    –High level powerful journalists. Brinkley, Huntley, Cronkite, Chancellor, Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley, Morley Safer, maybe Stephanopoulos. Print: Ben Bradlee, Woodward/Bernstein, George Will, the Sulzbergers. Note there are almost no journalists/publishers now in the ownership class.

    –High level academics: Deans, Chancellors and Presidents at the Ivy League universities. Well known, popularly published academics such as Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe, Jonathan Turley, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku. The people who go on the evening news shows for “analysis” and “opinion” and “Professor, what does it all mean?”

    –Arts and Entertainment: These are people who shape the messaging and decide what entertainment is greenlighted. Or, artists who are so famous, so widely respected, and so powerful that they’ve reached icon status and have near-total creative control. David O Selznick, Louis B Mayer, Samuel Goldwyn, Jack Warner. Alfred Hitchcock, Kathleen Kennedy, Don Bellisario, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, David Fincher, Barry Levinson, Zack Snyder. Actors: The Barrymores, Doug Fairbanks, Katharine Hepburn, Sidney Poitier. Modern day: Anthony Hopkins, Harrison Ford, Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, Leonardo DiCaprio, Will Smith, Madonna, When these artists appear in a project, their names are almost always top billing above the title. (Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein were in this group until #MeToo happened to them.)

    Media Conglomerate owners: Jeff Zucker, Ted Turner, Les Moonves, Brandon Tartikoff, senior management at Disney, Marvel, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, Paramount, 20thCentury Fox, Warner Brothers, MGM, CNN, MTV.

    Senior management/board of directors at Fortune 100 companies: Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Caterpillar, WalMart, Amazon. Facebook. Big Transport (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, BNSF Railway, Union Pacific, CSX, Boeing, American, United, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed Martin). Big Finance (Berkshire Hathaway, Morgan Stanley, T.Rowe Price, Bank of America, WellsFargo, Visa/Mastercard).

    Big Oil (Gulf, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP). Big Tech (Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon). Big Food/Chem/Medical: (DuPont, Tyson, Armour, McKesson, J&J, P&G, CVS, Walgreen, UnitedHealth, BlueCross/Blue Shield). Big Insurance: State Farm, Allstate, MetLife, Liberty Mutual. Prudential, Progressive. Big Retail: WalMart, Lowe’s, BestBuy, Kroger.

    Movers and shakers: Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Ballmer, Warren Buffett, Sergey Brin,

    Religious figures/leaders: Billy Graham. Graham is an ownership class anomaly. He is the only religious figure of the past 60 years who was larger than life, media savvy, influential, and powerful enough to become an “owner”. He met with every US president since Nixon until his death and with world leaders. Graham was one of the first to use TV and mass media to evangelize, and did it better than anyone else. He was also widely respected, used the force of his message and personality to garner that respect, and lived an above-reproach life. Graham is the only religious figure to have, and use, the power, influence, personality, and force of will of a national politician or captain of industry, which is how he made it to the ownership class.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      Other artists/actors in the ownership class:

      Kevin Costner. Jack Nicholson. Shirley MacLaine. Warren Beatty. Cher. Woody Allen. Francis Ford Coppola. Al Pacino. Robert DeNiro. Elvis Presley. These are top billing above the title bonafide superstars, recognized as among the best actors and creators of all time. They had or have total creative control over their work, projects, and public personae.

      The way you make it into ownership as an artist is either you (1) have at least 2 Oscars; (2) have near universal and worldwide recognition, (3) have been paid eight figures for a project you’re attached to, or (4) have created a body of artistic work universally recognized and respected as among the best ever in that genre, for at least 20 years.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Sports/athletes: Michael Jordan. Jack Nicklaus. Arnold Palmer. Bjorn Borg. Roger Federer. Wayne Gretzky. Phil Jackson. Mike Ditka. Tom Landry. Bobby Knight. Commissioners of the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball.

      The way you make it into ownership class in sports/athletics is (1) near-universal recognition as the best or one of the best ever involved in that sport or activity; (2) near-universal recognition outside that sport, (3) iconic status based on ability or personality such that s/he is the public face and ambassador of that sport. Personality is how Ditka, Landry, and Knight make this list, but Paterno, Valvano, and other coaches don’t.

      Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      You’ve essentially just described the people who make up “The Establishment”/”Deep State.”

      Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      Fee:

      I can’t disagree.

      The ownership class is at the top of the food chain. Everyone works for the Professional Managerial Upper Middle Class.

      But the PM/UMC works for the Owners.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Fee:

      What the JFK assassination showed (and then Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, the Bork confirmation hearings, Anthony Weiner’s weiner, #MeToo, Covid/BLM/2020 election fraud) is that owners can be destroyed and removed from the Ownership class.

      It doesn’t always work though (Iran- Contra, Clarence Thomas, Clinton impeachment/acquittal, Trump 2016, Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, Russia collusion hoax).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Ownership class members who become publicly prominent can indeed be targeted and marginalized. Sometimes spectacularly like those cases, and in other cases it’s more subtle.

        Peter Thiel is ownership class and he is overwhelmingly loathed by much of the establishment, but he hasn’t been overtly targeted for outright destruction because while he does a lot of string pulling/manipulation behind the curtain (they all do … it’s how things work for that group), he mostly stays behind the curtain.

        If you move forward from the shadows and start to become a public figure, you become a target, and this can result in your destruction. In fact, other members of the ownership class will often view that as a prime opportunity to take you out, because these opportunities are rare.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Nova

        I was thinking about that too as I typed the comments.

        You can be an owner and stay there by being a behind the scenes mover and shaker, and thus staying out of sight. Most ordinary people don’t even know who Peter Thiel is. I have only the vaguest notion without reading up on him. The other ways you stay there as an owner are

        (1) live a completely above reproach life (Billy Graham, Meryl Streep)

        (2) become so powerful, so wealthy, and so entrenched that you’re untouchable (George Soros, Barack Obama, the Clintons, Oprah Winfrey, Ross Perot, the Kennedys)

        (3) be an Owner who is also part of a protected minority class, through which you’re immune from criticism or attack and thus untouchable (the Obamas, Oprah, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, any black/Latinx/homosexual Member of Congress, Kamala Harris) In this last group you’ll take some hits and occasionally some will land their punches. Rarely, someone in this last subclass gets hit hard enough to leave the ownership class, but this doesn’t happen often.

        Notable exceptions: Rev Jesse Jackson Sr. and his son and daughter in law. Junior was a member of Congress; his wife Sandy a Chicago alderman. Senior was found to have an illegitimate kid and was lying about it. Junior and Sandy got caught using campaign money for various and sundry nice things. Senior fell from grace. Junior and Sandy went to prison for a while. No one’s heard from them lately.

        Rep Mel Reynolds (D-IL) (of course): Black former Congressman, caught playing around with underage girls.

        Bill Cosby: Drugged actresses and had sex with them. So we’re told.

        If you’re a member of a protected class, you can still get taken out if (a) it involves sexual misconduct and you’re shown to be an extreme hypocrite; or (b) your enemies want to take you out badly enough. Jesse Sr., – an ordained minister supposedly with an above reproach character. Cosby: A family man espousing family values through wholesome comedy and broad based appeal across racial lines.

        (Sorry, TPTB. I know we’re probably not supposed to talk about this stuff….)

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Donald Trump has been an owner for a long, long time – essentially his entire adult life. He was born into money but not ownership – he became an owner through shrewd dealmaking, making boatloads of money, and seeking out the limelight. But his enemies really hate him now. They’ll stop at nothing to destroy him. They’ll keep trying until his dying day and then they’ll go after his children.

        It’s a horrid thing, really.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yes. With Trump it’s a religious thing for the rest of the establishment — like he needs to be purged from their ranks to wash away the impurity.

        Liked by 2 people

  29. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Deti,you&GBFMtm are of the ownership/Patriarhical father class in the manosphere!Any other commenters in the ”golden age of the manosphere” or now as famous as you&GBFM?Exactly

    Like

  30. Pingback: The Kardashian Fantasy | Σ Frame

  31. Pingback: Is Patriarchy for Deplorables? | Σ Frame

  32. Pingback: How to Change a Hostile Culture | Σ Frame

  33. Pingback: Prime Directive Vision | Σ Frame

  34. Pingback: Why are there so many sexy aggressive women in anime and video game culture? | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s