Yes, Women Out-Earning Men Is a Problem

Eroding-Male-Dominance-Will-Result-in-a-Lot-of-Lonely-Women-and-MenNote: The following article was originally published at the Washington Examiner.

Just because something’s not supposed to be said doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It just means you’re not supposed to say it.

In a segment Wednesday about men in decline and what it means for the country, Tucker Carlson pointed out “study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don’t want to marry them.”

When marriage rates drop, he adds, it causes “a spike in out-of-wedlock births and all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow.”

Unsurprisingly, pointing this out was considered blasphemy by high-profile feminists, such as the ladies on “The View,” but Carlson is absolutely right. No matter how much women earn, they prefer to marry men who earn more than they do.

Ergo, women out-earning men in spades today is a problem because marriage rates decline as a result. Why do you think women continually ask where all the good men have gone?

It’s truly insufferable that Carlson’s haters — or as Carlson describes them, those “mindless cultural leaders” who “act like it’s 1961 and think the biggest problem American families face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or Facebook executives” — blasted him for telling the truth, even though they know perfectly well what he said is true.

It’s those very same mindless leaders to whom Carlson’s observation particularly applies. Feminism is an elite woman’s game, and the more elite women are, the more they want to marry men who are more elite than they are.

Over at the HuffPost, Lee Moran was shocked Carlson had the audacity to look at the attendant costs of a country saturated in high-earning women (as opposed to cheering this phenomenon as a “victory” for feminism) and claims he cites “unnamed” studies to defend his point.

I hate to burst Moran’s bubble, but the studies are manifold — and they’re available for anyone who cares to find them. To start, here’s one published in the Journal of Marriage and Family. Here’s another published in the academic journal Personality and Individual Differences.

Despite women’s gains in education and in the workforce, the traditional pattern of women marrying dominant men persists. Even when women marry men who are less educated than they are, they continue to marry “up” in income.

“Despite their comparative lack of education,” notes Wendy Wang of Pew Research Center, “men are still overwhelmingly more likely to be the primary earners in their families. More than 7 out of 10 husbands, 73 percent, take home more money than their wives.”

Not only do women want to marry men who make more money than they do, men are relatively indifferent to a woman’s socioeconomic status. They’re more interested in a woman’s attractiveness and fertility, which means higher-status women must compete with attractive lower-status women for higher-status men.

What we’re left with, then, is an abundance of rich women and unemployed men.

One solution to this problem would be for women to marry men who are less educated and less wealthy than they are. While this may be somewhat more prevalent today (and, as Carlson noted, maybe something women should do), they generally don’t do it.

There is one other possible solution: Women could stop being so consumed by professional success and invest more time and energy on building marriages and families. That would leave room for men to become the career-successful partners women want them to be.

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen soon. Not only is it considered backward to suggest a woman value marriage and family more than career, men have been conditioned to step aside on behalf of women everywhere.

“Men are bombarded with a message that modern women value the opportunity for self realization through work,” wrote the late Geoff Dench. “So the chivalrous thing to do these days is for men not to strive too hard to hold down a job or seek promotion but to stand aside and let women go for it themselves.”

All of which is to say to women: Be careful what you wish for.

Suzanne Venker

Suzanne Venker is an author, columnist and relationship coach known as The Feminist "Fixer.” She helps free women from feminist lies so they can find lasting love with men. Suzanne's newest book, WOMEN WHO WIN at Love: How to Build a Relationship That Lasts, will be published October 2019.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. “Men are bombarded with a message that modern women value the opportunity for self realization through work…” Yes, and many of them have bought into this hook, line, and sinker, to which men who know themselves, and also the biological & evo-psych basics in & between the sexes (regardless of the decades-long messages of nonsense coming from the Collectivist & Feminist camps) will simply move along and will not engage in the power struggles that ensue, nor in the expectations for the fairy tale that outpaces their current lifestyle.

    Men are largely sick of being the mule, the plow horse, and being an ancillary in a woman’s life who she stands on and disrespects, denigrates, and lacks respect for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OJ3Tg3vEBM

    Men are still largely expected to go “get” and “do” for a woman and any future/current children, and women go and get for themselves, and if they have any, their children. Many women seem to adopt an idea of “What’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine” kind of mentality, and it’s summed up in the popular quote from Paris Hilton “Every woman should have four pets in her life: A mink in her closet, a jaguar in her garage, a tiger in her bed, and a jackass who pays for everything”. Any investment of energy dedicated toward her never-ending wants, “needs”, and being a clown to entertain her is much better suited to be put into work, self-improvement, and personal interests, as the condescending, dehumanizing, & objectifying nature of it all has worn out its welcome. Likewise, if a man is sacrificing solely for someone else and never reserving anything for himself, he’s out of alignment and lacking integrity simply as a result of doing so. It is a betrayal of self, and a form of self-hatred.

    “So the chivalrous thing to do these days is for men not to strive too hard to hold down a job or seek promotion but to stand aside and let women go for it themselves.” This is sheer nonsense. I’ve never known ANY male, “manhood” defined (vis-a-vis external or societal definitions) or not, to ever step aside or minimize themselves in order to let a woman go ahead and get a job or promotion. If anything, the energy is that of wanting to remove oneself from corporate environments rife with females and the precarious interactions that ensue, since false sexual harassment, assault, etc. claims can still destroy a man’s career, and for some reason the false accusations seem to largely go unpunished.

  2. This is something I find truly fascinating that is hardly ever talked about. Not to mention the consequences of this ever increasing trend is hardly ever analyzed. Frightening as that may be, something economist have noticed but are afraid to mention is the tax gap! Even though we hear about the wage gap ad nauseam no serious economist takes it seriously as fact. However one measure that has remained constant, even as women work and earn more, is the the gap in taxes paid to benefits received. On average women are net negative tax generators for the state and federal government, while men are net positive tax generators for both. Throughout an average life span the state and government will spend MORE on befits and resources for women than it will ever get back in taxes from them. The inverse is true for men. Although economists were optimistic that this gap in taxes would disappear as women entered the work force and earned more the exact opposite happened. As the other half of the population entered the workforce in mass the price of wages flatlined. With more workers fighting for the same jobs the competative wages did not have to be increased to attract better talent since there was an abundance of labor. This coupled with less marriages left women more dependent on the government than ever. It’s the reason more women live in poverty today than at any time in American history. Add to that the fact these women started to have more and more children out of wed lock (for which the state was required to help support) and the demand for government benefits for women exploded. With an ever increasing call for more programs to aid and advance the cause of women the size of the tax gap has grown significantly.
    So why is all of that important? Mainly because of the effect it had on men. All of this left more men than usual unemployed. As well as creating a larger (and growing) segment of men who no longer need or want to work to provide for wives and children. In particular if their likely to have neither. This is an enormous deal from an economic standpoint. Since men are the one who the states and government relay on most to generate the taxes needed to fund the very programs society and in particular women depend on. Ever wonder why there seems to be less tax revenue every year. So much so that the government has trouble even funding itself?

  3. Absolutely true. I gave up my job as a successful bank employee when I married my husband three years ago. He’s employed in furniture industry, but earns less than I did, which has been a problem ever since we began dating. After he proposed to me he requested me to either leave him or leave my position in the bank. Without thinking I said I’d leave anything to be with him, and I was relieved to see he was content. Much to my surprise, many of my friemds and relatives (most of them female) have judged and loathed upon my decision to quit my career for a man. Needles to say, this only comfirmed my belief that I shouldn’t give much attention to what so called “liberated” women say, a notion that my husband has already warned me about. Long story short, I took his surname (obviously), he has no frustrations caused by my “supremation”, and I’mprpud to say I’m a good and obedient wife. When he returns from a job travel we’re planning a kid, and I hope that I’ll forever be happy in his little loving family circle.

  4. Women can pursue their careers. Of course they can. They can do anything they like. And American women are reproducing less and less. The problem will wipe itself out in a generation or two.

  5. Dear Vanessa,

    1. My letter was public not to make any comparisons to other women’s lives but to give a much-needed nod to breadwinner husbands, who get zero recognition in our society and represent half of two-parent families with children under 18. If you can stomach the truth, I wrote a follow up piece here—https://pjmedia.com/parenti… includes the “math” you asked for re my comment that most married mothers do not work full time and year round.

    2. Re this comment of yours—”lack-jawed disbelief, followed by guttural sounds of distress. I scrawled curses on the printout of your letter”: I would recommend some counseling for that anger of yours.

    3. Anyone can pull out a statement or two from an article and attempt to create an analysis from that. But such analysis is useless when it is is out of context.

    4. I said nothing about husbands needing to be high earners. Most one-income families—careful, this will come as a shocker—are not wealthy. Only 5% of married SAHMs with a breadwinner husband make 75K or more. Five percent. The rest make less or considerably less. And bc I know you like proof, here you go: http://www.pewsocialtrends…..

    5. I’m sorry you have “not yet reconciled” your career and self-worth and family as a result of the “patriarchy.” Perhaps your anger, resentment and overall bad attitude is getting in your way. Just a thought.

    Gwen Suzanne Venker • 3 years ago
    Suzanne, your response is predictable. Like a creepy 50s throwback version of a pod-person from the Body Snatchers, [already name calling, since she has no rational arguments] you detect vagina+passionate opinion and immediately want to extinguish the fire by pointing at the offending woman and screaming: “It’s not ok to be so angry! Get counseling and maybe some pharm drugs to calm your nerves!” Wow. I mean, really? That is an old, old trick of the patriarch you’ve picked up you sneaky little sell out. [Fantasies in one’s head do not necessarily reflect reality.] You may not know this since you are self-cloistered, but righteous anger is OK to express as a woman. No, really it is. In fact, the world needs much, much more of it. I know I know, you’ve pandered to the dominant male long enough to equate safety with smiles – you have figured out that if you only defer and repress your own guttural, wild-woman righteous anger, they’ll pet you and pay the bills. And now you are stuck. But give it a try. Get mad about something. Reach deep. You have some attention now – write something that makes a difference. Resist the urge to ask a man what he thinks you should be feeling. Quit wasting your time defending your stupid letter. I dare you.
    p.s. And for pete’s sake dont put the word patriarchy in “quotes”. It is a relevant word which describes a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. As you might know, women have not always held equal political power in our society. It’s a thing. Maybe you should “look it up”? Better yet, get a job that pays you 75% of what your male coworker makes for the same work, then look it up.
    [When I was young, the church people had an obsession with Satan. Feminists replace this with patriarchy, and use it in the same way. And there are no jobs where women make 75% of what their male coworkers make, unless they are commission jobs based on performance.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: