The Online Right's Fairy-Tale Gender Politics
Would wealthy men really choose a Waffle House waitress over a girlboss?

The most dysfunctional participants in the online gender wars just faced a major blow. The traditionalist online right frequently opines about how, as one representative post on X recently put it, "[High-value] men would rather marry a humble, cute Waffle House waitress than deal with a empowered boss b*tch." But it turns out that the wealthier a man is, the more likely he is to marry a highly-educated woman.
"Overwhelmingly, it turns out that the men with the most relationship options (wealthier, higher-social-status men) marry women similar in age to them and with high educational attainment," writes demographer Lyman Stone in an article published this week for the Institute for Family Studies. "Relationships with large age gaps are more common for low-income men than for high-income men."
Stone found that, contrary to stereotypes that proliferate online, the wealthier a man is, the more likely it is that his wife has a graduate degree and the less likely it is that there is a considerable age gap between them. Further, high-earning men were mostly married to high-earning women. The average wife of a top 1 percent–earning man also earned over $100,000.
"The simplest explanation for these trends," Stone wrote, "is that high-earning men who have more romantic options prefer to marry women who are more like a peer. When men have power to influence their mate options, they tend to use that power to find a peer-age woman for companionship and partnership in life."
These revelations shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone not clinically glued to their phones. For those not obsessed with online gender-resentment fantasies, it's pretty obvious that people tend to couple up with partners similar to themselves. (For example, Stone also found that a minority of marriages, at all income levels, have an age gap of five or more years.) Falling in love with someone usually necessitates that they have similar values and interests to yourself—features that correlate closely with education, age, and class.
And yet there's a coterie of tweets—and online personalities—devoted to insisting that high-achieving men find high-achieving women repulsive and instead choose to marry from America's veritable cornucopia of smokin' hot Applebee's waitresses.
Last year, one X user went wildly viral for insisting that men "who feel hopeless about ever finding a good woman to marry" should travel across the country and stop at small-town gas stations and diners in search of eligible young women.
"Every time you see a pretty cashier or waitress with a good vibe, politely ask her out," the post read. "Tell her you're out seeing the country and looking for a place to settle and a good woman to marry. Repeat until you've found someone to go steady with."
While the post received plenty of ridicule—one user even attempted this plan, unsurprisingly finding that rural truck stops were full of old men, not pretty young women—it also typified an incredibly common attitude on the online right. Education and careerism have ruined women; the only "good ones"—i.e., sexually inexperienced, young, and submissive—are out there in the hinterlands.
"Women will never understand that 'would you rather marry a 35 year old 9/10 with a great job and 20 past sexual partners or a 22 year old 9/10 grocery clerk with no past sexual partners' have very different average answers for men and women," reads another viral post from May. That month, Matt Walsh posted a popular tweet of his own decrying marriages where the wife makes more than the husband as "Totally inverting a system that has worked across all of human civilization since the dawn of humanity."
And some women are getting in on the action as well. Last week, former The View co-host Jedidiah Bila argued that "Men do NOT care about your career, ladies. I'm sorry, they just don't," adding that "They will date a waitress at Applebee's over a corporate executive if they treat them right and make their lives easier." A popular comment agreed that "Many modern ladies may not want to believe it, but men tend to be attracted to women who are willing to have babies rather than be a boss-babe. That's why the Applebee's waitress is more desirable."
These tweets sound almost like modern-day fairy-tales—the wealthy businessman who traverses diners in small-town America in search for a worthy bride to pluck from obscurity. It's a common enough story in popular culture, appearing in various forms from Cinderella to Shakespeare. The first major English novel, Samuel Richardson's 1740 epistolary novel Pamela, concerns a beautiful and virtuous servant girl who marries her employer after successfully fending off his aggressive sexual advances. And the Hallmark Channel is notorious for churning out direct-to-TV movies about self-absorbed businessmen won over by small-town girls who just love Christmas (though such films feature plenty of girlbosses who ditch their careers to marry similarly Christmas-obsessed small-town men).
The difference, though, is that fairy-tale inter-class marriages have typically been a fantasy for women. It is the poor girl of unremarkable birth who dreams of catching a prince for a husband, not the prince who laments that all the noble ladies of the kingdom hath been run through by Sir Chad, necessitating he find a fair maiden who works in a tavern. In these stories, the wealthy man cannot help but fall in love with our protagonist because he is so overcome by her virtue and her beauty that she essentially transcends her class limitations—she is a noblewoman in spirit, born of peasant parents. In Shakespeare's highly underrated 1611 play The Winter's Tale, this troupe is literal. A prince falls in love with a shepherdess, only for her to be revealed to be a long-lost princess.
But the class politics of the right-wing "trad bro" are entirely different. Instead, they outwardly pine for the virtues that apparently only uneducated and poor women can possess. The wealthy and educated women—the "girlbosses"—are assumed to be corrupted by what makes men "high value": ambition, expertise, and self-knowledge.
Some of this comes down to the fact that many of the men repeating this stereotype aren't wealthy themselves. Substacker Cartoons Hate Her pointed this out last year: "The main reason for this genre of wealthy man mythology is that (and I know this is a generalization) most men on the manosphere aren't wealthy, or even upper middle class," she wrote. "This is also why you might see 'status' as such a driver of what they believe makes men attractive, held in higher regard than almost any other attribute (this might not be as evident to young upper middle class women, who would gladly date a college classmate with no job—but that's because men in their echelon have status baked in already.)"
For that reason, there's an unmistakable hint of resentment in this fantasy. All over the manosphere, it's easy to find men delighting in the idea that the women who rejected them in their 20s will end up miserable and alone by their 30s, the point at which they hit "the wall" and stop being attractive. The idea, then, that such women would be rejected by men of similar age and education in favor of "worthy" (i.e., young and submissive) women only completes this fantasy.
And then, of course, there's the fact that the kinds of men who end up as manosphere gurus don't tend to like women very much—especially on an interpersonal level. The idea of having a relationship with a woman that goes beyond sex doesn't seem to register to many of these accounts. To them, it is unfathomable that a man, especially one so rich and well-connected as to theoretically attract just about any woman he desires, would do anything but select for the most sexually attractive (and, again, submissive) woman. Why would you marry a 35-year-old corporate lawyer when America is bursting with hot, GED-toting 22-year-olds? I don't know dude, because you love her?
But Stone's research reveals these constructions to be entirely fantastical. Most heterosexual men and women are not gender fatalists; they want to—as one oft-maligned saying goes "marry their best friend." The cynical transactionalism of online trad bros (and their female equivalents) doesn't translate in reality. The median rich man's marriage looks a lot more like Mark Zuckerberg's than Donald Trump's.
But despite the obvious flaws, this particular theory of gender relations just won't die. Thankfully, those most likely to believe in it are stuck on their phones or at their computers, while the rest of us are living in the real world.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Men don't like chicks that act like cunt rag bitches. That's why you will die alone surrounded by 8 cats.
And yes peer isn't boss bitch, stop condlationg thing to make your retard self feel important.
Dunnin Kruger affect - There are some men that believe at some point they may need to put their wife (girlfriend?) in line and they know they cannot do that with an empowered women. So they fear them, couldn't get them if they tried, and resort to name calling.
Like asking a woman to dance and if she says no, calling her a lesbian because, in their little mind, the only reason they wouldn't dance with such an obvious catch must be because they are gay.
Dare I say, not the brightest and probably fell for and voted for Trump. Same bucket.
The irony being that what you are describing is not the Dunnin Kruger affect.
Also, it’s effect.
Thanks for outing yourself as a bottom.
Funny how the fat, blue-haired, septum-pierced, plastic-framed-glasses-wearing leftists think they have any insight to women, specifically conservative women. You people think dudes in drag are women. Fucking idiot.
Big Akita would growl at him.
Your side is paying $20 million dollars to a fat woman to try and figure out how you can talk to men. Don't act like you know the first fucking thing about the subject.
Can we take a look at the rate of ssri usage VS chicks with/without degrees, and with/ without families?
Hypergamy.
Girl-boss girlfriend/wife will fuck up polarity unless the guy is a submissive or wants to be a cuckold. Boss girl and other masculine women take longer to get into their feminine. Why would any man, high-value or not, want to waste their time spending effort on that transition each interaction?
Waffle House waitresses are adept at getting your syrup, and that matters. Tiger Woods agrees.
Yes, it appears Tiger Woods is the source material for this article.
You must be a Trump supporter.... Sorry to catagorize you, but thinking that "Tiger Woods agrees" adds value to argument means you wouldn't survive with a really intelligent women.
Your fear is telling.
Whoosh. Say, what’s your favorite Tide Pod flavor?
You write jokes for Colbert, don’t you?
For ten more months, then he’ll be back at Starbucks.
con_fuse9 calls them "jokes". No one else does.
with a really intelligent women.
1) I'm not a grammar guy, but damn.
2) no such thing
I have a PhD and married an MD.
So when someone says 'Is there a Dr. in the house' you got it covered. Are there any kids in the hall, household?
named their kid Bad Doctor.
you and molly, the two biggest brains here.
Oh goody, and other chapter in Charlie’s works of short fiction. And Charlie does indeed have a PhD. From Harvard, in remedial math.
I did not earn my PhD at Harvard.
I did not earn my PhD at Harvard
neither did Claudine Gay
(Added leading line for clarity - dont mean to offend those who otherwise 'got it')
You seem to not understand what a "girlboss" is. Here's a hint: It's not just a woman that has a degree/job.
My Division Head is a woman.
Dumb as rocks.
Has a biologist confirmed this?
If so, you got a doctorate in "STUPID".
I think we're confusing being a "girlboss" and "being a fucking cunt". I don't know very many men that have a problem with wealthy, high-class women. As long as they aren't a stuck-up bitch. It really is that simple IMO.
I think so. A successful woman isn't necessarily an insufferable, overbearing bitch, despite the stereotypes (which definitely have plenty of truth to them as well).
Not necessarily, but far too often. Everything has hyper-radicalized since a certain orange president came down the escalator. And now a lot of successful women who were happy just being people in 2015 want everyone to know who they vote for and how they feel about every inequality in the world all the time. I don't want to date or marry a cause. I want to date or marry a person.
ya 2016 was the year chicks started acting unreasonably.
Wow, bunch of children in this response area.
I've been in the tech industry for nearly 35 years and don't recall a single "insufferable, overbearing bitch" in any position of power/management. The smarter the women, the better they were at reading the room with the exception of understanding their own talents (they put themselves down).
Real men are not afraid of real women.
Apparently some of you girly men, who gather their life experiences from TV or Youtube are.
Cool story bro. Got anymore soyboy beta male fan fiction you want to peddle?
Why do you think fear has anything to do with it?
^THAT^ is the question thats been puzzling me in these comments
it's projection.
Every woman confused has ever met is great.
All seven of them that have actually spoken to him in the last 35 tech industry years.
Imagine being a troll here for years, like confused, then imagine calling fucking Zeb a child.
They don’t send their best.
"...I've been in the tech industry for nearly 35 years and don't recall a single "insufferable, overbearing bitch" in any position of power/management..."
I spent ~30 years selling to the tech industry and I can state, clearly:
1) You are a lying pile of shit.
or:
2) You are a lying pile of shit.
Yes, successful men would marry a waitress if she was pretty and friendly.
Emma, men do not care, at all, what your job is. Your academic credentials mean dick (honestly, in many cases, college degrees are a red flag). Women who are feminine and pretty are what men want.
Also, we want women of a certain weight almost as much as women demand men of a certain height.
EDIT: Successful men are more likely to be around "successful" women. That is who they have available to them. You are not seeing men whining that there are no attractive women.
...just that Western women are, by and large, miles from being wife material.
I think it is pretty well understood that men are a lot more likely to "marry down" than women are. But that's a pretty broad generalization. Some men do care about high social or economic status of a potential partner too. But in general it is less than for women.
I don't think so. Even if the woman makes exponentially more money, she will, normally, expect him to be the "provider".
The odds of her job benefitting him is usually rather low. So what is the point of giving a damn?
Like I said, I think what you are saying is broadly true. Women are more likely than men to use economic and social status as a primary criterion to select a mate. But there are enough exceptions that it's better not to state it like it's a law of nature. And call me a hopeless romantic if you will, but I like to think that successful couples tend to be together because they actually like each other and think they can make a good life together, regardless of who has the larger income potential.
I'm not saying all relationships are like this. My wife is beyond amazing.
"...just that Western women are, by and large, miles from being wife material."
Western women are, by and large, bi. And large.
Alright, that was funny!
Few weeks ago, hanging out with a bunch of PhDs and PhD candidates - both men and women - had a lively discussion on determinism with a suitable amount of alcohol.
That's not going to happen with your average waffle house waitress.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
I'll take a great friendly personality, with a healthy physique, average looks, and superior brain over a vapid but hot cocktail waitress. The hotness will go away and what will you be left with?
You're conflating having credentials (PhD) with having (high) intelligence. Perhaps at one time that had a very large correlation, but now I don't see it. Sure, perhaps someone with postgraduate degrees is more likely to be at least intelligent compared with high-school dropouts.
And he did so by stating they were repeating narratives around determinism lol. One of the dumbest topics fake smart people love to talk over each other about.
He is the type who considers philosophy intelligent since he can never be proven wrong and can say anything as long as he knows the buzzword.
He has accomplished nothing of worth in his life.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
Elitist minds posit drivel.
Simple is not vapid. Hotness is an interpretation and fades or changes as the relationship does the same. And how do you know what the average Waffle House Waitress knows or thinks? Would you bother to ask might be the real question?
Where do I sign up for your enlightened newsletter?!
Someone had to bus those tables. He’s pissed that the waitresses at his Waffle House get the tips and he makes 50 cents over min wage. The broads also get successful men picking them up and he has to settle for married gay journalists cheating on their wives.
Honestly, Waffle House clearly treats their employees well. They have them willing to travel into a natural disaster to man the store because the local employees cannot.
Cannot think of many other companies who have employee loyalty like that.
Fucking hilarious how your side is all about the class war and complaining about billionaires until you think you're talking about someone lower on the ladder that may not share your stupid political theology. Poser.
And yeah, it's not a shock that you and your friends are bunch of marxist vermin who get together to discuss your religious beliefs.
Hahahahahahahahaha
"Few weeks ago, hanging out with a bunch of PhDs and PhD candidates - both men and women..."
On the web, no one can tell if you are a dog. Lying shitstain here is a dog.
“ honestly, in many cases, college degrees are a red flag”
Only if you are insecure and hate educated people because you can’t keep up. So for you, yeah. It’s a red flag.
“ Women who are feminine and pretty are what men want.”
True, but only weak men can’t handle feminine, pretty, and smart women. Plus, of course, I suspect your definition of “feminine” includes “meek and deferential”, which is not at all part of being feminine.
If you value feminine and pretty, but disdain intelligence, it says a lot about you.
“ Successful men are more likely to be around "successful" women”
Why the scare quotes?
“ just that Western women are, by and large, miles from being wife material.”
Yeah, ever since they read the Bible talk about how a woman should act and said, “fuck that noise”, you think they stopped being wife material. So basically you’re Harrison Butker, but more of a Neanderthal.
this column is the equivalent of going to a catholic priest for marriage advice
Teen Reason indeed.
"The traditionalist online right frequently opines about how, as one representative post on X recently put it, "[High-value] men would rather marry a humble, cute Waffle House waitress than deal with a empowered boss b*tch." But it turns out that the wealthier a man is, the more likely he is to marry a highly-educated woman."
Where does it say that "empowered boss b*tch" is entirely coincident with "highly educated woman"?
And depending on which degree she wasted money on, she still might be a Waffle House waitress.
Right, because the superior earning power of college graduates is such a bummer.
The line is bullshit anyway because high-value men tend to go through women like water through a sieve. To the extent they even decide to settle down, it's probably going to be with some firm-titted trophy wife.
“ The line is bullshit anyway because high-value men tend to go through women like water through a sieve”
Tell me you aren’t a high-value man without telling me. Or, clearly, have much exposure to high-value men.
LOL, stop. Your dumb ass thought Disney was going to wreck DeSantis, no one is taking your passive-aggressive Millennial catchphrases related to relationships seriously.
Yes, I thought that Disney wouldn’t puss out. I was wrong. There hasn’t been a single person on Earth, ever, who has always been right. Including Jesus.
Only an idiot thinks that if someone has been wrong once, they are wrong forever after. You are clearly that kind of idiot.
Your jealousy and envy of people who are more successful than you, combined with your complete inability to be able to interact with intelligent, successful people, has blended to form some weird rage-generating-machine in your brain.
Most of the people I know have been with the same person since they made the decision to commit. And they are as varied as a guy who runs an auction house, a woman who headed sales for a $500 million cybersecurity and medical data protection company, a librarian at the Free Library of Philadelphia, a personnel manager/hatchet man for International Paper, an Olympic coach, and me. All highly successful, all with the same partner/spouse.
Most of the people I worked around and with were one- or two-relationship people. Perhaps the several dozen high-success people I spent a lot of time around are some sort of outlier.
But it’s more likely you don’t know what you’re talking about because you don’t have any experience with high-success people and their romantic behaviors.
Only an idiot thinks that if someone has been wrong once, they are wrong forever after. You are clearly that kind of idiot.
You're often wrong while acting pretentious about your supposed education. That's the kind of idiot you are.
Your jealousy and envy of people who are more successful than you, combined with your complete inability to be able to interact with intelligent, successful people, has blended to form some weird rage-generating-machine in your brain.
I have a master's and make six figures. See, this is another thing you're wrong about.
But it’s more likely you don’t know what you’re talking about because you don’t have any experience with high-success people and their romantic behaviors.
Yeah, observing human behavior for most of my adult life had nothing to do with it.
Just more "JD Vance was wrong to turn his nose up at crazy cat ladies." from Reason.
Really, if you read into what Emma's laying down; she's saying that women can't be highly educated *and* humble and cute. Highly educated and/or highly paid maybe, but boss bitch either way.
Didn't know any of this was a thing and still don't care. I'll feel stupid for having read this.
W/regards to the sexes abusing each other, I have “been to the mountain top” to see the Guru in the cave, and have learned MUCH wisdom, which I will now pass on to you… Hooray!
Q: What’s the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example, among many other things, yanking on her “jugs” too hard?
A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!
Can you say, “Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”? Really fast now!
Unread
Uninteresting... Repetitive... BORING!!!
People tend to meet, socialize with, date, and marry others on roughly the same education and income level. Water is wet. Film at 11.
Nevertheless, men don't like bitchy women. Dog bites man. Film at 11.
Sociology is a bs "science."
Akita bites bottom man
…….and promptly contracts aids and monkeypox.
“ men don't like bitchy women”
An insecure man says “bitchy”. A confident man says “assertive”.
Calling someone a “pushy bitch” says volumes about the person saying it and nothing much about the one they’re saying it about.
There’s a difference between “bitchy” and “assertive”, though there can definitely be overlap.
A whole lot of overlap. Bitch is the way insecure men refer to assertive women. Because admitting the woman is better and more successful because they work harder and are intellectually superior is something a significant subset of men just can’t contemplate without becoming enraged.
That subset of men can’t apply equal standards to men and women because they believe women are inherently inferior to men. Those people are a waste of time for both women seeking a mate and anyone seeking a quality employee.
“Bitch is the way insecure men refer to assertive women.”
I’d argue it’s not exclusive to men, but I agree for the most part.
I didn’t read Think It’s comment that way, as I usually take “bitchy” as meaning overly complaining, nagging, etc. not necessarily “assertive”.
"...But it turns out that the wealthier a man is, the more likely he is to marry a highly-educated woman..."
So your blather turns out to be so much bullshit, and you STILL turn in into an article?
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Fairy-tale gender politics, you don't say, and this is what you write about?
A billionaire widower whose kids are all out of the house, marrying a young, single mother he met while she was working as a waitress in Denny's, only happens on the Hallmark Channel or Lifetime.
It happened to Barbara Johnson, Anna Nicole Smith and Marla Maples.
https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-xpm-2013-apr-04-la-me-barbara-piasecka-johnson-20130405-story.html#:~:text=She%20was%2076.,I%20came%20to%20this%20country.%E2%80%9D
I was trying to find something stupid to say on this topic but I could not compete with the other commenters.
You won.
Don’t worry Tony. Your can be confident that you wail always be the dumbest person here.
charliehall on line 1
Ha, beat me to it.
Until Charlie or Molly or Tony start posting links that refute the retarded thing they’re trying to assert, shrike will always be number one.
My personal experience as an educated, upper middle class guy who in grad school dated a woman who had a GED and worked in a restaurant was that after a very short time, she saw me as her golden ticket and tried to move in with me. I found out she was using my credit card too to buy all kinds of crap from online shopping and when I confronted her, she was like “you’re going to be rich very soon, so why do you care?” That ended it. She was cute but came with a lot of baggage.
Ass-to-mouth her then kick her to the curb.
What an expensive piece of pussy.
Yep, and I think is the reason that in reality, wealthy, educated guys tend to date or marry within their socioeconomic class. They don’t want to fall victim to the gold diggers, especially if they have kids with them and get divorced.
How much do you bet that all else being equal, he would choose the waitress. But rarely is that the case. The waitresses at Waffle House might be nice but when they are having to step outside for a smoke, have numerous tattoos, and are overweight and older than most dating aged males, then I tend to think there is no apples to apples comparison.
Therefore, this research is really BS. White collar women are almost always going to be more attractive, more fit, etc
The only way to have a true comparison is to find attractive and fit servers.
Not sure where you live, but in the free state of Florida, I have seen more fit (and attractive/cute) waitresses in Waffle House than overweight and old.
I'm glad you restricted this to online, because it is detached from reality.
Hence the fairy-tale part, I guess.
Jeebus, it's like the Chattering Alt Right class ain't never looked around at the real world! Like attracts like. What makes relationships are similarities, not differences. Those with college degrees tend to be attracted to those also with college degrees. Those in heavy manual labor fields tend to pair up with others in heavy manual labor fields.
That all these MALE Alt Right types keep insisting that HV Alt Right Men want low paid waitresses with barely a high school diploma, because they are "cute", just betrays that the fact that they think of women as mere objects. Don't go for a smart, well educated, and careered woman, go for the cute chick at Waffle House. (Ain't nothing wrong with cute chicks at Waffle House, but what the hell do they have in common with well heeled Alt Right toxic masculines?)
Ok soyboy. But college girls like a real man with testosterone too. Not some mincing antifa type just surging with estrogen.
Finally, thank you.
How do you know a man is a "toxic alt right" male? Don't worry, he'll let you know how much of a man he is.
Real men don't feel so insecure they have to prove their manhood at every turn.
These are the same men who would never let "their women" wear heels that make her taller than him.
Charlie Kirk bested by a girl "Tilly" (sp?). I find Tilly amazing.
The self-delusion is strong with this one.
Square the above comment with con-fused's other comments on this thread, for example:
"Few weeks ago, hanging out with a bunch of PhDs and PhD candidates..."
You are just as interested in proving your manhood as those you denigrate. You just do it via white knighting and credentialism because that's the currency among the women you associate with.
He’s talking with some educated women at a coffeeshop about their favor Hillary pant suit while some successful tall man with big muscles, a big wallet, and a big package is banging some hot Waffle House waitress in his big bed, in his big bedroom, in his big house, on his big property.
There was a meme that had a Prius with the caption “I get 63 mpg”. Below it had a lifted truck with the caption “I get laid.”
“Don't worry, he'll let you know how much of a man he is.”
Hey! That’s how we all know how smrt you are!
And yet you wrote that post.
How did you not recognize this article as bullshit from the get go?
Highly educated =/= “girlboss bitch”
Which waffle house has humble cute waitresses? All i ever see is the typical fast food worker.
I don’t know if I’ve ever actually been to a Waffle House, but I believe you.
One of the truest sayings my Southern friends swear by? “Every great night ends at Waffle House”.
It’s true.
And Scattered, covered, and smothered is the best way to eat hash browns.
Mmmmmmm. Now I want Waffle House.
you gotta be rural midwest for that ... where the Swedes settled Minnesota & south ... Crete, NE ... Emporia, KS ... Pella, IA
Having preferences for women with more brains does not nullify equal preferences for a pretty face, nice bod, and tits.
So the plain janes, even with graduate degrees, are still SOL. Sorry, Emma.
I don't mind women who are determined in business.
But once out of the office, I have no problem telling them I wear the pants in the relationship.
If the woman doesn't like that, then she can leave, and I'll move on to the next woman.
After all, there are more women in this world then men.
However, the ratio of real men to real women is 1:1.
You need not worry about that.
What is a woman?
Yeah, Uncle Jay. I’m sure you have them lining up for you.
Tell us you can't get a man without telling us you can't get a man.
Stone found that, contrary to stereotypes that proliferate online, the wealthier a man is, the more likely it is that his wife has a graduate degree and the less likely it is that there is a considerable age gap between them.
*sigh*
"Guys who go to college meet, date and marry other women who are in their same classes"
I don't have time right now, I'll try to post a 900 word comment carefully explaining to Emma how all of this works.
Edit: If only there were another space, not the alt-right trad-boy conservative space, but another space... a space populated mostly with um, college educated women, and if we put our ear to the wall of that space, we keep hearing again, and again and again... and again, that there are no eligible men to meet. I personally find it much more enlightening to listen to that conversation than a rando on twitter in the trad-boy conservative space saying he wants the cute girl at the Waffle House. Because trust me, as a card-carrying representative of the Straight Male community, I can assure you, deep down... ALL of us kind of want the cute girl at waffle house, it's just that the cute girl at Waffle House doesn't want us, so we settle for one of our classmates and get divorced after 7 years when you don't earn enough for her.
My guess is the problem with the marriage in your second link is actually that dudes beard. Wtf is that?
Anna Nicole Smith was a Playboy centerfold, not a waitress at the time.
*stares, drumming fingers on table*
It's interesting that I posted a picture of someone who didn't even have the skills to be a Waffle House waitress, innit?
Yeah, but she met Marshall when she was a stripper, before she ever posed for Playboy. So they'd already known each other, and I suspect he was probably one of her regulars up until she got the modeling gig.
I don't blame her for locking the guy down after her divorce went through.
Just send her link to Hoe_Math.
By Emma's narrative women being rich or educated *and* being cute/personable is right out.
It's also hilarious that she completely ignores the other half of this. There was no shrieking of crazy cat ladies, cheers for the insanity of the 4B movement, no Kamala Harris ads appealing to men who cried when watching Predator and then asking "Why aren't men voting for HER (again)?"
Just, once again, completely unsolicited "Maybe try being less of a bitch." verbal assaults from alt-right, misogynist, incel, white supremacist, Pro-Russian, Pro-Israel Nazis for no particular reason at all.
>>The most dysfunctional participants in the online gender wars just faced a major blow.
definitely don't want any part of that retarded world. men don't care what chicks do for money because chicks aren't here for the making of the money.
Iceberg Slim would like a word.
Slim and I may be from different neighborhoods. I would never equate hos with chicks.
Pretty sure Emma wrote this for Vogue or some other dumb feminist magazine. Her tribe of feminists have been proven repeatedly to have a terrible understanding of reality. Yet here we have her trying to femsplain what men want. It would be cute if I hadn't heard her sort of reasoning for almost the last 20 years. 4th wave feminists are garbage and yet this is what Reason hires.
so true - by the way she is 22 so doesn't know shit (most likely)
Why the kink shaming?
I stopped there. The obvious fallacy rendered reading the rest of the article moot and...
Well... duh!
Wealthier, higher-social-status men associate far more with... uhm... wealthier, higher-social-status people in general. It stands to reason that their mate selection will come from those social circles where the available options more closely resemble them (i.e. wealthier,
educatedcredentialed, higher social status, etc.).Exactly!
So educated isn’t educated? That’s an awfully blanket dismissal of all education beyond high school. It also sounds like sour grapes.
This might come as a shock Nelson, but not everybody who walks across that stage and flips their tassel is educated. But they all get that fancy sheepskin to hang on their wall.
Which was, of course, his whole point in replacing it with “credentialed”.
Educated means you have engaged in learning from those who know more than you. It also typically insinuates some sort of formal schooling. Whether they are deep thinkers or intellectually curious isn’t really relevant to calling someone educated.
And I have been very careful to never discuss a degree. Educated and a college graduate aren’t necessarily synonymous. But a college-educated person (whether or not they have a degree) is indisputably more educated than someone who only graduated from high school and that person is more educated than someone who dropped out of high school as a sophomore.
Educated is educated, credentialed is credentialed. The bait-and-switch scam that those who have disdain for a college education is just that: a scam. If you spend more time learning more complex and difficult concepts, you are better educated.
What conservatives want everyone to just accept is that more education doesn’t mean you know more. Which is clearly nonsense. You may not understand a specific thing as deeply as someone who learned on the job, but you definitely have a broader base of knowledge to draw from.
As an example, my deepest pool of knowledge is something that I never studied in college: business. Specifically marketing and international supply chains. I learned those on the job, but I had the basic foundational knowledge to be able to pick up supply chains quickly because I took macro- and micro-economics in college (because I found it interesting). The same goes for marketing and pricing strategy. My interest in and study of game theory and mathematical models in college made them pretty easy to pick up.
Foundational knowledge, which is most of what college is, gives you an advantage. Pretending that that doesn’t count as “educated” is nonsense.
While one may be educated it does not necessarily mean one is intelligent. While one may be intelligent it does not necessarily mean one is smart. While one may be smart it does not necessarily mean one is wise.
I can honestly say I’ve gained more real world wisdom engaging with highly insightful and successful people with little formal education than any academic.
I worked for 20 years at a company that, at the time, had one of the highest percentage of PhD holding employees in the country. I came to realize those employees, by and large, were the inspiration for shoes with Velcro tabs instead of laces.
You are absolutely and insufferably wrong.
There are plenty of particularly intelligent people that eschew college and achieve a greater degree of education without institutionalized schooling. Self-taught is a thing.
This idea that participation in college is mandatory for a "higher" education is simply a variation of appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) and needs to die in a fire.
Well, speaking as someone with a master's who still attends professional conferences dominated by academics, yes, these people are often some of the most provincial, incurious, presumptuous, unself-aware dipshits one can imagine.
As opposed to what?
Whatever the fuck you're pontificating about.
Nah. My own education predates the credentialism and netted me a particularly lucrative career.
But, by and large, universities have abandoned education as their primary goal and the primary purpose of going to college now is to get a degree (i.e. credentials) not an education.
Emma, we already know this. People settle down with people close to them on the scale. 10 with 10.
The problem though is that you seem to be forgetting that there are only so many 10 guys and you are all chasing them.
So tons of girl bosses are going home to their cats at night wondering why.
Poor cats. Actually, never mind. Fuck cats.
I feel like Emma is doing her absolute best to ignore the 'bitch' or '20 former sexual partners' parts of the descriptions. Both of which were the actual deciding factors in the comparisons.
The only thing more insecure than a man who wants a meek wife is one who wants one without previous sexual experience.
If you aren’t worried about your sexual prowess, you aren’t worried about hers, either. If you are, you look for a virgin and hope they never learn what a lousy lay you are.
Found the beta male cuck.
You make my point for me.
LOL, yes, Nelson, what men really want is a woman with a high body count because they figure they will be an easy lay. Fucking hilariously ironic considering your response to my very accurate observation that "high value men" tend to go through women like water through a sieve.
If you aren’t worried about your sexual prowess, you aren’t worried about hers, either.
Magnificent circular reasoning there. It's probably quite pertinent to find out if a woman has run through a bunch of men, as it tends to indicate if she's capable of being in a long-term relationship or not.
“ Nelson, what men really want is a woman with a high body count because they figure they will be an easy lay”
Wow, you really can’t get past your insecurity, can you? My point is that a confident man doesn’t care one way or the other. Only an insecure man cares whether the woman they’re with has had one partner or a hundred. That’s because any number over zero makes them fear their inadequacy.
“ my very accurate observation that "high value men" tend to go through women like water through a sieve.”
Your personal opinion, completely devoid of facts and data, you mean? Yeah, you’re definitely the insecure guy who fears sexually independent women.
“ Magnificent circular reasoning there”
Proving you either suck at reading comprehension or don’t understand that the two “aren’t worried about” statements are different definitions of “worried”. To help you understand, I’ll restate for you: If you are confident about your sexual prowess, you don’t care that she is good in bed, too.
“ as it tends to indicate if she's capable of being in a long-term relationship or not.”
You think that the number of partners a woman has is inversely related to their ability to be in a long-term, monogamous relationship? Holy shit, you are a bigger idiot than I ever imagined.
Wow, you really can’t get past your insecurity, can you?
Wow, you really can't accept that men might prefer women who haven't been in a lot of relationships, can you?
My point is that a confident man doesn’t care one way or the other.
A confident man is already discriminatory in their choice of mates.
Only an insecure man cares whether the woman they’re with has had one partner or a hundred.
More circular reasoning.
Your personal opinion, completely devoid of facts and data, you mean? Yeah, you’re definitely the insecure guy who fears sexually independent women.
LOL, this is the same shaming language that feminists use.
Proving you either suck at reading comprehension or don’t understand that the two “aren’t worried about” statements are different definitions of “worried”. To help you understand, I’ll restate for you: If you are confident about your sexual prowess, you don’t care that she is good in bed, too.
Getting run through by a dozen men doesn't mean a women is good in bed.
You think that the number of partners a woman has is inversely related to their ability to be in a long-term, monogamous relationship?
Yeah, faggot, there's actual studies showing this.
The fact that you're too stupid to understand the difference between a woman with "some sexual experience" and a cum dumpster tells me all I need to know about you.
Yeah, it's pretty fuckin' telling that he considers female virgins to be low-value.
"this troupe is literal"
TROUPE?
TROPE?
It's all journalism to me. What's the diff?
Without normalizing for time spent around women of different social class and educational attainment outside of hiring escorts, any studies on the matter are complete and utter bunk from a scientific lens. So of course a social science statistician would present them as useful.
It is as if the "right wing bros" have never read a Jane Austin novel. Even before women were allowed to work and earn money, men chose wives based on their family, title, dowry or land that she brought to the marriage. She had to know how to socialize with your family and in your social circles. The same still exists. Maybe a person that grew up in humble beginnings could marry a wealthy man, but she needs to be able to exist in his world. Jeff Bezos married Lauren Sanchez. Some online men wondered why he didn't marry a younger woman. She is a millionaire in her own right. Bill Gates is also dating a women near his age with access to her own billions. While both of these men could act like Hugh Heffner and hire a few 20 somethings, the would be ostracized from their social circles if they did so.
"It is as if the "right wing bros" have never read a Jane Austin novel."
It is as if you buy an article claiming one person as representative of "right wing bros" .
It is as if the "right wing bros" have never read a Jane Austin novel.
Fuckin' LOL. Having actually read several Jane Austen novels, I can assure you that the lives of the early 19th century British middle class has little bearing on 21st Century relationship dynamics.
Jeff Bezos married Lauren Sanchez. Some online men wondered why he didn't marry a younger woman. She is a millionaire in her own right. Bill Gates is also dating a women near his age with access to her own billions. While both of these men could act like Hugh Heffner and hire a few 20 somethings, the would be ostracized from their social circles if they did so.
Elon Musk runs through women like shit through a goose. Leonarod DiCaprio is famous for dating 20-somethings. Being a poonhound is not a disqualification from The Club.
men chose wives based on their family, title, dowry or land that she brought to the marriage.
Ridiculously wrong but indicative of how many people think. Maybe aristocratic men did that, but women outside the elite brought no title, dowry, or land to a marriage.
Did Emma Camp just hit the wall?
"...one representative post on X recently put it, "[High-value] men would rather marry a humble, cute Waffle House waitress than deal with a empowered boss b*tch."..."
Sample size =1.
My wife has a masters in engineering.
So you're not bright enough to understand the difference between a "highly-educated woman" and an "empowered boss bitch" , or do know the difference and are pretending there isn't one because you're just another garden variety dishonest sack of crap.
Makes sense. Anyone with a fantasy of finding a poor roadside bride is probably poor himself.
Stereotypical bullshit not aligned with reality. Assuming the Waffle House waitress is not working to put herself through med school. How ignorant.
And then to suggest that rich men choose non educated women so they can control them?
I have grown very tired of people taking the comments of a couple people and being so shallow and naive as to believe those comments are the norm, the majority of people agree and think this way.
Ridiculous. Oh and screw off with your manosphere BS.
For those not obsessed with online gender-resentment fantasies,
I've never seen Emma or any Reason author describe feminism with such condescension even though listening to ten minutes of feminist whining about men is indistinguishable.
This is quite a long-winded way of saying that someone on the Internet was wrong.