You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

army1987 comments on [Link] More ominous than a [Marriage] strike - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: GLaDOS 04 January 2014 05:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 January 2014 12:56:59AM *  0 points [-]

Well, one could still talk about the attractiveness of 0-hour working vs. n-hour working mates, but that's not as intuitively forceful.

I, for one, am more attracted to the latter (and indeed my partner makes more money than myself), but I know that there exist men who are more attracted to the former. (Attractiveness is a two-place word.)

Comment author: Creutzer 05 January 2014 06:11:53AM *  1 point [-]

Yes, but when we're talking about a broad societal phenomenon, we need generalisations. And I would think that some decades ago, the average male found the wife they could expect to get with a 2n/0 arrangement, weighed by the probability of her existence, more attractive. Also, bogus below is quite right to point out that the 2n/0 arrangement used to give you higher social status.

As for today, I'm not sure. My impression is that the 2n/0 option is plainly unavailable for many people. And indeed, the meaning of a woman not working has changed, which may influence the attractiveness equation (including for the average male).