Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

In her current work as a divorce coach, Nataf said she hears the same from female clients all the time: They aren't reeling from betrayal, falling out of love, or yearning to pursue someone new. They're just tired.

"You don't need your husband to financially support you anymore. You're still doing all of the household labor. So now you just have basically an additional child you're taking care of, and that is exhausting," she said.

Data shows the average woman is outpacing the average man. As single women continue to gain power and prominence in society — earning more bachelor's degrees, buying more homes, dominating healthy sectors of the workforce, and even living longer than their married counterparts — pushback has manifested in the form of "trad wives" and "manosphere" influencers, most of whom label themselves as anti-feminists and boast about their return to "traditional" gender roles.

This kind of content romanticizes and fortifies the conservative ideals that a woman's domain is the home, while men are responsible for bringing home the bacon. Poll after poll shows that Gen Z men are particularly receptive to these ideals, while women of the same age are increasingly resistant, overwhelmingly expressing support for female leaders in politics, preference for female bosses in the workplace, and interest in advancing social causes. As the ideological gap widens between men and women, expectations for the division of relationship admin fall further out of alignment.

"Feminism brought women into the workforce, but men haven't had the same social movement into the home," Audrey Schoen, a licensed marriage and family therapist, told Business Insider.

Vetrano has seen this mismatch bring couples into his office. "My dad was the primary wage earner. My mom took care of everything in the household. Now, what you're finding is women are more often doctors, lawyers, CEOs running their own companies — high-powered professions that take 40, 50, 60 hours a week, and in addition, they're doing everything else just like my mom did when I grew up," he said.

"They're paying the bills, or even the bulk of the bills, and they're doing everything else," Vetrano added of his female clients. "They're getting frustrated and they're getting burned out."

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:13 pm This shift in the job mix has the effect of accelerating the decline (further reducing births and the effects that result from the further reduction in births).

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:13 pm When the number of births is rising, since men tend to marry younger women, there is always a surplus of women (and men able to start families are scarce and therefore valuable). When that trend reverses, men are now in surplus (and somewhat more so because of the sex ratio at birth being around 1.05 though it can also be argued that effect is reduced somewhat but not entirely because there are more homosexuals than lesbians, higher male prison population, etc.) and younger women are now scarce and therefore valuable.

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:13 pmThe mix of jobs begins to change and women are able to better do many of the jobs that become prominent during the maintenance and decline phase (like health care and education, which really just serve to milk out the surplus of the civilization before it collapses).

Corporate black holes prevent fair play in the U.S. economy

Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft

Like black holes, the largest companies have a reach that seemingly exceeds human capabilities, writes Frazier.

By Kevin Frazier
Aug 23, 2024
Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

Higgenbotham wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:25 pm

aedens wrote:http://www.chrismarquis.com/ They know who, and why these burn zones operate.

My primary teaching and research focus is the sustainability and shared value strategies of global corporations.

"Shared value strategies" are to operate as "Transfer Mechanisms" to legitimize stripping of surpluses-------> NOT Sustainable

Alright, it's not a very big secret who owns the country: you look at the
"Fortune 500" every year and you figure out pretty well who owns the
country. The country is basically owned by a network of conglomerates that
control production and investment and banking and so on, and are tightly
inter-linked and very highly concentrated-they own the country. And the
principle of American democracy is that they also ought to govern it. And
to a very large extent, they do. Now, whenever you have a concentration of
power like that, you can be certain that the people who have the power are
going to try to maximize it-and they're going to maximize it at the expense
of others, both in their own country and abroad. And that's just an unviable
system, I think.
Let's put international violence aside for a minute and take environmen-
tal issues, which people are finally beginning to look at. Well, it's been ob-
vious for centuries that capitalism is going to self-destruct: that's just
inherent in the logic of system-because to the extent that a system is capi-
talist, that means maximizing short-term profit and not being concerned
with long-term effects. In fact, the motto of capitalism was, "private vices,
public benefits"-somehow it's gonna work out. Well, it doesn't work out,
and it's never going to work out: if you're maximizing short-term profits
without concern for the long-term effects, you are going to destroy the en-
vironment, for one thing. I mean, you can pretend up to a certain point that
the world has infinite resources and that it's an infinite wastebasket-but at
some point you're going to run into the reality, which is that that isn't true.

"Want" Creation

MAN: But you could say that "to truck and barter" is human nature-that
people are fundamentally materialist, and will always want to accumulate
more and more under any social structure.

You could say it, but there's no reason to believe it. You look at peasant
societies, they go on for thousands of years without it-do those people have
a different human nature? Or just look inside a family: do people "truck and
barter" over how much you're going to eat for dinner? Well, certainly a
family is a normal social structure, and you don't see people accumulating
more and more for themselves regardless of the needs of the other people.
In fact, just take a look at the history of "trucking and bartering" itself:
look at the history of modern capitalism, about which we know a lot. The
first thing you'll notice is, peasants had to be driven by force and violence
into a wage-labor system they did not want; then major efforts were under-
taken-conscious efforts-to create wants. In fact, if you look back, there's a
whole interesting literature of conscious discussion of the need to manu-
facture wants in the general population. It's happened over the whole long
stretch of capitalism of course, but one place where you can see it very
nicely encapsulated is around the time when slavery was terminated. It's
very dramatic to look at cases like these.
For example, in 1831 there was a big slave revolt in Jamaica-which was
one of the things that led the British to decide to give up slavery in their
colonies: after some slave revolts, they basically said, "It's not paying any-
more." So within a couple years the British wanted to move from a slave
economy to a so-called "free" economy, but they still wanted the basic
structure to remain exactly the same-and if you take a look back at the
parliamentary debates in England at the time, they were talking very con-
sciously about all this. They were saying: look, we've got to keep it the way
it is, the masters have to become the owners, the slaves have to become the
happy workers-somehow we've got to work it all out.
Well, there was a little problem in Jamaica: since there was a lot of open
land there, when the British let the slaves go free they just wanted to move
out onto the land and be perfectly happy, they didn't want to work for the
British sugar plantations anymore. So what everyone was asking in Parlia-
ment in London was, "How can we force them to keep working for us, even
when they're no longer enslaved into it?" Alright, two things were decided
upon: first, they would use state force to close off the open land and prevent
people from going and surviving on their own. And secondly, they realized
that since all these workers didn't really want a lot of things-they just
wanted to satisfy their basic needs, which they could easily do in that trop-
ical climate-the British capitalists would have to start creating a whole set
of wants for them, and make them start desiring things they didn't then de-
sire, so then the only way they'd be able to satisfy their new material desires
would be by working for wages in the British sugar plantations.2o
There was very conscious discussion of the need to create wants-and in
fact, extensive efforts were then undertaken to do exactly what they do on
T.V. today: to create wants, to make you want the latest pair of sneakers
you don't really need, so then people will be driven into a wage-labor soci-
ety. And that pattern has been repeated over and over again through the
whole entire history of capitalism.21 In fact, what the whole history of cap-
italism shows is that people have had to be driven into situations which are
then claimed to be their nature. But if the history of capitalism shows any-
thing, it shows it's not their nature, that they've had to be forced into it, and
that that effort has had to be maintained right until this day.