[size=14pt]The M.R.S. and the Ph.D.[/size]
By STEPHANIE COONTZ

TODAY women earn almost 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and more than half of master’s and Ph.D.’s. Many people believe that, while this may be good for women as income earners, it bodes ill for their marital prospects.

As Kate Bolick wrote in a much-discussed article in The Atlantic last fall, American women face “a radically shrinking pool of what are traditionally considered to be ‘marriageable’ men — those who are better educated and earn more than they do.” Educated women worry that they are scaring away potential partners, and pundits claim that those who do marry will end up with unsatisfactory matches. They point to outdated studies suggesting that women with higher earnings than their husbands do more housework to compensate for the threat to their mates’ egos, and that men who earn less than their wives are more likely to experience erectile dysfunction.

Is this really the fate facing educated heterosexual women: either no marriage at all or a marriage with more housework and less sex? Nonsense. That may have been the case in the past, but no longer. For a woman seeking a satisfying relationship as well as a secure economic future, there has never been a better time to be or become highly educated.

For more than a century, women often were forced to choose between an education and a husband. Of women who graduated from college before 1900, more than three-quarters remained single. As late as 1950, one-third of white female college graduates ages 55 to 59 had never married, compared with only 7 percent of their counterparts without college degrees.

Some of these women chose to stay single, of course, and that choice has always been easier and more rewarding for educated women. But the low marriage rates of educated women in the past were also because of the romantic and sexual prejudices of men. One physician explained the problem in Popular Science Monthly in 1905: An educated woman developed a “self-assertive, independent character” that made it “impossible to love, honor and obey” as a real wife should. He warned that as more middle-class women attended college, middle-class men would look to the lower classes to find uneducated wives.

That is exactly what happened in the mid-20th century. From 1940 to the mid-1970s, the tendency for men to marry down educationally became more pronounced and the cultural ideal of hypergamy — that women must marry up — became more insistent.

Postwar dating manuals advised women to “play dumb” to catch a man — and 40 percent of college women in one survey said they actually did so. As one guidebook put it: “Warning! ... Be careful not to seem smarter than your man.” If you hide your intelligence, another promised, “you’ll soon become the little woman to be pooh-poohed, patronized and wed.”

Insulting as it may have been, such advice was largely sound. Studying national surveys on mate preferences, David M. Buss, a psychologist at the University of Texas, and his colleagues found that in 1956, education and intelligence were together ranked 11th among the things men sought in a mate. Much more important to them was finding a good cook and housekeeper who was refined, neat and had a pleasing disposition. By 1967, education and intelligence had moved up only one place, to No. 10, on men’s wish lists.

Men in the postwar period were threatened by the thought of a woman with more or even as much education as they had. One man who taught at a women’s college in the 1950s told me his colleagues used to joke that once they knew a woman had earned a Ph.D., they didn’t even need to ask what she had specialized in: clearly, it was in “Putting Hubby Down.”

But over the past 30 years, these prejudices have largely disappeared. By 1996, intelligence and education had moved up to No. 5 on men’s ranking of desirable qualities in a mate. The desire for a good cook and housekeeper had dropped to 14th place, near the bottom of the 18-point scale. The sociologist Christine B. Whelan reports that by 2008, men’s interest in a woman’s education and intelligence had risen to No. 4, just after mutual attraction, dependable character and emotional stability.

The result has been a historic reversal of what the economist Elaina Rose calls the “success” penalty for educated women. By 2008, the percentage of college-educated white women ages 55 to 59 who had never been married was down to 9 percent, just 3 points higher than their counterparts without college degrees. And among women 35 to 39, there was no longer any difference in the percentage who were married.

African-American women are less likely to marry than white women overall, but educated black women are considerably more likely to marry than their less-educated counterparts. As of 2008, 70 percent of African-American female college graduates had married, compared with 60 percent of high school graduates and just 53 percent of high school dropouts.

One reason educated heterosexual women may worry about their marriage prospects today is that overall marriage rates have been slipping since 1980. But they have slipped less for educated women than for anyone else. Furthermore, college-educated women, once they do marry, are much less likely to divorce. As a result, by age 30, and especially at ages 35 and 40, college-educated women are significantly more likely to be married than any other group. And according to calculations by the economist Betsey Stevenson, an educated woman still single at age 40 is much more likely to marry in the next decade than her less educated counterparts.

Even for women who don’t marry, it’s better to be educated; a 2002 study found that never-married white women with more education than average lived “the longest, healthiest lives of all groups.”

ONE of the dire predictions about educated women is true: today, more of them are “marrying down.” Almost 30 percent of wives today have more education than their husbands, while less than 20 percent of husbands have more education than their wives, almost the exact reverse of the percentages in 1970.

But there is not a shred of evidence that such marriages are any less satisfying than marriages in which men have equal or higher education than their wives. Indeed, they have many benefits for women.

In a forthcoming paper from the Council on Contemporary Families, Oriel Sullivan, a researcher at Oxford University, reports that the higher a woman’s human capital in relation to her husband — measured by her educational resources and earnings potential — the more help with housework she actually gets from her mate. The degree to which housework is shared is now one of the two most important predictors of a woman’s marital satisfaction. And husbands benefit too, since studies show that women feel more sexually attracted to partners who pitch in.

Speaking of which, educated wives also get better sex, whatever their partner’s educational level, according to the sexuality researchers Pepper Schwartz and Virginia Rutter. They are more likely to receive as well as give MouthAction, to use a greater variety of sexual positions and to experience orgasm regularly.

Certainly, some guys are still threatened by a woman’s achievements. But scaring these types off might be a good thing. The men most likely to feel emotional and physical distress when their wives have a higher status or income tend to be those who are more invested in their identity as breadwinners than as partners and who define success in materialistic ways. Both these traits are associated with lower marital quality. Few women really want to marry a man whose penis rises and falls in tandem with the size of his paycheck or the prestige of his diploma.

Yet when the journalist Liza Mundy interviewed young women for her forthcoming book on female breadwinners, she found that most wanted a mate they could “look up to” or “admire” — and didn’t think they could admire a man who was less educated than they were. During a talk I recently gave to a women’s group in San Francisco, an audience member said, “I want him to respect what I know, but I also want him to know just a little more than me.” One of my students once told me, “it’s exciting to be a bit in awe of a guy.”

For a century, women have binged on romance novels that encouraged them to associate intimidation with infatuation; it’s no wonder that this emotional hangover still lingers. Valentine’s Day is a perfect time to reject the idea that the ideal man is taller, richer, more knowledgeable, more renowned or more powerful. The most important predictor of marital happiness for a woman is not how much she looks up to her husband but how sensitive he is to her emotional cues and how willing he is to share the housework and child-care. And those traits are often easier to find in a low-key guy than a powerhouse.

I am not arguing that women ought to “settle.” I am arguing that we can now expect more of a mate than we could when we depended on men for our financial security, social status and sense of accomplishment. But that requires ditching the Lois Lane syndrome, where we ignore the attractions and attention of Clark Kent because we’re so eager for the occasional fly-by from Superman.

Stephanie Coontz is the author of “A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/marriage-suits-educated-women.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

For a century, women have binged on romance novels that encouraged them to associate intimidation with infatuation; it’s no wonder that this emotional hangover still lingers. Valentine’s Day is a perfect time to reject the idea that the ideal man is taller, richer, more knowledgeable, more renowned or more powerful. The most important predictor of marital happiness for a woman is not how much she looks up to her husband but how sensitive he is to her emotional cues and how willing he is to share the housework and child-care. And those traits are often easier to find in a low-key guy than a powerhouse.

LOL at the bolded: The day that happens is the day that pigs fly! It's usually the feminist influenced women that want the on top alpha male guy the most.
Hypergamy has always been part of the female psyche. In fact feminism has just made women's hypergamous ways worse because of the feminist based laws like no fault divorce, paternity fraud laws which they hold back, the pill, abortions on demand etc.

Black Kenichi:
LOL at the bolded: The day that happens is the day that pigs fly! It's usually the feminist influenced women that want the on top alpha male guy the most.

if you read the article, you will find that it is men who promoted this idea to begin with. feminists do not support it.
read the part in the article where 'hypergamy' is mentioned.
if u can't find it, use the "find" feature on your browser.

99cent:
if you read the article, you will find that it is men who promoted this idea to begin with. feminists do not support it.

That's a load of bullsh1t and you know it. Hypergamy has always been part of the female psyche. Women have always wanted the top male of any given society, time period, situation and what not! The fact that you a white male worshiper is saying is only more proof. You worship them because you perceive them as the top males. Nothing more.

99cent: read the part in the article where 'hypergamy' is mentioned.
if u can't find it, use the "find" feature on your browser.

I've read it. I just don't agree with it.

men promoted the idea of hypergamy because they were threatened by educated women. that idea is very speedily going away. 30% of women today marry down. the rates of "marrying down" is much higher among black females than whites. which makes sense since many black women have less choice than to marry down if they want to marry at all. LOL unless they marry outside their race.

chances are if you end up marrying a black woman (or any woman for that matter. considering that you are a black male), she has a good chance of making more than you! so if anything, it is black males who need to let go of traditional sexist notions.

most educated white males have gotten rid of that sexist notion which is why educated couples are now likely to marry each other whereas 50yrs ago, the educated male despised the educated female and will prefer to marry from the lowerclass. the only good thing about that set up is there was more upward mobility for women. but it was sexist nontheless. those housewives fought against it eventually. which led to the second wave feminist movement. I guess they got tired of playing dumb and submissive

these women smiled as they worked not because they enjoyed it but because they typically came from lower class families and marrying up was a good deal in exchange of doing housework and playing the stupid submissive wife. educated women were shunned. like I said, by the 60s, there was a backlash even among these women who were previously happy to be housewives. LOL.
[img]http://3.bp..com/_hek7hKOiBvY/TFuYDmHns1I/AAAAAAAAADA/LdX7Qp0X_tg/s320/01324.jpg[/img]

of course nowadays, the extremely sexist males will tend to order their submissive brides(usually 20yrs younger) from russia and asia. u can guess that divorce rate is very high for those couples. those oppressed women eventually leave d marriage.

summary: the faster men start to recognize women as equal partner in marriage, workplace, society at large, the better for them and society as a whole.

Black Kenichi:

At the bolded - The most laughable thing ever that only goes to show that hypergamy has nothing to do with men promoting it as much as who women perceive as the top dogs.

I just made a post before u posted this so u might want to read it for better understanding.
even african men when they first come to america are always resentful of the idea of women not being submissive so they go to an african village to find an uneducated, poor woman who will be "submissive" and then 6 yrs later after she has gotten her greencard, she will dump him and gain her freedom! usually it starts with fights once she becomes gainfully employed and no longer financially dependent on the husband. she starts to resist being treated like a child or subordinate.
this is not a feminist woman. just a woman with common sense.
feminism at the end of the day is about common sense anyway. all of these should be common sense. women aren't slaves or servants. esp if she has a job and is not financially dependent on a man.
this is why financial security is a big deal.

of course in the 40s and 50s, women were kept out of the workforce so you didn't see any of this going on strictly because women just weren't given an opportunity to work except maybe as secretaries,flight attendant etc so called "pink collar" jobs where they were always subordinate to men which re-enforced d idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink-collar_worker

99cent: these women smiled as they worked not because they enjoyed it but because they typically came from lower class families and marrying up was a good deal in exchange of doing housework and playing the stupid submissive wife. educated women were shunned.
[img]http://3.bp..com/_hek7hKOiBvY/TFuYDmHns1I/AAAAAAAAADA/LdX7Qp0X_tg/s320/01324.jpg[/img]

That's presumptious. How do you know what every women like/wants to do in life? There are plenty of people that feel fulfilled doing housework.

99cent: like I said, by the 60s, there was a backlash even among these women who were previously happy to be housewives. LOL.

We all know!

99cent: of course nowadays, the extremely sexist males will tend to order their submissive brides(usually 20yrs younger) from russia and asia. u can guess that divorce rate is very high for those couples. those oppressed women eventually leave d marriage.

Again how do you know that the men that do this activity that you mentioned are sexist?

Black Kenichi: There are plenty of people that feel fulfilled doing housework.

true. not all women are overly ambitious.but for those who are, they should be given the opportunity to thrive as well.
trust me, this is for men's gain as well. imagine if all women had to be housewives then only rich men will be able to marry pretty wives since u need to be able to financially support her.
nowadays, women can work and contribute to the family! so they are less likely to chose men based on his income.
in fact, black males should be especially thankful for feminism because if not for it, u won't have access to many women even of different races if u don't make good money!!

99cent: of course in the 40s and 50s, women were kept out of the workforce so you didn't see any of this going on strictly because women just weren't given an opportunity to work except maybe as secretaries,flight attendant etc so called "pink collar" jobs where they were always subordinate to men which re-enforced d idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink-collar_worker

I guess you haven't heard of World War 2, the bloodiest war of human history. Women worked all types of jobs as the brave men had to fight and die in that god awful war. Funny how feminists never seem to mention that event!

Black Kenichi:
I guess you haven't heard of World War 2, the bloodiest war of human history. Women worked all types of jobs as the brave men had to fight and die in that god awful war. Funny how feminists never seem to mention that event!

lol. they worked to build all the machines and tools for war duh
and when d war ended, there was a FULL BLOWN propaganda to kick them into the kitchen so that the men can resume working.
trust me, the main reason for the second wave feminist movement was as a result of the backlash of d propaganda of the 40s ad 50s. where women were made into housewives and baby-makers (this was the babyboom era too).

imagine, d most popular show of the time was "father knows best"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Knows_Best
today, ppl look back to those times n mine mine LOL what an era.
mother's little helper - another cultural phenomenon of that time
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070109120331AAX4sIr
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090905090233AA8aFxd

99cent:
true. not all women are overly ambitious.but for those who are, they should be given the opportunity to thrive as well.

I agree.

99cent: trust me, this is for men's gain as well. imagine if all women had to be housewives then only rich men will be able to marry pretty wives since u need to be able to financially support her.

BS! There are only a certain amount of rich men in any given society and time. If a woman couldn't get a rich man then she would have to settle for a poor man and what not. Simple!

99cent: nowadays, women can work and contribute to the family! so they are less likely to chose men based on his income.

Yet women still want men that earn more than them.

99cent: in fact, black males should be especially thankful for feminism because if not for it, u won't have access to many women even of different races if u don't make good money!!

Hahahahahahahahahaha! You're so full of sh1t! The idea that feminism made it easier for black men to date other races of women is laughable. It was increased civil rights and more income that made it easier for black men to date other races of women. Also how do you explain the amount of mixed raced kids born to African men and British women nowadays? Still keep believing the BS that black men are holding black women back while you wish to be nothing more than the white man's cum dumpster and getting the white man's jizz on your face. White men aren't checking for black women all that much!

99cent:
lol. they worked to build all the machines and tools for war duh
and when d war ended, there was a FULL BLOWN propaganda to kick them into the kitchen so that the men can resume working.

They did a good job in factories.

99cent: trust me, the main reason for the second wave feminist movement was as a result of the backlash of d propaganda of the 40s ad 50s.

Nope. 2nd wave feminism was all about women wanting more power with no responsibility.

99cent: where women were made into housewives and baby-makers (this was the babyboom era too).

Nobody made the women become housewives and baby makers. They chose that life for themselves.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! You're so full of sh1t! The idea that feminism made it easier for black men to date other races of women is laughable. It was increased civil rights and more income that made it easier for black men to date other races of women. Also how do you explain the amount of mixed raced kids born to African men and British women nowadays?

seems like u don't even know what civil rights mean.
civil rights movement was about blacks who wanted the government to enforce that was already laid out in the constitution that all men are equal including blacks (14th amendment).

how can government enforce romantic relationship between people?
relationships almost always bear on society norms. once women start working and are able to sustain themselves financially, they put less emphasis on men's income and are able to form relationships for other reasons. maybe the entertaining guy or the bad guy etc other factors that they couldn't consider before.

maybe u should watch an episode of sex and the city a show that would not even EXIST in the 50s.
or even the idea of coogars (older, financially well off women having relationships with younger or more financially dependent men). trust me, 90% of time I've seen an interracial couple with black guys in front of me at a store counter, the white woman pays. very interesting observation. same men that like to complain about feminism. seems to me like these men won't mind washing underwear or even and probably cooks and clean in d house too! again u can refer back to the malcolm x video because somehow u r expecting that black women should reject feminism. why is it ok for u to be financially dependent on a white woman but ur somehow ashamed if a black woman makes more or has power? don't know what you are aiming to gain from setting black women backwards and saying that they shouldn't aim high or be ambitious.
i smell fish.
did civil rights also create coogars and sex and the city?

99cent:
seems like u don't even know what civil rights mean.
civil rights movement was about blacks who wanted the government to enforce that was already laid out in the constitution that all men are equal including blacks (14th amendment).

Among other things.

99cent: how can government enforce romantic relationship between people?

You obviously know nothing of history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

99cent: relationships almost always bear on society norms.

No they don't. Some people are into some weird sh1t

99cent: once women start working and are able to sustain themselves financially, they put less emphasis on men's income and are able to form relationships for other reasons. maybe the entertaining guy or the bad guy etc other factors that they couldn't consider before.

Women have always sort after bad boys. It's nothing new.

99cent: maybe u should watch an episode of sex and the city a show that would not even EXIST in the 50s.

I'd rather have an acid bath than watch bullsh1t tv like "Sex and the City"!

99cent: or even the idea of coogars (older, financially well off women having relationships with younger or more financially dependent men).

The "cougar" phenom is nothing more than an overexaggerated myth!

99cent: trust me, 90% of time I've seen an interracial couple with black guys in front of me at a store counter, the white woman pays. very interesting observation. same men that like to complain about feminism.

Many men complain about feminism. Infact the biggest complainers of feminism are your beloved saviour white men. Stop trying too hard to portray black men as the enemy and go back to your white massa and except his jizz lovingly like a good negro bedwench!

99cent: seems to me like these men won't mind washing underwear or even and probably cooks and clean in d house too!

Much like black feminists wouldn't mind being the white man's pet bedwench!

99cent: again u can refer back to the malcolm x video because somehow u r expecting that black women should reject feminism.

They should reject it. The bastion of feminism, USA is falling and won't rise again for sometime. If the US falls, feminism falls. If White American men fall, then Black American women shall fall as well. When Black American women fall, nobody will be there to pick them up. All that sh1t of "black men ain't ish" will bite them in the end.

99cent: why is it ok for u to be financially dependent on a white woman but ur somehow ashamed if a black woman makes more or has power?

Straw man argument!

99cent: don't know what you are aiming to gain from setting black women backwards and saying that they shouldn't aim high or be ambitious.

I never said that. I just think that feminism does more harm than good for society. Black feminism is based on white man worship anyway. Newsflash baby girl, your god (the white man) has fallen

99cent: i smell fish.

I smell BS and desperation. That's common amongst feminists

99cent: did civil rights also create coogars and sex and the city?

Don't know, don't care!

Any other straw man arguments!

If obama is such a poster boy for single-parent hordes and the success of it, why is he married and raising his daughters in a 2 parent household

He sure must wish in his heart to right this dysfunction

[img]http://img1.nairaland.com/attachments/1154724_image002_jpgf6fa556f6a759f3fd573282b521e9f7b[/img]

In all but 11 states, most black children do not live with both their parents while across every state, seven out of ten white children do.

'Something has to be done about it, and it starts with the culture and reversing the attitude that marriage is not important. The president has a role to play in that. He’s a married African-American father who can probably make a huge difference with words alone,' said Mr. DiCaro.
The U.S. Census has indicated that there are now one in three children across the U.S. who live with one parent families
The decline in two parent families has also disproportionately hit the South, which has long been a bastion for traditional family values.

Even in places where the percentage of the black population declined, single parenthood increased.

In South Carolina, where the black share of the population fell by 2 percent, single parenthood rose by 5 percent. In Kentucky and Louisiana, where the black population was constant, single parenthood increased 6 percentage points according to the Washington Times.

'In places you’d think values are at least talked about, they are not lived out necessarily. Education and income seem to trump them,' said Mr. DiCaro.

'The people who might not be preaching family values, like coastal upper-class communities, those are the people who are waiting to get married.'

The largest contiguous area of sustained fatherlessness is in the largely black poor across Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana running along the Mississippi River from Memphis, Tennessee.

'When you have very little going for you in your life, having children can give purpose to it. If you’re married, you’re going to be much more cautious. There’s health care costs and our jobs, whereas if we were both just kind of doing whatever, then why not just have another kid?' said Mr. DiCaro.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253421/1-3-US-children-live-father-according-census-number-parent-households-decreases-1-2-million.html#ixzz2WCdocFDA

Marry down?!!!... where are the women marrying below their social status.. pls give examples

I guess Veronica Beckham, Kate Middleton, Kim Kardashian, Elin Norgreden, Diana Spencer all married below their social status

Wow..

Please can you give evidence to support this far flung hypothesis

99cent: men promoted the idea of hypergamy because they were threatened by educated women. that idea is very speedily going away. 30% of women today marry down.

^ Hypergamy is real, it is pretty much the core tenant in female sexual phychology.

But yes, the trend of women marrying down is increasing exponentially, especially in the black community were feminism hit the hardest. The fact that a woman is dating down doesn't mean the hypergamous instincts are gone, they are still there and if she sees a better option she will probably take it.

In an enviornment where the females both outnumber and control more economic resources than the male, "dating-down" becomes inevitable.

This is a situation were hypergamous instinct manifests itself as a lack of contentment in the female, resentment towards her partner, and general instability in the mating market. As i said earlier though, this is not such a bad thing for the dudes.

ive always wanted a suga-momma

pleep: ^ Hypergamy is real, it is pretty much the core tenant in female sexual phychology.

But yes, the trend of women marrying down is increasing exponentially, especially in the black community were feminism hit the hardest. The fact that a woman is dating down doesn't mean the hypergamous instincts are gone, they are still there and if she sees a better option she will probably take it.

Maybe in the west where marriageable partners for upwardly mobile black women are scarce that happens
But here in Naija, women are desperate to marry up

These ladies speak one way for 'helpless' naija females and on the other way speak as westerners
Who do they stand for exactly

pleep: In an enviornment where the females both outnumber and control more economic resources than the male, "dating-down" becomes inevitable.

This is a situation were hypergamous instinct manifests itself as a lack of contentment in the female, resentment towards her partner, and general instability in the mating market. As i said earlier though, this is not such a bad thing for the dudes.

ive always wanted a suga-momma

haha..
Dating down is unnatural for women as their natural emasculating fangs and claws come out in full force
Nothing wrong with a yummy mummy but that diet can get toxic
Strangely its unafrican except you inherit your old dad's concubine or last wife (in the old days)

Creating gender equity: Lessons from Iceland

-Iceland ranked first place in the 2012 Global Gender Gap report, moving up from number 4 in 2008. Based on factors like economic participation and opportunity (so, looking at things like wage equality and the number of women in the labour force and in positions of power), educational attainment (based on factors such as female literacy and the number of women enrolled in higher education), health and survival (which looks at life expectancy and mortality rates), and political empowerment (which takes into account the number of women holding political office as well as the number of female heads of state); this report ranks countries throughout the world.
The US, on the other hand, ranked 22nd, having moved down a few notches from 17th place in 2011.

- Iceland developed a legislation that ensured companies' boards were composed of 40 percent women and incorporated what they called "feminine values" into the "mainly male spheres of private equity, wealth management and corporate advice".

- Having nearly reached gender parity in government, women hold 41 percent of seats in government, in comparison with the 17 percent of women in parliament in the US. The country offers generous maternity and paternity leave as well as and childcare provision from the state.

-The sexually liberal country not only criminalised the purchase of sex in 2009, but, the following year, Iceland banned strip clubs - a move mocked and deemed impossibly idealistic by many North Americans. When this legislation came into place, many Americans worried it constituted an attempt to restrict women's "choice" to objectify themselves (a rather ridiculously post-feminist notion).
Others fell back on the oft-repeated concern that strip clubs would be forced to go "underground" where they would continue to thrive illegally. The same concern is being repeated now, as the country considers a ban on hardcore Indecency online, though there is no evidence to justify these fears.

- When I talked to author and feminist activist, Professor Gail Dines, about this proposal, she emphasised that this was not about restricting intimate content, Unclothedness, or loveware. Iceland's Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson, who is currently drafting the legislation, is looking specifically at restricting Indecency that is hardcore, violent and cruel.
Dines, who has been advising Jonasson on this proposal as it develops, says this means looking at the acts that are being done to the women - things like "choking women with a joystick, which is standard throughout hardcore Indecency… Very, very rough, pounding BehindBased, oral and womanly sex, where there's often three men and one woman; where they're spitting on her and calling her 'Well', 'LovePeddler', 'cum dumpster', 'Naughty Lady' - all those kinds of images".
Dines says you don't need a "complicated, scholarly, academic definition. Just look at the stuff and say: 'These acts constitute violence against women'".

biolabee:

Maybe in the west where marriageable partners for upwardly mobile black women are scarce that happens
But here in Naija, women are desperate to marry up

These ladies speak one way for 'helpless' naija females and on the other way speak as westerners
Who do they stand for exactly

They stand for nothing, just hot air.

Ps. c.fours i hope you realize that no one is reading your articles.

pleep: They stand for nothing, just hot air.

Ps. c.fours i hope you realize that no one is reading your articles.

i really wish they could tell me wat they need stood for,,,,

biolabee:

i really wish they could tell me wat they need stood for,,,,

clearly you know what feminists stand for because otherwise, u won't spend so many hours on here arguing against feminism. you clearly feel very threatened by it and what it stands for ie. empowering girls and women.

Iceland just banned strip clubs and por.nography that is degrading to women. many misogynist will be angry about that.
now tell me you don't know what feminism stands for? so why are you on this thread opposing it if you feel that it is "hot air"?

haha, what about the women who want to be strippers, aren't you taking rights away from them? sometimes i wonder if feminists think that the women they 'advocate' for are stupid little children that cannot make any discisions for themselves...

Give feminsts 100more years and Iceland will look exactly like Saudi Arabia.