Was the 1950s Housewife a Historical Aberration?

1950s housewifeColt wrote yesterday on whether women really want to be treated as equals (or not), and it got me thinking about what men on the whole seem to want, and whether that's all that grounded in reality or not.

I talked before about my belief that most of the bitter women men think are out there are really just Internet bitter; in the echo chamber of the World Wide Web, it's pretty easy for one's thoughts to sound like extreme versions of themselves, and it's also very easy to treat others unempathetically, judge, excoriate, and attack, in spiteful ways online that we wouldn't dare do with even our worst enemies live and in person.

When you stop and think about it though, there sure are a whole lot of sensitive people right now ready to respond on a hair trigger with a vicious attack both online and (with a bit more subtlety) in real life, and there's a whole lot of lamenting about where all the "good men" and "good women" have gone, both from men and women. Why?

I'm going to propose here that there is a large undercurrent of wanting more than one's station in life among average men and women, without caring to elevate one's station accordingly. And that that undercurrent of wanting things without doing the requisite things to get them is what drives all this anger, torment, and strife.

It's simply a case of unmet expectations, played out at grand scale society-wide.

1950s housewife

The lamented lost "ideal man" and "ideal woman" of the modern era are both from the same previous era, at least in the English-speaking world: that of the 1950s dream housewife, and the 1950s head of the household dream husband.

The average men of today en masse long for the feminine, womanly wives of this bygone era, who stayed at home, took care of the kids and the household, and served the man with a beaming sense of pride at maintaining a good household.

Likewise, the average women of today long en masse for the masculine, manly husbands of this bygone era, who paid all the bills, gave women senses of security and stability, and provided for the woman with a beaming sense of pride in creating this island of safety and tranquility.

What happened to all those swells gals, and dreamy men?

Today, the women and men of the 1950s have largely receded, replaced instead by the modern working woman, who's more concerned with a great career and an independent social life than she is maintaining a good household for her man, and the modern "guy", who's more concerned with avoiding the responsibilities of woman and family to his plate as long as humanly possible than he is providing a good life for a woman and children.

That's made for a rapidly expanding epidemic of unhappiness among women, as women have taken on the responsibilities of men, and the stress, worries, and fears that go with them (men's happiness levels remain unchanged, equal over the past 40 years to what women's have fallen to today)... and it's also made for dissatisfaction on both sides of the aisle regarding the choices available to them.

What woman wants to marry a man-child who thinks responsibility is a dirty word?

And what man wants to marry a man-woman who thinks her career is more important than him?

Yet, as Spengler notes in his "Universal Law of Gender Parity",

In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.

So why is that modern man and woman seem so disillusioned with one another?


Prior to the 1960s, it'd been quite some time since women had fought men for equality.

The feminist narrative is that women were simply too oppressed by men to fight them; I'd postulate something very different, however: that until World War II, men and women were extremely equal.

Equal, that is, in the sense that one needed the other, and both were dependent on one another.

Compare an average woman of the 1950s to an average woman of the 1850s. There was not much middle class in the 19th century; so you're mainly selecting as a base of comparison from upper class women (a small minority), and lower class women (a large majority). Since we're looking at the average woman, we'll take a look at lower class women - that is, not the 19th century women you read about in most 19th century books, which were written by members of the upper class, for members of the upper class, nor the 19th century women you see in most photographs of that time, which were largely family portraits done by upper class individuals.

I mean, the real average woman of the 1850s.

1950s housewife

The average woman in the 1850s was a very busy woman. She woke up at 4 AM every morning on the farm, same as her husband did; both partners worked from dawn 'til dusk every day during the spring, summer, and autumn. While the husband milked the cows, the wife fed the infants and children. While the husband tilled the fields, the wife gathered eggs from the hen house. While the husband chopped wood, the wife tended the garden.

If she was from a somewhat wealthier class, she was still busy, tending to children, knitting clothes for the family, and preparing meals that took her hours to ready. This while the husband went out and worked as a foreman at a mill or the manager of a mine or plantation.

The average woman in the 1950s, by comparison, was a woman of leisure. She had appliances to do most of the chores for her in short spaces of time; she had only a handful of children to raise, not 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 like so many women in the 1850s had; and she had a great deal of time to socialize with the neighbors or otherwise fill as she pleased.

In the 1850s, the only women who were women of leisure were upper class women - a very small minority. In the 1950s, every woman from lower middle class on up became, or aspired to become, a woman of leisure, aiming to maintain a happy household while waiting for Husband to return home from work.

But this setup was not remotely a historical norm; it was not the way things were done before, and it quit being the way things were shortly after. Because the environment normally demands that the average woman NOT be a lady of leisure; the average woman must work.

How the 1950s Housewife Came to Be

Understanding the historical aberration of the 1950s housewife - that is, a woman whose domain is merely maintaining the home, and not producing anything that contributes to the family's finances, whether farm work or clothing to sell at market or anything else - requires a little insight into the culture at the time she arose.

Prior to World War II, women in the English-speaking world were arguably even rawer and more ribald than they are today. But World War II changed all that, because it led to a great reduction in a certain resource that women absolutely needed: men.

The great loss of male life that occurred during the Second World War caused widespread pressure on women to conform to male ideals, because men were legitimately scarce. Not just good men; any men. Women's magazines of the day published articles noting that in America, 4 million women would be left without a husband due to the shortage of marriageable men, and advised women to find a man and do whatever it took to hold onto him. Women went to college purely to get their M.R.S.; that is, a play on words that sounds like a college degree, but actually just means "Mrs." - they went to find a husband.

As a result of the scarcity of men, the age at first marriage plummeted to the lowest it'd been in centuries in the West, with the balance of power shifting toward men (who wanted to marry sooner) and away from women (who wanted to delay marriage and enjoy their freedom longer). Women could no longer delay marriage; doing so might mean they didn't get to marry, period. In the 1950s, the average woman married at age 20, lower than the average age at first marriage anytime stretching back to the 1700s.

Women were deathly afraid of losing their men. And, as such, they valued them dearly. The boring stretches of non-productive time at home became tolerable, because they were so much better than the alternative - work outside the home, without a man to come home to... forever. No family. Nothing.

At the same time though, with the rise of modern appliances and a skyrocketing quality of life in the West, the stage was set for women's independence from men... and men's from women.

Unlike pretty much any time in history before - unlike the husband and wife combination on the farm, neither of who could do it alone; and unlike the husband and wife combination in the mines or on the plantation or in the merchant's shop, where it was quite difficult to go it alone for either sex - post-1950s, men and women didn't need each other anymore.

A woman could do it alone, without a man... and a man could do it alone, without a woman.

Men and women needed each other as much as a fish needed a bicycle... at least, from an economic point of view.

1950s housewife

The modern West may be the first time since ancient Rome that both men and women can survive perfectly fine without each other. Partnership has transformed from a "must have" to a "sort of nice to have."

Try to do it on your own as a man in the 1850s or earlier, without a wife, and you were in for a hard life (and I don't need to tell you it was even harder for women). The way you succeeded at life was getting a wife before you got too old, and having a large number of children together to help run things, especially if you were on a farm, as many men then were. Large numbers of children helped, too, in the event that one of the partners died young, as happened often in the times before penicillin; if Mama died young, her daughters could take over cooking, cleaning, tending the gardens and livestock; and if Papa died young, his sons could take over plowing the fields and chopping the firewood and taking things into market to sell.

Fast forward to post-1950s, however, and a partner, especially among the lower classes, is almost a liability. You're perfectly fine to provide for yourself without one; in fact, with all the risks of consumerist culture, any savings one partner accumulates are likely to be consumed by the other, which doesn't actually benefit either partner (the spending partner isn't going to have a better life because he or she's got more stuff), but does prevent the partner more inclined toward saving from ever elevating his or her position. Throw in asset risk through divorce, and attempts by one partner or the other to "tame" and change the other, and you have a number of strikes against commitment... and not so many benefits.

The result? A rapid collapse of commitment among the lower classes, and a decline among the higher classes, too.

And, in our own more nostalgic moments, lamentation for a way of life that isn't anymore, and probably can never be.

But also one that, when examined in the broader context, almost certainly was the product of a highly unusual confluence of events, that created a brief moment when things became more tranquil and easier than they usually were before or have been since.

Are There No Housewives Today?

Ah - but there are.

Yet, here's the thing - having a 1950s-era-type housewife setup (or a 1950s-era-type husband, for the ladies) requires a certain something... and it's something the average man and woman dating their "equals" will never have.

You see, there are still housewives and breadwinning husbands today, just as there were in the 1950s. Are they carbon copies of Leave It to Beaver's mom and pop? No... but then again, neither were any couples who actually lived in the 1950s, either.

Instead, these are the luxurious ladies of leisure most women dream about being and most men dream about romancing, and the eminently respectable heads of the household that most men dream about being and most women dream about romancing them. And they still exist today... just as they did in the 1950s, and just as they did in the 1850s.

However, unlike in the 1950s, and just like in the 1850s, these are not the average woman, nor are they the average man. Instead, they are the exception, not the rule.

The Economist has a great write-up on this in its article "The Frayed Knot", discussing the difference between divorce and children born out of marriage between the top and the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid in America:

Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.

At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%.

Why the disparity?

I'd argue that it is, in fact, all about equality.

Extremes and Equality

As you know if you've read Roy F. Baumeister's wonderful piece "Is There Anything Good About Men?", men make up the extremes of society - the best, and the worst. Women, by contrast, play things far more conservatively, with the result that both their downsides and their upsides are reasonably limited.

So, in society, you have the least successful people and the most successful people both being men.

What happens when women partner up with men at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale is that they're partnering up with men who are LESS successful than they are. Quite frequently, MUCH less. Men who are the lowest of the low... drug users, men who are in and out of prison, men who are extremely dimwitted (men are also vastly more represented than women on both ends of the IQ scale, too).

And in a society in which a woman doesn't need a man... is she going to stay with a man who is a drag on her? A man who provides nothing, and who takes much? When she's perfectly capable of taking care of herself?

Of course not. Thus, it doesn't happen.

She leaves.


See ya later.

The divorce rate among uneducated people ends up being 2 or 3 times that of their more educated peers, and the number of children born outside of marriage 4 to 17 times as high.

Contrast that with the opposite end of the scale: women partnering up with men on the opposite extreme of the income, intellect, and ambition scale. Men who far exceed almost any woman they meet on all of these scales; men who are the best out of their entire societies.

How often do women leave these men? Not so often. Not nearly as often as they do the men at the bottom of the scale.

Divorce isn't gone. It still occurs, and still reasonably often, for more educated and successful people, too. But among those at the extreme positive end, it's a far less worrisome specter than it is for those at the extreme negative end.

What gives? This: the most successful men simply are not very replaceable.

Just like a 1950s-era housewife, a modern woman partnering up with an elite man is partnering with a man she simply cannot do without - if she leaves him, her prospects from there on out are probably going to be men of a lower caliber than he is.

So, she sticks around, and adopts the role of the "good wife."

1950s housewife

Thus, once again, the woman - the one who initiates divorce the vast majority of the time - remains committed, because of scarcity. A scarcity that exists most at the higher end of the socioeconomic scale, and less so as you go down the rungs... as men become more "equal" to women, and ultimately less "equal" to women, women divorce them more and more.

As men surpass women in equality, women hold onto them increasingly harder, with everything they've got.

So Does That Mean You've Got to Be a Billionaire?

... that is, if you want the whole "happy wife, happy life" paradigm?

If you're thinking you're not a genius, and you're too old to start working on acquiring your first million, fear not - education and wealth are an incomplete picture of what women value most highly in men. They're simply the best proxy we've got for studying the differences between elite men vs. non-elite men via data dredges.

If education and wealth were a perfect proxy for what women most desire, I dare say you'd see 0% divorce rates (or something close to it) among the absolute top of the socioeconomic scale, and 100% divorce rates (or something around there) among the absolute bottom. This isn't the case, though, because there's more to it than this.

What more is there? Everything that's taught on this site. No one here can give you a college degree; nor can anyone provide you with a high-paying business or profession.

But we can train you how to be a dominant man.

How to maintain respect in and manage your relationships.

How to be a great lover and rock women's worlds in bed.

How to have purpose and know your mission and go get what you want out of life.

How to ignore the victim mentality of the "just be yourself" class, who rail against understanding why they can't get exceptional friends and mates who've become exceptional through hard work, study, and sacrifice, without having to work hard, study, and sacrifice themselves too.

These are all things that top-of-the-scales men have in common, and they're what differentiate the elite, more than income and education alone (though those things play a role too).

Ultimately, in a truly liberated society, where men inhabit the extremes and women inhabit the middle, you'd expect a 50% divorce rate: the 50% of men who are "more equal" than the women they wed are scarce commodities and their wives hold onto them, while the 50% of men who are "less equal" than the women they marry are eventually divorced by those women, who don't need them.

And that's just what we see: if we take a look at the divorce rate in the Western world, that's exactly what we see on the whole: a divorce rate that remains somewhere right around 50%, or a little higher.

Women don't want to be with men who are lower level than them. And they don't want to be with their "equals."

They want men who are better than them. Women want to marry up.

Back to the question I asked at the start of this article. Why are so many modern men and women disillusioned with one another? My strong suspicion is that it's a combination of movies, television, and the Internet. Through these vehicles, we become exposed to ideal representatives of the opposite sex... and the real life opposite sex individuals we meet and have access to in our own lives hardly hold a candle to these, if we are "average."

Because through the media, you see the ideals. But the average man will never have the ideal woman, nor will the average woman ever have the ideal man. In a culture of me like ours is, however, even the most sub-average of us expects he deserves the best. The cognitive dissonance of being able to see the best, but not have the best, when you believe you deserve the best, is a mind screw extraordinaire.

Yet, if you do want this, you can have it if you can become it. If you are a man women marry up to get, so long as you are a self-improvement oriented man and you're always a step ahead of your woman, in terms of power, dominance, success, and greatness, you'll typically never need to worry about ending up in the pile of discarded husbands if you don't want to.

So - that 1950s-era housewife: just an aberration?

For the average individual, YES.

For the elite man? His women have always been feminine, devoted, and loyal, and they always will be; because, unlike the average man, he is not so replaceable, and his women never view him as quite a peer.

He is a notch above - and that's the kind of man women call "dreamy."

Chase Amante

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his Mastery Package.


Get Your FREE eBook on Texting Girls

how to text girls pdf

Sign up for our email insights series and get a copy of our popular ebook "How to Text Girls" FREE. Learn more ...

Related Articles from GirlsChase.com


Anonymous's picture

I do believe "A" should be used in place of "An" in the title.

Chase Amante's picture


Thanks for the correction. I've always been a fan of the old British English pronunciation and spelling - it just rolls off the tongue a lot more fluidly - but running a quick check shows me "an" is increasingly falling out of favor, even in British English, and "a historical" / "a history" has more or less become the norm.

So, in this case, I bow to the encroaching tides of modernization... the title now reads "a Historical."


Black Mystery's picture

Hey chase,
great article! Agree with your view. What reminds me from that part where you mentioned about WWW is that is there any way to get a girl who has loose her temper because of a jerk comment?
I was in pretty bad mood on that day and I criticise this girl I am madly in love with and told her "don't even bother to reply" if she can't talk in more decently as she was using rough words. Now this girl is only can be in my contact through Social Networking Site only and this is the only way to get her number or to meet her at this moment. She removed me after that my message and loosed her temper too much that she even threaten to beat me down by her friends and tell me not to send her message again. But she didn't block me and she used to like me (60% confident). Only the fact that I screw things very much by being insecure, less powerful, moving too slow. Total mess in short.
But after coming here on this site. I'm improving a bit (though the last one wasn't a smart act. I thought she'd say sorry but messed up!). After some hours I said her sorry for making her loose her temper. She read the message but didn't reply. Then after a week I send a message again. She read that message too but didn't reply. After a month then I send her message and friend request she read it too but didn't accept friend request but didn't decline too. After some days I send her last message and took my request back but then she didn't reply me yet. It's been a 3 months from that incident. I seems to have no way to get her.
From what I have learn from this site is that After 4 messages I have send I should not send her any more message and meanwhile meet other girls to get that special girl out of my head. And if she comes then I should not be jerk again. But I'm still at beginners level. It's theoretical knowledge. You do have practical knowledge and theoretical too. Is that what I really should do? and any more suggestions? Is there any way to get back to should I quite here?

Black Mystery

Chase Amante's picture


Yes, this is a situation where you need to cut your losses and move on.

If it was just the blow-up message you'd sent, there are a few ways you could try to turn that to your advantage and reverse things ("I didn't mean it, sorry; let me make it up to you" --> offer to take her out).

But once you've started sending her messages, friend requests, etc., you're so firmly into chasing behavior that anything else you do, no matter how smooth or suave you structure it to be, is a dead giveaway; she KNOWS you like her way more than she likes you, she knows you're chasing her hard, and she knows she ISN'T chasing you back. There's nothing you can do aside from inspiring her to chase you from her seeing you preselected somehow to get her back, or you throwing some huge amount of non-sexual value her way (e.g., you're hosting the most amazing party of the year and you're extending her an invite).

Your best move here is to start meeting more women - do a good job at it, and you won't long be stuck on this one.


x2shotty's picture

Hey Chase,

I hope all has been well with you, brother. I love the improvements to the site, and I am glad this thing has really taken off. You deserve it...

I just want to ask where the best place to leave general questions are? Even though it seems that your team is very busy, you all usually answer comments on new blog posts pretty promptly. But, sometimes I read over old articles and I have all of these questions that come to mind. Where is the best place to pose these questions? What about suggestions for new articles?

I am running into a weird issue where girls reach out to me out of the blue, or are the ones who say "we should get a drink sometime", but for some reason, they end up flaking. I don't know how to handle the situation properly. For example, a girl will reach out from an encounter 6 months ago and say... "Hey, hope you've been well. Sorry for being MIA, but we should grab a drink or coffee sometime soon!"... I am guessing that I should move fast on setting up logistics, but sometimes these women act flakey. Am I being over eager? Am I being too non-chalant? I am really confused about this one...

Thanks in advance! If you could let me know where to post these requests in the future, I will certainly do so!


Chase Amante's picture

Hey Scott! Long time no talk.

Yeah, you can leave comments on recent articles. That's the easiest place to reach me. Better if they're relevant, but I don't usually comment on older articles just because if I did that, I'd have no time in my day for anything other than comment answering... ;) The forum's also a very good bet if you have LOTS of questions - quite a few very sharp guys on there.

The girls-reaching-out-for-coffee-then-flaking thing is kind of weird at first, yeah. I always had girls do that to me, and it kind of confused me for a while. Then I started doing it myself - I'd ping girls from the past, say we should meet up, they'd say, "Yeah, sure!" and then I'd either never schedule something, or I'd flake, and just not reschedule. I can tell you my psychology (and I'm pretty sure it's the same for the girls) is that it's just not as exciting meeting up from someone from your past, and the emotion you feel when you reach out to them ("Okay! Yeah! Let's do this! Let's contact some sexy people from the past and set up times to meet them!") quickly subsides back into apathy ("Eh... do I REALLY want to go meet [X] tomorrow? I have to get up early and drag myself halfway across town... or, I could just stay in and [do whatever]. Yeah - let me just tell her I can't make it"). I think it's because nothing's happened with this person in the past, and once the initial buzz wears off, you start to (reasonably) expect that meeting up will lead to nothing happening all over again, and just be a waste of your time.

I've found the best strategy is to usually jump on this when it happens - when you get the girl pinging you, just get it scheduled ASAP - "Yeah, what's your schedule like this week? Or even, what's it like today - want to grab dinner?" The sooner you can make it happen, the more likely you are to catch her before she's slid back into apathy again, and still on her, "Let's do this!" kick.


x2shotty's picture

Chase- long time indeed!

Thanks for the reply. I figured that commenting on something new was my best bet. I have been checking out the forums; they are pretty helpful. On the other hand, I am a Chase fan- been here since the beginning days when it was just you! :-P So, sometimes I find comfort in grass roots; I mean that as a compliment.

Yeah, I have been taking the route of trying to set things up quickly. At the same time, I was concerned with sounding too excited about hearing from the girl. Then, you can sound a bit needy- like you don't get much play. Haven't really found the balance between rebuilding rapport, and getting plans set up stat. Also, when girls end up flaking on things like these, I tend to throw the ball back in their court pretty quickly. As a matter of fact, I have been doing that with a lot of girls lately. Starting to get a little too flakey? Next... I don't have the time these days.

Anyhow, I have been reading up again. I always find inspiration in your writing- not just with women, but in everyday psychology- dealing with emotions and taking control of situations. I think you have an honest approach, and you shoot it straight. Glad the site has really taken off!

Words from the wise- Onward and Upward,

Balla's picture

So I reviewed the video, and what I got from it was that he's cocky and funny. Honestly his fundamentals look good to me and I would copy him. I would really appreciate your opinion of his fundamentals though so I can know what I can do with what you and i like and do differently what you don't like about him, so I can just be 100% you feel me? And im extremely curious to see how you feel about his game honestly.

Here's the video http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BkdJIRt0cFg

You can just skip to the 1:50 mark to see the game he runs, but like 20 seconds before that it shows how another guys game is and he is correcting on how to run game from the previous guys mistakes, just in case you want to know what he was talking about prior.

Thanks Chase

Chase Amante's picture


I watched from 1:50 to 2:50, and his posture, walk, gestures, and mannerisms all look fine. The dialogue is awkward, he gives out his number after a few seconds of conversation with no interest shown from her to him, and he opens her from a distance, then walks directly up to her while giving her much more open body than she's giving him, all big no-nos, but that might be because he's doing it on stage and the woman herself is clearly uncomfortable (and a bad actor) as well.


Chase Amante's picture

On second thought, the "give you my number" thing as she's leaving is not necessarily a bad call; do enough of those 1% chance "Oh, you're leaving? Well, here's my number anyway" moves and you'll occasionally get some contact back. So, in the event it doesn't work out, that one's a judgment call - it's usually not going to work out, but you never know.


jack's picture

Fascinating, you've dealt with female hypergamy in a non-misogynist way unlike most of the Manosphere.

IMO, in the end Game or the seduction arts allows a man to capitalize on a woman's short term mating impulses. This allows men to have sex with the attractive women in the short term that he would never be able to win over as a wife. But if an attractive woman wants money, and she doesn't wait too long (ie her looks start to fade) she will get money. If you are a PUA/Player you get to fuck her in her 20s or if she comes out of her divorce in her 30s but you don't get to marry her. The Marriage market has better value matching than the sexual market.

Chase Amante's picture


Yes, indeed. You'll see plenty of guys who are great at getting laid but end up consistently frustrated at their inabilities to get good girls to stick around - the polar opposites of the guys who can't sleep with women fast to save their lives but once they've got a girl, they've got a girl. That's nothing but the differences between sexual value and marriage value unfolding live.


Anonymous's picture


Regarding the usage of "a" and "an," use the word "an" comes before words that begin with a vowel, while the letter "a" precedes all words beginning with a letter other than a vowel. Hope this helps!

The Grammar Police ;)

PinotNoir's picture

Actually, it's for a vowel *sound*, not all vowels. Please read the article below. :)



Nuncle's picture

An "n" would have been the correct usage, or at least the one that was in place for several decades until recently.

An "h" is considered a silent, or at least soft, letter and as such does not block any vowels that come immediately after it.

Also "a historical" sounds too much like "ahistorical", which has it's own separate meaning.

P's picture

Hi Chase,

So I met this girl the other night at an event, a real stunner with personality and humour to boot. I made her laugh and later at the bar she made a beeline for me. We got chatting some more and things went really well, I got her number and we talked about meeting up in the week to go see a band, then later on she leaned in and kissed me. After that we went off exploring the venue alone together hand in hand. She kept holding my hand, kissing me and leaning into me. I had to leave to get my train home. Kissed her goodnight and she said I should get in touch. The following evening I dropped her a text to say it was great to meet her and asked how her day had gone. I know now that was a stupid question. I then left it three days with no reply. Called her with no answer so left a voice message saying I'd checked some gigs for the week and said it would be cool to hear back to let me know what day is good. I think I may have sounded nervous and said a few goofy things about enjoying our earlier evening. I don't really know what to do next? I mean obviously wait, but have I chased too much already? Can I turn it around? I was reading your "What to do when a girl doesn't reply" and "Keeping your cool: don't chase" articles and I'm caught between persistence and not chasing

P's picture

Can anyone help me with this? I appreciate Chase himself is probably busy

Chase Amante's picture


Check out this article: "How to Kiss Girls in Public and Have It Go Great."

The big problem here is the kissing / hand-holding without sex - unless you're doing it expertly, it's going to tend to be read in her mind as the initiation of sexual escalation, and if sex doesn't very promptly follow that up, she's usually going to decide that the reason why was because she just wasn't that into you, and won't have interest in having anything further with you.

You can try firing off another text, and try calling again / leaving a voice mail if she doesn't answer - see this article for more on that: "Tactics Tuesdays: Making the First Phone Call to a Girl."

Much of the time though, you will find that once you've kissed a girl but NOT slept with her immediately after, she's more or less gone for good. Next time, either do the kissing in public the expert way (where you're ALWAYS being the first to break it off), or (the safer bet) just save it for when you're alone together and about to get intimate.


PinotNoir's picture

Hey Chase,

Solid article again. Your outlook on history is always profound; maybe your next book should be a history of sorts ;)

Anyway, in relation to this article, it got me thinking about marriage one day and prenupts. Do you advise men to get prenupts? And is there a graceful way to bring up a prenupt without anger from the bride-to-be?


P.S. For the Grammar Police, I write my replies in conversational English, which means I don't care haha.

Chase Amante's picture


I was actually working on a book that had a lot of the history of dating in it! Since that one's on ice (rejected by every publisher, and I don't have the bandwidth to self-publish another book right now), some of the material I'd included in there has been finding its way into articles of late.

Pre-nups are good, but they're easily overturned (especially if you don't have both sides review the agreement with a lawyer present for each), and they're a messy thing to introduce into a relationship / marriage process. The much better route, if you have significant assets or run your own business, is to form a trust and place everything you own into it. At that point, the trust is a separate legal entity, and one that you have no control over (you can be the beneficiary of it, but you are not an owner).

Just make sure you move your assets over BEFORE you get married, because if you do it after, if she's legally savvy and has a good lawyer and wants what you've got, she can probably find a way to reverse your granting of your property to the trust so that it becomes yours and she can take a slice of it.


Jack's picture

Hey Chase, as usual loved the article, very interesting stuff.

I have a few questions regarding seduction that I hope you could answer for me (I have done my best to read all articles relating to my questions, but if you could just clear some issues up directly that would be great)

1) How important is building an emotional connection prior to taking a girl to bed? Specifically when it comes to meeting a girl in a bar with the intention of taking her home. My head says that an building an emotional connection is important and necessary for some girls but not others, is this true? If so, how can you tell with a girl if she requires an emotional connection to be built prior to anything happening? What I am trying to get at is that, I find it very hard to know when to deep dive etc with a girl for a while before pushing things forward and when to just do a bit of casual chit chat and move things on pretty quickly without much of an emotional connection being created.

2) How to find the correct balance between being sexy and open? Here is what I believe to be my main dilemma, I think sometimes I come across as slightly too much and too intense. I always think that I look sexier when I frown a bit with my eyebrows, but obviously this leads to me looking very intense etc. I have (if i may say) very good fundamentals and looks, and I sometimes feel that I need to 'downgrade' myself in someway to open myself up and come across as more attainable to girls. I just don't know how to go about opening myself up whilst maintaining a healthy balance.

Its like when I am in a group situation and I can tell a girl is into me by her constant little, almost shy glances etc - but whenever I engage I always feel as though the girl feels too nervous and as though her nervousness is actually bad for my seduction, its like she doesn't know what to say and all that. I may have this all wrong though and perhaps her nerves are a good thing... Can you clear this up? Thanks.

I suppose partly its down to me not being a good enough conversationalist etc.

But tell me, is it GOOD if a girl you haven't talked to yet, feels a bit nervous around you etc or should you try to come across as very open to her so that she has no nerves etc and perhaps even comes to open me herself? I just find girls nerves always makes things hard ie conversation, eye contact etc etc.

3) I know how important generalizations are to get to the point of an issue without having to go on for ages about specifics and exceptions to the rulse and to kind of universally bring everything together in the 'most likely' format - but tell me, you know when you say most girls eventually want marriage, kids etc etc - is it not possible to find a girl with a brain who understands the superficiality and institutionalization behind 'the big day' 'diamond rings' 'love for life' etc. I mean, lets face it, nothing changes when you marry, really.

I get the 'saving face socially' thing - but surely some girls must be above this also? I mean I couldn't give a fuck what people think about how I wish to live my life, in fact I love it when people go on about how I should be doing this and that and I just think, yeh well im not, so ha, surely it is possible to find girls like this who wish to do things differently and challenge the norm.

I only ask because I find girls who are real, and honest and able to think for themselves even if it means doing things differently such an attractive

I've been with girls in the past who started talking about marriage etc and I remember thinking at the time 'ohh you've bought into all that have you, and here I was thinking you could stand on your own two feet'

Kids are different, I understand a woman's natural maternal urge etc - but even here, I have known plenty cases of happy women who chose not to have kids, just because they didn't believe they would make very good parents or because they didn't want the responsibility and not be able to live their live the way they want, etc.

Just tell me that girls like that exist :)

4) Just a quick little bonus question on age - how important is it, really, when it comes to relate-ability? I ask because whenever I hear of age gap relationships the number one argument is 'ohhh how can they possible relate, what do they talk about' it always makes me laugh. As if you spend all day talking about your childhood with your girlfriend anyway. If anything I think it can be a nice bonus to have a few differences to learn from one another etc.

I have been in and witnessed a few large gap relationships and in my opinion personality's can match at any age, hobbies can match at any age, desires can match at any age, goals can match at any age - these things are largely a byproduct of circumstances rather than age itself and people giving into social demand. For example I know a good few middle age men who hate golf really, they find it boring - but they play it, purely because they believe they should. What a load of bullshit. Its crazy.

One man is 40 and is in a long hour middle management job, and thus has no time to travel, despite his 24yr old girlfriend wanting to.

Another man, 40, has an easy lifestyle and one day think he would love to travel somewhere, matching the desires of his 24yr old girlfriend.

Both men would probably love to travel, but only one can. Because of circumstances, not age.

And circumstances can obviously be age related. But not in all cases, not if you live slightly differently.

So basically, how important do you believe age itself really is when it comes to relationships and being able to relate etc? I mean age in reality is purely the measurement of how long you have lived on the earth. Just because someone has lived longer why should that mean differences?

Also if there was no social stigma attached to age gap relationships how common do you suspect they would be?


Chase, sorry for all the questions but I really value your advice. Thank you.

Chase Amante's picture


Yes, that's correct - you can skip emotional connections in some cases and with some women. A good rule of thumb is try to build emotional connections while also escalating compliance; if she'll comply with you, but she resists building an emotional connection, assume that that means she's interested in you but not interested in a connection, and just start driving things toward the two of you ending up somewhere alone together as quickly as possible.

Re: dialing down the intensity - what you want is the "cute & sexy" look from this article: "7 Facial Expressions That Drive Women Wild"; specifically, think of it as raising your eyebrows up, "lightening" your face, and smiling a bit more and pursing your lips. This dials back the intensity for women it's too much for, while still staying sexy. That said, it certainly IS good for girls to feel a little nervous around you at first, then to be (quickly) put to ease. Does a lot of good things for you in the interaction.

As for women who don't care about diamond rings, lifelong love, etc. - yes, absolutely there are women out there who shrug this off! I've been fortunate to have known quite a few of them myself - their values mesh better with mine than the lovey-dovey "where's-my-diamond-ring?" girls' do. Most will still usually have some artefact of it - they remain mildly interested in it, and bring it up on occasion - but, especially with you leading the way in (important: be indifferent, not angry), they can feel free to not worry about these social norms so much… unless they have people around them who are really pushing them to (and whom they aren't cutting ties with).

Children, same deal - there are women who want children but don't care about marriage, and there are women who don't want children or marriage. Go to any cougar bar and you'll find women in their 40s and 50s who are still partying, living the Sex and the City lifestyle, and are childless and happy to be childless; while that would drive many women crazy, there are other women who couldn't be happier to not have children to take care of.

I don't think relatability is the deal breaker with age gaps; I'd say it's interests more than anything. If the couples' interests are aligned, it works; if they aren't, it falls apart. e.g., he's 35 and he's over the club scene because it's so passé; meanwhile, she's 21 and just hitting the club scene, and it's excitement and stimulation and whoa, look at that sexy guy! And that one wants to buy me a drink! Oh wow! Pretty soon, the relationship's kaput.

But, make the 35-year-old still be a hard partier in love with the club scene, or make the 21-year-old uninterested in clubbing, and give them both some similar interests like boating or travel that they can indulge in, and they'll be fine.

And, I'd bet more common than you see in the West sans-stigma, though still in the minority. Having spent time in China, I can tell you that there many women are actually encouraged to date older men, and women openly talk about how older men are more mature than younger men and are superior to them - it isn't even a money thing (sometimes it is, but not usually); it's just a "silverbacks are hot and make good husbands while young guys have nothing to offer" thing. There, it seems like the average age gap is a fair bit larger. In the U.S., the age gap between marriage partners has shrunk significantly since the sexual revolution, but I don't think that's stigma - stigma has surprisingly little effect on people's actual actions (they might be driven underground, but they'll still be there). Instead, I think it's just the effect of the blurring of the lines between men and women there, or the balancing out of income - the appeal of the established older man is perhaps not as strong in a society where women often earn more than their male counterparts and where most older men are neither attractive nor powerful.


Anonymous's picture

I heard another reason for the rather rampart 1950s ideal housewife as is evident in numerous TV shows like Donna Reed and My Three Sons, is that at that time the outliers of feminism was just started to rear its ugly head. So, Hollywood fought it by showing Americans what they thought was the ideal primm and proper woman. So, yes. The 1950s housewife was an aberration. Sadly, perception is often reality so this myth of the housewife has stuck to this day. It makes me a little sad that I gave up a potential relationship with this girl that just wanted a traditional life, with her at home cooking and raising the kids while I made the dough. Then again, we really had nothing in coming and I vowed never to be one of those families I see in restaurants having dinner but never exchanging a word with one another.

Chase Amante's picture


Interesting. I'd be surprised - I think Hollywood is much more interested in making money than in making social statements - but perhaps individual directors had social agendas, or maybe the studios thought there was more money to be made in generating "wholesome" entertainment that families would gather around and watch together (and soak up the advertising for together).

I wouldn't worry too much about losing a girl who wanted to be a traditional wife who stays home, cooks, and takes care of the children. If both anecdotal and research evidence tells us anything, it's that plenty of career women become stay-at-home moms after Child #1 or Child #2 are born. Women change their priorities pretty radically once they start producing children, often in ways they never in a million years expected to change themselves.


Anonymous's picture

Chase, I was thinking, if a girl falls in love with you before having sex, is this actually an advantageous thing or not? Because surely she is going to work very hard to slot you into her dream boyfriend role and delay sex?

As opposed to when a girl just finds you so hot and sexy, doesn't nesacery love you yet and so she is easier to get into bed?

It's just I've read several articles a few by ricardus and they all say that having a girl fall in love with you is great if you can do it.

And it probably is, I'm probably missing something. Can you clear this one up.

Is it right also that you as a man particularly early on shoulnt show your love for a girl if there is any? But instead reveal it slowly.

It's like when I have sex with a girl who I love, it's different, more passionate slow and sensual as opposed to hard, raw and heated.

Can you explain which way of having sex is better. I belive most of the advice on here leans towards the latter. But for some reason I find it hard doing all that stuff with a girl I really like, but I am confused which way does she prefer, really?

Chase Amante's picture


I have maybe one personal experience of a girl falling for me before we first slept together, but there wasn't much discernible difference in the early stages of the relationship aside from the fact that she was a LOT more excited about the build up to sex when we actually had it (which kind of made the initial seduction a lot more fun in some ways than the usual, drier fast route) and she was just smitten and happy to be together once we were, so relatively drama-free (but, then, that's how that girl was with her boyfriends before and after me, too, so probably unrelated). Aside from that, I can't speak too intelligently about any differences there might be between first sex transpiring before love and first sex occurring after love.

I'd recommend never showing love too early, yes. If you have trouble with this, just keep in mind the rule of never let on more than a little bit less emotion than what she shows you. So long as you're a little bit less into her (so far as she knows), you're fine. If she starts to think you're more smitten with her than she is with you, though, you can kiss attraction goodbye (usually).

As for sex, slow and soft is fine sometimes, but hard, raw, and animalistic takes the brass ring even with a girl you have emotion for. A woman's number one desire during sex is to FEEL desired, and nothing makes a woman feel desired like a man tearing into her body with passion, fury, and reckless abandon. The more a girl loves you, in fact, the more she adores hard, raw sex, and if you have a girl you're seeing casually whom you DON'T want to fall in love, you're actually better served keeping the sex with her gentler and calmer. Giving it to her raw and hard is a surefire path to making her hear birds chirping and mice singing and everything else that happens in a Disney movie when you start to fall in love.


WalterB's picture

Most of what people think about in regards to a classic, Golden era in American history, usually around the mid-20th century, is nothing more than an idealized view of America through the lens of the media that came out at that time. There actually is no "Leave It To Beaver" reality to the 1950s; that is a product of the media. The media I'm talking about are the TV shows of the 1950s that make people today think America was some sort of perfect place at that time.

Oh, how wrong this is. There's a great book I implore anyone on this site (especially you, Chase) to read. It's called "The Way We Never Were" by Stephanie Coontz. As the book description points out, "Coontz sheds new light on such contemporary concerns as parenting, privacy, love, the division of labor along gender lines, the black family, feminism, and sexual practice." Go ahead and just read the chapters about women and sex if you want to keep things withing the scope of girlschase.com and relationships.

The part on womens roles is particularly interesting. For example, did you know the pregnancy rate of premarital women was actually higher in the 1950s? This book will shatter most notions people have about life in the any era in American history and will make you realize there was never a time in America when the "perfect housewife" stereotype dominated American households. Even teenage crime rates and other socioeconomic issues that people today think are signs of the times, have been around in American history for quite some time, and if anything, these things were generally worse in the early to mid-twentieth century than they are now.

On that note, this article was a great read as always Chase. It's nice to see this site delving deeper into man-woman relationship than just dating and sex. Well done as always, and do give that book a read. Even if it's just for those one or two chapters. It'll be well worth your time.


Chase Amante's picture


Thanks for the recommendation; I'll add it to my reading list. I did quite a bit of research for perspectives and statistics like these before (including reading through 17th, 18th, and 19th century newspaper clippings, periodicals, letters, and diaries) when I was working on a book on relationships, and this kind of material is rather hard to find, so if there's a book out there already that delves into it, that'd certainly make for very interesting reading for me!


Anonymous's picture

Dear Chase,

I have a situation I was wondering if you would be kind enough to give me some advice on.

I am 25 years old and just started graduate school. I am a virgin due to religious reasons.

Dating is hard for me even though I have "good fundamentals" since girls usually want sex. Usually, what happens is girls get attracted but after a month, they leave when they want sex and I decide to not give it.

When I first started graduate school, I met a super conservative korean girl during the first week. About 1 month later, I used your "check-in" text line to get her out on a date.

The lunch date went ok but after that, I didnt follow or talk to her except when I would run into her. Recently, I found out she shares similar values to me and is still a virgin at age 24. This made me realize I REALLY wanted to pursue her.

However, I am concerned that I may have been friendzoned since about 2.5 months have passed since that last lunch date.

My main question questions are:

1) Would the "check-in" text work again and how would you restructure it?

2) Since a lot of time has passed, she may see me as the "guy who probably just wants to be friends and I run into every now and then". Do you know if I still have a fair shot and how to turn this around, especially if I wont be having sex with her?

Thanks Chase!

Chase Amante's picture


Hmm. That's tricky. If I had to do a second "checking in after a long time text", I'd just write something like, "Hey Mi-Yun, sorry I fell off the face of the planet again! Anyway, it's been forever, but I enjoyed grabbing food with you last time - want to do it again sometime soon?"

As for turning things around, I'd simply up the intensity of my vibe this time around and do a lot more incidental touching, and then follow up with her after a (much shorter than last time) interval for a subsequent date.

On the dynamics of dating sans sex, I'm afraid I'm not much help there - theoretically, I'm not entirely sure how that works, and outside of what I hear about my maternal grandfather, who took my maternal grandmother on a few dates, then wrote her a letter proposing to her when she drove out of state to go meet someone else to get her to come back and marry him instead, I don't have any anecdotes I could share. My main instinct would be "make it a whirlwind romance and propose / get married ASAP, while the fire of desire and passion is still burning and hasn't been blown out by non-action."


Anonymous's picture

Is there a way to tell how much a girl likes you? I can tell when a girl is attracted to me, but I can't tell when it becomes a crush or when I'm the only one on her mind. Even if I'm dating a girl, I can't tell because it isn't anything tangible. Maybe you could write an article on the different degrees of attraction from curiosity to love to obsession (which might not be love?) and how to identity the stage she's in. I realize different girls may show love in different ways or have different capacities for love, but it's somewhat strange for a girl to like me but for me to not really be able to feel or understand where she is at.

Chase Amante's picture


I have an older post on the discussion boards that might be useful here:

Stages of Desire (2010)

"Obsession" would fall into the "Need" stage; "love" could be any of Stages 2 through 5, though mostly 2 and 3 ("Need" and "Satiation"); once she's at "Expectation" or "Burden" it's more falling out of love than it is falling into it.

Anyway, I'll note that one down for expansion into an article with more examples on reading what stage a girl is in (it's always kind of messy and you'll never have an exact read, even once you've had lots of relationships. Some women are just way more expressive than others... you mostly end up relying on gut intuition).


Balla's picture

Hey chase, I want to know why unattractive women gaze at me so bad while attractive ones and even decent ones don't. The attractive and decent girls gazing at me crazy rarely happens, but all of the girls I wouldn't sleep with even for a one night stand just gaze so hard at me like im a star. The are like bottom of the list girls, it brings my confidence down and makes me feels like these are the only women that like me. I've been training my fundamentals hard, but this is what I mostly get. What do I have to do to have attractive girls look at me like that?

I also want to know how do I remember everything I read? It's mostly for school because I kind of have a tight grasp on all of the articles, but when you have to take a 10 question quiz after you read 20 pages you really don't have a chance. I want to know how can I remember all that I read for these short quizzes. Thanks.

Chase Amante's picture


The girls who'll stare at you are usually lower than what you could get. If a pretty girl likes you, she won't usually stare at you, because that's far too obvious and gives up too much of her allure. If a girl's ugly though, she knows she hasn't got much of a shot with you, so giving you "The Eyes" in the hopes that you'll notice and say, "Eh, why not?" is as good a tactic as any. In effect, she's trading allure for a chance she might not otherwise have had; a trade a more attractive girl doesn't think she needs to make (she should be able to send you more subtle signals and have you pick up on them and capitalize on them without her giving power away).

Re: reading, there's no way I know of to remember EVERYTHING you read across 20 pages. The best technique is to learn how a given professor tests, ask him what material is most important to study for the quiz, and then focus on what are likely to be the key points you'll be quizzed on. It helps to pay close attention to what the big juicy facts seem to be; e.g., if you're taking an anthropology class and reading about the Inuit and it mentions an Inuit word for snow, the size of the canoes the Inuits use, and the main food sources of the Inuit, those are probably all things worth making mental note of; if it goes off on a long passage talking about an Inuit sitting in his canoe staring at the water thinking about life, you probably don't need to remember that bit. Focus on facts and figures, names, numbers, and stats; if it's multiple choice, all the easier (doesn't have to be perfectly memorized - you just have to be able to know it when you see it and not be fooled by similar-looking answers).


Gem's picture

Hey Chase,

A pattern that I’ve noticed and have been noticing lately with the more masculine, str/in, more accomplished women that I like to date is that they often dislike other girls and are critical of other girls to some degree.

Do you know what the reason for this? I was talking to a girl I’m dating (actively listening to her more not really debating her) and she was telling me how she doesn’t like other girls because they’re fake, and will say one thing to your face and smile to your face and talk shit behind your back.

These girls I’ve dated, many of them are more comfortable with guys and have more guy friends (generally average guys though who are lower-tier from the girls and don’t get to have the upper-tier lover position I get to enjoy).

I’ve heard before (haven’t read much or really verified this myself) that girls put on makeup to look good for other women (for showing higher status or something.. maybe you could elaborate here?) and many of these masculine girls I’ve dated put light makeup on or no makeup. They’ll have natural good looks but be pretty masculine and not have too many girlfriends or care to show status often with other girls (I smile now, writing this, at how amusingly true this is).

If I had to venture a guess why the independent, career/improvement oriented women would not like other girls as much I would guess that it’d be a similar reason that a guy who’s a seducer or an up-and-coming entrepreneur might not have as many regular guy friends: because as their value increases they find less and less people of the same sex who can match their value and be on an equal footing with them to share a mutually valuable relationship.

That would be my guess but there are probably other reasons here that I’m missing; curious to hear back about this.


Chase Amante's picture


Yes, that's a big part of it - another one is that women get progressively cattier the more they notice other women start to pull away from them or become independent. Meanwhile, strong / upward trajectory women don't get along so well with one another because throw two of them in a room together and they both want to decide who'll do what. Women with strong personalities need women with softer personalities around whom they can call the shots for and lead the way with, although they'll often having falling outs with these girls too if THEY ever get catty.

My strong personality girlfriends end up having female friends they spend time with only occasionally, because the friends are too different from them (but that's what keeps them from getting too close and then crashing into each other and exploding). If they ever start spending too much time together, I know it's only a matter of time before the relationship goes nova.

Successful women constantly need to be on the lookout for subordinates status jockeying with them and trying to steal their men, as well. There's nothing lower ranking women like more than taking the men of higher ranking women - I've seen it over and over again with various couples, and I've had plenty of girlfriends' subordinate female friends flirt with and make passes at me, and watched my girlfriends fume and then scold them / me / blow up at either or both of us while I laugh about the whole thing. Sometimes falling outs between the two girls come not so long after this, always allegedly for some "other" reason, but probably because the higher ranking girl felt the lower ranking girl was getting too uppity.

It's just hard being a dominant female when every other woman around you is trying to take what you've got. You end up tiring of the drama and deciding that those other women aren't really providing value to you anyway, and cut them off, and you keep few female friends after that.


Anonymous's picture

Hi, Gem...I know you directed this at Chase but as a woman, I'd like to answer too, if you don't mind.

I can't speak for other women but what your girlfriend said is somewhat true. I'm not masculine at all and I wouldn't say my accomplishments in life have been great, but I have very little patience with certain women, the "fake" types your girlfriend talked about. I dislike catty behavior in general no matter who it comes from.

I think that women tend to get along with women more like themselves. I can hang with another female if she's chill and laid-back...not so much if she's the type to act bitchy all the time or get overly jealous/competitive with me. I don't have many female friends, not because I don't want any, but because it seems like there are very few genuine women these days.

As to the issue of makeup, it depends on the person. Speaking for myself, I don't wear makeup or anything for other women. I either wear it for myself or for men, on days where I feel sexy and want to add a bit of "oomph" to my looks.

I don't wear heavy makeup...just mascara, concealer, and lipstick or gloss. Sometimes I'll do eyeliner. But it's never with other women in mind. After all, I'm not interested in them sexually (most of the time). I'm into men and I want my husband and other quality men to notice me. Maybe it's not so much about showing higher status as it is about showing that you care about your looks and some women see that as competition.

I remember growing up, other girls would complain or talk trash when I wore makeup. I never understood why but now I think it's because they realized that by putting on makeup, I was trying to enhance my looks and this might attract male attention. Some insecure women don't like it when another woman does something to enhance her looks or femininity. They feel like you're trying to "one-up" them even if you aren't. If they're wearing flip-flops and another woman is wearing heels, particularly if she is more attractive and a cute guy is around, catty comments will be made...trust me.

I have a cousin who is obese but considered to have a pretty face and her breasts are quite large. She never wore makeup when we were younger and had tons of female friends, while I wore lipstick and had no female friends. Although she was pretty and had big boobs, she was fat so she didn't pose a threat to other girls. I was slim and wore makeup and that bothered some girls. So maybe that is a different way of looking at it, too.

I also think that for some women, just like for guys, interests have to match for friendships to work. Some women have more traditionally masculine pursuits and might not enjoy things like shopping and beauty products. Some women have more traditionally feminine hobbies and they can't relate to a woman who is "one of the guys".

Anonymous's picture

As to being a housewife, being a housewife like Donna Reed is a bit unrealistic in today's world because so much has changed. Most women, thanks to feminism, are expected to work and earn a living just like men are.

I am a housewife, which sometimes causes other women to sneer at me because they think I'm lazy or betraying feminism somehow. But you know what? My mother always had her job and independence outside the home, yet she also knew how to take care of a man's needs. She is an excellent cook...she is Jamaican and knowing how to cook is very important in our culture.

I think sometimes people view housewives as these beaten-down women who are lazy and stupid, without understanding that everyone's situation is different. I plan to further my education and earn a Master's degree at some point, maybe even a doctorate. I'm learning how to prepare delicious meals and I also try to keep myself in shape. My husband works hard and he knows that at the end of a long day, he can come home to a loving wife who does what she can to help, because we are a team and we take care of one another. That is equality...showing strength when I need to but at the same time, letting him be a man without trying to compete.

Independence is always a good thing for women...it's important for a woman to be able to take care of herself, earn her own money, etc. My husband encourages me to be more independent but he also appreciates my femininity. Some career women lose their femininity because they have to be "tough" at their jobs.

Anonymous's picture

"Men are also vastly more represented than women on both ends of the IQ scale, too." I read somewhere that this is only the case with kids around age 11-15 because girls mature earlier but that after that age pretty much all men have higher IQ than women. I don't remember where I heard this and I don't know if it's true.

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com