Why nurses or teachers are positive signs for longer-term relationships

Hard-core players who want to f**k around can ignore this one, but I mentioned to a player that teachers and nurses are good female occupations for long-term partners. Why?

smart men looking for a long-term partner should look at a woman’s job situation… a woman out of school who has no work or work history whatever is probably showing that there is something wrong with her… but a woman in a corporate job is not that appealing to most similarly situated men. When I am evaluating women for long term situations, two jobs in particular stand out, teacher and nurse. They are both jobs that are easy to leave at the job (don’t demand 50+ hour weeks) and they are both jobs that make it easy to leave for a year or two to have a family.

There are a lot of women who bring nothing to relationships apart from their p***ies… and then they are surprised… where are the GOOD men?

Teachers and nurses make fine money and both jobs can easily be left at work, unlike many modern corporate jobs. Both of them have a caring / empathy component that is good for men. Both jobs are easy to leave for a couple years to do child-bearing and early rearing. Both jobs convey that a woman is smart enough to get into a line of work that’s super compatible with having a family. Obviously, there are many teachers and nurses who would make terrible long-term partners, so you don’t need to tell me that in the comments. I know that and so do you.

It’s also true that some corporate women or flakey artistic bohemians who would make good long-term partners. Judge an individual in her totality, not just her profession. But if I hear “teacher” or “nurse,” that’s a grain of sand on the “long-term partner” side of the scale, and if I hear “boring corporate harridan” that’s a grain on the other side. If a nurse starts telling me about how she cuts herself, how she hates men because of her non-existent relationship with her father, and about how she is a women’s “rights” (special privilege) advocate… then she’s out and it’s on to the next one. A boring corporate harridan who talks about how she has chosen a set of skills and abilities that make it easy for her to have a family… about how she prioritizes family over work… about how she is close with her parents… that’s the opposite…. she’s a good choice… a sign of something is not the thing itself.

Age discrepancy is also an important question for longer-term relationships. I’m very unlikely to get into a serious relationship with a woman younger than 25 or who is still in school. That way lies madness. Yes, younger-hotter-tighter is cool, but that’s also setting yourself up for dissolution and, worse, divorce. The number of exceptions here is super small. If the age gap gets too large, a man is probably setting himself up for failure. If I met the right 23 year old who wanted to be a co-parent… maybe… but we’re also getting to very unusual fringe corner cases.

Yes, it is possible to consciously seek and seed a co-parenting relationship with a much younger women… I know another player who seems to be doing something like this… but it’s so rare that I mention it to be complete without expecting it to be relevant to most guys. If you want such an arrangement and find such a relationship, congratulations, but I don’t think many of them are out there.

Unlike some of the guys excreting their bile online, I’m also fine with the woman making more money than the man, if many other factors are in her favor. Many guys are insecure or threatened by this notion, but I’m not. If she makes $$$$, that’s nice, but the number of attractive women who make a lot of money and also have other good characteristics for long-term partners… we’re again talking about a super small group. I have run into some, most of them being physicians. It’s like hot female engineers… I have run into one or two of them, too… they’re super rare as well. Generic advice needs to aim for the median cases, not the cases three and four standard deviations out there. There are many millions of attractive teachers and nurses out there, some of them young and cute, and the jobs are easy enough to train for and get that they don’t exclude the overwhelming majority of hot chicks, as engineering, computer science, starting your own company, and law tend to do.

Don’t trust stupid Internet financial advice. Compounding interest is real

It seems I have turned into the “anti-marketer” police on the Internet, first about location independent businesses and now about the time-value of money. A guy on Twitter spit out a retarded tweet,

If you drive a lot of miles out of necessity this is for you.

If you buy a new car for $30k and drive it for ten years it works out to $250/month or less than $10/day.

If you rely on that car to get you and your family where you need to be, and safely, it isn’t a bad deal.”

This guy might not be retarded but this piece of his advice sure is. I can’t tell about him as a whole because this advice is so bad that I don’t want to read the rest. He is forgetting the time-value of money. The true cost of the $30K car over ten years is not the cost of the car, but the cost of the investment foregone because of the car. Let’s imagine you buy a $15K car instead and keep the other $15K. Compounding interest formula is A = P(1+r/n)^nt

P = principal amount (the initial amount you borrow or deposit)

r = annual rate of interest (as a decimal)

t = number of years the amount is deposited or borrowed for.

A = amount of money accumulated after n years, including interest.

n = number of times the interest is compounded per year

Dont worry, I had to look this up. Let’s even skip that and look at the simple interest formula, A = P(1 + rt). If you save the $15K and invest it @ 5%/year, you’ll end up with $22,500, or $7,500 more. So now the cost is not $250/month, but $312.50/month.

That’s not all, however. 5% a year is conservative. In addition, neither calculation takes into account inflation. More importantly, neither calculation takes into account financing.

If you have $30K in cash to buy a car, fine, but you’re also probably in the financial elite, and you’re still not earning interest. Most people finance cars. If you finance $15K, you’ll probably be paying 5% interest. So you can add another $7,500 on top of your $7,500 in foregone income, under simple interest, and more than that under compounding. So now you are not paying $250/month but rather $375, if you account for foregone gains and for interest.

It’s even MORE complicated than this, because the interest in most consumer loans is front loaded. That means you’ll spend the first quarter to half of the loan term primarily paying off interest. If you end up having to sell the car…. congratulations, you just paid a lot in interest.

I pointed some of this out to the guy and he said, “Yeah I know buy a $5k hatchback and invest everything else in mutual funds. I love MMM and learn a lot from him, but his car advice is big practical for high mileage commuters imo.” There is a big gap between $5K and $30K and he knows it or should know it. That reply is sufficiently painful that it reinforces the idea that he’s not worth listening to.

It’s smart to try not to be a high-mileage commuter, but that’s not always possible (circumstances of work and housing sometimes mandate it). But the guy didn’t even begin to address the real financial cost of the thing he’s advocating. He says he is a “Personal finance coach with a passion for helping others remove stress and worry from their financial lives.” He has 27.5K followers, or about 27 times the number I do, yet I know 10x what he does about finance.

Simple or compound interest aren’t even Black-Sholes or fancy shit that requires calculus. It’s simple math with some exponents, and the calculators for it are widely available online, and this simple math shows the true cost is far higher than $30K. If someone wants to pay it, fine, do it, but to think that $30K is “only” $250 a month is why this guy is giving advice on Twitter and not working in finance. As far as I can tell no one else noticed this on Twitter. The fools are following the fools.

The more you know about finance, the more painful the decisions of many people around you will appear. “Normal” consumption patterns will begin to seem crazier and crazier. You will hear people brag about the “house” they bought, which in fact the bank owns, and you will hear them ignore closing costs (can be 10% of the total) as well as foregone investment opportunities. In some markets buying makes sense, in others renting makes sense. Buying property was great in 2010 – 2014. Probably not so great today.

Electric cars change the cost equations because right now their initial cost is higher and their long-term costs are much lower. That is another important consideration. They also don’t spew poisonous fumes into the air, which is nice.

Part of the reason you’re poor is because you don’t understand compounding interest or that the alternative to spending money isn’t sticking it under a mattress, it’s investing it in an index fund. You’re poor because you don’t know math. Don’t end the week with nothing in your career and don’t take financial or health advice from Internet randoms without checking it first. The same is true of me. Don’t trust what I say. Check it for yourself. Wikipedia says, “The Florentine merchant Francesco Balducci Pegolotti provided a table of compound interest in his book Pratica della mercatura of about 1340.” “Richard Witt’s book Arithmeticall Questions, published in 1613, was a landmark in the history of compound interest.” So this formula is around 400 years old, maybe older, but Twitter guy with lots of followers doesn’t know it. What else doesn’t he know?

*Sex and the City* and the woman’s age

Spinster Candace Bushnell, the woman who wrote the original *Sex and the City* book and then created the famous TV show, is now in her 50s and has written a book about how being single and childless at that age sucks for chicks… most of you readers already know this, of course, because older women are competing for a pool of guys who would rather date women in their 20s or 30s, if possible.

Let’s not reiterate that again, instead I will observe that I am of the age in which pretty much every high school and college girl I knew watched the show when it came out and watched it again on DVD (before streaming was common, many movies and TV shows shipped on plastic discs that had to be purchased one-by-one, for you young guys reading this). Younger chicks perceived it as very glamorous. I also read the *Sex and the City* book way back when and watched most of the show, here and there, usually w/ chicks. I think the key to a chick’s interpretation of either is how old the chick is. For teen girls and girls up to the late 20s (perhaps 28/29), the show reads as glamorous f**king around in the city and being serenaded/seduced by a wild variety of hot hot men who are going to pick up the tabs for fancy dinners, whisk them around to clubs, etc. The shiny fantasy rules.

For women over age 28/29, *Sex and the City* starts to look like the “cock carousel” much-discussed online by men… older women see the guys in the show are getting copiously laid while offering the women a minimum of commitment, and female-female competition is fierce and relentless. NYC is expensive and, in the real world, it’s very hard for most women to make enough money to have a reasonable standard of living in the city without a guy to subsidize her. But a lot of the guys want to play the field and will not subsidize her. Older women detect underlying sadness in the show, but most younger women don’t detect the underlying sadness until it’s too late.

A lot of women feel like they have to viciously compete in NYC due to male/female ratios that favor men. That’s the thing the city still has most going for it, for players. Many women don’t read enough and don’t understand why NYC is a different market than most cities in the rest of the country.

Older women can accept that NYC is hard, choose a guy she perceives as “lesser,” or go poly, or just fuck around and accept that they’re not going to have kids, which will make them bitter and alone when older. Most women want kids, though, and can’t be happy without a family. Thus the neuroticism and deep unhappiness of single women over age 35. Such women are dangerous as bosses, I want to add.

The *Sex and the City* TV show’s undercurrent of hysteria is because most of the women are over 30 and know time is not on their side. The show is similar except that there is an unrealistic deus ex machina for Carrie at the very end. But if you watch the show carefully, you’ll be aware that most of the women in it are not very happy because they know they are living their lives poorly.

I also think many chicks have a dangerous precedent because they get enormous sexual market power (SMV) very early, as teens (provided they are not fat), and can fairly easily maintain that SMV power for fifteen years just by not being fat. Today, chicks using online dating can feel the incredible SMV power of their youth even more keenly than chicks before online dating. The decline in SMV can be rapid, however, leaving many women psychologically wounded because what was “easy” for them has suddenly become hard. The same thing happens to a few guys, like the high school athletes gone to seed who had high SMV and see it drop. More common is the guy who sees his SMV rise as he works on his body, mind, and income throughout his 20s and 30s.

Candace Bushnell was probably warned about her shelf life but decided that hot short-term sex is better than having a family, particularly a family with a low-status male.

The writer of the article that got me started on this piece is a feminist, yet she also notices, “Then I read some of the original Observer pieces, which were tough and unsentimental, even caustic.” That is also my reading, because even then Bushnell was in her 30s competing for cool guys who really want chicks in their 20s. Bushnell and her friends discover what lots of women do. The feminist writer says of the new Bushnell, “The book captures the buoyancy of the writer’s brand, but it also has a weather-beaten, mellow quality. If the women in ‘Sex and the City’ were living the dream, these characters are trailing after, reminiscing about, sometimes questioning it.” The women in *Sex and the City* were never living their dream, except for promiscuous Samantha, as their true dream is having a wealthy cool guy and having a family with that man. Something none of them were on the path to doing because they were too busy f**king hot guys. Lesson for guys is simple, be the hott guy. This lesson has been well-learned and now many women complain of “players.” Players exist because women prefer hot fun-loving guys to boring reliable provider guys. Even provider guys are figuring out that there is little benefit to being a provider guy and a lot of benefit to hitting the gym and being a party, hot-sex guy. I don’t think every guy has what it takes to be a party hot-sex guy but many do.

Women in many big cities and upper-middle-class households are socialized to chase the job and career, like men. Then women discover as they get older that those things are less satisfying than having a family, but they are not going to drop their socialized acceptance of the lame careers they have as middle managers.

That article has lots of bullshit in it, such as talk of “how our ideas of masculinity and femininity have shifted” between 1997 and today. They haven’t much. Yes, among some gender freaks in Brooklyn there are loser androgenes, but very few hot chicks will deliberately make themselves less hot and very few top guys will deliberately make themselves more feminized. There is more gender confusion, with fat chicks leading the way, but on the whole masculinity remains and guys who want a good sex life cultivate their masculinity, and women who want top guys cultivate their femininity.

Today of course the Internet helps guys learn the game and helps people interested in sexual depravity like myself discover others interested in sexual depravity. So I do believe that weird sex practices are increasingly prevalent, and players who don’t slut-shame women and who lift weights will have much greater access to those practices.

I am thinking about next life steps because I don’t want to be the equivalent of a 35-year-old woman who has f**ked her best years and highest value away and is struggling to set up what she wants to do next… a very common pattern that players age 30+ are familiar with. I wonder how many guys would also be better off moving to the midwest, where family is more valued, when they/we are less excited about chasing random chicks (guys under age 30 can ignore this statement). Many people also see their life priorities change when their parents or other family age or die… that can be a jarring reminder that life is finite and some of our choices preclude us from pursuing particular paths. At age 20 it is easy to think you will be young forever and that your family will be the same forever… you will not and they will not.

I don’t get the sense that lots of younger chicks still watch the show but I have run into a few who have, often at early ages (11, 12, 13… I meet them when they are much older I want to add!).

Overall, *Sex and the City* reaffirms that chicks want to be seduced by hot guys. That is what all their fantasies are about, in TV or in fiction, and men can learn how to seduce and be seductive.

Location-independent businesses are rarer than online seminar hucksters would have you believe

I see a lot of unlikely claims by guys online about location independence, independent income, etc…. they’re improbable, not impossible, but I worry about the low-information guys who are attracted to “location independence” but who don’t have the unique, non-commodity skills to get there.

The commodity / non-commodity concept comes from economics: in a perfectly competitive market, commodities move to the price of marginal production and distribution cost. Think of something like steel: a given grade of steel is a given grade of steel and is completely undifferentiated; if producer A can make steel $1 cheaper than producer B, the market will move towards producer A until producer A’s capacity is exhausted. In many fields workers are a lot like this. If you are working fast food, retail, etc., you are competing with a vast pool of local and sometimes global labor, and you are interchangeable with thousands, sometimes millions, of other people. You will likely not be able to command above-average wages without differentiated skills.

If you don’t have the attention and cognitive skills to read the above paragraph, or if you find it boring, you are not going to make it as a location-independent worker.

In most cases, people have to work for many years to develop differentiated skills, as well as the industry connections needed to deploy those skills effectively. Programming is a common example of this, but most programmers take many years to develop their skills, and many people lack the IQ necessary to be a programmer (that is why so many programmers with three years of industry experience and a CS degree make six figures… most people literally cannot do the work). There are many other examples. To become a doctor takes four years of college, then four years of medical school, then three years of residency. At the end you are a highly differentiated worker, but you are not location independent (mostly).

There are many other kinds of differentiated skills, but most of the guys pitching online seminars don’t have those skills and haven’t demonstrated those skills, though they often claim to have them. Something about the online world encourages a set of magical beliefs that you can, without real skills, learn how to make large amounts of money. Pretty f**kin unlikely.

So how does most of the world really work? Unless you are founding a tech startup or working for one of the big tech companies, it is very hard to make very large amounts of money right out of the gate (say, ages 22 – 30). Even tech founders and workers see much larger financial gains 10+ years in. Most people spend their early career building skills and building connections. Many people focus, wrongly, only one of those things. If you build skills without connections, you may have lots of skills, but you don’t have a way to leverage them. A couple years ago I wrote, Company loyalty is dead. Switch jobs every 18 months to two years [Career]. If you don’t build connections you will have a harder time switching jobs and getting the pay bumps from job switches.

To get 50%+ pay increases, you basically have to switch jobs. There is something in human psychology called “anchoring.” Once an “anchor” is set as a reference point, it’s very hard to re-set it. If your job at an organization is paying you $45,000, you are unlikely to get above $50,000 even if you are generating $100,000 of value for the organization. If you switch jobs you may be able to go up to $75,000 or more at the new organization. Then it’s possible, in two years, to go BACK to the old org, show them your $75,000, and negotiate for $90,000. Or $110,000. Six figures is another psychological barrier.

Switching jobs effectively usually requires connections, however, as well as a portfolio, if possible. So if you have skills but no connections, you retard your ability to get the new gig. If you develop connections without having skills, you may try to get jobs but then not be able to do them. Sometimes this works, as most of us have found worthless people in high-level jobs, but it is best if you have both. It’s like dating, you might be able to find the rare hot chick who is into a typical fat video gamer with limited ambition… it’s just going to be super rare to find her, and if you want success with women you’re better off doing the typical things, developing yourself, lifting, improving your social life, chatting up chicks, etc.

Markets are very efficient. Not perfectly efficient, but very efficient. So if you try to do “location independent business” without real skills, you are running into efficient markets without sufficient specialization, which is a recipe for stagnation. There are arbitrage opportunities out there… Someone who speaks flawless Mandarin and English might be able to exploit some. A random guy who is hearing about THE DREAM of getting out of the corporate grind… probably can’t.

The guys who make it with location independence have often built up non-commodity knowledge and execution ability. So many claims online are very implausible without being utterly impossible, and the guys who want to believe, want to believe so bad that they’re willing to blind themselves to reality.

Lots of guys reap most of their income gains between ages 35 and 55. By 35, information and reputation advantages have compounded sufficient to allow smart guys who are good workers to acquire the in-depth knowledge necessary to command high salaries. Most guys have also gained sufficient reputation in their industry to be known as a good worker. Very few unknown quantities get hired for mid- or high-level jobs. Too risky. You have to prove yourself first. Guys making good money usually have good skills, they’ve proven themselves, and they have good reputations. All things that are hard to do via online, location-independent businesses.

Being a guy is a relentless process of proving yourself. When two guys get together, they size each other up… is this other guy for real? Or is he full of shit? One problem with online gurus is that you can’t see them solve problems in real time. When you can do that… you really learn about a man. Whether he is effective or not. It is possible to seem effective without being effective… I have had to fire people like that before.

With chicks, you are seeing if they are for real… do they actually want sex… do they look the way they seem to online… etc. Often they are not for real.

I think there are more guys trying to sell “Location independent” seminars than there are guys who are in location independent businesses.

A lot of what you encounter online is really marketing and dreams, not reality. I think that reality-based persons are not spending that much time online, which is so often a waste of time (for me as well). There are a lot of attractive but unlikely claims being made online, and you are welcome to believe them if you want, but you are going to suffer if you believe the stories a lot of guys are selling.

To reiterate, you need to BUILD SKILLS and preferably industry knowledge and industry connections too. Most people do NONE of those things and as a consequence their careers suck. Most people eat too much sugar, get too little exercise, and watch too much TV, and therefore their bodies and their lives suck.

Most guys are going to make more money in conventional businesses and government than they are going to make in the wilds of the Internet… this is also why most smart guys are NOT going to come out as game experts or Red Pill guys. That’s a good way to lose your footing in the corporate and government worlds. That’s a good way to retard your earnings, maybe permanently. Once you are identified without ideologies too far outside the Overton Window, you may be permanently f**ked from earning the largest amounts of money. I would like to change the Overton Window, but the very first thing a game guy needs to do is recognize reality (or have a force of determination so strong that he creates his own reality… a lot of the best players seem to believe their own hype, which leads to success with chicks).

It’s totally true that you may be the exception who makes more money online than you will in most corporate jobs. But if you don’t have exceptional reasons to think you’re the exception, you’re probably the rule, and your career is going to reflect that. This isn’t as sexy a post as EARN SIX FIGURES ONLINE, LET ME SHOW YOU HOW, so the guys who really need it probably aren’t going to find it, but I want a single place to point the bullshit generators to when it’s time. I want readers to know also that I never said having an online, location-independent business is impossible (it’s not). Trying to build one without unique skills and strong connections is just very very unlikely and is contrary to how most business really works. I get the impression that most guys pitching one-man businesses either lack business experience OR have it, know what they’re pitching is bullshit, and pitch it anyway to separate the unwary or hopeful guy from his cash.

Teachers

Wall Street Playboys:

If your teacher was actually smart he wouldn’t have become a teacher in the first place.

Remember that if you take any career advice from them.

On average, that’s likely true. But I replied:

Not necessarily… I know guys who became teachers because it’s a dead easy job that leaves copious amounts of free time for other hobbies, like game. Plus, there’s a natural funnel for chicks, who are available one year post-grad.

I don’t know anyone in real life who has gone truly hard-core in game like the guys you can read in the sidebar. But at least one guy I know from college essentially used high school teaching as a funnel for chicks. In his 20s he was pretty good looking and pretty musical (played guitar and taught it sometimes at his high school, apart from his main subject). He wouldn’t quite 100% admit to what he was up to, but he would admit that teaching is dead easy. He had a band for a while and no surprise there he used it to get laid. Back in MySpace days his opener to MySpace chicks was an invite to his shows.

His band sucked, but he did the trick.

We lost touch over time, and he eventually got married, fat, and into video games. He wasn’t a brilliant guy but he wasn’t dumb either. Occupation is about cost-benefit. He was also smart enough to know not to hit up chicks until a year after they graduate.

Career advice is tricky. I don’t remember getting much career advice at all in high school and I don’t know if high school teachers today dispense it. But not all high school teachers are dumb or not smart. With teaching, a guy gets security and a low to medium income and time. But he also gets a very low cap on his salary, low social status through career, and bureaucratic bullshit.

Some smart, family-oriented chicks choose teaching because it allows them to take time off when their kids are small.

“Fat acceptance” will never happen in the places it matters

Flat Lander writes,

“[the single mother] at the BBQ was too fat and likely old. I did my usual in that situation: didn’t say too much, but when I did talk, I only talked about lifting, fitness, and nutrition.”

@TheRedQuest doing his part against fat acceptance.

I appreciate the mention and encouragement, but I’m also really unconcerned with the fat acceptance movement. It’s pure virtue signaling and has zero impact in the place it matters most: dating and mating markets. Even the handful of people who think fat acceptance is a thing still prefer not to date fatties.

Markets are beautiful because they separate the lies people say (meaning, most of what people say) from what people actually want. Almost no one wants fatties. Even if most people are polite to fatties, as I typically am, the fatties still won’t be able to get good dates.

That being said, I feel some compassion towards fat people, but before you think I’ve become an everyone-is-special loser, I say that I feel some compassion towards fat people because our entire built environment is geared towards making people fat. Kids are told to sit down and be quiet from an early age; recess is in peril, while gym is often a joke. The vast majority of cities are built around cars that transport fatties around with zero effort, so that no one needs to bike or walk. White-collar work demands that most people sit at desks. Most people don’t even have a sit-stand desk (although I see this changing, slowly). Someone who bikes to work is seen as either an improbable hero who is far removed from everyday life or a weirdo. I’ve been seen as both.

Sugars and simple carbs are everywhere in our society. For decades, the USDA and other organizations encouraged everyone to eat a high-carb, low-fat diet (I believed it, too, up until the mid to late ’00s, when the counter evidence became overwhelming). In fact, the opposite is desirable: a high-fat, low-carb, zero-sugar diet.

Most people who don’t want to be fatties must actively fight against the society in which we live. Many don’t even understand nutrition or its importance in their lives. For most people, who just go with the flow around them, becoming a fattie is the default state. We should build a society in which cars are unnecessary, biking is common, and simple carbs are rare.

I know that’s an improbable utopia. But we can try to do it. You, the reader, can try by getting a bike and riding it. That’s an improvement almost any normal person can do. Encourage other people to ride, but don’t be an asshole about it.

Two things are simultaneously true:

  • The entire food and physical environment is geared towards making people fat.
  • An individual person can choose a different path, one that takes him or her away from being a fattie. (As I have done.)

Saying “The environment is built to make fat people” does not absolve someone of individual responsibility, but it does make me understand why most of us are fat.

The “individual responsibility” part is why I sometimes invite fatties to the gym with me, or become a bore who only talks about sugar and deadlifting and foam rollers during certain social moments. We can do better, if we choose to do so. I pity the fatties, because most don’t really know what to do or lack the willpower necessary to execute the program. Being fat is detrimental beyond dating life. It signals sloth and low conscientiousness to employers. It increases health costs and decreases mental acuity. Why would anyone try to “accept” that? It’s a horrible condition that should be changed, not accepted.

If you want a fun mechanical hobby, take a bike repair class. Bikes are beautiful machines that most people don’t understand. Working on bikes is an absolutely terrible way to meet chicks, but it’s fun to do.

The dating, mating, and business worlds are already so mean to fatties that there’s really no reason to fight against “fat acceptance.” The fight has already been won and will remain won forever.

“Why women prefer male bosses”

Why women prefer male bosses” won’t entertain the obvious answer: because on average male bosses are better and less likely to leave the industry.

Feminists don’t like to say this, but in industry everyone knows that most women who have kids quit work or downshift their careers. Yes, there are exceptions. One of my key mentors was a woman who didn’t downshift, but she’s the exception and she knew she was the exception. She was reluctant to mentor younger women because she’d tried before. She’d mentor them, then a couple years in they’d have a kid and goodbye.

That’s also why jobs like nursing, teaching, and pharmacy are so popular among women. They have relatively short training periods. Women can get up and running by age 25 if not sooner. They don’t have a lot of headroom or upward mobility, but those professions are all ones that make it easy to drop in and drop out of the workforce.

You could just, you know, look at women’s real priorities and infer labor market outcomes from that, or you can screech DISCRIMINATION and PATRIARCHY on Twitter instead of working.