Today, women are more confused about their roles in relationships than ever before. Most of this is their fault, though men share some blame too. A lot of this is due to conflicting messages that society conveys to modern-day women. Still more of this is the conflict between what women really want at a core biological level (in order to be happy) and what theyâre supposed to want (in order to be a societally-approved Strong Independent Womanâ¢).

There are many of these conflicts, but Iâm going to give you the greatest. This is the conflict in a womanâs mind between the 1950s woman and the 1970s woman.

I have often told the women in my social and work life that, in terms of dating and relationships, they need to choose between the 1950s or the 1970s, but they canât have both. Theyâre going to want both, but having both at the same time doesnât work in the real world (at least in the long-term, as divorce rates clearly indicate). Letâs look at both options.

The 1950s Woman

A woman in the 1950s (and prior) had her ass kissed during the dating/courting phase. Men would treat them like little queens, taking them out on the most expensive dates they could afford while dressing as nice as they were able. Men on these dates were ultra-polite, consummate gentlemen, pulling her chair out for her, laying their coats on puddles for her to walk on, and slathering her with compliments. 1950s women on dates received all kinds of gifts, including flowers, chocolates, jewelry, clothing, and often even more expensive items (again, as much as the guy could afford based on his socio-economic level).

Men on these dates never, ever tried to have sex with her. That just wasnât done. At best, these men got a kiss on cheek as they dropped her off, then quickly went home to masturbate.

In other words, during the dating phase, women were in the driverâs seat, and men were the ass-kissing provider-submissive-hopefuls.

Why in the world did men do all this crap?

Very simple. If/when the woman actually married the man, the entire scenario flipped. He would take care of her financially for the rest of her life, but now he was in charge. The 1950s wives cleaned the entire house, made all the meals, and did at least 80% of the kid-raising work. She was expected to do all of this shit, forever, and usually did.

Moreover, the 1950s (and prior) wife was expected to put out sexually for âher manâ and often did. If he wanted a blowjob, she obeyed and gave him one, regardless of whether she was in the mood, or if she had a bad day, or if she was on her period, etc. I know Iâm generalizing here and this didnât always happen with every marriage, but this kind of sexual subservience was much more common in marriages back then than today. Go ask some really old guys in the retirement homes and they’ll tell you all about it. The historical stats also clearly show that married people back then were having much more sex than they do today, and this is a big reason why. 1950s women, once married, did what they were ordered to do.

These women also virtually never got divorced, and put up with all kinds of crap from their husbands, up to and including things like physical abuse and cheating. It was considered a wifeâs duty do to this, so they did. I don’t agree with physical abuse or cheating as I’ve stated many times before. I’m just reporting to you how things were back then.

In other words, in a weird sort of way, it made sense for men to kiss womenâs asses during the dating process, since once the woman was married to them, these men had a virtual slave literally for the rest of their lives. The upside for the woman was that she was financially taken care of for the rest of her life, even after her husbandâs death (since divorce rates were so low and pensions were solid back then).

That was the 1950s woman. Now letâs look at her 1970s sister, a very different gal…

The 1970s Woman

During the 1970s, first-wave, sex-positive feminism was a growing rage among unmarried women. Not all single women back then subscribed to this kind of thinking, but a hell of a lot did, at least in the US. To be clear, this was not the feminism of today. The original feminism of the 1970s was a strong desire for equal rights and sexual freedom. Todayâs feminism is an angry, rage-filled lashing out about the shirts men wear or the specific wording men use on websites. Since first-wave feminism achieved its primary goals (women are now legally equal to men in every way and can have sex with whomever they like), todayâs feminism has nothing of core substance to complain about, so they instead waste their time screaming inaccurate slogans, like about how men make more money than women, which is demonstrably untrue, or about the dangers of “rape culture,” which makes no sense since there’s been an 85% DECREASE in rape since the late 1970s.

But I digress.

When a man went out on a date with that 1970s feminist, it was an utterly different scenario than with the 1950s girl. The 1970s girl lectured him about how they would both pick a place together. Then, when they went out, she would pay her half of the bill. She was an independent woman with her own income, so she didnât want a man to pay for her and thus have power over her like the 1950s girl, whom the 1970s girl viewed as a pathetic weakling.

If the guy tried to pay for the date, the 1970s girl actually got pissed off. “Excuse me?!? No, Iâm going to pay for my own food. I donât need you! How dare you try to take that kind of power over me? Don’t you think I can make my OWN money?!?”

I’m not kidding about this. These women back then would actually get mad if the guy tried to pay for a first date. I know that sounds alien to us today, but go ask Gloria Steinem and she’ll tell you all about it.

If the two actually got into a relationship, she would poke a defiant finger in his chest and tell him that she was her own woman, that she didnât belong to him, and that she could do whatever the hell she wanted, including having sex with other men, which many of these women did. They were the original anti-monogamists (outside of historical polygamy). She would also boss the guy around, making him take out the trash and other beta tasks.

The good news for the man was that he was not expected to financially support her. He could keep his money, since she âdidnât need a manâs moneyâ and could support herself (at least theoretically). Many of these women also avoided having children for similar reasons.

As you might expect, these 1970s women would often get into relationships with beta males on whom theyâd cheerfully crack the whip. They’d also hook up a lot. This was before any big STD scare, so single people in the 70s seriously got laid. Ask Eric Bogosian and he’ll tell you all about it.

The 1970s girl was essentially the opposite of the 1950s girl. The 1970s girl didnât get her ass kissed at all during the dating phase, but had massive freedom and control during the relationship. She didnât get the money, Disney, and gifts during the dating phase, but she was the boss, pretty much at all stages.

Todayâs Woman

What then is todayâs woman? Itâs very simple. Starting around the 1990s, women have conveniently taken the best parts of the 1950s woman and the best parts of the 1970s woman, and discarded all the rest. Todayâs woman, particularly those over age 33 (but women of all ages have this as their baseline), want the money, financial support, Disney, and ass-kissing like the 1950s girls AND the “Donât tell me what to do – I’m in charge here!â power of the 1970s women. They want both.

Being a slave like the 1950s women? Nope, todayâs women certainly donât want that.

Paying her own way on dates, and paying her own bills forever like the 1970s woman? Nope, todayâs women donât want that either.

They want the money and the power, now hand it all over you silly little man, thank you very much.

If that doesnât make any sense to you, or doesn’t sound fair, they donât care. I have demonstrated repeatedly on this blog that even women who make good incomes, can support themselves, and brag that theyâre independent will still demand that you buy them multiple dinners and drinks before you have sex. These false-independent women will demand that even though they donât need a man, you still need to marry them, pay most of her bills, and not sign a prenup in case she wants more money from you post-divorce.

Doesnât make sense? Of course it doesn’t. But like I said, they donât care.

This is why Iâve told women they really need to pick one, and stick with it. 1950s or 1970s. Hey, I’m a flexible guy. Iâll go for either of those models. You want to be submissive to me and I take care of you financially? Okay, Iâll do that. You want to do whatever you want, never have me tell you what to do, but donât want me to give you any money? Cool, I’m down for that too.

But you want me to give you a bunch of money (either in the form of dinners, paid bills, cash, or whatever) AND you want to be able to boss me around and tell me what to do? Yeah, um, no, sorry, not interested. Moreover, itâs fucking insulting to even suggest such a thing to me. Donât you think YOU would be insulted if I suggested such a thing to you, Darling? âGive me a bunch of money and then follow all my rules.â Would YOU like that deal, Sweetie?

I have a feeling you wouldn’t.

Then why are you demanding I do it?

Food for thought, Darling.

Todayâs women have forgotten that the 1950s and the 1970s attitudes do not constitute a salad bar, from which they can pick and choose just the best parts and leave all the shitty parts for us guys. Instead, she needs to pick one or the other, and suck it up and take the negatives of whichever option she chooses. (Or stay single the rest of her life; that’s always an option too.)

It would be wonderful if life was perfect. Such is not to be.

The final question is this: If this is such an unreasonable expectation for modern-day women to have of men, why has it become so common, so much so that it has now become the norm?

Answer: Beta males. Betas will agree to just about anything, and since around 70% of modern-day men are now betas, there you go. Thus, men are to blame for this problem too.

But thatâs another story…