November 17, 2010, - 3:11 pm

Girlie-Man Nation: Would You Marry Girl Who Bought the Engagement Ring, Makes More $?

By Debbie Schlussel

I couldn’t care less about uber-bimbo Jessica Simpson, who struggles to stay relevant even in the vapid pop culture that embraced her and made her nothingness into something of value.  But her recently announced engagement illustrates many points I’ve made over the years about the increasing wimpification of men and defining masculinity down.  More and more, men give up their manhood and marry women with money . . . more money than they’ll ever have.  And, thus, they give up their status as the man in the relationship.  It’s even worse when the chick is the one who buys the engagement ring, because the man can’t afford it.

Girlie-Man Nation: The Real Chick in This Relationship is the One w/Out the Purse

Simpson’s fiance, former NFL player Eric Johnson, wasn’t exactly a household name in football and his talent matched that lack-of-household-name-ness.  He played seven seasons in the league, and I never heard of him.  Still, in much of those seven years, Johnson was making over $2 million per season.  And even after a divorce and resulting property settlement, Johnson–a tall, wealthy Yale grad and real estate investor could probably date and marry almost any woman he wanted.  But he picks one of the few women in the world who make more than he does.  Even though her singing and showbiz career is largely a failure and soooo over, Simpson’s trendy shoes, jewelry, accessories, and clothing lines reportedly make her more than $10 million a year in licensing fees for the use of her name.  And she also has a profitable perfume line.  Simpson’s supposed to be worth around $100 million.

And now, we learn that Simpson–NOT the guy who will marry her–reportedly bought her expensive four-carat ruby and diamond engagement ring, worth over $100,000.  (Is she the one who proposed, too? Don’t doubt it.) I can’t understand how a guy wouldn’t be embarrassed with stories like this breaking about him.  It’s so emasculating, and people don’t look at him like the man in the relationship. . . ‘cuz he isn’t.  He’s essentially handed his testicles over to the coat-check, never to be redeemed (or maybe at the divorce).

Sure, being married to a woman with $100 mill means never having to worry about the electric and phone bills.  But it also means you have no power in the relationship.  Instead, you’re the trophy wife with a penis.  You’ve relinquished up something that all the money in the world can’t buy (despite what some transsexuals might claim):  masculinity.

Why would any guy who is worth a lot and could have a relationship with nearly any woman and still be the man in the relationship, give that up to be the chick to Jessica Simpson? Anyone who does that is not a man.

It’s something we see way too much of in the rest of America.  Even before the bad economy took hold, more and more men married women who earned much more than they did.  More and more men married women who played the man and earned the money, while they stayed home and played Mr. Mom (Todd Palin alert).  It’s not good for American society.  As I always note, matriarchies fail.  Societies with weak men–with girlie-men, with men who assume the roles of women–aren’t the ones that survive.

It’s beyond sad.  Men who willingly play the chick in their relationships and marriages are pathetic.  And the death of America as a strong nation.

I mean, really, why are men telling TSA screeners not to touch their “junk,” when so many of them have already handed their junk over in exchange for a man-purse and an apron?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

40 Responses

He could afford to buy the engagement ring. It doesn’t have to be the most expensive ring in the world, it usually is the guy who makes the proposal and then offers to marry the woman.

That’s still true even if she makes more than he does. A man should never be the accessory in the relationship.

NormanF on November 17, 2010 at 3:26 pm

I guess they can change Beyonce’s song to: “Single Men (Put A Ring On It).” with this YouTube video. [Disclaimer: What Can Be Seen, Cannot Be Unseen]

CaliforniaScreaming on November 17, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    The one thing worse than a guy without manhood is a guy in a leotard!

    Yup, this is America today and I think Beyonce’s song well captures the spirit of our age.

    NormanF on November 17, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Women are the New Men.

And that leaves men as the New Wives.

We’ve come a long way, baby! NOT!

Makes you wish for the old days where every one knew what was expected of them.

NormanF on November 17, 2010 at 3:47 pm

“I can’t understand how a guy wouldn’t be embarrassed with stories like this breaking about him. ”

Maybe they don’t care if a woman like you “can’t understand” the way they live their life. Maybe they think it’s none of your business. Just sayin’

Jay White on November 17, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    I agree…I think Deb should be given a tast of her own bullying medicine. First of all, wether Jessica is worthless is her opinion…why is it necessary to say it publicly or at all? especially considering that it has no relevance whatsoever to the article even. I think the next article written for her should be ‘why can’t american’s express an opinion without being so unnessarsirily insulting…is that the only way they believe they can effectively influence poeple? Perhaps we should mock her last name and label her a ‘nothing nazi’…wonder if she would appreciate that. Actually, who cares?

    amanda on September 29, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Debbie I’ll be honest with you, on this one I don’t care. The personal and private lives of uber liberal Hollywood weirdo’s, washed up NFL players and has been recording artists have no meaning for me. If Simpson want’s to rent out this guy penis for awhile, at least until the divorce, well she’s got the money. The feminization of our society has been going on for a long time. It’s one of the reasons I don’t watch television. I’m sick and tired of men being portrayed as incompetent, sex addled, mindless, helpless childlike morons.

kenny komodo on November 17, 2010 at 4:55 pm

Jessica Simpson is desperate. It isn’t attractive, either.

As for HIM? I put him in the Nick Cannon classification. You know Nick, don’t you? He is Mr. Mariah Carey.

So, I would call this guy Mr. Jessica Simpson.

As goes Israel, so goes the World... on November 17, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Men seem happy to be bought. After slaving for women for centuries, they’ve decided its their turn to be waited on.

    The feminist movement got what it bargained for… strong women and men taking revenge on them for the loss of the masculinity and once unquestioned position in society.

    And if there are kept men today, its simply a reversal of the role that’s been in vogue for thousands of years.

    I could care less what Simpson and the new man in her life do as long as they do it on their own time and with their own money – whether its hers or his.

    NormanF on November 17, 2010 at 6:04 pm

The “Conservatives” and GOP are going to make an hot looking cougar in a tight skirt their leader. These so-called strong men of the GOP are going to vote for a dim bulb. Yes there aren’t any strong GOP men willing to take on this wacky woman from Wasila. Who will have the stones to tell Sarah Palin she ain’t fit to be President and this is a man’s job to lead the world’s strongest military? Romney, Pence, Huckabee, Jindal, Barber,

CaliforniaScreaming on November 17, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Who cares? As a conservative, I feel that the relationship between two people is their business, not mine. I am tired of the media bombarding us with tacky stories about celebrities. I am more interested in the fact that Islamic men and women are not going to be searched below the shoulders, while the TSA employees are going to reach third base with the rest of us.

As to women making more $$ than man, don’t blame the man. Blame Sexual quotas and affirmative action. In government, and in many sectors of the private sector, if you are a white male, highly qualified, and you are up for a position against a woman, any race, with some or no qualifications, the woman is picked for the job. In the Federal Government, white men without connections are left in the promotion dust and unqualified women become their bosses, and promote other people based on their sex, race, and sexual orientation.

Don’t blame the man all the time. Blame the damnable liberals who have made white straight men third class citizens, with less rights than an illegal alien.

Jonathan Grant on November 17, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Yup. Who can blame white men? We’re an endangered species these days but society isn’t interested in our preservation.

    And given what is in store, it won’t be long before America is run as a matriarchy.

    NormanF on November 17, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Jon, about that third base –

    while TSA pats down yours and Debbie’s private parts, Muslims are laughing themselves silly. CAIR says they can only be patted down to the shoulders.

    Let’s see if TSA gives them the equal treatment the rest of us get. Even odds, we’ll be good dhimmis.

    They’d like it, I’m sure.

    NormanF on November 17, 2010 at 6:21 pm

CS, you don’t have to persuade me.

Good luck getting the Palin zombies out there to wake up and see her for who she is.

And even if she loses, she’ll still have followers.

NormanF on November 17, 2010 at 5:43 pm

The problem is not that the guy can’t buy the ring. The problem is that the ring that he does buy is not good enough for her to be seen in.

IGNYC on November 17, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Its a very unusual woman wouldn’t accept a simple engagement ring if that was all a guy could afford to buy for her. Love should never be about being seen as more than you are.

    And if you’re right, I wouldn’t count on a long marriage.

    NormanF on November 17, 2010 at 6:25 pm

“The problem is that the ring that he does buy is not good enough for her to be seen in.”

Ding, ding, ding! A lot of women upgrade or add things to their engagement ring. That’s what she probably would have done anyways to any ring he gave her. Even if he doled out 50K for a ring, she probably would have added 95,000 worth of diamonds to it herself.

col on November 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    A woman who places great emphasis on material worth isn’t a woman a guy should be looking to marry. The true qualities are not seen and can’t be bought at any price. And with our society’s obsession with youth, beauty, fame and the fleeting pursuit of riches, they get overlooked.

    They’re the ones we need to cultivate and treasure the most.

    NormanF on November 18, 2010 at 4:32 am

What is worse is the royal engagement. You would think that a utopian paradise has been created. I have never seen so many news organizations especially NBC fawn all over Prince Harry and Kate. We are Americans, so what who cares. Britain is a fading society that still follows this nonsense while many people can’t find jobs and Islamic Fascists have spread in England.

What person today in England would truly want to pay taxes to support this outmoded custom. She is not even that pretty and mumbles too much. He looks almost as goofy as his father.

spaceship22 on November 17, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    I don’t much care about celebrities’ public dalliances.

    I share Debbie’s theory on it. If you have to advertise to the world how much you’re in love, there’s nothing there.

    And there’s plenty of evidence to back it up in the form of numerous failed marriages and divorces. Cuz when we look beyond the rich girl angle, we see a woman who is very insecure about being with the man’s she with.

    So I have to disagree somewhat with Debbie: you can buy almost anything in this world if you have money but I have yet to see it buy love.

    I’ll go further: I’ll dare say the real power in a relationship rests not with the person doing the buying but with the person who has what money can’t buy. You can dress the woman or the man up but take it away from them and that’s who they really are – its how we come into this world and its how we leave it.

    NormanF on November 18, 2010 at 3:46 am

Well, if you are going to erase my comments, I am going to stop reading these stupid stories. Safe to say that would descrease the readership by around 10%… And it is true, the ring that he would have bought her wouldn’t be good enough for her to be seen in, since she is a Hollywood person and they don’t care much about the actual relationship, and more so about how it appears on US Weekly.

IGNYC on November 17, 2010 at 7:00 pm

great blog…

Brian Cuban on November 17, 2010 at 7:08 pm

Oh. No. I thought her engagement was pathetic to begin with (sorry, but she is so desperate these days) and to find out the fool bought her OWN RING? Is this what feminism wrought? PA-THET-IC!

I enjoy seeing this fool struggle. She had a great hubby, but was a high-maintenanced bee-yotch and left him…and ever since then she has NOT been respected by any of the dopes she has dated. She is a hypocrite fraud and gets more pathetic everyday. Her talentless sister is selling more CDs than she is and she’s a poseur fraud!! I like seeing this fool fail because she owns it!

Skunky on November 17, 2010 at 7:52 pm

A ring shouldn’t matter. All she cares about is the whole ‘wedding’ thing. Not the sacred and beautiful thing that marriage should be. These people jump from bed to bed and marriage to marriage and make a mockery of it all.

This guy is a girlieman, yes. Jessica Simpson is a vapid materialistic rich chick who equates a big rock with big love.
So what. It is pretty sad that they even make the news and we even give a damn. I mean how much more boring can you get?

I suppose it is because she is making millions while people are starving and she puts value on rocks instead of love and it is the unfairness of it all that makes it newsworthy.
Either way, he is not going to be around for long I am guessing………….cest la vie……..

Marie on November 17, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    I have to agree.

    If the girl’s need for an expensive engagement ring is more important than the love of a good man, maybe she doesn’t have the power she thinks she has. And if she takes away the one thing a man should still rightfully have, that’s not love, that selfishness personified. Goodness knows we have a lot of that around.

    Money and power may be aphrodisiacs but they ain’t love and people should never ever confuse them.

    NormanF on November 18, 2010 at 4:26 am

Here’s a riddle. What do the following women have in common?

Jessica Simpson
Lady Gaga
Paris Hilton
Nicole Richie
Katy Perry
Miley Cyrus
The entire cast of “Desperate Houswives”
The entire cast of “Sex In The City”
The entire cast of “The View”

Answer: is the only place during the course of my day to day existence where I occasionally encounter any of their names. I wouldn’t recognize at least half of them in a police line-up, don’t know what a third of them do for a living, and am not even slightly curious about any of their romantic or financial endeavours.

To me, the real tragedy of this story isn’t the whole “Girlie Man” angle, but the fact that so many women actually go out and purchase enough clothing and perfume with this woman’s name on it to make her a multi-millionaire.

Irving on November 17, 2010 at 9:03 pm

$10 million dollars a year from licensing? Estimated worth of $100? What Monopoly Street does she live on? Taylor Swift, who is on fire to the point of radioactivity is estimated to have made $26 million dollars the last year. So Jessica Simpson, who has NO fan base, NO musical hits, NO songwriting credits, NO tour, NO “buzz,” makes 40% of that? Hollywood publicists do this all the time – puff up to absurd levels how much a celebrity makes. If Jessica made $250,000 last year from licensing I’d be shocked.

gmartinz on November 17, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    She did have a popular following once and parlayed it into millions. Doesn’t matter – she’ll never work in showbiz again – she has it made.

    Her sister is somewhat more successful.

    NormanF on November 18, 2010 at 4:16 am

Will she take his surname? My guess is a big fat no… To me always the first sign that the biological male is not the man in the relationship.

Brian R. on November 17, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    Its a common trend these days for a man to hyphenate her name next to his.

    Yes, that’s the “chick” factor in the relationship. If the guy has to be the one to change the name, there goes all the reason in the world to have a boy in the first place.

    Yup, the feminization of America continues apace.

    NormanF on November 18, 2010 at 4:19 am

Debbie I do resent the comments about men marrying women who make more money.

I am a teacher and my wife is an American Sign Language interpreter. She will always have the capacity to make more money than I.

She has recently applied for a job working with the USMC interpreting for the highest commanders. He starting pay, if she were to get the job, would be around $67,000 a year.

I would have to be in my job for around 20 years, with a masters, national certification and getting step increases every year to near that.

Sometimes the amount of money we make is limited by the profession we choose. I certainly did not choose mine to make a ton of money.

KB: There are exceptions to every rule, and you are clearly one of those exceptions. It’s not just about money, though, as I indicated in the piece. Did you buy your wife’s engagement ring, or did she? I’d bet it’s the former. I’m sure that in most aspects of your marriage, you are the man. That clearly isn’t the case in Jessica Simpson’s relationship, where this guy is a trophy wife. This is not personal and not against you. Like I said, I’m sure you are the man in your relationship in every aspect except income. And it sounds like whatever you do for a living is something you chose because you like it and are good at it. Eric Johnson’s new job is as Jessica Simpson’s puppy dog, a decidedly non-male role. DS

Ken Blazek on November 18, 2010 at 9:26 am

It shouldn’t be relevant who makes the money.

But if its only going to be about the money, its not a match guaranteed in Heaven.

NormanF on November 18, 2010 at 9:37 am

Since I grew up in poverty, I have a different view. Men should always want to be the breadwinners, but if a woman wants to move to the next level with the right guy, and he can’t afford the ring she wants, good for her to go get it.

colt13 on November 18, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    In my view, a guy should buy his sweetheart a ring he can afford and if she wants to upgrade it later, she can. I’m still a stickler for tradition and no man should have to be put into the position of disappointing his true love – and its the promise that should matter more regardless of how classy an engagement ring is and I for one would never buy that kind of ring for a woman even if I could afford it.

    NormanF on November 18, 2010 at 3:43 pm


Thanks for the comment. I did purchase my wife’s engagement ring.

Love your site. I calmed down and realized I was overreacting like a liberal hippy douche bag.


Ken Blazek on November 19, 2010 at 9:41 am

Debbie, In our 20 years of marriage my wife has out earned me for 14 or 15 of them. She’s a successful Mary Kay Director. I even did the Mr Mom gig for the 1st 3 years of our little guys life, while working part time at UPS. I don’t think I’d ever trade the time I had with my son for time at a job. I’ve even been seen driving a Pink Cadillac on occasion. Her income recently got us though my 7 months of unemployment after my employer shut down.
I purchased her ring, but she upgraded a couple of years ago. I don’t feel like a girlie man, hope you agree.

irishguy on November 21, 2010 at 10:37 pm

So women who make a lot of money should only be “allowed” to marry men who are richer than them? Because if one marries a man who makes less than she does, that automatically emasculates him?

….I guess I should be glad for my not-great-paying job, then. At least I don’t have to choose my spouse from a tiny pool of rich jerkass celebrities.

Then again, if a man stops being a man just because the woman he married makes a lot of money, he probably wasn’t much of a man to begin with.

(And, BTW, the implication that gold-digging men are a recent trend? Try reading a few books written before WWII.)

Really, now. on December 17, 2010 at 5:38 pm

I would be more concerned with marrying a vapid party chick, regardless of money. Jeesica’s not much.

Occam's Tool on February 1, 2011 at 5:52 pm

In a glance this writing is like a slap in a face for men. However, it is the opposite. It is a blunt wake up call for men to reclaim their manhood, to put back their own testicles and wear ’em proudly. Simpson and Johnson are just the pawn for this article, a sliver of a bigger underlying problem brewing inside our nation. Solid article. Good work!

Chanuka Erdita on December 21, 2011 at 5:54 am

rule #1 …if you draw the queen of diamonds boy, she will beat you when she’s able…
rule#2…the queen of hearts is always your best friend…

panhandle on June 8, 2016 at 1:26 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field