Is this merely a more complicated way to say “why buy the cow…
…when you can get the milk for free?”
An excerpt:
If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we’d be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it’s all thanks to supply and demand…
As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships…commences only when women decide it does. And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren’t asking for much in return these days””the market “price” of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options””more supply for his elevated demand””it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be.
But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It’s not that the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it’s that there’s a growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically meet””on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large numbers of twentysomethings””women outnumber men by significant margins.
Somehow I think this article may engender a fair amount of heated discussion.
Yes, it is the law of supply and demand. Like the price of gasoline or wheat. Those men- just not good enough! And those women- just helpless to the merciless law of supply and demand that confronts them.
“As a result, in many of the places where young people typically meet–on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large numbers of twentysomethings–women outnumber men by significant margins”.
I was born 30 years too early.
You seem to have missed the dissenting voices of young men who are not happy with what has transpired.
Read . I’m not supporting this viewpoint. Just letting you know it exists.
Here’s a summary.
1. Women spend their late teens and twenties pursuing high achieving, high income men (“alphas”). They sleep with dozens of men who “pump and dump” them.
2. In their earlier 30s, these women become desperate for marriage and motherhood, and they then condescendto date average men (“betas”).
3. These women feel that marriage is owed to them, even though they’ve eschewed the traditional sexual roles.
Not surprisingly, these betas (the majority of men) are very cynical about women. They wonder why they supposed to march in to marry women who’ve been sleeping around in the hopes of landing the Donald Trump of their dreams.
The betas are well aware that they are a desperation choice for women who failed to land the big bucks alpha.
I can see their point. When the women finally decide they want traditional marriage and motherhood, the betas are supposed to take the spoiled goods.
There’s something to what you say. But, there is another side… probably many other sides.
These issues of supply and demand are not new. The impact of WW II had the same effect, and this skewing of the market led to a great deal of what we remember about the culture of the late 1940’s and 50’s.
Sorry, the link didn’t work.
I’ll try again.
Roissy in DC.
As the father of a 9 year old daughter I find this article kind of depressing. She’s an extraordinary girl (yes a fathers pride and all that) but this certainly does not paint a rosy picture for her dating/marriage/family choices in the future.
What values do I teach her so she can find a build healthy relationships with men in the future. So she can keep her dignity and still meet a man who truly appreciates her AND respects her. If this is accurat (and I have no reason to doubt it really) than… ugh…
When I was 21, I swore an oath to God to maintain a husbands-only policy, and now at 47, still single and celibate, I can confidently say that it was by far the smartest damn thing I’ve ever done.
The old sexual “taboos” weren’t rooted in superstition, sexual repression, or any of the ugly things that the oh-so-wise college students in the sexual revolution insisted they were. They were ancient wisdom, born of the same kinds of sad observations that we’re making now.
Shouting Thomas, I was also going to link to Roissy, haha.
I can kind of see this issue both ways – I have been exposed to Shouting Thomas’s list of points, and those guys have a point, so to speak. One of the major tenets of that movement is that women’s expectations for men have been wrecked by Lifetime/Harlequin emotional porn, see this article -> http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/emotional-pornography/
One thing which often goes unstated, a guy who follows the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) tenets espoused by Roissy etc are doing a lot of free diddling. They think that women deserve to be pumped and dumped because they are spoiled brats who hate real men. I don’t subscribe to the notion of consequence-free sex, so I believe that a large number of sexual partners is inherently bad for both men and women, and will lead to less and less real relational satisfaction. So a men’s rights man is not going to end up happier than a slut.
So those of us who are not in the pump and dump scene are pretty much out of luck either way.
Shouting Thomas (above 3:20) seems to be drawing from and Dicentra (above) seems to imply much of what is in the following link:
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
It’s lengthy and somewhat strident in parts, but I recommend it because it raises many interesting questions about traditional relationships and where we go from here.
But as to women’s sexual behavior looking like men’s behavior, isn’t that what the feminists goal was all along? Men have it all and women need to rip their share from men’s domineering and patriarchal fingers.
I’ve always believed that the feminist insistence on abortion-on-demand was for no purpose other than to allow and insure promiscuous sex for women. To eliminate the threat and long-term obligations of pregnancy for women was the ultimate of leveler in the field of male-female relations.
Shouting Thomas makes good points, especially the point about women who condescend to marriage. The harsh reality is that most women do not find most men good enough for them; this is in spite of their ability to land the ones that are. Things such as current divorce laws also play a part.
The interest in free milk is partly due to the inflated price of the cow.
Sorry,
“the ultimate of leveler in the field of male-female relations” should be
“the ultimate leveler in the field of male-female relations.”
A number of recent factors work toward reducing marriage. One is the age of first marriage has dropped greatly since 1960. When people married young, working class kids found a spouse in high school. Middle class kids found a spouse in college. A sorority girl who did not have a strong prospect her senior year was concerned. In both high school and college you have an age dense situation where you are surrounded by the opposite sex your age and single. When people delay marriage to extend their education and build a career, they don’t look until after school. Then they are shocked to learn their work place has no single people their age. Most men over 30 and worth a damn are married. Women don’t dump a man unless he has big negatives.
Another factor is men and women no longer need each other economically. In a day when people had little money and when food came raw and in large sacks, a woman who could cook and sew was an asset. When women were precluded from the work place, a man with a steady job, any paying job was needed by women. She stayed with her father until a man with good “prospects” was available. In many ways the government has replaced the working man for women.
Another factor is what is called the mating gradient. Women tend to seek men equally successful or more successful than themselves. Because women are doing so well educationally relative to men, they have to marry down if they are to marry. Many women don’t wish to do that. If you want to see the future of the American family, look at what has happened to the black family. Marriage is fading fast. In the 1950’s blacks had a high marriage rate.
Another factor is the sexual revolution which has worked well for men in the short run. As they say, why buy the cow? Actually, there are some good reasons such as the wealth accumulation possible over time by couples. The economic differences between black and white households are overwhelmingly explained by family form. Black families tend to be single parent, female headed. White families tend to be married couples. Another reason to marry is to have another person around later in life who cares about your welfare.
But seriously, coming back to this thread, I defy anyone to claim it doesn’t bother them at all to know their significant other had someone else prior. Especially knowing they are the “beta”.
@dicentra: My wife, while not having been a virgin when we met, made a decision similar to your in her early 30’s. Indeed, the “alphas” weren’t all they were supposed to be. We met and married 10 years later (full disclosure: I was married before), and she has no regrets. (arguably that she married me indicates impaired judgement, but no matter) Best of the same fortune to you.
But seriously, coming back to this thread, I defy anyone to claim it doesn’t bother them at all to know their significant other had someone else prior. Especially knowing they are the “beta”.
You can’t speak for other people.
I’m an old guy (61 years old) and I’ve buried two wives.
No, not everybody worries about the sexual past of their spouse or girlfriend.
I’ve lived a pretty rowdy and wide ranging life. I’ve lived in San Francisco, Chicago and New York City. Human sexual behavior and attitudes are wildly varied. There is intense pressure on people to conform to accepted sexual mores (and, in fact, your posting is part of that pressure).
But, I’ve found an astounding variety among people in terms of their sexual attitudes, behavior and mores.
When people consider sex and reproduction as two separate and almost unrelated things as people in our society do, all sorts of weird and unintended consequences follow.
its porn so its men, not feminism…
sure…
problem will solve itself as a large majority of those familial lines will have committed a form of genetic suicide to extinction. (but they did have a good time).
its even more interesting that with each of these bubbles and changes, more women work, fewer men work, and so what we will have is men sitting around playing Nintendo watching sports doing nothing much (We are incompetent after all, but maybe we will be metro-sexual pretty lions). while the women raise the kids, keep the home, work the job, and pay the taxes to be distributed to all the welfare who cant work.
you go grrrrls!
Artfl, if you were referring to my post, I was not saying that it is men’s fault that they are not Harlequin Hunks. It is women’s problems that they got addicted to that schloss which was written by women.
by the way, in this version of marxism, men are like capitalism, no matter what we do we are the ones to blame, so we are to blame for not having them liberated,now they are liberated and laws favor them, and the state courts them and funds them, its mens fault too. its also the men who run fashion that they have anorexia (Even though mens mags have decidedly healthier models than womens mags). if your not involved with it or a part of it and step back its rivals Monty Python or the infinite goof.
us guys been warning about demographic warfare and all that kind of stuff, and been laughed at, told we havent gotten laid, are chauvinists, and in general had the idea of family destroyed… now there are complaints that its matches more what the guys said would happen, than the false promises that were given to get there?
we are blank slates, so the women can turn hypergamous behavior off, and just support the men who are way too stupid to work, or do much. havent you seen the commercials? the television shows, movies, t shirts, educational policy, etc? slow on the uptake, eh? has to reach crisis proportions with no way back before anyone acts. too busy with global warming, polar bears, and assorted crusades with the idea of fixing society (to reflect 1850 prophecy).
How about a white-guys-only scholarship program?
dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/02/how-about-a-whi.html
The thought of it may set your teeth on edge, but hold on. Some demographics might surprise you.
really? no! tell me it isnt so?
Colby Bohannan said that when he first applied to college, his family didn’t have a huge stockpile of money set aside to pay for school. He found many scholarships for women and minorities, but none aimed at people like him: white men.
well, thats why i dont have any degrees.. that process started long ago… being as women are hypergamous, they will not generally mate with a male they support (in the way that a male would support her). ergo, a wonderful way to SOCIALLY ENGINEER OUTCOMES for the disfavored groups.
immigration would have to some how let lots of numbers of others in so that the reports and such wouldnt reflect the population shift and finality of what is going on. no wonder margaret sanger is celebrated.
we live in a situation where the extrapolation to the end result is negated by the fantasy of the end result. and if any one questions the destination, or tries to illustrate it, they defend the dream and march willingly to the end result.
texas is already too far gone to recover says the math…
certain select groups (who are major wealth suppliers in tax redistribution) are below replacement…
More stats on the girl-boy gap on Texas campuses, from the Coordinating Board:
Females in Texas surpassed males, 6.5 percent to 5.0 percent, in their fall 2009 participation rate. The female-male gap has steadily grown since 2000 when it was just 1 percentage point (5.4 percent versus 4.4 percent).
and the NIH offers 90k extra for each woman or minority you have on your research team… so i guess those guys who went to school to be something can find something else to do.
but dont worry, SBA 8A program also slams one group in favor of women and minorities also.
and dont worry, Obama made a whole bunch more such offices of favoritism…
Social engineering, it isnt what its supposed to be, eh?
but who cares? lets have some more fun!
what do you mean we ran out of money now and a while into the future and we may have to eat dried rations?
What is so urgent that FEMA is spending a billion dollars on survival food?
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/1FeedbackAllbody.lasso?-token.specificitem=21535.112112
oh, and the idea that there could be some funding for older men who would want to do more and better? ha!!!
i would have and do have as much chance of a paper mache dog chasing and catching a steel cat as it ran through hell…
i would laugh but the crying gets in the way
RE: FEMA buying emergency food.
Of course FEMA stocks emergency food supplies, that makes sense. The level of FEMA’s purchases picked up after 9/11/01, that also makes sense. What is interesting (but not necessarily sinister) is that under Obama there has been a significant uptick in FEMA’s purchases of dehydrated food. Check with almost any company in the business and they’ll tell you they are having a difficult time keeping up with governmental and private demand.
Part of what drives private sector demand is uncertainty. Obama has provided plenty of incertitude. All in all, to many people civilization is looking very fragile. I’ll stop now because I’m way off topic, sorry about that.
To put my 2 cents in, I put our current rotten situation with regard to families, the relations between the sexes, procreation, children, and general “satisfaction” (as the Stones wailed, “I can’t get no satisfaction…no, no, no”) down to a combination of several major, often inter-related, cross-fertilizing, and potentiating trends–the decline of the traditional Christian and Jewish Churches/Synagogues and their teachings, doctrines, codes, expectations, and religious traditions that had maintained and supported the traditional family, the Left and Feminists deliberate attempt to smash the nuclear family and traditional family life, ties, and relationships –lots more dissatisfied recruits that way, and a society with such cut ties and fractured relationships is much more fragile and thus more able to be smashed or re-molded to their desires, combined with scientific/medical advances i.e the pill, and lengthened life spans, political changes–two World Wars and several smaller ones, the income tax, and the growth of the State, technological advances–the interstate highway system, the typewriter, telephone, automobile, airplane, television, and computer, and the unavoidable economic, demographic, and social consequences thereof, that, in concert, lead to heightened and often unrealistic expectations of “satisfaction,” destroyed traditional sexual roles, the traditional family, and family and neighborhood proximity and cohesion.
Back on topic….
The sexual revolution of the 1960s was in part a good thing. Women began to recognize their own sexuality as a healthy aspect of their personality. Nonetheless, it obviously produced many negative consequences for society at large and many individuals in particular.
Artfldgr notes the social engineering aspect to almost everything the left does/supports. He’s correct that there is a purpose behind their efforts. There has been a decades long effort to demoralize and demonize white males and the left has been able to overly feminize society. This is bad news from my POV. Not because there is anything wrong about the yin side of things, but the relationship of yin and yang has become unbalanced. IMO, we have too much yin. (Was our culture too yang weighted before the cultural upheaval of the 1960s?)
Parker,
A point I’ve made here before:
IMO it’s less about feminizing our culture and more about “misandryzing” our culture (if that is even a word). Women good, men bad!
I’ve worked with and for women and rarely have I found a truly anti-male attitude, yet that perception seems completely ingrained in our national dialogue, our legal system and even expresions of our popular culture. And it’s repeated over and over; the white Christian male is the only group that can be insulted, mocked and disparaged with no repurcussions whatsoever.
e.g., The Duke rape case (guilty by accusation, have you seen any apologies yet?), the jokes about the new version of Barbie (Divorced Barbie, she comes with Ken’s house, Ken’s car, etc.), even the Van Dyk add showing an overweight sweaty man on a treadmill as his svelte well-dressed wife remarks that “he’s a work in progress.”
The wholesale entrance of women to formerly male-dominated careers has added much to our character as a country and has improved the workplace. Yet saying that, a more feminized workplace is not better because it’s feminine qualities are better than male. As you point out, the yin and yang are brought to a balance.
I don’t think our culture lacks that balance as much as we think it does, but I certainly believe that our national dialogue is completely out of whack.
Title IX and (maybe or maybe not) unintended consequences.
My medical school class of >30yrs ago was 6% female.
All US medical schools are now majority female. Not all of those females will practice medicine full-time. We’re cranking out less than 1 FTE (full-time equivalent) MD per slot. as opposed to the bad old days. This is not helping the doctor shortage. It is actually rather stupid and was utterly foreseeable.
Regardless of what the TV tells you, most women MDs will not be blow-and-go acute crisis intervenors, which is what you need in the ER, in surgery, in cardiology, in critical care, in the middle of the night.
He went that whole post without mentioning the changes to family law that have made marriage a crappy prospect for most men.
He also didn’t touch much on the fact that it’s the top 20 percent of the males that are getting around 80 percent of the sex. Lastly, he totally ignored the skirmishes between sex pos and sex negative feminists about “hookups” and the term “slut”.
And I first heard of that study he’s talking about over a year ago: Baumaster’s findings are well-known, and its an accepted fact that whenever the sex ratio skews too much one way or the other the sex that is less represented in the population comes out ahead in the sexual marketplace.
Still, it was a good beginning level article. I wonder what he thinks women should do..go all Lysistrata?
Here is a useful article by Roger Devlin that explains part of what is going on:
http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pdf
My niece is supporting her boyfriend, a uneducated, underemployed/unemployed extremely directionless, unambitious young man. She is working hard, doing well in her career and is in the prime reproduction years, she wants a child, but is unfortunately wasting her time with a young man who is finding himself and is directionless. (she is 27). Now perhaps he will eventually get it together, (he is 26) I have nothing against him personally. It definitely takes some of us a little longer to figure things out. However, I am concerned that she has such poor judgment in living with this person who is basically a man child, who is wasting her time and her biological clock. He seems to have an awfully good thing going, but she is allowing this to happen and is really hurting herself. Of course we can’t tell her any of this. Oh no. She won’t have it. So, she’ll probably have a kid and then expect everyone else to take care of it. Who knows. It’s troubling. This is a case of Why Buy The Cow Indeed?
D, my wife, and I talked about this subject after dinner (lamb tacos) and she has this contribution:
Young women in the 60s wanted to have a place of importance in the ongoing cultural revolution, and sexuality was the one area where they could be more radical than men. Hence, female controlled birth control & female promiscuity along with legalized abortion became symbols of power. There was little or no thought about long term consequences.
In my increasingly fulminant curmudgeonhood (“Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!”) it seems more and more clear to me that bearing and raising children – perpetuating the species – is the most important single activity of humanity. Everything else is secondary.
Mens’ role is secondary: providing the wherewithal for that activity to take place. It’s the joy and the curse of a species that is sexually dimorphic not only anatomically but in most other relevant respects as well.
We pretend otherwise at our peril, and to our sorrow.
Yes, Occam:
But you never ask yourself whether the modern global economy gives any crap about that at all. After all to raise a family requires some stability, and we just can’t have stability getting in the way of “creative destruction” now can we?
Sorry, too many “secondarys.” I must re-read before posting, rather than just dashing these things off.
The advent of agriculture destroyed hunting-gathering as a way of life, Brad. And so it goes.
julia NYC,
Sooner or later your niece will probably dump the free loading bum but if she has a child with him it will complicate her life for as long as she lives. What you describe is something I am so grateful I never had to face with my daughter.
Occam,
Kids crave structure, they seek boundaries, structure and boundaries make them feel safe and protected. Kids want the adults, especially fathers, to be in charge. We’ve turned all that upside down, but it remains true. Children need strong, firm, fair minded, and loving male role models. What has happened to a large extent is that society has attacked fatherhood.
In a sound and sane society mommy is the one who loves without conditions and strokes the child’s ego. Mommy tends to over protect. Daddy is the one who makes sure the child realizes the nature of reality. Daddy lets the kid climb the tree and if he or she falls and breaks a bone daddy takes them to the doctor, comforts them, and then gives them a lecture about “what lesson have you learned”.
The good daddy loves his children but lets them know he expects/demands they be strong, responsible human beings. Mommy tends to let the kids get away with things, daddy calls them to account. Many if not most of our social problems stem from a lack of good daddies.
She is working hard, doing well in her career and is in the prime reproduction years, she wants a child, but is unfortunately wasting her time with a young man who is finding himself and is directionless. (she is 27). Now perhaps he will eventually get it together, (he is 26) I have nothing against him personally.
This is why God gave us boots. To apply to the backsides of the indolent. To propel them out the door.
He needs to go. Now. Twenty-six is more than old enough to grow up and be a man. If he hasn’t done it by now, he’ll probably never do it.
One thing I learned (the hard way, as I’ve learned pretty much everything) in management: personnel problems have to be dealt with immediately. Left alone, they never get better, they only fester and become worse.
Having learned this, and receiving word of a serious problem back at HQ, I once returned from a meeting halfway across the country to fire someone (who’d previously been warned), then returned to the airport and flew back to the meeting. It was a lesson I taught to my direct reports: personnel problems go right to the head of the class. Drop everything else, and deal with them as your top priority.
This is a corollary of one of my favorite aphorisms: the wise man does immediately what the fool does eventually.
Well said, Parker. I couldn’t agree more.
Occam:
Did you really compare Bretton Woods to the advent of agriculture? Really?
And really, what is your point? That everything HAS to be the way it is now?
I agree with Occam’s Beard that reproduction is the most important thing humans do. We have evolved so that sex feels good and is “fun” so that we pay attention to that important function. Our genes demand it. To paraphrase a famous saying, a human being is how human genes make more human genes.
I also point out that we lived as hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years and have lived in highly technical societies for only about six thousand years. We stray from the early, highly successful model at our peril.
And….I agree with Parker that in a well structured family, the man is the firm, loving partner while the woman is compassionate, forgiving, and furnishes the unconditional love.
Once in a while, wandering the left’s fever swamps, you’ll find references to the need to destroy the institution of marriage.
And, once in a while, speculation as to whether SSM is a tool in that direction.
I don’t think those wanting to marry in SSM want to destroy marriage. Probably not. The concept, however, may be pushed by those who do.
See, marriage oppresses women, causes capitalism, provides personal growth that makes the state unnecessary, and makes Gaia unhappy. Or something. Anyway, it’s gotta go.
I am approaching sixty-six and recall the Sixties on campus and elsewhere. While all the guys, including the hippies, lusted after the sorority girls, the ones whose favors were free-est were the hippy girls. And there hangs an unfortunate tale. Women in the counter-culture or what was called The Movement, were expected to eschew taking an interest in looking good. It would be unserious, frivolous, superficial. And stuff. I swear, some women did not merely not take care, but went about looking homely. They were outliers. The farther out the outliers lie, the farther out the inliers can lie without being outliers. And there were some real sights wandering around college towns. And giving it away in order to have someone like them, to be part of The Movement, to be important. I happened to be involved in a long-term project mostly staffed by the counterculture, movement folks. My immediate partner was a sorority girl. She could have modeled eye makeup for national accounts, had bone structure to die for and a killer figure. Didn’t bother trying to look good. No need to. I had to caution–strongly–some of the guys with whom I worked to keep it polite when I was around. Jeez, they were interested in her. Not so much the earnest types with their frizzy hair–on their heads, I mean–and sandals like small snowshoes.
Were the guys hypocrites? Well, when with the movement-type women, they rolled the occasional eye about sorority girls and so forth. Thing is, my partner had an IQ of about 400 and didn’t take no stuff. But the act had to be continued.
Most unforfunate, but if you listen to others on how you should behave, you generally lose.
“… if you listen to others on how you should behave, you generally lose.”
Per 60s lexicon: Right on! Dig it! Power to the people! Off the pig! And, gee whatever empty devoid of thought gibberish I can scream!
And really, what is your point? That everything HAS to be the way it is now?
Divining my point is, as the expression goes, left as an exercise for the student.
Occam:
Sophist.
I’m sure you get the joke.
Occam’s Beard, Yes you are right. He needs his butt kicked out the door. Well. No one in the family is gonna do it cause she’s 27 and “loves him. He makes her happy.” Oh boy. She could have used a dad like you. More importantly HE could have used a dad like you. His own folks have spoiled him HORRIBLY. His father’s a well off attorney in a wealthy town and for some reason just spoiled this kid and now we all have to suffer. Well, my niece made these choices so it’s her own fault. Needless to say family gatherings are a bit awkward. No one feels like talking to him because it’s so boring and unrewarding. Then if no one does my niece gets mad at us cause we’re ignoring him. The whole thing would be pretty funny except if they have a child it’s gonna be sad for that baby. Thus lots of complicated stupid drama we will all be dealing with for the rest of our lives. And the thing is, my niece is not all that unusual in her situation. I have heard of this same thing from others. Curious times.
I recommend cats.
@ Shouting Thomas at February 26th, 2011 at 3:20 pm:
You have no idea how correct this is.
When I left college in the 90s and went to work at a tech giant, I was stunned by the number of friends I had who had just given up on women. These we good high earning guys. Not geeky nerds. The type of guys that fixed cars and did guy stuff. But they had just been kicked in the teeth by women too many times. They just dropped right out of the dating game.
My wife was also stunned that these guys just were not willing to play the game anymore. She felt so sad that all they saw in dating was them being stepped on.
Now it wasn’t everyone. The Indians all had their arranged marriage about 1-2 years after starting a real job. The Mormon’s had stable marriages and the Church helped them find a mate (really if you can hack the religion the Mormon Church is a fantastic dating service; many of the women are just stunning; but you have to buy off on the religious aspect). One guy I know was the “Larry the Lounge Lizard”. The women engineers resulted in the opposite effect (a 10:1 male:female ratio turned 5s into 8s, but they did think like the engineers which made the relationships with them very rewarding).
But there was a group of about 1/3 the average guys that decided “you can’t lose, if you don’t play”. They just dropped out.
I was contemplating whether I could add anything much to this discussion, but reading about Julia’s niece reminded me a bit of my niece, only in her case, she is in her early 20s, she never finished high school, and she has two young children with the same sort of freeloading bum. In her case, the freeloading bum lives with his parents who spoil him and don’t pressure him to do anything, and my niece lived with them for a while, but just moved back in with my sister. We’re hoping she gets her GED sometime soon and then gets some sort of marketable skill, but it’s certainly a challenging situation.
As far as the more general question outlined here, though, I’m certainly familiar with some of the male-female dynamics outlined in some of the early comments and throughout the thread. Although I have many friends from college who aren’t married for various reasons (and I am among that group), I also can’t help but notice the ways in which it seems like many of the men I know who have gotten married (or who were but have since had their wives leave) seem to have found themselves having to accommodate the misandry of their wives (and most do this by fully buying into the leftist worldview which their spouses share).
For evolution, males are cheap and redundant: there are always more of them than is necessary for reproduction. That is why natural selection is done preferentially on males, than on females: this reduces its cost. And so in males all genetic defects are manifest, while in females they are compensated and masked. This is the general rule for vertebrate development paterns. So, there are always much more of obviously defective males than females. Biology works against purely monogamous mating system, and women have to adjust to this fact. Sexual selection is the only way how human race can avoid degeneration, because natural selection does not work in modern societies.
These biological facts are the root causes for such universal institution as prostitution, and for existence of alfa-males making careers as jigolo.
rickl,
I have just the cat for those who have given up on women and men.
http://www.hemmy.net/2007/10/21/extreme-pets-fishing-cat/
Parker,
You are right about fatherhood being diminished, but in many ways so was motherhood and homemaking. I always resented the way feministics talked about stay-at-home moms. My greatest generation aunts (and my mom) were the most creative multitaskers I have ever known. They could kiss a skinned knee, referee a sibling spat, and make arrangents for someone to look after aging Aunt Mary in the hospital, all while canning beans for the winter or sewing their daughter’s prom gowns. In addition, they put dinner on the table for their husbands every night and handed him tools when he fixed the porch railing. In his absence they could have fixed the railing themselves, but they never let him know that–although I suspect he did. As these uncles and aunts died and we cousins gathered for the funerals, you could only look around and say, Well done! No Ivy grads, but a couple of dozen decent human beings who care about one another and contribute to society in various ways. I’ll take them over Gloria Steinem any day of the week.
No, I don’t know what a feministic is. My two typing fingers had a creative urge.
Pretty clear why feminazis hate Sarah Palin, eh? Kids, looks, hot manly hubby, successful, conservative. Traditional.
expat:
I love the expression on the black and white cat’s face: “OMG! It’s tasting me!”
And its cat toy appears to be a hand grenade. Nice!
This article strikes me as to the fallacy of social engineering our descendants will surely make note of. We favor this here and discourage that there through redistribution of monies and the application of “fairness”……Basically it’s as hideous as the concepts of eugeneics in its experimentation on human lives under the guise of making a better world.
I recommend cats.
I have three, thanks. Wouldn’t trade any of them for any ill-behaved brat out there, I don’t care whose genes the kid perpetuates. And I loved the Fishing Cat (although the chicken feather explosion isn’t something I’d want in my house).
As a straight, never-married male on the north end of 50, I well remember the early bra-burners and their ilk who said they wanted “equality” with men. Bullsh*t. They wanted dominance, not equality. And they’ve largely won in the popular culture. Try to find a “dumb” woman portrayed on a TV commercial or sitcom. Isn’t going to happen. But “dumb” men are so numerous, they’re a cliche. Especially white guys who aren’t gay. Add to that the advantages that women have in family law and EEO and educational preferences, and it’s pretty clear that men have become second-class citizens in portions of their own society.
Of course, when it comes to mating rituals, the reality is more complicated than just women running roughshod over men. Most women I’ve known haven’t been man-haters (most, not all), and I’ve had some good female friends over the years. (And I’ve known some pretty abusive men as well). But my relationships never went further than “friends”. The ones I liked best as “more” than friends all wanted kids. I never did. The ones who didn’t want kids (i.e., the “liberated” career women) I had no interest in being around. So there was a failure to connect at some fundamental level. Thus, despite a fairly high income, no known significant personality disorders, and average looks, I remain single.
And to be honest, I’m glad of it. I have a nomadic lifestyle that started over 30 years ago in the Army and continued when I got a job with a company that does a lot of overseas work. Now, I work outside the U.S. in various countries, sometimes six months at a time, sometimes for several years, but I move frequently, and occasionally to places that are fairly austere, and that rarely have opportunities for spousal employment. What woman in her right mind would want to get dragged along to all that?
Waltj said:
“Try to find a “dumb” woman portrayed on a TV commercial or sitcom. Isn’t going to happen. But “dumb” men are so numerous, they’re a cliche. Especially white guys who aren’t gay.”
A……MEN. I started noticing that a long time ago. Last “dumb woman” I can remember on TV is Gracie – George Burn’s wife. I may have missed some since then because I just don’t watch TV sitcoms.
As a straight, never-married male on the north end of 50, I well remember the early bra-burners and their ilk who said they wanted “equality” with men. Bullsh*t. They wanted dominance, not equality. And they’ve largely won in the popular culture. Try to find a “dumb” woman portrayed on a TV commercial or sitcom. Isn’t going to happen. But “dumb” men are so numerous, they’re a cliche.
Mostly right– I’ve noticed there’s one group of women that are supposed to be idiots– married, stay at home, traditional mothers. Walmart has some sort of in-store TV system, and they had a clip on a loop– I think it was the mom from “that 70s show,” but we don’t watch TV– small classic-50s looking wife character is getting in the face of a rather hefty 20-something black guy, saying “I know I a think or two about directing. I took a class called “a thing or two about directing!” (The idea was to figure out the punch line before she said the second half; I remember it because it wasn’t even amusing, let alone funny.)
Even then, though, they’ll be sweet, well-meaning, and smarter than their husbands. Elder Ditzes.
Steve D-
your daughter has the option of not playing; it worked for me, thank goodness. Since you’re worried about it, she’ll have a good male archetype to go off of; the guys with the sense to not sleep around seem to respond well to being treated as humans instead of sex-objects.
I was in Berkeley during that “fish without a bicycle” era. Straight white men were the wretched refuse of the earth, routinely and publicly deprecated in favor of everything from lesbianism to black men to vibrators, and blamed for all social ills, real and imagined. It was a delightful period.
Long story short, according to friends who stayed in the Bay Area (and who reported this with satisfaction), over the next 10-15 years a lot of fish decided that they would rather like a bicycle after all, but … too late. Some of the bicycles had left for greener pastures, some had decided that they liked bicycles too, and the remaining bicycles were too busy chasing the next generation of young fry (who were much more reasonable) to bother with them. So it was cats and macrame time.
(Bralessness was the best part of the era. “If we go braless, the guys will get used to the jiggling and stop paying attention.” Sure. Can’t miss. Go with that. /g)
She’s going to boot him eventually. Might as well do it now and get it over with.
Thank you for the compliment. The key is to contrive that problems redound to the detriment of those who caused them. That way your interests – that problems not arise – are aligned with theirs. The principle works, even if others bear the brunt of the problem, as long as the malefactor also suffers from the problem at least a bit. Moral: use prudence and foresight so you don’t cause problems, because you will be among those dealing with the consequences of any that do arise.
texexec: you missed quite a few since Gracie, although none of them are extremely recent. And although all of them were portrayed as sorta dumb, all had many other wonderful traits.
There was Edith on All in the Family, Georgette on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, and Shelley Tambo on Northern Exposure. Also, on Golden Girls, Betty White’s character Rose was pretty ditsy.
expat,
I agree society has also demeaned the value of motherhood. The new image is that there is something wrong with a woman who places child rearing above a career outside the home. And, your description of your mom & aunts matches my experience growing up in the 1950s.
I’m not surprised fewer men go to college. It’s a hostile environment for males. Think Duke lacross team. The faculty out leading street demonstrations agains the young men. They didn’t need evidence because they knew they were guilty. It fit the narrative, rich white boys victimize poor black girl. It just had to be true.
It’s like Dan Rather’s memos, they just had to be true, so no need to verify.
Neoneocon,
I wold except your inclusion of Edith Bunker. While she was written as “ditsy,” it was more in the character of unsophisticated innocent wisdom which, more often than not, proved wiser than Archie’s unsophisticated bluster.
I actually think the real dimwit of the family was Mike, the son-in-law, who was sanctimonious but lived off of the benefit of Archie and Edith’s hard work. But if one watches the show carefully, I submit that no one ever had the upper hand consistently. Mike was sometimes correct as was Edith and Archie and Sally. That’s what made that particular show interesting and long-lived.
Ray,
As per my point above (2/26, 6:54 pm) I think it has less to do with real life and more to do with the misandry of the national dialogue controlled by our elite ruling class and our legacy media (but then, I repeat myself).
T: I disagree. Edith is definitely a character the audience is supposed to like, and does like, and she has a native wisdom and a kindness that is admirable. But she is most definitely portrayed as being “stupid” in terms of book learning and general knowledge, and also naive about the world.
Neo,
Perhaps naivete about the world is something that characterized the entire Bunker household; each seeing the world through their own narrowly-defind perceptions.
The gals ARE in charge.
Their impulse to hypergamy is in full flood.
Now toss in Hollywood.
Women in the middle of the pack sorely overrate their mating power. They can have flings with top rank men but never marriage.
None the less, they burn out their best years chasing a fantasy.
Then, way too late, they’re brought to earth. For many, marriage is now impossible: they’re whales. For others it’s going to take in vitro to get a family going — and they’re now too old to enjoy the high energy demands of motherhood. Now, they’re completely drained. One and done will have to do.
Unfortunately, many women of my generation — boomer-libs — still don’t get that the Sexual Revolution was a victory for men (actually, boys). I was describing a situation exactly like Julia’s niece’s (that sort of thing seems to be everywhere these days), except that the poor young woman was going crazy over the bum’s refusal to marry her. I was saying “Why should he go out and hunt the wooly mammoth and fight the sabretooth tiger to earn his nooky, when not only does he get his nooky without working, but she goes out and hunts the mammoth for him?”
But my friend isn’t getting it. She’s saying, “No, marriage is a patriarcal institution for the oppression of women. Good for her!”
(BTW, the story has a happy outcome. Last month the young woman got up the gumption to tell the bum “Either marry me, or hit the road, Jack!” He acted like a man and not a boy and did the right thing.)
RS:
Assuming no kids, exactly what did he, aka “the bum”, do when he “did the right thing”, yielding a happy outcome?
Richard Saunders:
The Sexual Revolution was a “win” for hypergamous young women and the 15 to 20 percent of the most socially dominant and/or handsome male. Because of the changes of family law it’s also been a big boon to divorce lawyers. Women over 30, extremely ugly women, the very most beautiful women (assuming they want to marry the most desireable men as they did in the past) and the average Joe Schmoe schlub who hopes for more than very occasional nookie and a decent looking wife before she’s 35 are all the losers of this Brave New Sexual Marketplace.
Women over 30, extremely ugly women, the very most beautiful women (assuming they want to marry the most desireable men as they did in the past) and the average Joe Schmoe schlub who hopes for more than very occasional nookie and a decent looking wife before she’s 35 are all the losers of this Brave New Sexual Marketplace.
*growl* And women who don’t want to be sluts.
I know you’re far from the first to put out this theory, I’m just really tired of women like me getting ignored.
From the start, I wanted to get married to a guy that fit so I could be like my parents– going on thirty years and they’re still disgustingly sweet.
Yes, there are girls who don’t want to sleep around– they’re screwed in this no matter what they look like because guys figure anyone who will SPEAK with them and isn’t giving a blow job inside of three dates is either using them or wants to be “just a friend.”
The saddest cases are the ones who figure the only affection they’re going to get is if they sleep around, so they go out, get drunk, do things they don’t want to do and try to figure out why they feel empty, when everyone tells them that they’re living the high life by being an alcohol powered blow-up doll.
I’ve had to watch most of my generation swallow this lie and try to deal with it– now the girls in my class are getting close to thirty, and they’re still empty, getting desperate– doing blind hookups in bars, or they might be on a lesbian swing. About a third have given up on meeting anyone at all.
About a third of those I know were married are divorced– mostly because their husbands went out and got some on the side, before and after the wedding. One had a physically and emotionally abusive husband. I don’t know about the rest, may have just been too immature when they married.
Out of my entire high school, as of 10th grade, a group of us figured out that there were six kids who had no half-siblings and whose parents had been married before any children were born. My siblings and I were three of them, and the other three belonged to two families. One of those couples split after the kids graduated college.
Not a big high school– about 400, including the jr high– but all middle class to upper class, with a heavy sprinkling of the children of genuinely rich folks; this isn’t some inner city catering to single mothers.
Getting the milk for free isn’t good for anyone, unless you want to think the Charlie Sheen character type guys are “winning.”
A bitter take from Brad, and a depressing one from Foxfier. I feel for both of you. Seriously.
Bottom line: the distilled wisdom of the ages on how to live had merit after all.
Foxfier:
If your point is that only truly sexually alpha males are “winning” in this market OVER THE LONG RUN (because with exceptions noted I think most women want kids and marriage eventually)I will agree with you.
But there are plenty of late teen to early 30 something women who are perfectly fine with things the way they are. They dream of Mr Big from SATC, not Joe the Mechanic from Podunk. They are single women, many are urban and very educated. They are the SATC crowd, the are strong, and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. They are also the ones who have the most trouble adjusting when they find out they have a biological clock , that many men either haven’t succeeded enough to be good marriage material (to be fair, it is MUCH harder these days with a world wide race to the bottom in labor costs) or have no interest in marriage whatsoever esp not to one who has aged past her prime. Rather than get reflective and try to make the best of their situation many of them just become angry. And they are enabled in their anger by both feminism and the remnants of chivalry. These women will NOT change, and they have poisoned the culture for the better part of two decades now. For someone like me who lives in a big city, these (or their younger counterparts) represent the vast majority of women I will ever have the chance to date. I know things are different in the heartland to a degree and I know some communities like Mormons are still doing fine. But I’m not a mormon and I certainly wouldn’t pretend to be just to find and deceive a religious woman with scruples from into marrying me. I’m an agnostic /deist, no longer the conservative protestant I once was. Good luck convincing the vast majority of women younger than thirty in colleges or on the coasts or in the big cities that they should think your way and look at the “nice guy” I once was instead of some sexy badboy biker.
Anyway, I did a reply over at Susan Walsh’s blog, “Hooking up Smart” wherein I basically made a chart. Right now about 20 percent of women and 40 percent of men are almost totally shut out of the sexual marketplace.
Occam:
When I was a lad I read Aesops fables and many books of mythology. As a teen /early twenty something I devoured Ann Landers daily. My grandmother is very smart and has had a big influence on my life. I’ve never thought that the past was useless for advice, I’ve studied military history and tactics. So I agree with you that men and women (as groups) are very different in their needs and it’s best to try to match them up in a society that favors monogamy. Just because some social arrangement was done in the past doesn’t mean its wrong, and even if one thinks it should be changed for ethical reasons one should always try to figure out the PURPOSE of the social custom and devise a replacement first. Alas, no one did this when feminists launched the sexual revolution and we pay for it now.
But there are plenty of late teen to early 30 something women who are perfectly fine with things the way they are.
And there are plenty who are not.
I’ve met maybe a dozen who, so far as I could tell, were fine with it– and about a hundred times that who can’t figure out what’s wrong with them, that they’re not. Sometimes they get to talking, and some fraction of them choose the route I took– rejecting that meat market. I don’t know how it’s worked for them, although I do know the married couples I’m most familiar with in my generation are all geeks– we rejected the popular culture a long time ago.
Brad, I feel for you. I really do, because your experience now is reminiscent of the one straight white guys faced in the Bay Area back when.
My advice (FWIW): be who you are, not what others want you to be, or what you think they want you to be. The ancients said it more eloquently than I can: to thine own self be true.
The phenomena you’re encountering are ephemeral. On the bright side, fate is helping you weed out unsatisfactory mates. Anyone worried about worldly considerations (money, status, etc.) as opposed to who you are as a man, is someone you want to avoid. Pity those who fulfill those worldly considerations; they have to try to discern whether someone wants them for who they are, or for what they (currently) have.
All possessions are evanescent. Looks fade, hair falls out, money can be lost. Character endures.
But then, character is all that matters.
If it were, say, a hundred and fifty years ago, one could probably plan on marrying only among those you’ve known since birth in your small town. One historian, writing about the impact of disease in the Civil War armies, said that most guys hadn’t gone more than twenty miles from home before enlisting.
Hadn’t seen much of the Union before they went and died for it, as the stage manager says.
So the person in question probably had more of an idea that marriage was work, emotionally and mentally, instead of getting as big a bag of freebies as could be imagined.
Consider the young person going to live on the campus of Enormous State University. If there are eighteen thousand of the opposite gender, and you consider the top twenty percent in appearance as being the goal, then there are 3600 of them to pass by, sit in class, or in one way or another, fill your days and dreams.
One blogger mentioned finishing grad school in the Plains someplace and hearing a friend saying the most beautiful women in the world worked in downtown Chicago. So he moved there, married one, and moved back to the far ‘burbs.
Couldn’t do that a hundred and fifty years ago, or before that, too, so other expectations were required.
“Character endures… character is all that matters.”
Yes!
If you haven’t found that someone yet, don’t give up. Somewhere there is someone for you. Everybody needs someone to love.
Very long post, but goes into a (pretty accurate, I think) notion of what women “want.” (I fear he leaves out that a lot of women have been blinded to actual strength…but that may be the negativity talking.)
Foxfier: don’t you mean this?
Lots of interesting comments, most of which fill me with sadness.
At my advanced age, I spend far too much time reminiscing about my youth. (Ah, to be 25 and know what I know today.) One thing that is patently clear to me is that if I was 25 today, I would probably have no thoughts of marriage and would be spending my life frivolously as a ski bum and seasonal ranger. At eighteen such a future looked like it was made for my abilities and tastes. I gave no thought to the idea that eventually I might not be able to do all those things I loved. Nor that someday I would be old and need some sort of financial sustenance beyond physical effort.
Damn, Korea and the draft changed all that. I went to college so I wouldn’t have to be an infantry grunt in Korea. Ended up in Navy air and as far away from being a ski bum as one can get. Though sex was not regularly available outside the marriage bed I was determined not to marry until I met someone I could do things with other than sex. Things like ski, camp, climb mountains, read books, and talk, yes, long talks about many things.
It was my good fortune to meet that woman and she agreed to marry me. We were both older than average for marrying couples in those days. But age does not equal maturity. It was the beginning of a journey to maturity that took me more years than it should have. But my wise and charming wife supported me on the journey.
I agree with OB, our great purpose and achievement in life is our children. I wish I had known that 40 years ago. Well, I know it now and wish others did as well.
I thank God that some how we managed to overcome the ups and downs that come to all marriages. Here we are 55 years later – not skiing, mountain climbing, or camping much, but still reading books and talking. I would be a sad, lonely curmudgeon without my wife. Such a shame that few know this when they are young and making crucial decisions that will shape the course of their lives.
Of course, many of my decisions were, for the most part, forced on me by external realities of war and international relations. Sometimes I think I’ve just been one lucky son of a gun. If true, I’ll take it.
Whoops, yeah.
Curse having too many browsers open….
I think Devlin’s article is more truthful about what women really want.
Women, or so he says, are perfectly fine with one lover at a time, but they want only the best, whereas men value variety more and are thus more indiscriminate. Of course these are only generalizations based on women as a group. Just like men you have both extremely monogamistic and extremely promiscuous (Karen Owens of the Duke Sex Power Point) women, just differing numbers.
The First Directorate of the KGB was the most powerful. It was almost solely tasked with cultural transformation of anti-Communist societies.
Anna Chapman, the Russian ‘spy’ was just so tasked. While an agent — she never spied. He role was to pervert American cultural and political norms by ‘participating’ with native Americans as if she was an American, too.
She is but one of thousands of such agents placed here to put a cultural thumb on the scale of American thought.
—-
It has been scandalously revealed that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown owe their political careers to the First Directorate of the KGB. You see, when they were budding aspirants they needed financial support. Without it they’d have gotten real jobs. Using cut-outs, Moscow made sure that both magically found political patronage just when they needed it most.
Similar antics explain Bill Clinton and John Kerry. Central opened the doors for them. Clinton’s trip behind the Iron Curtain was obviously sponsored by Central. No one knew that the USSR would be dust before he got to the top of the pole.
The result is that the entire field of Western politicians has been skewed Left for decades. The current Democrat party has been entirely ruined in this manner.
Obama is another patronagee. He was an avowed Marxist in 1980 while at Occidental. Then he magically gets into Columbia.
—–
Which brings us to Feminism.
It was sponsored — like so many other ills — by Moscow. Using cut-outs and bulk purchases its early proponents were sustained financially. The intent from the outset was to destroy the American family.
Moscow’s money was ever available so that the raging lesbian cranks never lacked a pulpit to envenom the American psyche.
By juicing their book sales with purchases, Moscow has the Feminist howler monkeys rocketing up the NY Times best seller lists — gaining mass exposure. Humanity is a pack animal, especially conformist college coeds fresh out of the house, bonding in the sisterhood.
Feminist screeds went down like a Heroin fix.
——-
That Moscow would play such a patient game is a bit surprising.
Bezmenov’s eyewitness testimony spells it out — from a participants point of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo
—–
That a tremendous amount of popular culture is the direct result of professional anti-American manipulation funded by Moscow is something that one must come to grips with.
And so you can finally come to understand why this is an age of so many perverted social norms.
You are looking straight at state organized war against our culture. Upon reflection the KGB was doing to us the same crazy mental gymnastics that Stalin inflicted upon Russia.
helvetica
nope.. your post was not up when i commented.
its just the tack of ALL these articles…
$100 for any article that puts the blame where its due and printed in a mag like vogue, ms, etc..
its always blame the man
as its always blame capitalism.
its why the leaders and franfurt school called it CULTURAL marxism, not economc marxism.
economic marxism designates capitalism as the source of all ills.
cultural marxism says that white men (jews a subset) are the source of all ills.
they just targeted the group that was least experienced, most vain, most gullible and most likely to be very angry at an honest description, and so would violently oppose any negative truth… ergo a move to unreal reality is a given.
ergo, why the frankfurt school targeted them for this, and targeted them with SEX….
that they were oppressed, they were oppressed by other women through men, not the men. if it was the men, then the men would have had no problem stopping it…
just cause the cheating manipulative socliast class says something to you doesnt mean they are being honest, expecially when they also claim no such thing as morals, and their ideas are unchanged prophecy from the 1800s..
it is sex.. as it all started with sex communes!!!
moses harmon and his bisexual daughter…
the elite with alltheir sex games.
duh… in the absence of a future we can see..
their prophecies and designs all make a kind of sex society of elite who can partake any pleasure, including murder during sex… and a victim class to provide it…
ie… the most forbidden things are still forbidden them… like sex with many children and animals at the same time… with some necrophila and paraphilism and sadism thrown in for spice.
until they can have that again, as they did in the past, they feel they are oppressed by the people.
the damage and everything else is just cracking eggs until we can heat up the world and mold it to what they want…
your point and others as to how much sex and such, was all worked out in 1917 in soviet russia… where they learned that doing this was like a social nuclear bomb if you can deliver it
when kolonai said love should be free as water
lenin said, who wants to drink from a dirty glass.
but look how the leaders of russia are permanent.
they may switch seats, but they dont leave…
and the life expectancy of the public is 56..
but you see.. one of the things that allowed the common man to oppose aristocracy was that industrial revolition expanded the life times of the underclass.
wealthy aristocracy lived longer…
so the public had shorter memories.
but with advent of medical and all that, the public now lived as long, and could remember!!!!
ah.. now it makes sense eugenics, euthanasia, and dumbing down and culture iradication.
its not to liberate women, its to enslave everyone.
yeah the women will get the blame, but they were stupid to support foreign political ideologies over their own mates. no? that somehow they computed that some stranger women who stated that they want to make a dictatorship were to be followed and their mates vilified. now that they are approaching demographic genocide, ooops…
not my problem, evne less now i am chinese by family…
the smartest women committed familial suicide by other means and called me and good men monsters to prevent any one from stopping them.
now we get testy that the men dont want to rescue such poor mating material!!!!!!!!!!!!
[genetically speaking they are the WORST possible mate!!!! ]
o, there are always much more of obviously defective males than females. Biology works against purely monogamous mating system, and women have to adjust to this fact.
this is well known..
its ALSO why men outperform women in STEM areas.
yuo have more idiots on the bottom (easy for a population to handle) and more geniuses on the top (more valuable for a population)
feminism basically denies the top and wallows in the asymetrical bottom existence.
so they alienate their mates.
they dont notice it, and rather than make honey, they make more vinnegar.
to go out into fly over country is to see lots of white college girls with african men who never work, and are gang members (Tatoos tell you a lot), and you can see that they think this is progress.
if they married a valid mate material who was black this would be neither progress or regress… but since its basically all they can get near, and the black guy is with them as his women are even less marryable… (And those that are, are more interested in marrying up, not a thug).
as far as the poor girl above who has a bum boyfriend…
you all are missing the comedy in it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that women and men are equal the same. so her supporting him and not working at all, is pretty much what 1950s women going to the beauty parlor and having 1940s shop keeprs model clothing for them, and deliver it, was like…
thats why it was supposed to be a boring gulag…
well, now the women are the bosses they have to support someone who they choose as mate.
not because that mate will increase their bank account..
would you have liked it back then if a man only was interested in women who he could put to work?
then why apply that to the reverse?
bcause we are not the same and the reverse dont work, and the political forceful denial of it and fecundation of it and all that, was to get us to adapt a failed system..
now why would enemies want us to adapt to a failed system when we were so healthy, unassailable and without par?
Yes, there are girls who don’t want to sleep around— they’re screwed in this no matter what they look like because guys figure anyone who will SPEAK with them and isn’t giving a blow job inside of three dates is either using them or wants to be “just a friend.”
thats because we got tired of buying two date women expensive meals…
i had even known women who had more than one date in an evening pre sex in the city…
but, all women lost.
sex is an overwhelming selector, so we oppressed ourselves to put it to the side *burka is extreme of th at).
when we did, we then saw that a smart woman who cared for her children and was faithful and good to her mate, was a better choice than miss jiggles (usually).
but once the oppression was removed, it was a race to the bottom till even hookers complain they cant attract (wich is why the new hooker gig in the city is to dress like a corporate woman… act like you like the man, and 30 minutes into it, tell him he has to pay for the rest of the ‘date’… i call it the peep show addiction model… which even if your not shopping you can get if yoru at the bar and friendly).
but you women who didnt want this…
you were the ONLY ones who could have opposed it.
any male doing so was a chauvanist and so was ignored. and your sisters made you feel like a traitor if you wanted what you wanted (which IS waht the majority of women DO want!).
so even today.. only YOU and your sisters can do anything.
it was Wilberforce and white men who freed the slaves, not the slaves.
which is a clue to what happened..
ie, the rulers convinced they were not rulers
despite having men plege a life of work and service to them, leave them safe and provided for, and asked them not to work but to live in a low income retirement all their lives. and would die for them, and more… who invented things for them to give them more time… who moved out of their way (but not fast enough) when tey wanted to work..
who changed all of society for them.
willingly changed it into a failed state at the behest of the women they love, and women who hated them!!!
Thats how much their men loved them..
they would give them ruin if they wanted ruin…
and since they were convinced ruin was the future…
thats what they got…
I’ve always believed that the feminist insistence on abortion-on-demand was for no purpose other than to allow and insure promiscuous sex for women. To eliminate the threat and long-term obligations of pregnancy for women was the ultimate of leveler in the field of male-female relations.
Belatedly, yes.
If the true objective was to reduce the risk of pregnancy and to make women “free” of pregnancy as a “tool of the patriarchy” in enslaving them in their own bodies (…okay; last I checked, prehistoric human females were pretty much good to go until the last stages of pregnancy and kept up with their tribes while there were buns in the oven–it’s only until “modern” medicine froze our evolution in a… well, this is getting off-topic), Planned Parenthood, et. al. would work on coming up with compromises for pregnant women, single OR married, to continue their lives as best they could up until delivery. We wouldn’t have a sophisticated biomedical ethics of abortion that explains exactly how a fetus is only a potential human being that can’t feel pain, how it’s not killing anything because a small, somewhat human-shaped collection of cells isn’t sentient yet, and it doesn’t have a right to the body it’s brooded in, and so forth.
If the actual objective were making women free to be pregnant (or not pregnant) safely without tethering them to the “patriarchy”, then it would be to remove the consequences of pregnancy (loss of job, loss of self-esteem, loss of health, loss of life, addition of a child to the family), not the consequences of sex (pregnancy, a living fetus). Unfortunately, this seems too fine a point, so instead we’ve got people who have convinced themselves that it’s perfectly fine to go on killing living fetuses while evolving increasingly complex theories of feminism and ethics to justify themselves.
The modern abortion movement got its legs when it was common for wives to die in childbirth and leave a brood of orphans; when family sizes commonly reached ten children and more; when modern contraceptives scarcely existed.
Women now have a decisive say on matters of birth and divorce.
The results are in.
They want far fewer children than their grandmothers endured.
They travel in a wider world — so their hypergamous impulse causes the sisterhood to over pursue alpha behavior consistent with mating success in the neolithic age.
This is most distressingly evident in the ‘hood. Black chics are hot and lathered for boyz with the violence genes — leader of the drug gang. ( There are no other kinds of gangs in the ghetto. ) Naturally, the offspring become evermore violent as the bloodlines go totally tribal.
Dr. Huxtable’s genes die in such competition. Neolithic genes are still out there, but they are a poor fit for modern times. They belong in a might-makes-right society: like 10,000 years ago.
Hollywood and others carrying the cultural torch hate STEM professionals. Such is irony: without them Hollywood could not be.
I repeat: Feminism and Liberalism as currently framed are alien anti-American crusades sponsored by our national enemy, Russia. Even after the Wall fell the Russians stayed at the harness.
Folks, hostile peoples have learned that America can’t be defeated coming through the front door. So they’ve shifted their game to the windows and the back porch.
Hence we have muslims pulling strings throughout government at all levels using oil profits to pervert our democracy.
We’ve got anti-Americans with a leg up in life courtesy of Moscow skewing our polity to the Left decade after decade.
We’ve got Red Chinese economic spies bleeding us of trade secrets on a staggering scale. The practice is gutting our economic engine and triggering the Greatest Depression.
We’ve got muslim money perverting academe with staggering intellectual frauds — like islam is a religion of peace.
Yet our ‘leadership’ drifts around with its collective head up in the clouds.
When all of the control circuits are being jammed with bunk the system is trashed.
Eventually, if you ignore the tiny termite, they will replace your homes structure with dirt held together with just a decorators touch of wood. ignore the damage, and eventually your house comes down. love the termites, and you learn what fait accompli really means.
Why Are Men So Angry?
by Kay Hymowitz
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-28/why-are-men-angry-manning-up-author-kay-hymowitz-explains/
she mentions the place i used to write on a lot before i did writing for mens news daily the way neo now does pajamas media…
so i had quite a large standing with the young not so happy male that kay is now tapping into…
Check out the websites like names like MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), Nomarriage.com, or EternalBachelor.com (“Give Modern Women the Husband They Deserve. None.”). Or read popular bloggers like the pseudonymous Roissy,
my writings are still copied
markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/03/artfldgr-on-sexual-harassment-laws.html
and at one time things got dicey as they found where i lived and visited me.
they even created false registrations
http://www.myspace.com/107092494
from kay
During the last few years researching this age group, I’ve stumbled onto a powerful underground current of male bitterness that has nothing to do with outsourcing, the Mancession, or any of the other issues we usually associate with contemporary male discontent. No, this is bitterness from guys who find the young women they might have hoped to hang out with entitled, dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling–and did I mention gold-digging?
besides its a woman telling us what men think (we cant tell anyone, women tell everyone how everyone thinks. )
so she isnt really going to tell you what men think, she is going to tell you what she thinks (and if you dont like it, get mad at the men).
So, is this what Susan Faludi famously called the backlash? Is it immaturity, as my own book seems to suggest? Is it the Internet as an escape valve for decades of pent-up rebellion against political correctness? Or, is it just good, old-fashioned misogyny?
the WORST is the next paragraph…
she ignores that they have been skewing the selection in favor or women not cause they score the same. or the 8A program, or a myriad of other programs…
so when she says this.. (forget the conclusion of this)
no… you see. if you get a half mile head start on the mile race, and we break even, you did not do it equally.
8a program… not equal
90k bonus to researchers to put you on the team.. not equal
no scholarships for certain groups…not equal
and i remember when the womens olympic team played that high school…
and of course women tried to play on mens golf pro circuit, but no one would let any man play the womens circuit..
you see, if a man wrote that article, he may even include a lot of what she put, which she put for some veracity. but never the conclusion that she did, as that is in no mind of any guy i met who doesnt love glee and is buying the dvd set (and gets their cues from female magazines).
the men dont mind meritocratic selection, and thats not what we have
though if you read women like kay, they will never tell you that behind women rocketing to dominate schools and degrees, was a system that ignored higher scores of males to over select them. (and lots of propagandizing in the schools, etc).
she is boiling it down ot not paying for dates.
but it turns out to be a whole lot more than that… the kind of thing in which Betty grable was so liked as a poster girl.
today these young men would say “what for?”, “That?”
they know their odds and every one that came from a home head by a successful mom, knows he has no place and will get kicked out and bad mouthed. while not all, it is a dominant experience.
why should he try to swim upstream when there is no one there that respects or wants him when he gets there? (and if he succeeded along the way, will clean him out. as the woman you meet, is not the woman you divorce).
hers is actually a typical “let me tell you what they are thinking” article. even the person themselves cant tell that kind of person that thats not what they are thinking, they know better than the thinker themselves!
Artfldgr-
Whiskey’s Place has a male perspective on the topic of that article. Pretty much the entire point of the blog is that white straight males are getting squeezed out of the popular culture.
Incidentally, I found your line here:
besides its a woman telling us what men think (we cant tell anyone, women tell everyone how everyone thinks. )
incredibly funny in light of the exchange I had with Brad.
Actually talking to some of the women who live the lifestyle being decried (and the guys, but that’s not relevant) I know that most of them are incredibly unhappy and think that something is wrong with them because acting like the most feckless of men doesn’t make them happy.
The ones that are happy are loud– unhappy ones, naturally, aren’t. Same way there’s no big marches of the guys who have given up on women, or the ones that are resigned to being an occasional bounce-back nooky before their women friends go after the next thug, creep or bully.
If there’s so many unhappy folks, it’s probably a system problem. Since I know people from identical backgrounds who don’t have the problem, and they fall under a specific subculture that involves doing what you think is best rather than what’s popular, it’s probably a culture issue.
This is backed up by Brad’s assumption that the women I’d been talking to were rural or in the heartland. (Other than the ones in my class, they weren’t, and the ones I went to school with weren’t culturally rural in the least.)
“why the new hooker gig in the city is to dress like a corporate woman… act like you like the man, and 30 minutes into it, tell him he has to pay for the rest of the ‘date’…”
That I must say hilarious. I’ve been wondering about the state of hookers for some time now, just because so many women look like hookers now, and I used to say, “how are the hookers going to differentiate themselves, when everyone now looks like a hooker?” Wow. So they are dressing corporate now, that is so clever and interesting.
julia NYC: I have often wondered that about hookers myself. What do they wear these days to differentiate themselves? I’ve heard that most hookers are not streetwalkers any more, but work online instead. That way, I guess they don’t have to dress differently than anyone else to be noticed, which is good for them because I think they’d have to walk the streets naked to be noticed these days, and even that would not be a sure thing.
I wrote a little bit about the issue here.
Many of these comments sadden me. I’m 25 years old and in graduate school at a prestigious university. One might argue that I have benefited from feminism, however, the downside of this sexual revolution is emotional de-evolution. Men don’t want to get married, and if I even *hope* to I am seen as weak and inane by feminists and like a desperate hag by men. Feminism did a lot for my career and my education, but honestly- the Gloria Steinams and Judith Butlers of the world forgot that I have a heart too. I hope this is worked out before I have kids (who knows, that might not even be an issue, right?).
Female hypergamy + 50 years of feminism = you ladies made this bed, and you can damned well sleep alone in it.
One of the major tenets of that movement is that women’s expectations for men have been wrecked by Lifetime/Harlequin emotional porn
Actually – although I agree with much of the men’s movement on the subject at hand – I believe not enough men work on making a woman feel as though she is living out her romance novel dreams.
It can be done. It is not too difficult. You merely have to be strong enough to accept a man’s role. A willingness to die if necessary to protect the women and children. Being a man is dangerous business. And not many men are up for it.
It is not the alpha money. (bikers) It is the alpha inner strength and courage. Fake it until you make it.
OK. The whale+elephant+rhino in the living room.
Those most susceptible to the left are abused children. Ideology has to find fertile ground.
And what do the abused have in abundance? Anger. It has to go somewhere. It goes into destroying the culture that did not protect them.
You have to wonder why the right can’t figure this out. BTW who are the biggest users of illegal drugs? Abused children.
Heroin
Pingback:Classical Values » Fertile Ground
Some further thoughts:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/02/fertile-ground/
Pingback:Forests of Trees
buy best moncler sale TgcUsNEa [URL=http://lepress.net/monclercoat/]moncler jacket[/URL] online YvACdGqu http://lepress.net/monclercoat/