However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
Winston Churchill
It’s official. There’s a tidal wave of books coming at us recounting the poor choices women are making through their 20s and 30s. First we had Accidentally on Purpose by Mary Pols, then Marry Him by Lori Gottlieb, and today VJ clued me in to a brand new book by comedian Julie Klausner: I Don’t Care About Your Band. Klausner, who once wrote for SNL, has written a “hilarious memoir, including the unsavory details of sleeping with a gallery of losers throughout her 20s,” according to her publisher.
There’s no doubt in my mind that as I read her descriptions of the vegan who adored the taste of his own semen, or the man who begged her for a threesome with another guy I’ll be busting a gut. She likens herself to Miss Piggy chasing after the “perenially indifferent Kermit, who just wants to hang out with his guy pals. Ms. Klausner states in a recent New Yorker interview:
I think our culture is seeing a generation of guys who are not quite able to meet the expectations of women who grew up with feminism and post-feminism, and who still want to be dated and courted and fallen in love with and all the other passive-voiced ways of describing quite active, traditional mating rituals that don’t exist anymore. I hate trend pieces about how “kids today” get together in groups and end up having sex with no strings attached until somebody gets hurt, but it’s very much a thing that happens, and not only to kids. My book deals with men well into their thirties who’ve never been married and are still reaping the “free love” rewards of the Sexual Revolution. So, you have men my age who want to hook up and hang out with no responsibility or expectations that they pursue a relationship, and women my age who are hugely educated and gainfully employed, who feel entitled to have sex with no shame—but then, still end up feeling terrible.
She’s right about a couple of things here. We are seeing a generation of guys who are unable to meet the expectations of women who grew up with feminism. It’s also true that men want to hook up without relationships, and women wind up feeling crappy about the sex they have outside of relationships. We all know that the dating scene is kinda screwed up. Then she totally blows it:
I do think men are always going to be more entitled than women—and this generation of men in particular feels more entitled than ever because now they actually expect to be pursued by women.
Men are always going to be more entitled than women? Didn’t she just say that it’s women who are making demands, who have a whole new set of expectations in the post-feminist era?
She continues:
I think what you see now is a generation of men whose dads never knew which traditions about “how to be a man” they should impart, and so the result is a bunch of kids in their thirties who are confused and totally scared—especially if they do want to connect with women and don’t know how. When it comes to gender identity for men, those questions have never been answered. Feminism was for women and men never had an equivalent movement or discourse in its wake, so of course the sons of men who witnessed the sexual revolution and feminism alike have sons who are meek and scared and feckless and twee. They don’t have the confidence that comes along with instructions—even the confidence of somebody who defies them.
First she blames fathers for not knowing how to teach their sons to be men. This generation saw skyrocketing divorce rates among their parents, and research has shown that kids from divorced parents are more likely to prefer casual sex, and are generally wary of relationships. That’s hardly surprising. Rather than assuming a whole generation of men were confused as to their proper role, we might ask whether sons had the opportunity to spend as much time with their fathers as was necessary.
Second, she makes an important observation re feminism. Since feminism was defined as an effort to counteract patriarchal suppression since the dawn of time, there never was a perceived need for men to have a voice, and there was consequently no system of checks and balances. Research does indicate that American men in particular have struggled for 40 years to determine their proper role in a feminized society, and if they are confused about mating rituals it’s no wonder. How can we possibly want equal opportunities and pay, but also expect to receive expensive gifts, including meals and outings?
Finally, she describes this generation of men as “meek and scared and feckless and twee.” If she really believes that, she should be writing books against feminism and the sexual revolution, preventing another generation of little boys afraid of their own shadows.
Please note that nowhere does Ms. Klausner take responsibility for her own choices. In fact, she describes a new mysogyny:
The sex is so much more present in sexism than, I think, ever before.
What a load of crap.
Hey, Julie, you chose these guys! You had sex with the NYU student with bedbugs. You had sex with the guy who put on a Holocaust documentary to get you in the mood. I don’t know if they were man-children or just odd, but no one forced you to spend your 20s with creepers.
My guess is that if someone could get Ms. Klausner in a room for a few hours, they could probably talk some sense into her. She’s just so afraid of pissing off her feminist sisters that she is reduced to giving interviews that actually make no sense.
It remains to be seen whether she’ll succeed in placating the feminists. Liesl Schillinger, writing for the Daily Beast, writes in response to the Gottlieb’s book Marry Him:
Let me tell you about the women I know who are unmarried in their 30s and 40s. All of them are beautiful and sexy by agreed standards. They’re not heartless careerists; they cook, dance, decorate, entertain, and dote on their boyfriends (when they have them). Their achievements, (which include, for some, single parenthood by choice) are the result of abilities, motivations and ambitions so central to their self-definition that suppressing them would have been a form of suicide.
A form of suicide? Really?
What of the misery of the sad, pathetic, partnered woman, stuck at home with a somnolent spouse or boyfriend who sits around watching TV and eating Chunky soup and won’t let her play her Netflix?
First of all, does one play Netflix? I just look at my queue. Secondly, why is a partnered woman described as sad and pathetic? My partner is neither somnolent nor craving Chunky soup!
Certainly, a woman would have to be a masochist to want to repeat the grisly “accident” of Gottlieb’s dating life; and the rank desperation she brings to the dating game robs it of any whiff of fun. One can see why she wants out. But not everyone does: Courtship is a massively multiplayer game whose rules shake down differently for each player.
The dating game is not fun. There is very little courtship to be observed in modern mating rituals. Most people would love nothing more than to find a partner so that they can stop dating.
It’s true, as she writes, that “the number of single women is rising in every age category.” What’s at issue isn’t her facts, but the conclusions she draws from them, and the mood of misogynistic hysteria that colors them.
Gottlieb is right that a niche generation, born in the ’60s and ’70s, find themselves in an unprecedented position. A vanguard of women in this cohort–not the majority, but a sizable flank—went about their lives the way ambitious men traditionally have. They pursued their dreams, sowed their oats, established their careers, then began to think about settling down.
Latterly, some of these women have discovered that the end game of this strategy is not working terribly well for them.
So….when a strategy is not working terribly well? As William Rothschild said:
What do you want to achieve or avoid? The answers to this question are objectives. How will you go about achieving your desired results? The answer to this you can call strategy.
Women who want to marry need to date strategically.
Schillinger does say one very sensible thing:
A man doesn’t have to be handsome to bolt—or to take umbrage at the suspicion that he’s being “settled” for.
Andrew Moore of AskMen.com responds in his piece Please Don’t Settle For Us:
We’d like to issue a preemptive response to all the women out there who are thinking about lowering their standards and giving us regular guys a second look.So, on behalf of single men everywhere: Thanks, but no thanks. Please don’t settle for us.
Don’t get us wrong; it’s awfully nice of you to let us spend the rest of our lives trying to make you happy despite our obvious deficiencies. We’re honored that you’re willing to consider letting us buy you a diamond ring — even though our eyes are the wrong color and you’re embarrassed by our lack of wine knowledge. Really, we appreciate it. But the truth is we’re just not comfortable treating marriage like an insurance policy taken out against the prospect of future loneliness — so, please don’t settle for us.
We want you to marry us because you love us, not because we’re better than the alternative of ending up as a crazy cat lady. So do us a favor: Don’t settle for us.
We don’t usually sit across the table from our dates trying to figure out what’s wrong with them. We get to know them. We learn their virtues and vices. As dating strategies go, it’s a pretty good system. You might want to try it.
We all get one turn on the carousel of life.
I grew up hearing strong, feminist women tell me that I could be whatever I wanted. They were right, and it’s truer today than ever before.
Just remember that it’s about what you want, not what they want for you.
Related posts:
{ 106 comments… read them below or add one }
Yawn. These quotes from Klausner just come out as blather. I went to the New Yorker interview for clarity and it just made things worse.
They're both scared because…they refuse to commit to a woman? And they're both misogynists because they want to have sex with women but don't want to commit?
Lesson: guys should fall in love with girls based solely on looks. Also, it would follow that the decision to commit is also based solely on looks. Because we all know love means omgletsgetmarriedandhavelotsofbabies.
First, excellent post in terms of the message about being strategic and setting objectives. Kinda funny, I'm a guy in a great LTR but I am really enjoying reading this blog on a regular basis, even though not much for me to apply. You really should write a book.
That said, you better be careful. You keep up this sort of thing and pretty soon you'll be branded a misogynist.
I’m at the point, frankly, where I’d rather deal with a misogynist with a copy of Tucker Max’s book in his backpack over someone in sensitive emo-boy clothing, because both are misogynists, only the one with the backpack is more honest about just how scared of women he is.
ROTFLMAO. Translation. All men are misogynists but I'd rather f*** ahem I mean “deal” with a Tucker Max type a-hole then a spineless emo-boy. The delicious irony here in this statement is that as sophisticated and intelligent as Ms. Klausner probably thinks she is, she is probably not introspective enough to understand what is leaking through from her sub-conscious in these words.
[One more time as Disqus disappeared my prior comments]:
Feminist, forgotten & furious? You've got no idea!
Ok, I've about had it. Sure, no one much reads my long comments, but worse, they really don't read much. Or know history. This has less to do with 'feminism' per se and more about crass & ever creeping stupidity. And an over weening sense of entitlement by some that goes seemingly unrecognized until their 50's, at which point thanks due primarily to senescence, they'll forget all about this 'painful period'. And get another dog/cat. Which is fine. It's a swell solution to loneliness, and if you do it through a pound/rescue, a very good thing too.
Let's start at the beginning. Feminists? Mostly Married! Bella Abzug, happily married. Betty Friedan, combatively married & divorced. Kids abound via both unions. Gloria Steinem? She of the famous 'shooting glasses' wicked intellect & burning NYC wit? Married late in life & now widowed. Radical & yes bomb throwing early 20th cent. feminist Emma Goldman? Had a decades long & yes tempestuous love affair with fellow anarchist Alexander Berkman, they also went to jail together when not plotting their next er…escapades. The founding of the American women's rights movement was by yes, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, famously married & happily (mostly) a momma to 7 children. (Yes, some like Susan B. Anthony were famously 'sexless'. One look might reveal why too. But she got much accomplished instead!)
So YES you can be happy w/o marriage. You can even beget children & mother children w/o marriage, after one and/or in the absence of male mate(s). You can and have been able to do this with or without the aid of 'feminism', for many years, depending on circumstances & culture. But it's probably never been easier to do so than today without the aid of any male input whatsoever. Desired, sought or not.
That's the point here. You either want & desire a family & 'children' or not. And if you're not certain? Time will make the decision for you. Earlier for women than for men, but ultimately the reproductive game waits for no one. Most women? Still actually want & desire a family & children. Certainly not all. There are a limited number of ways to accomplish this. Some more happier & direct than others. In the end, even if the 'feminists' might damn us for saying it? Many women deeply desire to have children & to raise them in the context of a loving intact family. (However defined). Many actually define their happiness this way for a significant portion of time:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/…
Strangely enough, many do see this prospect through. It's still difficult to find a decent mate, for anyone, but it's done. Every day. But typically earlier than later too, when in their 20's mostly. How is this 'magic' possible? How's it done? Mostly with some willingness to actually 'compromise' on previously implacable demands, or even deep desires. That's human. It's also what you might do & want to for love. The real thing. Those 'expectations' might remain to be seen in this new younger set, from or by both sexes too.
Like most of life, these life goals depend upon making certain decisions, avoiding others, and trying to achieve your desired ends within the confines of your life circumstances. The centuries long brutal oppressions of slavery did not abolish 'marriage' or children being produced & productively raised up within the confines of same.
How is it in the richest society the world has ever known, with the most educated class of women ever seen, and having demonstrably more money and opportunity than ever before is the institution of marriage now not only scorned, but mostly an after thought for a generation of these 'successful' women & men?
Simply? They missed it as it went by. In their 20's & early 30's, when in their bloom of relative youth & operational reproductive capacities. They were busy & otherwise occupied. It was not a concern of theirs then. Not a priority until, yes middle age. Now anyone can tell them that middle age is tough on everyone! We're now in declining health, mostly look like sad sacks, have troubles & concerns we never imagined as youngsters, and the last thing we need is to be dating again! The only reason to 'date' now is that you're already married! Otherwise we'd not entertain such horrendous thoughts, and everyone sane the same age would agree with these sentiments!
Life's like that. Sometimes opportunity sometimes knocks only but once. If it's a Beta at the door, it may indeed be pretty quiet too.
So No, don't give up on Mr. Perfect. He can & still might live in your cherished dreams forever. But please, don't give up on the prospect of love either. There's plenty of prospects at the pound after all. And it's always been a tremendous comfort in old age. No, really! [Sorry for the length]. Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'
“The dating game is not fun. There is very little courtship to be observed in modern mating rituals. Most people would love nothing more than to find a partner so that they can stop dating.”
That's an interesting statement because I had this conversation (admittedly tearfully for one reason or another) with several men I dated through the years–I would say “Everytime I enter into a new relationship, it is with the hope that it would be the last one. That I would be done having to look further, and hopefully be done with recurrent heartache at the hands of the next douche in line.” The men would invariably say something like “I never expect forever with anyone. I assume that all things come to an end, and that this inevitably will. Heartache is part of life.” To me, if life was a revolving relationship door and that was going to be my lifelong fate, I wouldn't even bother to date. I'm not looking for a short-term anything, really.
I am going to dispute your last point about women being more able to be anything now than ever before. The astronomical student debt burden, lack of employment for graduates at all levels, and degradation of college education's economic worth have all made the future pretty bleak for those of us about 32 on down to 18. At least, in America.
In my experience, feminists don't seem to have any more of an entitlement problem than non-feminists. At leasts feminists seem to recognize men's autonomy. All of the anti-feminist women I know seem to think that it's a man's duty to start, maintain, and escalate every aspect of relationships.
I know a woman who is 21 and she still lives with her parents. All she does is read books all day and complete a few household chores. She thinks she's Jane Freaking Austen by staying home all the time and being a “traditional lady”. Her plan in life is to wait for charming man to marry her, than be a housewife for the rest of her life.
And how is she going to meet this Knigh in Shining Armor? God forbid she start chatting up guys downtown or get Match.com profile. Her strategy is to coyly glance at the men HER PARENTS invite over for dinner, and hope the KISA will try and court her. No surpise that this has NEVER worked and she will soon be going into her 22nd birthday with no job, no money, no education, no man and no plan. That is what anti-feminist entitlement looks like.
LAC, you say some interesting things, but the interpretation is something that actually needs some expanding. So let's elaborate:
Quoting here from LAC above: The men would invariably say something like “I never expect forever with anyone. I assume that all things come to an end, and that this inevitably will. Heartache is part of life.”
Again. Interpretation. They're not telling you, 'I don't love you'. Or even 'I can or will never love you'. They're saying 'all things must end eventually'. So in essence, they're telling you different things, (and here we'll just have to go on blind faith, as I was not there to experience this as you were).
But it's actually stuff I do and have told my wife. Repeatedly, ever since we were going together in the late Pleistocene. 'I can not save you from heartache. I'll do my level best to love, protect, aid & comfort you when & however I can. But understand that I'll not be here forever, and I'll likely predecease you by at least a decade'. And yes, we had these discussions as 20 somethings dating. Worse? I straight up & told her outright: 'I'm a crank, and it's likely to get worse as I age'. As she says, I've been true to my word.
We can not protect anyone from the vigors of reality, any more so than we can suspend gravity if we sought it. We do not really know what tomorrow might bring. We can plan & dream together for a possible shared future, but we still can not predict it with any real lasting success.
For me? I'm hoping that the next 'douche in line' after me might get the same left cross that the one ahead of me got. Deservingly too. My wife? She'll do fine. She'll have enough money to hire some manservants to try and replace me for a time.
And don't even ask about that 'revolving relationship door'. When you're older and look at the Obits in the paper as the first thing you read to discover which old friend did not last out the week? You'll know then how transient life can be almost anywhere. And you'll miss them all dearly, and still carry their memory around with you like a cherished stone. Pretty soon you're moving more slowly due to all the added weight.
That all might sound condescending. But probably not as much as the next bit. First let's state for the record that the younger set today is starting behind the 8 ball for all the reasons you mentioned & more. Employment has been declining for 10 years or more. Wages for males of all sorts (even college grads) have been stagnant or declining for a generation or more. (EPI.org)
Still there are good jobs to be found. I know. As I mentioned on echidneofthesnakes a few weeks ago:
“I'm a small business owner. Our business is in no way, manner or form 'parasitic upon society'. We provide very good wages, highly flexible hours, great benefits and a good, steady working environment for our employees. Those that seek to do so can easily earn 6 figure salaries almost right out of school in our shop with a little overtime work. Those that choose not to, only get by on 'comfortable' salaries that would put most school teachers of similar vintage to shame. We always call back or contact our interviewees.
Our persistent problem is finding well educated candidates who can meet our evidently all too stringent requirements. We need them to be able to read & write English in complete sentences & paragraphs, and make a coherent, comprehensible argument for their assessment of the situation. Sort of like blogging but with some real math involved. (We've got programs for that too, mainly). Still about 80-90%+ of the candidates that come to us fail this simple test. College graduates all of them, certainly can't write an simple expository paragraph or argument to save their lives. And today? They might have to depend upon such frail reeds floating upon the otherwise barren waters.”
So there is hope. Hard work, a better understanding of where you are in history & a more rational approach to both dating & life might yield some promising results. No we can't eliminate all the idiots, dolts, neer-do-wells, or the slackers. After all, we even have to employ quite a few. But it's best to try and avoid some unique hazards in life, and I guess that's part of what this blogs all about. Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'
I think we need a working definition of the word “misogynist.”
My take: a misogynist is a person who thinks people should actively deny women opportunities based on their sex.
Refusing to hire woman at your company is misogynistic. Telling a degrading joke about women is misogynistic. Participating in a religion that won't let women be clerics is misogynistic.
Trying to get in a woman's pants is not misogynistic. Even we assume the Tucker Max/emo kid only wants sex, that doesn't make him a misogynist. If a man wants to limit his companionship only to women who have sex with him, that is his right. He is not trying to oppress women, he is just trying to get laid. It's a shallow way to live, but it's not misogyny.
Synthesis, I'm starting to feel uncomfortable about the level of blather coming out of women's mouths. Julie Klausner is a very successful comedian in NYC, she's clearly bright and quick-witted. So I just don't understand why or how she could offer up such twisted and illogical remarks in an interview.
Her claiming that men are all scared of women is self-indulgent thinking. It's like in the movie HJNTIY where Gigi is coming up with reasons her date never called back. He's intimidated by me! He's playing hard to get! No. He just doesn't like you.
The men Julie K. spent a decade having sex with were not afraid of her. They didn't give her a second thought, apparently. Now she's saying that the good men are afraid of her, but I suspect they just don't like her.
Yeah, I hated that quote about 500 Days of Summer. I liked it that he fell for a woman b/c she was listening to the Smiths. I was recently out to dinner with a newlywed couple and I asked how they met. It was on JDate, and he said that he emailed her because the number 44 was at the end of her name, randomly assigned by JDate. As a graduate of Syracuse, where the number 44 apparently has been worn by lots of famous athletes, he was charmed by this, obviously thinking she chose it. I thought that was charming – hell, all of our meetings are kismet in some way. Life would get a lot less interesting if is was only about looks.
I agree 100% here. This is a word that gets thrown around so much it rarely makes sense. It's intellectually lazy, kind of a kicking and flailing that feminists do to derail a debate, in my view. Here JK is using the word to absolve herself of responsibility.
I loathe Tucker Max and all he stands for, he's on record as saying women's low self-esteem is the gift that keeps on giving. Perhaps he is a misogynist, but hey, he's just giving women roles that they're actively auditioning for. Caveat emptor.
As for emo guys, I love them! I wrote a post saying they can be the antidote to frat poison. At least they're willing to tell you how they feel, and they're in touch with their feminine side. Would I choose one for a relationship? Not past the age of 22, no. JK was going to punk pop concerts at the age of 30, standing around for three hours hoping to meet up with the bass player. Who, by the way, was advertising very clearly that he was not looking for the yard and white picket fence. Again, caveat emptor.
Haha, Mike, I agree that's ridiculous, and yes, the leak is more of a gush.
BTW, why does JK say that the Tucker Max disciple is honest? Cads are known for their willingness to deceive women to get laid. If the emo boy is spineless, then he's not capable of that, which makes him a better bet all around. Of course, there are plenty of emo boys who are cads, and there are nice guys reading Tucker Max (virtually every college student read his book). She's dealing in superficial stereotypes here.
LAC, it's interesting that you point to a perceived difference between the sexes here. I do think men are more pragmatic, less prone to “fairy tale” thinking. Of course, if men are causing the heartache, they're less likely to be wary of the relationships that end. It's easy to say that heartache is a part of life when it's someone else's life. Of course guys get their hearts broken too, provided they risk them first. And that is what we're seeing less of today. In fact, at least until about age 25 or so, many guys will bolt at the first sign that THEY are getting emotionally involved.
Of course you're right about the bleak economic picture for young people. I believe that a significant portion of the college class of 2009 has still not found a job, and here we are ready to graduate another batch. However, I was specifically referring to the opportunities available to women vs. men. Women are achieving more than men in education, and making great gains in the workplace as well.
VJ: First, sorry about DISQUS, it seemed to be on the fritz last night. Second, we do too read your long comments, I read every word. Always worth the focus and effort.
Now, just to be clear, I am not blaming feminists here for the state of middle-aged women who haven't found a partner. You're right, the feminists you mentioned did not eschew love and marriage. Betty Friedan was on record as being horrified by the dramatic shift in sexual mores, as she felt that it was not “free love,” but sex without love.
However, today we have an army of feminists in the MSM, most notably Jezebel, Feministing, Daily Beast, etc. who have gone right back to:
There are many things women don't need men for, including motherhood if you're determined enough. However, nearly all straight women do want and need men.
So I'm saying, forget about what you were told growing up. You're not entitled to anything, most notably a great guy who will be available and still want you when your fertility is waning.
As you say, there's a lot of maximizing short-term pleasure going on, and every month wasted on a dead-end fling has enormous opportunity costs.
VJ,
I think you misinterpreted almost everything I said. My point when I mentioned the conversation I'd had with those men was the different time perspectives. I typically would not (and do not) embark upon an LTR unless I feel like the person is someone I could eventually build a life with. That life, for me, down the line includes marriage. The men, on the other hand, were essentially only planning to kill a certain period of time with me before going on to the next. Proclamations of love are irrelevant to the conversation.
And I disagree with your belief that we can only try not to hurt our significant others no matter who they may be. I am almost 30, and not once in my life have I EVER betrayed someone, cheated on someone, used someone for personal gain, broken up with someone, abused someone, or made someone's life miserable for fun. I can say this because I care about how my actions affect other people and act accordingly. I can certainly choose to behave in a decent and humane way, and there's no reason to expect any less from anyone else given everyone's ability to regulate their own selfishness. Especially if I'm an adult.
About the economic situation: I don't have a single friend who has anything less than at least 1 graduate degree. None of these people are stupid. Half of them have been unemployed or underemployed for years now and 99% percent have more than $140k of student loan debt. I am trained to be a tax attorney with 2 graduate degrees by necessity. After I graduated from grad school most recently, more than 80% of my class is unemployed. Some of them have families to feed and it has gotten way more than desperate. So, if you are serious, please give me your contact info and the city where you live (I have friends scattered all over the country), and I would be happy to have people send you resumes.
GudEnuf, I think my generation has raised an entire population with an entitlement problem. We've coddled and indulged our kids so much that college admissions officers refer to “teacups”: freshmen who achieved so much with the help of helicopter parents, that they break like fragile porcelain when left to fend for themselves.
Your friend is a case in point – why do her parents enable this ridiculous and irresponsible behavior? Aside from the fact that she's being a total mooch, they need to clue her in that Mr. Darcy has left the building. He's been underground for 200 years, and her quaint notions will undoubtedly lead to her writing a book in another 10 years.
I agree that women need to learn to meet men halfway in the mating dance. I say “learn” because we've contending with 10,000 years of evo programming here. Still, we are capable of adapting. We'll have to, or our genes will not survive.
Part of the problem with graduate degrees is that large portions of them have become dramatically less valuable than they once were. Perhaps the poster child for this is law; we graduate something like five times the law students we would need to fill the openings at most law firms.
In many ways, unless you can get into one of the top 10 or so law schools, it is not worth going.
MBA's are a similar thing; if you can't get one at a top tier school, I think it is not really worth it. The real value of those degrees is, in the end, the networking, so you want to be around schools with long history, major brand value, and large bodies of successful graduates. Possibly, if you are a real finance nut, there is some genuine learning to be found there that cannot be found elsewhere – I'd speak highly of Wharton, UChicago, and Stern on that front.
Probably your most valuable graduate degree at this point, unless you are an MBA who cracks into I-Banking and somehow keeps your job, is an MD. We need doctors. Badly. Full stop.
Anything else, in my view, is basically pointing you at being a teacher unless it's in a technical field (engineering, statistics, etc), and probably hurts your job prospects rather than helps them because it locks you out of a lot of entry level jobs (or, if you take them, people view you as somehow tainted because you couldn't get a job fitting your apparent stature). The bottom line is that a PhD in history doesn't make you any more valuable for the overwhelming majority of jobs in the world.
Partially related to the warped expectations of people in dating, the bottom line is that we've created an educational system with irrational assumptions, expectations, and behaviors. It does lead to problems.
Agreed. Though, the MDs I know have it no better. And they have a significantly higher level of debt because of residency and fellowships. A friend of mine is working on his fellowship and is $350k in at this point. He will never hit the principle on that amount unless he makes $500k a year and lives in a box in a cornfield. My own doctor who went to Duke and works at a pretty prestigious hospital in Boston says she tells all of her residents to drop out or move to Europe because she's not getting paid enough to balance her life and her student debt.
Can we also define feminist too while we're at it? It seems both labels are thrown about in careless fashion in an attempt to cast the other side as the enemy in a contentious show-down.
Julie Krausner is not the voice of our generation. She's a comedian who is saying edgy stuff to get a nervous laugh of recognition out of her audience. That's what she does. She entertains.
She offers up illogical and contradictory stuff because this is an autobiogry. In it, she's sailing through her own stormy seas of emotions, trying to make sense of the things she's done and the things other people have done around her. Let's face it, most of this stuff is illogical and contradictory because that's how emotions (and related behaviors) work.
I've always hated the word feminist because it always seems like the guys I met would throw it back in my face like “you feminist, lesbian, non-leg shaver, hippy, man hater” as if all those word were synonymous – or as if there was something wrong with any of those things.
I often bemoaned the lack of courtship when relationships were starting out – and then I felt guilty when guys did take me out to dinner or buy my movie ticket. On my first date with Inspector Climate we got hot chocolate (he paid – I offered), we went out to dinner (he paid, all sloth like, I thanked him profusely), then we went to the movies where I quickly paid for my own ticket in a state of total awkwardness because I felt bad. I miss the rules of dating, which I am sure were always fuzzy at best,but at least there was an expectation of what was suppose to happen.
I am hesitant to go around placing blame on either sex and find it really hard to generalise to all men or all women. It's like when I went to college I couldn't understand how Bush got elected because no one I knew voted for him. Have I met guys who didn't want relationships and hurt girls, yes. Have I met girls who have made bad dating choices, of course. Have I met guys who desperately want a relationship, less frequently than I'd like. We live in a society – well, if you live in America – that loves to place blame. “I spilled scolding hot coffee myself, I'm sueing McDonalds” why are we surprised when relationships turn bad that we'd say, “it's not me it's all men!” or it's “not me but all women”? It's so much easier than looking at ourselves and seeing what's really there.
OMG, I'm sorry but as a lawyer I cannot let McDonalds “hot coffee case” comments stand. Please read that case before you discuss it, because it had nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with McDonalds knowingly serving coffee so hot it could actually melt your face off. Here's a good summation: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Reinholt, this is a very interesting angle. One thing that has led to hooking up instead of dating is the delayed average age at marriage. That is a good thing, presumably, but it does make 21 year olds wonder what the point is of making any kind of real commitment. Two generations ago, people fell in love, called each other “the one” and got married after college. Now both men and women know that they're not likely to marry anyone they meet in college. It's not surprising that commitment would seem pointless in many ways.
Now we add to that the reality that opportunities for college graduates are limited. Young people cast about after college and when all else fails, many go to grad school, especially law school. More delayed commitment, and more experience with limited options. It seems that few people in their 20s have financial security, even when they finally do feel ready to meet “the one,” which leads to more delay, and so on.
The big problem I see with MDs is that it's pretty hard to become one if you don't already have your goals set by the age of 18. Kids increasingly do go for a baccalaureate afterwards, but that means asking mom and dad to pony up for two more years. Many can't do it, or don't want to. Finally, health care seems like a pretty uncertain field to enter right now wrt income.
You know who seems to have a pretty good thing going? Nurse practitioners. Here at Dana Farber they make about 150K with a 4-yr. degree. Not bad, even for Boston.
This is a really important point. We really are always better off asking, “What can I do to get what I want?” It feels so much better in the end to take control and take action, than to blame others. If we have a disagreement with one person, we can talk it out, reach a compromise, get more functional. But when we start blaming a whole gender, or a whole segment of society, we're playing a losing hand. Because there's no way that can get you any closer to what you want. It's always more effective to examine our own role, what we can or cannot control, how well our current strategy is serving our needs. If it's not working for ya, make a change. There are plenty of men and women both who could benefit from a bit more micro and a bit less macro analysis.
Sorry for ignorance in the mcdonald's case – wasn't there one where someone became overweight from eating to much fast food and tried to sue? You get my point though? we're sue happy. to the point where you have to sign insurance slips in yoga because yoga teachers are afraid you'll sue if you hurt yourself…
Well, personally, I think McDonald's and every other food outlet in this country that sells people contaminated, toxin-laden, unhealthy, void of nutritional value “food” that has caused an obesity epidemic in this country (along with a host of other health problems like fatty liver, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.) should be sued and shut down, but that's just me. And that is a post for another place. I just wanted to spread the word about that particular case because lots of people run around citing it as an example of lacking personal responsibility when in fact it kinda was–just on the part of the corporate behemoth.
And, as an aside, frivolous lawsuits certainly exist, but their proportion as a percentage is minute and they rarely get to trial because you actually have to prove the merit of your suit. We have torts for a reason–if we didn't, companies and people could just go on hurting others (and they do). Lawsuits are access to justice, and it's important to remember that.
On the personal responsibility note I will say that the older I get, the less people are willing to hold themselves accountable for bad behavior. And our society no longer holds us accountable, either. In America, everyone has this selfish mentality that is engrained in our culture. I think it's why LTRs are fading into the twilight. If everything is about what I want and never about anyone else's wants and needs, I can run around and make decisions all day long that hurt other people and justify them by saying “well, I was unhappy; unfulfilled; bored; not given 100% of what I want. I am not responsible for other peoples' lives or feelings.” Frankly, as an attorney it drives me insane how callously people treat their friends and lovers and are never held accountable for their actions.
Take, for example, a con man. He comes to your grandma's house and tells her some compelling story to convince her to give him all her money by preying on whatever weakness she has. Your grandma can sue that man (and rightfully so) for fraud and hopefully get her life savings back. However, if the same guy came to my house and did the same thing to me, except that he also flirted with me enough to get me into bed, I am shit outta luck. Because I slept with him, this is a matter of the “heart” and it is pretty irrelevant to anyone who matters whether or not he conned me. He gets to screw me, both literally and figuratively, and get away with it because no one holds him accountable. That's what I think we really need: accountability.
I have taken to (no joke) making men sign a contract before embarking upon a LTR. It's a wake-up call at the least that says “I will NOT accept behavior from you that is any less than kind, considerate, honest, and fair, and if you want to play games, then you'll have to pay for it.” I think if someone had to pay a fine if they, for example, slept with my best friend, they would be less likely to make decisions that negatively affect another person's life so cavalierly.
LAC, this contract idea is fascinating!
What is it? What does it say? Do guys really agree to pay a monetary fine if they misbehave?
I know you're a lawyer, but how can you enforce such a thing?
I have to know more!
Well, honestly, I don't know if I could enforce it or not. To my knowledge, no one has tried to enforce something similar. but, girlfriends who did things to their detriment in order to support their bf (who is usually pretty wealthy or famous to make this an issue) have been successful suing for support in the past. I think it could work because people are allowed to freely enter into even crazy contracts as long as both parties give informed consent and the crux of the agreement isn't negated by public policy (like, if I made a sex slave contract with a man, no court would enforce it because no one wants to allow people to be sanctioned for being a bad sex slave).
It's basically similar in structure to a pre-nup, there's just no marriage or expectation of marriage necessarily. The first section is about full disclosure, and attempts to make sure there are no scary details your potential LT partner wanted to leave out that would be a deal-changer. There's a definitions section (where things like cheating are clearly defined). There's another section on the terms of exclusivity (are we in a monogamous relationship?). There's a section on the rules of termination (to prevent break-ups via text message, for example). And there is a penalties section, which basically outlines a fine schedule for breaching the terms of the agreement. Both parties are bound, and both parties can be fined.
I wrote one of these up after I had a particularly heinous ex who was basically trying to screw everyone on the internet who had a vagina. It was the only time anyone had ever cheated on me. I asked him if he would have cheated on me if doing so would have resulted in a $10k fine and he said “absolutely not.”
A man recently balked at the contract idea saying “LAC, you can't make relationships into a contract! People are fallible!” To which I replied “Marriage is a contract. It's a legal document you sign which says that if you dissolve your relationship, each party gets redress.” People are fallible, absolutely. But people also don't care enough about other people to make considerate decisions and act honestly, which is all such contracts seek to do: enforce good behavior and punish bad. If it's so easy for me to just NOT act like an asshole, I don't see how it's so difficult for any other sane human to do so as well.
Well, that is most interesting. Keep me posted on any interesting developments!
“Marriage is a contract . . .”
It's a patently unconscionable contract of adhesion, is what it is!!
Love is a word that is grossly misused in our language, making it very confusing. The Greeks broke love between a man and a woman down into two parts, Eros and Agape. Eros is passion and lust. This is believed by way too many to be what love's about. The problem there is that Eros waxes and wanes with moods, troubles, etc. LTR's and marriages based on Eros are sand castles ever in danger of being washed away. Agape is harder to define, much more difficult to figure out. Agape is trust, commitment, faith, 'religious love' if you will. Eros brings people together, Agape welds them together, two souls with different aptitudes and capabilities moving together towards their shared goals.
I have often felt that we do 'sh**tests' of the other to see if Agape is present. Unfortunately, these tests are counterproductive, the results can be due to many other factors making the results useless. All they do is put a strain on the relationship. I don't know of any way to figure this out, other than to observe the other person objectively for a fairly long time. This is difficult when Eros is involved, so family and friends can be helpful here (just know their biases, for no one is a totally impartial observer).
Sad – I lived a long happy marriage, but when trying to describe 'us', I am lost amid fog, searching for words.
Hi, another lawyer here, but not an American one–a contract of adhesion by definition is where one party occupies a superior position and gets to dictate all the terms and conditions which the other party can take or leave. It's usually used to define insurance contracts in my jurisdiction, but am interested to know why you think a marriage can qualify as one when both parties enter into it on an equal footing. Is it because of all the divorce laws inherently forming part of a marriage contract once it gets dissolved which you feel are skewed in favor of women? There being no divorce here in the Philippines, I'd love to see LAC's take on this, since she's an American lawyer. I speak from my own cultural point of view, though, in that where I'm from, we don't consider a marriage as a contract of adhesion, and when I was working as a volunteer with abused women and children before, it's usually the woman who gets the raw end of the deal here more often than not.
LAC, I will say this as nicely as I can:
If you tried to get me to sign a contract to be in an LTR with you, I'd dump you so fast you wouldn't know what happened to you.
There is so much wrong with that idea that I don't really know where to begin, so I'm going to throw out a few points concisely:
1 – While I have no problem conceptualizing a relationship as a contract (or, really, in a more general sense, a “deal”), having a partner unilaterally propose one with the format of the contract already laid out (rather than leading with, say, a fact-finding session where we attempt to identify the common ground and areas of difference to begin to figure out what sort of deal framework would make the most sense) tells me that they view the deal as a hostile negotiation, not a collaborative partnership. This should be a deal breaker for anyone; if your partner views you as the foe, dump them. Now. Possibly sooner.
2 – Somehow I doubt the contract is drafted bilaterally from your language. Are you subject to these same fines and penalties, or more so, do you allow your partner to fully specify the list of infractions they would like you to refrain from and the penalties for doing so, thus ensuring adequate representation of their concerns, as the two of you are (hopefully) not identical?
3 – Given that women already hold significant advantages in the court of law with regard to actually accusing (and convicting) partners of crimes that they have committed, is there any attempt made in your contract to rectify this situation for men, given that these actions often also have civil and monetary consequences (as purely criminal is probably beyond the scope of such a contract)?
4 – Given that you are a lawyer and your partner is not, are you going to ensure they have adequate representation by hiring (and paying for) an outside lawyer to review the contract for them (otherwise, given that the agreement this is most similar to might be a pre-nup, it's going to be thrown out as unenforceable)? And do you really think it is reasonable to expect your partner to hire a lawyer and negotiate a contract merely to have a nebulous long-term relationship of the modern, consequence-devoid, dissolved-at-will variety with you?
Incredible. Just absolutely incredible.
If it's not working for ya, make a change. There are plenty of men and women both who could benefit from a bit more micro and a bit less macro analysis.
Just want to second that. My experience is alot of guys like to spend all their mental effort and energy on the macro as I think it appeals to the desire to analyze and theorize, when at least some energy would be better expended on making changes in personal behavior to get different results. Generally speaking at the individual level, macro analysis isn't going to fix the dating market, the employment market, or the healthcare problem, but each person can make changes to increase their dating success, chance for quality employment, and avoiding health problems in the first place.
I agree 100% here. This is a word that gets thrown around so much it rarely makes sense. It's intellectually lazy, kind of a kicking and flailing that feminists do to derail a debate, in my view. Here JK is using the word to absolve herself of responsibility.
I'm thinking a new law is called for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
In many cases, it really is used as a last ditch effort at shaming or ad hominem when the individual's argument or logic is falling apart. This blog is a good example of how reasonable men and women can exchange different gender perspectives in a civil way. Without hopefully sounding patronizing, some of the comments really encourage me that their are a good number of women who recognize their is some craziness out there and the pendulum has swung too far in one direction.
I'm sorry to hear of your troubles with relationships LAC. You sound like a really smart & capable lady, but this pre-relationship contract deal? Is probably a spectacularly bad idea in most instances. Might it be somewhat marginally useful for those 'high flying' , rich/famous alpha cads your GF's seem to be playing with? Perhaps as nothing else might. But then again this is assuming some residual rationality here. (Thinking about Tiger here, are short liaisons/trysts with various comely bar flys worth, what ~$200 Million in lost income?!)
So this? “I have taken to (no joke) making men sign a contract before embarking upon a LTR. It's a wake-up call at the least that says “I will NOT accept behavior from you that is any less than kind, considerate, honest, and fair, and if you want to play games, then you'll have to pay for it.” Is sadly & tragically profoundly silly & probably not too useful in the end. And it will tend to drive away even the most scrupulously honest contenders.
I've probably been married almost as long as you've been drinking. And honestly? Most days we do just fine, but my wife thinks it's 'unfair' if I 'over-share' in sampling what she's eating. From time to time. OK, Always. And I'm forever playing games with her. Mostly now, they don't scare her much. But that took some years.
She asked me awhile back when it was in the news if I'd ever go for one of those 'super-duper' 'Covenant marriages' deals, where in it's imagined that divorce would be more difficult to obtain. Nope I said, just give me the regular strength one. She agreed. If I've done something wrong? Tell me about it. Argue it with me if necessary. If all else fails? You should have the usual & customary legal recourse available to you. We have very few arguments BTW. But strangely enough though they seem to occasionally center on behaviors where I might be violating your contract.
Long story longer? If we agreed to this? She'd still “NOT accept behavior from you/[Me] that is any less than kind, considerate, honest, and fair, and if you want to play games, then you'll have to pay for it.” On average? It might happen just about every week or so. She still does not have to accept it either, and it's noted and either apologized for, or yes, I do pay for it. And we're still married after all these years. So go figure.
So Tweell also makes some valuable if well trod but still disturbingly obscure points about the concept of love & agape. I'd wish both for all. But getting there from here should not necessarily involve too many lawyers before the ceremony.
But it's a very interesting & sad perspective LAC. It's really disturbing to think that it's come to this. You likely either need a better BS radar, or to start playing with a better class of betas. And no, that won't 'solve' the issue you speak to, but neither will over lawyering the essential question. People are either generally trustworthy and/or honorable & try their best to remain so in & under most circumstances, or they're more likely than not, poor prospects for a love match or being entrusted with your love or affection. Period. The problem? The 'honest decent blokes' do come in all sizes & packages, but the really good looking ones, are yes, already/previously married. Or otherwise 'gone'. But if it's something deeply important to you as it is for most people, put it on the list ahead of 'needs to be at least 6' tall, makes at least a 6 figure salary, gone to an Ivy league school'. (That's just an example, your mileage/needs may vary).
But thanks for the amusement. Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'
I agree that there should be mutually defined agreements/definitions but I don't think a contract is the right format for it. At least for myself, I'd feel like I was being offered a seemingly harmless credit card loaded with hidden fees or a highly inflexible phone plan that I may not want down the line.
I don't think you have any intention of being sly or confrontational but there's no social precedent in the dating world (that I know of) so a guy's first reaction will likely be to wonder why you consider it necessary and his imagination may go wild (is she secretly the overly-possessive type?)
You could stipulate that both parties must revise and resign the contract after a period of time, but I don't think that'd make it anymore appealing. In fact I'd probably feel like I was paying my utility bills or something (ugh that time of the month again).
Perhaps this would appeal to a guy with a very structured and organized approach to life and some guys might enjoy it if you ask them to write up a contract and then you two harangue over it (you're giving him some control and first move). It could even turn into a game between you two but you'd have to set that mood first and it won't work for every guy.
So to sum it up, I think you should keep exploring this but avoid contract symbolism because it implies an arbitrary agreement dictated by one party. Instead, explore ways of making this a back and forth activity.
To add though, I don't believe financial penalties will ever work in the manner you want. You can't use money to make a guy faithful. If you find it necessary to include antagonistic conditions, I'd say it's time to find a different dating pool. No amount of rule-setting will get a zebra to trade in its stripes.
That link didn't work for me, so I'm printing it out here, because it's hilarious:
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
I love that, the differentiation between Eros and Agape. We've conflated the two in modern times, shortchanging the potential for Agape when we select a mate. I agree, it's that welding together of souls that makes the marriage work. When we rule out another person we've just barely met, we're saying they don't do it for us on the Eros front, and we're ignoring the need for long-lasting Agape. Also, I believe Agape feeds Eros, and vice versa.
Digressing from the dating topic…
VJ, I have never met you, and I am sure you are busy. May I please be bold enough to ask you for a short, private conversation about professional writing? You can send the phrase, “salmon pink newsprint”, to < jonathan@multivoiced.com >. I will reply promptly.
I think you took my post a bit too seriously, but yes the unconsionability aspect was a joking reference to skewed divorce laws that form a part of the contract. The adhesion part was a joke about the unequal bargaining power given that guys will do literally anything to get regular sex (even though it doesn't always turn out that way).
I love it! Hooking Up Smart can function as a job board! Making matches wherever we can….
I would mark it up heavily.
“Section 8.11. Sexual Access. In consideration of the onerous covenants made herein by party XY, party XX shall, from time to time, at any time, immediately upon the request of Party XY, perform of each of the following acts with genuine enthusiasm and gusto:
a. Vaginal Copulation
b. Fellatio
c. Anal Copulation
d. Cunnilungus if so desired by XY.
Such actions shall be perfomed at a pace and in such positions as shall be demanded at the time by party XY, in XY's sole and absolute discretion, and to party XY's absolute satisfaction. Party XY shall be the sole determiner, in XY's absolute discretion, as to the sufficiency of enthusiasm and gusto and other elements of quality of the foregoing services.
In consideration of the foregoing, XY promises to perform cunnilingus at the request of XX on no less than 8 occasions over any 30 day period (or, should XX prove unable to express such a request, at least 4 times over any 30 day period unless otherwise expressly requested by XX).
Section 8.12. Peace and Quiet. Party XX shall not excessively breach the peace, quiet and serenity of Party XY with any of the following: (i) unreasonable (i.e., any) demands for use of any remote control device, whether to operate the home entertainment system or otherwise, (ii) requiring XY to feign interest in any retelling of party XX's conversations with Party XX's circle of friends, (iii) demands that party XY shop with party XX on more than 3 occasions in any 12 month period, (iv) demands or requests that XY associate or socialize with any or all of the aforementioned XX circle of friends on more than 3 occasions in any 12 month period, (v) demands or requests that XY change any personal habit either (x) acquired prior to the date hereof or (y) determined by an independent panel of male arbitrators not to be really weird, creepy or annoying (which panel shall be comprised of XY's circle of friends until otherwise agreed by the parties hereto), and (vi) periodic unexplained emotional outbursts (excluding one such outburst every 30 days, which outburst shall last no longer than 20 minutes).”
Thanks Susan, I think we've hired all the folks we can down here in ATL. We've now run out of space. And although we love us some accountants, strangely enough we've got little need for lawyers. But I do think that LAC might have the genesis of an idea for a web based venture for her mad lawyer skills. There is indeed a 'sucker born every minute', and the web's the place to be for that! Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'
I especially love the male panel deciding what is weird, creepy or annoying, LOL!
Passer By it sounds like you are DONE with women and relationships! It's too bad, because willingness to go down 8 x's per month is no small concession. What a waste.
Wow. Well, I'll respond to everyone and begin by saying that I find it interesting that anyone cares if I'm doing this in my own personal life at my election (unless you'd like me to draft one for you, and that's a different story).
So.
Yes everyone, my group of incredibly intelligent, educated, confident, etc. female friends in their late 20s have run through a pretty ridiculous set of men in our time. Within the maybe 30 women I can represent there have been con men, rapists, at least one self-professed murderer, several physical abusers, a couple sociopaths, every imaginable personality disorder, married men, philanders, thieves, drug addicts, men with children they don't support, general losers, and just all-around run-of-the-mill assholes. Now, none of us picked these people knowing this information upfront (some people may do that, we generally don't). Men, as a species, seem to have an uncontrollable penchant for lying and behaviors associated with it. A friend of mine dated a man she met in college for 2 years before finding out that he was 15 years older than he claimed to be, was married with kids, and was selling drugs. In my dream world, she would sue that man for fraud, but she can't. These types of situations are the types that the law should deal with, since culture doesn't care. But the law does not.
About the idea of a contract: Generally, public policy doesn't like adhesion contracts which are contracts that are grossly one-sided. However, we sign them everyday whenever we buy an mp3, sign a cell phone contract, buy insurance, or get a mortgage and we have very little power to change the terms. Obviously, people weren't reading what I was saying thoroughly, because I mentioned that fines would be assessed to anyone who breached the contract–which means both parties. And of course both parties would have terms negotiated.
I don't know about you people, but this is essentially a codification of the discussion of the “rules” I have at the beginning of any LTR: these are things that will and won't be acceptable, these are what things mean, etc. Additionally, just so you know, very few contracts require both parties to be represented by an attorney, especially if the terms are clear–all that is necessary is that both parties acknowledge that they have read and understood the document and agree to its terms. My current bf's mother is a lawyer, in case you were worried. He'll be just fine.
Reinholt: I think it is fascinating that you think women have so much power to hurt men criminally. This must mean you're not a divorce lawyer or have ever worked with issues surrounding women. For example, I think every adult woman I know has been raped at some point, and not a single one of them have ever taken anyone to court. A good 1/3 of those women have been physically abused by a man, and none of those men have ever gone to jail. The #1 cause of death for pregnant women in this country is murder. So please, spare me the “men are so vulnerable to prosecution” line. A man is much more at risk of going to jail because of corrupt police than because of a vindictive woman.
AT: I don't think that a marriage contract would be called contracts of adhesion in any context. And similarly, other relationship-related contracts are also generally not, even if they are very beneficial to one party over another (like pre-nups, anti-nups, etc.). Likewise, this contract requires both parties to conform to certain rules of behavior, so they both of an equal ability to enter and be penalized.
I certainly don't expect signing a contract to necessarily change someone's character. What it does do is make someone think harder about their behavior and enforce penalties for horrible behavior. I don't think a fine would necessarily stop someone from wanting to cheat, for example, but that person would have a choice: breach the contract and pay me or just break up with me like a decent human being and screw whoever it is you'd like to screw. The entire point is a demand of accountability, which you won't find anywhere else.
What type of person am I to want to do this? An exceedingly honest one. As a lawyer, I am a bit obsessed with fairness and justice, and I always have been. I know that I won't be fucking anyone over anytime soon, but I can't trust anyone else to act the same way. So, this is my attempt at getting a little more fairness and clarity in my own life (and the lives of friends who have also adopted the contract). If you want to date me and you don't want to be a transparent and accountable enough person to put it in writing, then good riddance. I would like to exclusively date men who are adult and responsible enough to be able to control their own behavior, choices, and be honest enough to be accountable when/if they screw up.
And just so you know, I'm not some sort of frigid, angry, man-hating bitch which I can tell is the assumption from some of your reactions. I'm a funny, progressive, philanthropist. And the vast majority of my friends are male.
“Passer By it sounds like you are DONE with women and relationships!”
Damn, don't tell my wife! Nah, it's all in fun.
VJ,
My friends come in all stripes of training (I have a friend with an MA in Literature in ATL. She's also a classically-trained musician).
Some days I kinda wish I had the constitution to sucker people. It seems like those assholes always get ahead, whereas super-honest people like me aren't seen as that valuable. I like helping people, but I guess then that makes ME a sucker, huh?
My bf and I have a contract. The penalties are only for really heinous behavior like cheating or deception. We have our day-to-day squabbles and have no problem discussing them immediately, resolving them, and moving on. It's an insurance policy of sorts. I'm sad I didn't conceptualize it when I needed it more, because I'd be fucking rich.
I agree, I wish I and the people I know had a better bullshit detector sometimes. As it stands, it's gotten to the point where we really just don't trust anyone anymore. It seems like very few people in this country these days are immune to exhibiting narcissistic behavior. I think it's cultural, and I'm trying to move to Europe before it infects me, too.
“Within the maybe 30 women I can represent there have been con men, rapists, at least one self-professed murderer, several physical abusers, a couple sociopaths, every imaginable personality disorder, married men, philanders, thieves, drug addicts, men with children they don't support, general losers, and just all-around run-of-the-mill assholes. “
It's interesting that your apparent assumption is that these represent a typical cross section of men, rather than recognizing that many (most?) young women today have gone haywire in their selection process and seem inexplicably attracted to assholes, abusers and losers (to the detriment of stable (i.e., “boring”) guys who don't behave in those ways and who are rewarded for that with a bottle of Jergens).
I don't assume that at all. However, I must point out, let's say from an Uber Feminist perspective, that the vast majority of criminals of all stripes are men and a general majority of men admit to deceptive behavior in relationships. This blog is often about hook-up culture and how women can deal with it given that the newest generation of young men don't seem like they want to commit anymore.
And for the record, I have dated maybe 1 alpha male ever. So, Betas or more “boring” types are included within this group. That is, they at least pretended to be boring for a period of time before they showed themselves to be heinous.
I wouldn't say that list was “typical” but it is more typical than you think. For example, recently my bff went out with the nerdiest man I have ever met who's working on his doctorate at MIT. He was a tiny, glasses-wearing, robotic-voiced, effeminate stereotype of a nerd. He was nice for a month, seemed as harmless as could be, and then took to repeatedly begging my friend for NSA sex in a really creepy way. And I don't mean it's-creepy-because-I'm-not-attracted-to-you, I mean holy-wtf-I-think-this-might-be-restraining-order-worthy creepy. Over the summer, I went out with a Harvard-educated teacher in a WHEELCHAIR who turned out to be an asshole after 2 months. Should I have seen that coming? Really?
My point: this sort of shitty behavior is not relegated to a certain swath of men like “bad boys” anymore. Even when women try to self-segregate, this is the shit that happens.
I have to say that I am hearing more and more stories of “nice guys” acting like cads. I think it's a natural reflection of the sociosexual marketplace – being a Player, a guy who can treat women like crap and still get laid, is higher status today than being a guy who can attract and hold a desirable woman. Even guys without frequent opportunities will play the women they do get and consider it preselection.
If men perceive (accurately) that Alpha asshats are getting all the sex, it's natural enough for them to mimic that behavior.
From the women's standpoint, of course, if it walks like a cad, talks like a cad, pumps and dumps like a cad….
“Should I have seen that coming? Really?”
I honestly don't know, because the physical descriptions of these guys are not enough to give me insight. A holes come in all packages. I think you're focusing too much on the looks/physical dominance aspect of “alpha/asshole” status.
Out of curiosity, did these guys relentlessly pursue without regard to initial rejection or indifference? Or did she and you pursue them because they were too shy or hesitant at first? Ironically, women often assume that a guy who will invest a lot by pursuing her despite the threat of repeated rejection will be more likely to treat her well. In reality, it's a perfect strategy to select sociopathic A holes as mates because, in general, such a person would be much more able to overcome approach/rejection anxiety (given that the opinion of and rejection by the woman is not worthy of his concern). I don't know the history here, but just a thought.
Anyway, if one of your potential LTRs needs a lawyer to review and comment on your proposed agreement, have him look me up.
I was speaking stereotypically, given that disabled people tend to be more sensitive to shitty behavior because they so often bear the brunt of it.
As to the pursuit, in both cases I'd say the interest level seemed equal on both sides.
That was an interesting point you made. Some of my fav couples came together when the woman was fairly indifferent and the guy just wouldn't give up (myself included). If my current bf turns out to be a sociopath, I'll let you know. But fingers-crossed he's not.
Out of curiosity, what type of law do you practice? I'm wondering if it affects your perspective. I find that it generally does.
Corporate – M&A, securities, etc.
“That was an interesting point you made. Some of my fav couples came together when the woman was fairly indifferent and the guy just wouldn't give up (myself included). “
Ok – not what I've witnessed, but glad to hear it.
As a purely practical matter the contract idea seems ridiculous to me. A good, honest person, the type you're hoping to be with, won't need any such agreement to behave well (and will likely be appalled at the suggestion as well), so it's not doing you any good with him. Now suppose you're with a dishonest, disrespectful person and the contract actually works, that he suppresses his bad intent and treats you well so as to avoid having to pay a penalty; I ask you, is this the situation you want to be in? and the person you want to be with for any length of time? Hint: if someone is acting nicely toward you primarily because you have a gun to his head, and he wouldn't do so if you didn't, then you're not really in a good relationship (to put it mildly).
As a symbolic matter, though, I think the contract idea is fascinating. How much more loudly and directly can a person say, “I will not be mistreated!” I for one applaud your absolute insistence on not being mistreated. Everyone should insist on not being mistreated! and should insist on it up-front. If more people did, women and men both, then the world would be a much better, more welcoming place for the good people of both sexes.
The incarnation of the idea as an actual legal document seems quite goofy and misbegotten to me; but the underlying sentiment is certainly right on.
LAC, I totally agree with you re narcissism. It's truly an epidemic, and narcissistic women are rapidly increasing in number.
Nothing wrong with moving to Europe, but I doubt you'll ever be a narcissist. You're far too pragmatic, honest with yourself, and interested in fair exchange for that to happen. Though one needs a self-defense plan against narcissism, and your contract is certainly one way of approaching that.
Esau,
I see your point, and it's a good one. I will say a couple things in reply.
1) The truly good and particularly honest man I meet almost never. I got close with my current bf, but of course no one is perfect. So, this tactic is basically “If you're honest, you'll have no problem committing to it in writing” and then the point is moot. I've actually found that the “good” people are the ones who smile and say “what a great idea!” and the people who don't generally behave so well are the ones who balk.
2) If the contract works in your second example, then haven't I achieved the correct result of arguably “reformed” behavior?
3) Most people in the world act better with rules than they do without. In fact, that is why we have laws. We wouldn't need to have laws against theft or murder if people would simply refrain from this sort of behavior on their own. So, I would argue that if the rules get the person to act decently, whether or not it is in their nature to behave that way, then something positive has been accomplished. Though, I do see your point. And thank you for it.
I have to say that I am hearing more and more stories of “nice guys” acting like cads. I think it's a natural reflection of the sociosexual marketplace
Right. IMO, generally speaking men are “wired” to be logistical/operational problem solvers.
How do I get the cheese in the maze?
How do I bring down the wooly mammoth?
How do I get the p****?
Because men initiate/pursue and women choose, men are simply responding to what many women or at least the marginal (in an economic sense) women is selecting for in the sexual marketplace.
Game wouldn't be as popular as it is or men spending thousands of dollars if it didn't work at some level.
That said, there are subtleties and complexities here beyond just nice guy/Cad. As Obsidian has articulated well, Game is techniques and tactics and can be used to be a ruthless player that pumps and dumps or can be used to find and attract that right women for a LTR so you can't necessarily assume that every “nice guy” who is exhibiting some cad-like/alpha personality traits is a serial pump and dumper.
I started learning “Game” in 2005 at the age of 31 after a divorce. I met my current GF in early 2006 right before my 32nd birthday. When I met her I was “seeing” 2 other girls, and I knew I was finally at a level where I could probably have quite a bit of sexual variety if I wanted to go down that road.
After a few dates with her, I realized I had met somebody very special, someone who I might not find that level of quality and connection again in my lifetime, and I had to ask myself do I throw this away to rack up some crazy notchcount. I've been with her and only her the last 4 years, and I have no doubt that if I wanted I could pull SNLs or after a date or 2.
I don't think the twenty-something version of myself would have made the same decision. I suspect I didn't have the maturity or experience then to override biological imperative.
So what is the takeaway maybe to a female reader here? My advice would be that if you are a 20-25 year old or even 25-30 year old looking for a quality guy looking to commit and be faithful I'd target more of the 30-35 or 35-40 year old guys. There will be a maturity (at least for some) that generally doesn't exist in 20-25 year olds to recognize that finding a quality women you connect with on that Agape level is better then sex with 50 different women, threesomes, etc.
Reinholt probably meant a scenario like this: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/justic…
I would hope this offends your sense of justice too.
Esau, I agree about the underlying sentiment, and I applaud it. I've never heard of a contract, and I can't really imagine many guys willing to sign on the dotted line. But the real point is that LAC has taken control – she will not be a victim of cads anymore. Of course, the contract reassures her somewhat, but she knows she cannot really control human behavior, and I doubt she would have the stomach for a court battle. Still, the symbolism is powerful, and it speaks clearly to the fact that women can use objective reason in assessing their relationships, rather than just obeying the libido.
Wow. This is profound advice and I appreciate it. You can imagine the sad stories I hear from female college students…I often stress that the choices guys that young are making are not a commentary on any individual girl. It's just a reflection of where there heads are. These 20 year-old guys still need 10 years of aging, like a fine wine!
Once women graduate, they have more opportunities to focus on older men.
BTW, I love your story, your total recognition of your partner's specialness. She's lucky, and so are you.
OMG, that is the worst story! Say what you will about the Duke case, eventually those guys went to work on Wall St. This guy spent FOUR YEARS of is life in jail. And he is “not without sympathy” for his accuser? He's a better person than I am.
My goodness, you and your friends need to hang around different type of men…
I went to an engineering school which was 70% male, joined a fraternity of over 60 guys, and work in an industry which is probably 80% male, and I'm probably acquainted with on the order of a couple hundred guys. I only know maybe a dozen with significant issues, divided roughly between drug, financial, and sexual. Now, there is some number of divorced guys (but less than the average), and some number of jerks, but apparently jerks who are fond of their spouses and families. Yes, there are some that I'd consider “undateable” by any woman, but any woman should be able to tell that by the second date. So, I think you've been exposed to the wrong type of guys.
Now, my wife, who is a nurse, has seen through her coworkers (in a mostly female field), a set of guys much closer to what you describe. And meeting some of them at holiday parties, the jerks were immediately apparent to me. I guess I'd recommend getting some family/friend male advice on the guys you come across to help weed out the bad ones…
Thanks for the advice.
The majority of my friends are male, and it has been that way since I was a kid. So I wish I could say “I ran this by my guy friends and they were not okay with it” but it never happens that way, unfortunately. Trust me on this, as women who are frequently confounded by male behavior, we are constantly asking them to interpret things.
I can believe more guys are learning to act like cads. Heck, I did a lot of that myself. In some sense, today's dating world requires that for guys.
However, any woman ultimately has the final word…she can set the pace of how things progress. Acting like cad can make it difficult for a woman, but she can protect herself against it.
I played the aggressor to the woman who became my wife, but she wasn't helpless. I fondly remember going to a group dinner with her three married friends and their husbands…the fact she countered by doing that made me smile. She really wanted to make sure I was a serious suitor.
That's a strategy, getting male advice from family/friends. Just make sure it's advice from males who have no romantic interest in you (brothers/cousins/uncles/married male friends).
It does slow things a little bit, getting those males involved, but it can be worth it.
My brothers and I did that for my cousin, who was like our little sister. A lot of us guys want to see our womenfolk happy with their relationships.
I was reading an article on another blog, and this article was linked in a comment. A bit old, but relevant to this post I think:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_sty…
IMO, interesting article, mostly because of the glimpse into the psychological perspective and belief structure of the author:
A couple of excerpts I found very interesting:
“Where have all the men gone? Instead, we have an overload of man-boys – which leaves a generation of single, thirtysomething women who are their natural mates bewildered. I am one of those women.
I'd love to ask her what she means by “natural”. What is the basis for that premise?
“There is another option, of course. And that is that the whole generation of single man-boys start behaving like men. “
Good luck with that one. I'm a stock market guy and Buffett/Munger are some of my business role models. They have something they repeat often:
Incentives drive behavior
You married a smart, smart woman.
Truer words were never spoken. For the woman not rewarding these commitment-phobic men, life seems confusing. The problem, of course, is that she has very little control when women in aggregate are providing plenty of incentives in the form of commitment-free sex.
That Times article was very much on topic, and I thought the second comment was quite interesting, apparently by an author of a book on the subject:
The man’s view: try this instead
Most single men want love. But they are also terrified of failure, poverty and being trapped. They are scared of turning into their dads, or, if divorced, repeating their old mistakes. They are scared that their women will make them throw out their comics, their motorbikes and their dreams of writing novels.
It doesn’t really matter which type of man you go for – younger, older, divorced. What matters is that you go for him.
Personally, I think the divorced man is more realistic. He’s not like a young man who can’t commit because he yearns for a fairytale goddess whose heart he may one day capture. The older man just wants someone who won’t shout at him. If it takes her two minutes to get into the car, she’s ideal. If she’s giving, and laughs at his jokes, he’ll love her for ever. Give those bruised men a try. Stop expecting to find The One. Find someone, and give him love recklessly.
Or you can snare one of the single man-boys, but you must be cunning. You must wait for him to call but, when he does, you must be devoted and give him glorious sex in flattering lighting.
There is only one time when a man knows, for certain, that he loves his woman and will stay with her for ever: when she has just chucked him. The rest of the time he’s not sure. I remember the first time my wife said: “Let’s have children!” I knew that this was an historic moment. I must respond like a man. So I ignored her. Men’s heads are filled with confusion, fear and football statistics. And whenever they are made an offer, they always feel the negatives first – and if they can’t express them, they clam up like oysters.
In which case, trapping them may involve trickery. After five months – preferably during a three-day trip to Paris, so he can’t get away – you must say, lightly and just before sex: “I love every part of your life. I want to see you richly succeed. But you must marry me.” Then you must change tack and become very soft. You have touched on his deepest fears. Listen. Tell him to write that novel. Tell him that you love ELO. After a two-day sulk, which will be immensely wounding for you, he will begin to express his horrid, selfish fears, and thus you will be stumbling towards your perfectly imperfect life.
Try not to worry about what happens. Remember, there are also loads of men like me: the ones who hatched, and still went bad. We wish you luck. We wish you love. We’ll see you by the swings in five years.
— ANDREW CLOVER Andrew Clover’s Dad Rules is published by Penguin in May
That strategy really confounds me. I think being a nice guy is a product of ingrained personality traits and upbringing. I think these “nice guys” have asshat personalities who partially suppress it based on some incomplete social conditioning.
synthesis, I agree with your observation about one's true nature. However, you know that a guy who gets fed up with being “nice” because he sees the asshats getting all the girls will consider repressing his true nature to be more effective with women. I hear this all the time – really good guys tell me they've had it, they're learning Game, and they have no intention of treating women well any more. For most of them, it will become burdensome after a while, and they will settle into a LTR. Still, in the short term, it's not surprising that many young men will experiment with behaviors they perceive as successful in mating.
Yeah, but they're doing it all wrong. Take this for instance: http://sexademic.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/kindn…
A nice guy would have a pleasant conversation during the ride and at the end ask for her phone number and hope she would be interested in a date. How do I know? Because I am that guy. My parents are old-fashioned and conservative. I was raised to be prim, proper and polite. That's about all they did though. They didn't teach me to how to be assertive or how stand up for myself.
In Europe, they think American girls are sluts. Although, they seem willing to marry sluts anyway: http://www.nerve.com/personalessays/bard/lunch-…
Great blog, there, synthesis! As for assertive, I'd say you're getting there. You've got a lot of self-awareness, you're not blaming women, and you're reading up on Game. It's a good start.
Re the “nice guy” story you quoted–I once had a guy offer me a ride home from a party. I didn't know him, but he was a friend of friends, so I figured OK. It was St. Patrick's Day, about 3 in the morning, and I lived about 4 miles away. After we'd been in the car a very short time, he mentioned that he didn't have to work the next day, so we could totally sleep in.
a;lkdfja;ldkjfalskdj;alsdkjf
I told him immediately that that was not happening. He pulled over on the LA freeway and made me get out of his car. In the middle of the night. In four-inch heels. I began the long walk home. Ultimately, I accepted a ride from another single guy who WAS nice. I'm just lucky he wasn't a serial killer.
She is not a slut! That story was totally charming, and btw, she was the one who went after him – asking about his research at a conference, and then “inventing” a reason to go to Paris so she could see him again.
Hmmmppphhh. You nice guys should worship at the altar of such women!
And did you blow him? Ha! j/k
I forgot to put in something about nice guys learning Game before the actual nice guy approach. You can't just throw out a sexual request like that unless the girl is feeling it. If you're a celebrity you could get away with it, I suppose. Or Tucker Max.
Well, I was being facetious. I should have used scare quotes to indicate that “slut” in this context is a matter of preconception.
No, you're right. I was 19 the first time I went to Europe. I spent 2 weeks in London and Paris. Pretty much every single time I went to a bar or dancing, men of every imaginable ethnicity would come up to me, we would talk for a few minutes, and have an exchange that went like this:
Him: “You're American? So you're easy then?”
Me: “Uhhh…not THIS American girl, no.”
I was actually shocked that they said this TO ME given that if they were trying to chat me up, they just ruined their game.
As an aside, that was May 2001 so the other conversation any man would have after they learned I was American would go like this:
Him: “Your President is such an idiot. He's got the brain of a monkey and he's an asshole! Etc. Etc. Etc.”
Me: “Hey, don't yell at me! I agree with you! I didn't vote for him!”
Honestly, Clover's piece is an ineffective bunch of meaningless hand-waving, in the end.
Incentives do drive behavior. Until you change the structural incentives embedded in the system, things will continue down their current path (less commitment), not reverse.
You want more men to be willing to get into LTRs and/or get married? Change all the biased laws around marriage and DV, and make divorce an unpleasant financial option unless one partner really did do something wrong.
Change the incentives, and you change the behavior. You can argue about changing the behavior without changing the incentives all you want, but it's like trying to negotiate with a brick wall. Don't waste your time.
You can't fix this mess without fixing the underlying structure.
Interesting. Please give me an example of a “biased” marriage/divorce law and tell me how you'd change it.
Oh, I hate that! You're traveling, you're minding your own business, and someone wants to tell you why Al Qaeda bombed the WTC. Or why GWB was a terrible president. Get outta here!
Also, so true about American women abroad. When they turn guys down for easy sex, they often get this reply:
But you're American!
I agree about the underpinnings of the problem, and that these systemic root causes will have to be addressed before we see a shift in society/the culture. Still, not all men are equally deterred by these conditions, there is much individual variation re life goals, risk assessment, risk tolerance, etc.
There is much an individual can do to pursue their goals, and people will continue to fall in love, and yes, even marry. The churches will be booked solid for weddings come May.
One of the things I found interseting about the Times article was when she talked about guys willing to commit ten years ago, but not anymore.
In my experience, I've been burned by commitment. When I look back over my romantic experience, whenever I commit to a woman, the relationship dreails. Maybe the problem is something I'm doing or not doing when the commitment switch in me gets flipped. Or maybe the problem is the type of women I attract or I'm attracted to.
Whatever the reasons, I'm feel I'm being 'trained' to not commit. In fact, when I look at my relationship history, I'm often rewarded for NOT committing. And I have a lot of mixed feelings about that.
An interesting set of remarks. I'm fairly familiar with Gottlieb's perspectives, and have sympathy for them. Klausner seems lacking in some key insights, unfortunately.
I think that the underlying reason for why so many women seem disappointed in so many of their same age peers below say 40 is that men have very different incentives than women do today.
With women one gets the sense that many of you are just completely exhilarated by the sheer scope of the opportunities open to you — and you are pursuing them with gusto. This is fine, if that's what you want to do and find fulfilling. I have no issues with that.
The question then becomes — why aren't more men like this, relatively speaking, in these age ranges? Well, one reason is because we don't share this feeling of exhiliration. The opportunity to work oneself to death as a corporate drone or an investment banker or a lawyer or a reporter or whatever else is nothing new for men — it's the way it's always been. So some men pursue that and many do not. Fewer pursue it than before, however, it would seem. Why is that? Because men no longer *need* to do so.
You see, for women the main changes of the past decades have been the increased opportunities for them to do different things with their lives. For men, it's the same, but the “different things” are, well, different. For women these “new” things are careers and achievements and so on. For men, however, the “new” things are freedom, comfort, and playtime. The liberation of women and the relaxation of sex roles has given men more practical freedom to do what the heck they want to do — and often that involves a good deal of slacking. Because we can. Because it's fun. Because it's easier.
There is much less social pressure on men today to marry in order to be a legitimate person. That exists to some degree in the upper echelons still (high educated high income top 5% or so of society), but beyond that it doesn't really any longer. Men can stay single bachelors in guyland a LOT longer than they ever could before without too many adverse repurcussions — for example, it won't impact their job, where they can live and so on. And without the pressure to marry and have kids and be a “provider”, men can slack off, earn enough to do what they want in life but not much more, and spend time focusing on having fun. This is very much the “dividend” of feminism's erosion of sex roles for men – a very different “dividend” than was the case for women.
Women seem to have expected that men would pretty much remain like they were, except become more equalist in their intimate relationships and family life, and so on. In other words, that men would still have the same degree of ambition and drive and dedication to their work and their self-improvement despite the fact that they no longer had any distinct role to play in family life. This was a rather faulty assumption. Without a distinctive role, men tend to slack off and meander — because it is easier and more fun to do so, and it can be done without much penalty.
Women complain about man boys, but most men are still getting married, and increasingly to women who out-earn them. Women are still dating them, as Krausner's piece indicates. And they still get to spend a lot of time with their buddies, and the X-Box and ESPN and all that jazz. It's a win-win from the guy's perspective. People wonder at why men have higher happiness and life satisfaction than women do today, but this should come as no surprise — the dividends of feminism for men, in terms of the freedom they have to live life as they like, are huge, and men are using them the way they wish to use them.
I think it's disingenuous for someone like Krausner to suggest that men are confused about their masculine identity. That's nonsense, really. Men are still behaving more or less in a masculine way — video games, ESPN and cold pizza are all pretty darned masculine. What's missing? Classical ideas of “masculine responsibility”, almost all of which revolve around marriage and children. Those have largely gone away because the incentives to behave that way have gone away for men as well. Again, men still pair off and get married, and yes they change diapers and cook and so on — but the real pressure to be the straight-a responsible, driven, provider type of guy just isn't there any longer. It's replaced with a rather glorious sense of freedom — the freedom to enjoy life, simply put — and for men, that is often going to be defined in a way that doesn't involve responsibility to children or family — much less so than it typically will for women.
The irony is that the feminists saw marriage as a “comfortable concentration camp” for women devised by men to oppress and contain women. In reality, marriage was the main means to corral men into behaving in ways that are beneficial to children and the mothers of those children and, by extension, society as a whole. When sex roles were relaxed, the incentives for men to take seriously these responsibilities also flagged. I can well understand why women find this irritating — because these expectations that used to weigh on men were there for the benefit of women, and now that they are no longer there, women feel the pinch of their lack. Fair enough. But for the men involved, it feels very liberating and free. The man boys that are often described are having the time of their lives, really.
I can say that as a divorced guy in his early 40s I do not blame these guys for doing what they are doing. I don't think they're “unmasculine” for doing what they do. As long as they are satisfied with their lives, I don't see the problem, and I won't criticize them, really. I can understand why they like the freedom they have. I also understand the frustrations that their peer-age women have with this, but as you say it's the law of unintended consequences, really. Women seemed to assume that men would continue to act in the same way (at least in the areas where women wanted them to act in the same way, heh!) despite the massive social changes that were taking place. That was a deeply flawed assumption. For while feminism freed women from the constrictions of home life, it freed men from their own constrictions of family life and responsibility. Both were freed, but from different things. And while women flocked to take on what had previously been male roles in the public sphere, men simply retreated, over time, from some of the roles that had been imposed on *them* in both the private and the public sphere to become the new, liberated men. And most of them are enjoying themselves quite a bit. Liberation looks and feels different depending on where you are sitting, I think.
That is a fascinating theory.
So, tell me. does this mean that men on the whole are naturally lazy, unambitious, and irresponsible?
Because, at least my generation of women, is not struggling against the chains of motherhood and traditional roles as much as we are just working hard for what we want–which is generally inherent to our nature. Motherhood in particular does not make us responsible or caring–we are that way already.
I would not say “naturally” because I do not believe that the current state of play, largely enabled by technological advances that take us several removes away from the state of nature to say the least, is “natural” or in any way revealing of how men and women are “naturally”. It's just the present state of play.
I do think that men tend to be more responsible when tied to family life. There will always be ambitious men who are driven towards their own goals — we do not lack them today, either. The difference is the mid-pack men. If they are tied to familial responsibilities, they will tend to work harder and be more responsible than otherwise — that becomes their motivation — a motivation which would be less otherwise. Probably one of the differences between men and women.
Dan, I hear this a lot, and certainly those in Game circles would tell you that a woman immediately loses all respect for a man she can control. I think there's some truth to this, but committing to a relationship doesn't mean, or shouldn't, forfeiting control to someone else. For example, being generous in a relationship means being attentive to the other person's needs. But it's also important for you to be able to define what you want out of it, and be prepared to walk away if you're not getting it.
Of course, it may have something to do with the particular type of woman you're going for. Some women want to be “taken in hand” more than others, so it's a question of reading cues from any individual woman. If you're having success by being less likely to commit, take that as a signal that you should pull back a bit in general. Leave them wanting more.
I know it must sound crazy, my encouraging a guy to hold off on commitment, but I can tell you are definitely the relationship type, I'm not worried that we'll lose you to the Dark Side. You probably just need a bit of bad boy attitude to get you over the hump.
Novaseeker, this is the best explanation I've read for the phenomenon of men “dropping out.” You really lay this out in an illuminating way. I have a couple of thoughts:
1. One reason that women are stunned to learn this is that the original feminist assumptions were made by their grandmothers. A young woman today is living with the intended consequences of the Women's Movement, while the young man is, as you say, experiencing and enjoying the unintended consequences. It's hardly surprising that these women would look around and say “What the Hell?” And that the guys would answer, “Huh?” This generation is the product of a social experiment.
2. When Wharton profs released a study recently that women are a lot less happy than they were 40 years ago:
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/Wom…
they were reluctant to point to changing roles in society. It was just too politically unacceptable, I imagine.
Duke University studied its own female students and found that they suffering from what it termed the expectation to achieve “effortless perfection.”
In other words, women now can have it all, but they're finding that if they're honest, they really don't want it all. It's just way to much work and not enough play.
In a very real way, men have been robbed of the expectations that made them successful in relationships and at home, while women have been handed expectations that make it difficult to be successful in relationships or at home.
Still, more than 75% of men want to marry, and of course, even more women do. Many of the young men will eventually graduate to lives of responsibility – they will seek purpose in life, and will wish to reproduce. Hedonism is great fun, but few want a whole lifetime of it. As others have said, perhaps women need to target men in their late 20s and older when they are fresh out of college. Otherwise, they may waste their youth and beauty biding their time in a “whatever” with a guy who is perfectly content in Guyland.
I thought you were a lawyer, LAC.
Do some research. There are plenty of places (even a few on this blog) where people have discussed this, and even more when you start looking at how family law works.
You should be able to answer this question for yourself. If you can't, I suggest you ask for a refund on your degree.
LAC: ” does not make us responsible or caring–we are that way already.”
Do you think you're describing all women here, or at least the substantial majority? What do you think of this girl:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1922184
I can think of a lot of phrases that would describe her, but they would certainly not include “responsible” or “caring” — though they would include “typical.” So, if I were you I would be careful before declaring women as a whole to be caring or generative.
Nova: Do you think the boy shown here is gaining any benefit — at all, in any way — from the current state of play? What exactly are “the dividends of feminism for men” for him?
Ouch. To be fair, Reinholt, the Men's Rights movement is not the most effective at lobbying, and many women AND men, including lawyers, may not have been exposed to this information. Of course, that's part of the problem!
LAC, I do encourage you to learn about the ways in which the Bradley Amendment and other laws are very lopsided and penalize men. Divorce, custody and child support laws in this country are so heinous that they are having a profound effect on men wrt their willingness to marry.
I think a good place to start is http://www.mensnewsdaily.com. I've learned a lot there, myself.
Nuances tend to get lost in online forums, because you never get to see the demeanor of the person typing, but only go by the words.
Since this is such a relevant forum, I tend to take each and every post seriously.
(Says I with my tongue in cheek)
I'm a lawyer, but even I can't wrap my head around the notion of delineating a relationship within a contract. From my point of view, you don't need a contract to take control within the context of a relationship—you just need to know your own boundaries, let your partner know of them, and be willing to walk away when your partner oversteps them. A contract won't protect you if the other party is hellbent on causing you pain. Just look at all the bitter divorces battles happening all over the place. Contracts can be thwarted, its provisions challenged. And would you really want to stay with someone who won't leave you because he's worried about the penalties he'd incur if he does? I'm with Esau on this–I'd rather see what a person's truly like rather than have him on his best behavior simply because he's worried about paying a fine. In that case you have to wonder–is he behaving well because he loves you, or because he's worried about the penalties he'd incur?
The bottom line is that you need to keep your eyes and ears open, and keep your head screwed on straight when considering your options. And when you do finally commit, work hard to give your relationship the attention and care it deserves.
AT, I just want to say that you've stated here what really should be a Commandment of Relationships:
Be willing to walk away.
If people could respect themselves enough to end relationships when they are treated poorly, they would greatly reduce the intensity and duration of the inevitable disappointment and pain they feel.
Actually, I worked in family law for several years. I represented low-income parents in custody disputes and was a Court Appointed Special Advocate to children in the foster care system. And, as a matter of course, I learned family law in law school and for all the bar exams I took. So I am well-aware of the perceived and real bias in family law.
However, I don't think the balance of the evidence really favors the so-called “Men's Rights Movement” in this context (though there are certainly instances in every aspect of the law that have unintended consequences and poorly-advised decisions, like most of TX law). Frankly, in divorce, custody, and child support the law favors the best interests of the child, whatever that may be, not the mother or father in particular. This is why we have child support, and this is why courts order child support for basically anyone who acts like a father–it is the child's right to support and to have parents (this is public policy everywhere in the US). The one situation that I think is always unfair is when the mother names some random dude as the father knowing full well he isn't, he is later found not to be the father, and is continually liable for child support–to me, that's fraud. But, because a child cannot support himself, the court doesn't care. Additionally, if you have ever encountered a child support award, unless you are incredibly wealthy it doesn't even remotely begin to touch the actual expenses of raising a child. It's usually a couple hundred dollars a month, which barely covers the grocery bill. As the child of a single parent myself, my father's support obligation (when the govt finally found him after 11 years of trying to track him down) was $114/month and he had a boat and a house and a union job—my mom was on Welfare. Plus, the whole US child support system only collects about 50% of what is actually owed, so, again, I'm not very sympathetic to that argument. I've only done legal work since 2004, so I can tell you that in practice, courts often adjust child support awards because of changes in circumstances at routine status hearings. If you don't have the money to support a child, wear a condom.
Trust me, I have seen my fair share of horrible mothers in my experience. But I have also seen literally one decent father in all that time. Just one. A good 80% of the women I know were raised by single mothers, and if you're in a minority community that number is standard at this point. And, I'd like someone to scroll up to my earlier statistics about men in general, which is often why traditionally courts have favored the mother (and it is ALWAYS a rebuttable presumption).
So, my previous questions stands.
I'm sorry you don't perceive it that way, but yes. Statistics, biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, and history the world over bear that point out. I really don't think it's arguable on the whole, though I can't deny that aberrations exist. I've known some pretty heinous bitches myself, and I feel bad for any dude who falls into their trap. I've also known some pretty sweet guys (but not a whole lot of super-responsible ones).
I'm still waiting for that question to be answered, btw. I was not being facetious. I'm not a man, so it's something I've always wondered.
My heart is soaring.
I think the current stage is transitioning from anger to bargaining.
I can scarcely wait to luxuriate in the next phase, which I believe is where the bulk of the crying takes place. I will be the guy standing next to these women trying to catch their tears in my little chalice, to be consumed later with great relish. If I can capture enough of this holy nectar, I would bottle it and sell it as “Tears of the Spinster”.
It would be a shame to allow such a delicious vintage to go to waste, flowing down the hollowing cheeks and landing on the sensible shoes.
These women are on the cusp of finding out what sexual invisibility is. They left many of their male contemporaries to dessicate in that desert, even as they poured their beauty and youth into the men that would only “have”, not “have and to hold”.
Passing into the wilderness of their forties, unloved, unlovable, and NOT KNOWING HOW to love anything but THEMSELVES, they can look forward to spending the second forty years sitting in their apartments alone, stroking their cat. ;~)
Any man who takes them in now has NO self-respect at all. I'd rather jump into a roiling volcano before I would save one of these harlots from the loneliness of old age.
LAC:
“Yes everyone, my group of incredibly intelligent, educated, confident, etc. female friends…”
The lady doth protest too much. Too much grrrl-power-speak diminishes your cred, rather than enhancing it. We know you're just swell, try not to overplay it.
“I think every adult woman I know has been raped at some point…”
EVERY woman? Even most? Yeah, I don't think so. Unless, of course, by “raped” you mean that they had sex with a man and then later wished that they had not. I'd buy that.
Though according to that logic, I suppose you could claim that you were 'raped' by multiple cartons of Haagen-Dazs and a whole package of Chips Ahoy cookies.
Try to make your claims more believable for those of us who are not afraid to challenge such female-speak shit tests.
Thx,
Rick
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. It's not funny, and I wasn't joking.
But you're right, Rick. All but 2.
Rick, it's a pleasure waking up to your rapier wit. You certainly do have a way with words. I don't know if you caught it, but I think you'll enjoy this:
http://jezebel.com/5463227/fat-like-him-self+he…
One of Lori G's exes speaks out, essentially describing her as an insane harridan. Why he tolerated her BS is a total mystery.
Please don't tell me it was those nerdy and handicapped types your friends date that did all the raping; the world hardly makes any sense as it is. I don't know how the actual numbers break down, but I suppose 1 out of 6 is possible for the same reason why I don't have a lot of male friends. Although, I imagine the number of perpetrators to be a lot less than the number of victims.
While I don't envy you having to weed out the weirdos and creeps from the dating pool, have you ever asked out a guy on a date? One for whom you have no particular reason to think he'd say yes (based on experience)? On a regular basis? It takes a particular mindset to do. Even ones where you get a phone number, they still might screen your call and never reply to your voicemail message. And then there are the flaky ones. It requires a lot of persistence. It can affect a guy's self-esteem and it gives women the position of power. And imagine the kind of guy where this doesn't get to him. These things combined with a sense of entitlement, narcissism, egotism, etc. and you have the mindset of a rapist.
Feminists speak of a rape culture but what they should be talking about are gender roles and how we raise boys.
I would really appreciate it if people, in general, would refrain from joking about rape. One of my bffs, for example, got gang-raped at a party in college and once in a campus parking lot while security watched like it was porn. Here there was 1 victim, and about 10 perps. I could go on and on with these stories, but I won't bore you with the gory details.
In fact I have asked a guy out. And I have had long conversations with men about what a difficult position they have in dating because they are always expected to do the heavy-lifting and bear the constant rejection. In my experience, I tend not to ask men out because they are often downright mean when it comes to rejection. I literally brainstorm a way not to hurt someone's feelings if we don't gel, and most of the women I know do the same. But I have seen men ridicule a woman to her face in public (not to say a woman has never done this, I just don't know them) on several occasions when she approached, so I tend to just go with the “well, here's my card, you should call me sometime” instead of a full-on date invitation.
And I agree, the way we raise boys is FUBAR in this country.
Oh, I wasn't joking. I was surprised when you told those stories of your friends' dating escapades. I've read stuff by people who were of the opinion that there are no nice guys, only guys acting nice to get sexual favors, that all men are potential rapists, etc. I was just picturing, “nice guys are rapists in disguise.”
Well, that can certainly be the case, and I think every woman has experienced some form of that. But god, I hope that's not the case, because if it is, we should all just pack it in and become lesbians already.
We always hold out hope that the legends are true and that there really are genuinely nice people left.
Oh, genuinely nice people are out there. They're just invisible in today's society.
LAC — The not-so-subtle condescension of comparing what I simply “perceive” against what you “know” to be true is not lost here, so don't worry about that. Of course, I could just as easily state that all the evidence from statistics, biology, etc. points to the exact opposite, that women on the whole should not be described as caring (at least, middle- and upper-class American women of the late 20th and early 21st centuries). Do you want to argue it out? I could send you some literature….
Rather than get into a pointless shouting match, though, I think it's more productive to refine what you mean. When you say that “women” are responsible and caring, who do you have in mind? Are you thinking older or younger? Mothers with families, or single and unattached? And when you use words like caring, do you mean caring toward a few particular people, like one's own family, or caring toward other people in general? Also, when you say “caring” and “responsible” do you implicitly mean simply “more so than men”? or compared to some absolute scale? The answers, whether from research or personal experience, could vary greatly depending on which combination you're talking about.
The specific quadrant I'm referring via this CH video — which has made the rounds in many places — is young, single women with choice. From everything I've ever seen, heard or read, in research, literature and personal experience, the truth is that these women typically might exhibit caring toward the one specific, hot attractive guy they're interesting in getting or keeping at the present moment; but beyond that, nothing. All the other men, including all the unattractive ones, elicit not an iota of caring, and may just as well die in ditches. In a way, that's sort of the feminist/feminine utopia, that all unattractive and inconvenient men will simply go away and not bother anyone.
So, no: I don't think your statement is un-arguably true at all; and for one specific quadrant of women I think rather the opposite is un-arguably true.
I'm sorry you believe that an allusion to perception is condescending. We all perceive things differently depending on our gender, one of the biggest differences between the sexes.
You make a fair point about specific segments of women through time, etc. But I am talking about scientific, biological differences found by those studying the issue of generic differences between mens' and womens' behavior. So, when I say the words “caring” or “responsible” regarding to women I mean women, as a gender, generally, not subgroups. A quick Google search brings some of these examples together:
Women prefer kind men: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8505641.stm
Women are more ethical than men: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Wo…
Female doctors are more caring and cautious: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/women-doctors…
Women are more empathetic than men (among other things): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08bar…
Women are more empathetic than men: http://revistas.ucm.es/psi/11387416/articulos/S…
Women forgive more than men: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/08…
Men feel less guilt than women: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/10…
As to the specific quadrant you're referring to: I can honestly say that in my experience this could not be further from the truth. Sure, I've met some girls who have the “I like hot assholes” syndrome, but they generally grow out of that by about 23. In fact, it is men who constantly ignore “ugly” women (for example, plus-sized women): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/09…. In fact, looks don't matter nearly as much for women who are selecting mates. Susan recently mentioned the “secret” types women lust after in this blog and pointed to this: http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/02/22/chubby-stub…
“Sexy with abs” is not on that list (my bf has like 9/11 of those traits). In fact, men of all types, including obese ones, have better-quality relationships than their female counterparts: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/09…
So, I'm sorry you feel that way, but the research doesn't bear you out. If you have some research relevant to your theory, please share it with us!
And for all the commenters who thought a pre-relationship contract is ridiculous, I point you to this article: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/the_new_s…
It's pretty common for young, unmarried NYCers. And just today, a young lady buying a condo to live in with her bf asked me to do the same for her (as suggested by her realtor).
{ 2 trackbacks }