“It’s not even clear that [men] are needed for family life. There are so many single mothers now and even though most middle-class women do want to marry and have children, they can go it alone.”
Kay Hymowitz, Wall St. Journal interview
It’s hard to believe that it’s been only three days since Kay Hymowitz penned her already infamous Where Have the Good Men Gone? at the Wall Street Journal. Interestingly, if you search for the article at the WSJ it comes up under Why Are Men Today Such Losers?, the apparent original title of the piece, and one more in keeping with her highly judgmental verdict of today’s young men.
Readers here know that I frequently point to the 60/40 sex ratio in college as a sign that today’s young men are not thriving. It means that the marriage rate, already in decline, will take further hits as the number of educated women outstrips the available supply of educated men for decades to come. This means intense competition among women for men, and that’s never pretty.
Hymowitz paints a grim picture, and rightfully so. According to her, today’s young women have:
- more bachelor’s degrees
- higher GPAs
- more confidence and drive
- higher enrollment in graduate school
- higher earnings and better advancement early in their careers
How can this be good for any society? Women cannot thrive if men do not thrive. We cannot marry and have children. My own generation got to have it all, and we found out we didn’t want it all. It’s way too much work and it’s emotionally exhausting.
For many years, as women have made gains, we’ve pumped our fists in the air and celebrated girl power. What we failed to realize is that there’s only so much power to go around – if women gain it, men lose it.
Hymowitz strikes exactly the wrong tone in her piece by playing the blame game, as if she were looking to preempt any conversation about the unintended consequences of feminism, hurriedly lowering her pumping fist and placing it innocently back in her lap. She begins by wondering about today’s young men:
What explains this puerile shallowness?
She does, however, hit upon some truth in her answer:
“I see it as an expression of our cultural uncertainty about the social role of men. It’s been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.”
Stuart Schneiderman of Had Enough Therapy? offers the rest of the explanation she has failed to grasp:
As it happens, her question is not an imponderable riddle. The answer is simple: women are having difficulty finding good men because they themselves are the good men they are looking for.
Hymowitz makes the common error of lumping all men together as having the same life experience and therefore the same motives. She describes male pre-adults as being comprised of aging frat boys, maladroit geeks and grubby slackers. Certainly there are plenty of each to be found among today’s 20-something guys, but they have little in common.
Aging frat boys are perhaps loathe to give up the steady stream of good times and punani they grew accustomed to in college.
Maladroit geeks, not so much. They’re not shallow and peurile, they just lack access to the social and sexual experiences that would enable them to embrace manhood.
Grubby slackers, as deified by Judd Apatow, are yet another group – unlike frat guys and geeks, they are the ones not going to college, not having seen the point, and therefore not having the motivation to achieve.
All of these men represent different unintended consequences of the Women’s Movement, reflecting an education system that from the earliest years penalizes boys for their male nature, presenting girl behavioral and learning norms as the standard.
As a young woman, you may be shaking your head, figuring your mother’s generation got a few things wrong. You may feel as if this sucks for everyone, but there’s nothing young women can do, short of subvert their own interests – obviously not a winning or desirable strategy.
Rachel Ryan, in her article Who’s To Blame When Men Act Like Boys? sees it differently:
“According to author Julie Klausner, who is quoted in the article, “We [women] are sick of hooking up with guys (as opposed to men).”
So … WHY ARE WOMEN STILL HOOKING UP WITH GUYS?! Both Klausner and Hymowitz overlook the all-too-important fact that women play an integral part in perpetuating this “pre-adult” hookup culture they presumably find so unappealing… after all, these beer-guzzling, Star Wars-loving 20-somethings aren’t hooking up with themselves. In fact, if anyone is to be exclusively blamed for today’s hookup norm, it is women.
This past weekend, in a bar in Washington, D.C., I found myself at the watering hole of these so-called “pre-adults”…
By 2am, it is almost always the girls who are the ones downing shots, screaming along to Miley Cyrus at the top of their lungs, and dancing wildly in the middle of the dance floor – praying to catch the eye of some guy. Ladies, if that’s your thing, go right ahead and keep partying in the USA… but when you wake up the next morning with a vicious hangover in some guy’s bed, don’t label him as an immature, selfish bastard when he doesn’t call you the next day.”
Obviously, Ryan is describing here the men who are so happy with their lifestyle they’re unwilling to commit. That’s the group that young women today can affect most immediately and dramatically. As long as women reward the behavior of immature, selfish bastards, they’ll have little incentive to grow up, much less marry.
This sorry state of affairs in American society can only be corrected by a long-term strategy that begins with an honest acknowledgement of the hidden consequences of feminism:
- Greater opportunities for women has meant fewer opportunities for men.
- The male role as provider and protector, dominant throughout history until the mid-60s has not only disappeared, but has been made shameful and un-PC.
- The average age at marriage continues to rapidly increase, delaying the urgency of financial responsibility and career development for men. Women do not have the same luxury as their fertility wanes.
- Sexual equality for women has created a veritable banquet of no-strings sex for the most desirable men, as women compete for their short-term attention. More female attention directed at those lucky few has meant less female attention for everyone else.
- Media have responded predictably by creating cultural products romanticizing these realities. Sex and the City, movies such as She’s Out of My League, Knocked Up, Say Anything and even Animal House all cater to some variation on the theme of delayed development in males. These happy endings are rarely found in real life, however.
Hymowitz concludes with a sense of hopelessness as she continues to chastise young men:
“Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men’s attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do.
They might as well just have another beer.”
That’s not particularly helpful – I wonder what she would prescribe. Stuart Schneiderman provides the essential starting point:
“When feminists declared war on men and on masculine values, they did not intend to produce a generation of post-adolescent males who can barely hold down jobs, who have no interest in getting married and settling down, and who are lying around the house drinking beer, playing video games, and stuffing themselves with chips and dip.
But when you change cultural policy, you are responsible for the outcome, regardless of whether it was what you intended. Feminists may not have intended to unman men; but, as the old saying goes: they broke it; now they own it. At the very least they should own up to it.”
There is no easy solution to this very intractable problem. You can, however, make good choices in your own life:
- Reward the behaviors in men that you want more of.
- Do not reinforce the behaviors you want less of.
- When you have a son, fight for his right to grow up in a way that does not suppress his biological nature.
{ 354 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 »
The problem with Hymowitz’s theme is twofold. First, it assumes that American women are a prize worth growing up for. Second, it assumes because they have the superficial exterior trappings of adulthood like education, jobs, grown up clothes and table manners, they are actually mature where it matters. They are not. The explosion of entitlement and selfish drama queen behavior from women shows that where it counts, on a deep emotional level, women are much more infantile in their behavior than the worst videogame playing “dude.”
I wonder to what extent this kind of thing takes the experiences of a certain segment of the population–liberal arts and “social sciences” majors, especially those from “elite” universities and living in large urban areas–and generalizes it to the population as a whole?
I doubt if young men who have been serving in Iran or Afghanistan for a year or more, or doing dangerous and demanding jobs on aircraft carriers, mostly have the kind of immaturity Hymnowitz writes about–although yeah, most of them do like a beer or three, and some of them even play video games. Or how about the young men who start companies, a category of individual which has a lot more people in it than during those halcyon days of the 1950s. Or men working on offshore oil platforms. Or those pursuing difficult and demanding careers in science/engineering.
I don’t deny the existence of the problem, but suspect that it is less universal than it may appear to be.
The feminist response.
I am a feminist and I don’t know if what’s going on in our society is the consequence of feminism, but if it is then we gotta slow down, take a look at our ways and determine if our aggressiveness is tipping the balance the other way, rather than equalizing things. Men and women both have a role in society. Claiming that men are not needed for a family life is outrageous.
“and even though most middle-class women do want to marry and have children, they can go it alone.”
I thought that a “marriage” involved two people?
As a straight woman, I am also worried about the 60/40 ratio on campus. How did that happened? I mean back in the day, boys were preferentially sent to school, while girls were conditioned or forced to stay at home, learn how to cook and marry young. There is no way, we’re going to that because it was tipping the balance the other way and that resulted in domestic violence, degradation of women, and lack of personal freedom.
Achieving equality between the sexes is difficult. Feminism is striving to achieve that, but it has a long way to go.
-Florence
First I have to say the cruelty of this is just appalling. The primary problem is there- are- no- jobs. You can’t be Ozzie Nelson if you can barely pay rent on your dingy apartment. Jobs that will provide even a shabby suburban existence are few and fare between, and only for people with specialized skills. And having specialized skills doesn’t help if your company or industry collapses.
As Foster points out, and Hymowitz inadvertently points out in her examples, single men do indeed serve many important social purposes. Those who aren’t are trying to improve their status to the point where some desirable woman will want them. The key word is “desirable.” I met a woman off the internet the other night. Not bad looking, good “career”, etc. But damn did she run her mouth. I don’t think she wants to see me again either, but I can’t believe any guy she would like would be any more interested than me.
Overall society is drifting towards the black social model, which is what happens when women largely make more money than men.
Boy, feminists sure haven’t skipped a beat between complaining about the patriarchy and complaining about the lack of it, have they?
This is such an odd situation Susan. As you know I moved back from Boston to Jersey after I graduated and I see the types of men she’s talking about. So many of my friends purely want to sit around in rut jobs and do whatever. I often feel like I’m the only person trying to build something of myself and can count the others who I know that are doing the same on one hand. However, I see an odd situation in women as well. While at work they are professional, five o’clock hits and they regress to college happy hour shots. But I can’t talk for them, I can only talk for the males. And I’ll put it this way. For a man in my generation, you must make a positive image and path in life for yourself. That might seem self-explanatory as men have been doing it for years, but most people are followers and that type of mindset was ok in the past. If your family are mechanics you become a mechanic. If your family had a business, you grew up and ran the business. Those types of positions and opportunities are somewhat there but greatly lessened. The “test” of manhood is much higher for our generation. To become a “man” in my day and age is what extraordinary men were in the last. In other words, the image of men has related to women’s image of a collective man. And, the bar has been raised by a collective of women with higher standards that most men cannot reach, and therefore cannot compete.
* or are unwilling to compete. Meant to add that as well.
@Florence,
As a straight woman, I am also worried about the 60/40 ratio on campus. How did that happened?
.
I think there’s a couple of things at play here. First, women don’t tend to enter the trades. Not a lot of female plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.
.
Plus, women get encouraged to go to college after high school so they can “find a husband.” Sounds old-school, but if that’s not the case, why wouldn’t women focus on their studies instead of whoring around at the frat house all the time? And since men don’t care if a woman is college-educated (but women want alpha, which isn’t necessarily college-educated), there’s one less draw for men to go to college than there is for women.
.
And finally, there’s free loan money to anyone who wants to go to college. Women take it and go to get their Doctorate in Education or what have you. Most men I know understand how little time we have left before the economic tsunami, and wouldn’t do anything at this point to defer income while getting a higher degree. Then again, I’m mostly with financial types, so YMMV.
T/RR
That’s a fair point re women indulging in immature behavior, even as they may excel in college or the workplace. There are numerous unintended consequences of the Women’s Movement that have affected women directly as well by catering to narcissistic impulses and driving expectations sky high.
@David Foster
I think that the period known as pre-adulthood is real, especially among young men, and the college stats do prove that men and women are no longer achieving at the same rate. However, I agree that many men are achieving plenty – the vast majority of men who are in college are going out into the world and working hard. As you point out as well, there are many men who take on demanding and dangerous work voluntarily. My guess is that although Hymowitz mentions three different types of guys who are pre-adults, a lot of her criticism is directed at the guys that Julie Klausner complains about – entitled guys having too much fun with women like herself to settle down.
Anonymous comment at 11:22 a.m. deleted for anti-Semitism, not criticism of me. Pity, it would have been interesting to debate.
@Esca
Yes, this is where all the crazy checklists come from. The expectations have become extremely unrealistic. And it sabotages women because it leaves them single into their 30s, when they suddenly find their market value has plummeted.
@GudEnuf
Jill at feministe gets points for not male-bashing, but she’s also got her head in the sand. She ignores all of the very real data that shows young men lagging women educationally and economically. I wonder if that’s the feminist mindset – once you admit that men are struggling more than women, you need to talk about possible solutions – an evening out of the playing field. By definition, that means taking from women and giving to men.
Well done, Aunt Sue (although I think you pulled some punches on how misandrist, insulting and clueless KH really is). I have a very long and detailed post in the final draft stage that applies the kind of critical thought Hymowitz couldn’t be bothered with, but until then here are a few crumbles:
-Kay seems confused by her own argument. She’s saying men aren’t necessary for modern women to actualize their intrinsic awesomeness. But then she speaks of hordes of women desperate for a “marriageable” man. She says men are confused by women who are delaying having kids, but then says they need to “man up” and become married family men. How are they supposed to become family men with women who don’t want to have kids until their late 20′s?
-”So … WHY ARE WOMEN STILL HOOKING UP WITH GUYS?! Both Klausner and Hymowitz overlook the all-too-important fact that women play an integral part in perpetuating this “pre-adult” hookup culture they presumably find so unappealing… after all, these beer-guzzling, Star Wars-loving 20-somethings aren’t hooking up with themselves. In fact, if anyone is to be exclusively blamed for today’s hookup norm, it is women.”
If I can pick a nit, Ryan is conflating two distinct groups. The “beer-guzzlers” are getting loads of hookup sex. The Star Wars beta guys aren’t getting any sex at all.
-”Ladies, if that’s your thing, go right ahead and keep partying in the USA… but when you wake up the next morning with a vicious hangover in some guy’s bed, don’t label him as an immature, selfish bastard when he doesn’t call you the next day.””
YES. Aside from judging men immature because they don’t want to marry, choosing men for one-night stands and then projecting your dysfunction onto them when they don’t want to be your boyfriend is the mark of a moron. Hymowitz lost what little cred she had left when she approvingly quoted a carousel rider’s book on what losers she chose to screw, never asking the key question: “if everyone you date is a loser, what does that say about you?”
@ Omega man
“Overall society is drifting towards the black social model, which is what happens when women largely make more money than men.”
….
If a person has worked/studied hard, why should they be denied the right to make good money just because they are a woman? Just like some men are driven to become rich, there are women who are also driven and ambitious to be successful and to make a lot of money. Martha Stewart makes a lot of money because she has a talent – can you blame her? I forced myself to endure the pain of studying things I did not particularly enjoy (SPSS, SAS). I’ve got student loans to pay off myself and I will never make anything close to what she makes by playing with arts and crafts!!! I am not jealous of her, but certainly looking up to her – she is doing something she enjoys and is good at and can make living out of it and if she can do it, others can do it too, without SCHOOL and insane student loans. Sometimes I feel that the educational system is totally taking advantage of students, rather than serving its purpose of producing skilled workers and I don’t blame the people who drop out and start their own businesses at an early age. Robbing certain students (by forcing them to take insane loans) and giving insane scholarships to others, whom ARE already better off is not motivating at all or beneficial to society. I remember in high school there was a girl who won 10 different awards at once and later a scholarship to go to Harvard. I remember how she almost felt uncomfortable being called for the Nth time on the stage to receive her award. I was thinking to myself about the effects that may have on other students, who’ve also worked hard, but anyway…can you argue with high school teachers? No. Seriously, it’s not feminism, it’s the educational system that is in ruins.
-Florence
I think the relatively lower educational attainment of American males (especially black males) *is* a troubling trend, but it seems that every article that addresses it simple-mindedly blames either (a) the men; or (b) feminism. I would really like to see someone write a thoughtful, nuanced article on this subject that actually seeks answers using an evidence-based approach. I have not yet come across one.
“And it sabotages women because it leaves them single into their 30s, when they suddenly find their market value has plummeted.”
But Susan, don’t you know that’s the time to not lower your standards?
@Badger
FWIW, I’ve been tweeting her obnoxious quote at the top. Good call on the conflation of the two types of guys – it seems more than odd that she doesn’t realize these guys are not all the same. Agree completely too about quoting Klausner. I’m not sure just what KH’s agenda is – she is not a feminist, particularly, I don’t think. Nor does she seem constructive in any way. I believe the book this is excerpted from comes out in March – I will be curious about the reviews.
I thought KH’s insulting tone and misandry were pretty clear, but I’m sure you’ll do a better job highlighting them
Just read this article (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/02/21/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone/) that you linked to.
I agree that it has a head-in-the sand element to it. Instead of looking at the numbers, she’s saying, “Well here in NYC I don’t come across many of these loser types of guys.” Well, duh, the losers can’t afford to live in NYC.
I am with her on the sentiment of: lay off the hysteria, it’s not a bad thing that we’re not all married by 25, though.
Susan,
Haha, I don’t fault you for it – plumbing the depths of KH’s ignorant animus towards men could make a psychology PhD thesis.
” it seems more than odd that she doesn’t realize these guys are not all the same. Agree completely too about quoting Klausner.”
It’s clear from KH’s CV that she’s spent most of her adult life in highly-educated humanities sectors (she has three English degrees, she’s not a social scientist) and more recently in Manhattan. This means a general shortage of men, a preponderance of soft beta guys, and a lot of young women who want to live the “city life” and date for the tingle. Her whole life has probably been women dating bad boys and losers, complaining they can’t find a good man, then complaining that they’ve “settled.” She’s Jen Doll of the VV with a more conservative wardrobe.
“I’m not sure just what KH’s agenda is – she is not a feminist, particularly, I don’t think.”
KH’s archives suggest she’s “pro-marriage” in the sense that marriage is the underpinning of a politically successful society. That’s a fundamentally conservative idea, that people should be living their private lives towards some higher goal instead of simply enjoying themselves.
What she totally misses is how different marriage is today, as a direct result of the narcissizing of boomer society and its trickle down effects to today’s young adults, and how low-quality a lot of these young urban women are. And strong is the conservative’s desire to flagellate men for their faults – witness the Promise Keepers and other “we men are such pigs, please tell us we’re worthy” philosophies.
LJ,
I agree, I think there’s a lot more to like in the Feministe article than not to.
“The feminist response.”
.
I re-read that a couple of times, and I still don’t see any response beyond “I know good women, and I know good men, and don’t see any of them that are like that”. Heck, even thrice-married, feminist christian (didn’t Jesus say something about divorce?), mangina extraordinaire Hugo Schwyzer gently chides her for having her head in the sand. Of course, being the guy he, his issue with KH is that she only berates the men. She should also be sympathizing with the poor, oppressed women who are forced to work hard and subsume their own dreams to support those parasitic man-children. I love this quote of his:
.
“I see a great many guys who are living at home and taking ONE class a semester, drifting along, while their sisters are taking six classes, working two jobs, and making dinner for their brothers.”
.
Damn you male parasites! The flogging will continue until morale improves!
Definition of Feminism:
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
The most straightforward definition of feminism says that is a movement for social, cultural, political and economic equality of men and women. It is a campaign against gender inequalities and it strives for equal rights for women. Feminism can be also defined as the right to enough information available to every single woman so that she can make a choice to live a life which is not discriminatory and which works within the principles of social, cultural, political and economic equality and independence.
If any woman who claims herself as a feminist is intentionally or unintentionally doing something that in counter productive to the ultimate core value of feminism, she should be called upon. There are many such women out there. In my opinion they’re “fighting for the cause“, but have a limited information/understanding of the core issues and they fail to see the whole picture. I do not object criticizing feminists. Criticism is essential to self-improvement.
-Florence
Fundamentally, a married relationship is no longer needed for producing children. Men are not needed as protectors and providers. I did not go looking for a man who would want to provide for me, or want to ‘be captain’. I went looking for a man who was smart, honest, cute and who could work with the degree to which I wanted to be the leader and view that role as sharable. And who liked sex.
Since women don’t need that provide/protect role, I think they are at a loss about what to look for in a man. Sex being fun makes it something to do with men, but in the end, how can you pick a mate if you don’t know what the value is? And most women are just not being analytical enough to understand what values to look for in this changed environment.
I think a lot of men aren’t adjusting well either.
@Geoff
Plus, women get encouraged to go to college after high school so they can “find a husband.” Sounds old-school, but if that’s not the case, why wouldn’t women focus on their studies instead of whoring around at the frat house all the time? And since men don’t care if a woman is college-educated (but women want alpha, which isn’t necessarily college-educated), there’s one less draw for men to go to college than there is for women.
….
Ha, my parents were always relieved and secretly happy each time any of my relationships ended, mainly because it resulted in me focusing back on school. It was funny how each time I had a bf, my marks would drop and then go back up again when I became single. Certainly, my parents did not spend their money on sending me to school in order to find a guy. If that was their goal, they could have arranged it differently and certainly more cost-effectively.
-Florence
And now the feminist-sympathetic MRA response:
1. Hymowitz is against gay marriage. That may sound like a red herring, but in my experience gay marriage is dividing line between the people who think rationally, and the people who think traditionally. And it’s gotten to the point where, if a person doesn’t favor gay marriage, I can’t take their views on culture seriously.
2. More opportunities for women doesn’t mean fewer opportunities for men. On the contrary, if women can earn their own money, men can free themselves from role of “provider”. And this is exactly what they are doing. Hymowitz is upset that men are pursuing options other than kids, mortgage, and 9-5.
3. However, it is true that fewer opportunities for men means fewer opportunities for women. We need to close the education gap, and for the most part feminists have ignored this problem. There’s talk of expanding Title IX to get more women in STEM, but few seem to care that men are underrepresented in just about every other major.
4. All of us have right to pursue whatever we consider a meaningful life. But none of have the right to demand other people do what we want in order for us to fulfill a meaningful life. If a man wants to play Wii instead of getting a masters, you have no right to demand he change. It’s his life, and if he doesn’t square with your white picket fantasy, too bad.
@Florence:
Well, that’s because there’s no “right” to a good income, Florence. The sad fact of life is that everyone is paid to do something that someone else is willing to pay for. If they’ll pay a lot for you to do something awful, then you can get paid a lot – to do something awful.
We should all be so lucky to not have to do too much of that.
@Susan, great post, but I wonder about this; Is everything really a zero-sum game? You seem to suggest that the rise of feminism and the increased “power” for women necessarily meant decreased “power” for men. Increased educational and economic opportunities for women mean fewer for men. Am I misinterpreting?
It may be true that it’s worked out that way, but it wasn’t inevitable. There’s a spirit of cooperation that seems lacking in that outlook. There’s always the ability to contribute in a complimentary way, rather than compete directly.
I also don’t quite understand something about this prolonged adolescence in light of the 60/40 gender ratio in colleges. Isn’t schooling itself one of the major causes of this prolonged adolescence? I’m certain that some of the
menboys not going to school are effectively high school dropouts, living on the streets selling drugs for a living, but that’s not most. Many are trying to learn trades, if only at their father’s store, and finding it difficult to get started in these tough economic times. I doubt they are at the current NYC hot spots for singles.I can’t think of anything more depressing about the situation, though, than the boys who *don’t* have fathers with whom they can learn. Who’s teaching them to respect women? – their divorced or never-married mothers? Are those single mothers teaching their daughters that any man is worthy of respect?
It’s not my place to lay this at the feet of feminism, but to go back and read Betty Friedan, or to recall Gloria Steinem comparing me to a bicycle for fish, it’s not hard to do that. That very spirit of cooperation I mentioned seemed so very lacking, and still does.
@GudEnuf you write
If the point here is forming a stable relationship, why would I want someone who doesn’t share my values and future plans? I don’t need a man to “provide” for me, but I sure as hell don’t want to wash his dirty socks unless he also washes mine.
So if he doesn’t want a masters and will be contributing less to the overall providing for the *family*, then he should be prepared to take up the slack in all the rest of the work needed to take care of a family. Like, laundry, shopping, cooking and things like that.
If doesn’t mean you sit around in dirty socks and play a mmorpg all the freaking time.
Jewish family and male/female dynamics are much different from that of non-Jews, which explains a lot of Hymowitz’s attitude.
As my Jewish girlfriend explained to me (completely unself-consciously, as she thought it didn’t apply to her, although it did in spades) Jewish women have the expectation of being dominant. Thus she said, a Jewish woman and a Jewish man work together, because he has grown up with this. A Jewish man and non-Jewish woman work, but a non-Jewish man and a Jewish woman will not because non-Jews expect male dominance and they will fight constantly. That about sums up our relationship.
Modern (60′s) feminism was started by bored upper-middle class Jewish housewives like Betty Friedan who couldn’t see why they had to sit at home while their husbands went off to glamorous jobs in Manhattan. A lot of the you-go-girl and female aggressiveness comes from Jewish feminists who can’t or won’t accept that female dominance is pretty much unique to their culture.
TO: Florence @ February 22, 2011 at 11:33 am
RE: Aggressiveness
I am a feminist and I don’t know if what’s going on in our society is the consequence of feminism, but if it is then we gotta slow down, take a look at our ways and determine if our aggressiveness is tipping the balance the other way, rather than equalizing things. — Florence
It was ALWAYS about ‘aggressiveness’. I witnessed that 30+ years ago when my first marriage started going down the toilet because my ex-wife wanted to ‘trade-up’ from a company-grade infantry officer to a ‘senior-partner’ in a successful CPA firm. [Note: After she had a child by him, she raped HIM in Family [Dissolution] Court, too.]
RE: The Need for Men
Claiming that men are not needed for a family life is outrageous. — Florence
True. But that’s not the feminist line at this time. Nor has it been anything else for the last 30+ years, as I’ve witnessed it.
So. What are the consequences?
Feminist have created this environment. Made this ‘bed’, so to say. And now all too many women have to sleep in it. And it looks for all the world as if they are becoming very—pardon the turn of phrase—’un-satisfied’ with it.
Even my daughters are having ‘issues’. And it’s not THEIR fault. It’s their mothers…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The feminist movement died, milliseconds after the first impact. -- Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle, Lucifer's Hammer]
@Mac
While there is nothing wrong with what you stated, you also have described the very reason why men are less and less interested in marriage. There is nothing in it for them. Men have no interest in doing “housework” like “laundry, shopping, cooking and things like that.” That you might make more money than a man is good for you, but it is not something that most men find particularly attractive, and it is certainly not something that would attractive most men to marry. Men want to provide, they have a strong desire to feel needed. Your post states very loudly, “I do not need a man.”
@JOE
“Well, that’s because there’s no “right” to a good income, Florence. The sad fact of life is that everyone is paid to do something that someone else is willing to pay for. If they’ll pay a lot for you to do something awful, then you can get paid a lot – to do something awful. We should all be so lucky to not have to do too much of that.”
…….
I am fine with that, as long as it does not affect women disproportionally more than it affects men. And guess what – I am upset at the educational system. Rather than “educating” people to create a skillful workforce, it has turned into a money making machine or even worse – a commodity that only the ones who are already better-off can afford.
Why don’t more black males get higher education? Because most of them already come from broken families and live in ghettos. They’ve been set on a bad trajectory from the start and even if they wanted to change, their neighborhood, their broken, poor families and their friends of similar SE are only dragging them backwards to poverty, rather than helping. Although technically we’d think that they have “equal opportunities”, they do not. In addition, the society expects men to make money in order to entertain the needs of princess-like girlfriends who expect the guy to pay on every date. Well ladies, how is a guy going to pay the dates if he’s got a huge loan because he went for higher education like you did? Where is he going to get the money to do that? He’d have to get a part time job and that may compromise/affect his studies. Naturally, these men drop out of school and take on jobs that could pay the bills and ensure enough income for “right now”, but by doing that they jeopardize their own future to some extent. Our environment has an influence on us and while it takes self will to escape that environment and to make a change for him/herself, most people are either unaware of the issue, don’t know how to go about it and/or do not have enough support to do it.
-Florence
TO: Joe
RE: Florence on Money
If a person has worked/studied hard, why should they be denied the right to make good money just because they are a woman? — Florence
Well, that’s because there’s no “right” to a good income, Florence. — Joe, in reply to Florence
True.
As Benjamin Franklin put it…..
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
I guess Florence, and a lot of other feminists, slept through that class in Civics. Either that or suffers from selective remembrance.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Marriage is the most natural state of man, and... the state in which you will find solid happiness. -- Benjamin Franklin]
P.S. Too bad woman has been trying to destroy it all these last few decades. We’re talk’n SERIOUS unintended consequences, here.
@ GudEnuf
Excellent points.
The main thing that bothers me about articles like this is how gynocentric they are. Every action or behavior of men is analyzed from the viewpoint of its impact on women. In articles like this men aren’t autonomous human beings with their own hopes, aspirations, and reasons for doing things—we’re just objects to be criticized for being insufficiently pliable or useful to women.
This whole mindset is about liberating women from their traditional roles & responsibilities, while ensuring that men remain largely confined to theirs. That’s really all 2nd and 3rd wave feminism were ever about. Acquiring rights & privileges while transferring most of the risk & responsibility back to men.
@Dragnet, you missed the line from GudEnuf, “if women can earn their own money, men can free themselves from role of “provider”. Men have been liberated from only having that one role. The thing is, what did women do when they could not be the provider? Oh, that’s right, they ran the household and raised the kids. That’s your choice. It’s not being a provider vs sitting on your ass playing videogames. It’s that in a household there are Things To Do. Bringing in money is one — that can be shared. Running the household is another — that can be shared.
Let me guess, you want someone who makes almost as much as you (but not more, which would be threatening) and then even though you both work full time, you want her to run the entire household. That women is serious about the risk and responsibility of her career and that’s why she doesn’t want to ruin it with a man-child husband who can’t make his own dentist appointments, much less the ones for the kids.
@Florence,
“Ha, my parents were always relieved and secretly happy each time any of my relationships ended, mainly because it resulted in me focusing back on school.”
.
Your parents were happy that your relationships ended? That’s fucked up.
.
If I had a daughter who went to college and met a guy I approved of, I’d be super-happy for her…even if she left college to raise his kids and be a stay-at-home mom.
TO: All
RE: The ‘Mac’
I suspect that Dragnet touched a SERIOUS ‘nerve’ with Mac. Dragnet touched on the points he agreed with with GudEnuf and Mac ‘assumes’ that Dragnet agrees with all of GudEnuf’s points. A rash assumption. The epitome of what all Army First Shirts tell young NCOs….
When you ASSUME something, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
Three guesses as to Mac’s gender. First two don’t count….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
As my Jewish girlfriend explained to me (completely unself-consciously, as she thought it didn’t apply to her, although it did in spades) Jewish women have the expectation of being dominant.
This is not particularly correct even if you look at traditional and stereotypical Jewish men and women.
What you will find is that traditional/stereotypical Jewish women are more strongly marriage and child oriented from an earlier age, and that they have a strong preference for provider/beta type characteristics in men (eg. family orientation, profession)
A nitpick…
To be fair, the historically dominant model has consisted of two types of families:
1) Wealthy men spent most of their time doing business, hanging out at the pub, visiting high end brothels, and leaving the house duties to the womenfolk. Children were primarily raised by the mother or a nanny, and “father” was a distant provider but not a significant parental influence.
2) Poor families worked. Everybody. Once a child was old enough to lift and tote, it was sent to be an apprentice, a house servant, a nun/friar, or more likely, spent 16 hours a day down at mill. Young children were raised primarily by the elderly or the middle children who weren’t old enough to work at mill. Families generally had precious little time to even say goodnight to each other, much less have any kind of “core family” experience.
The “core family” model, so popular these days with the right, was an odd little anomaly, gaining popularity after the industrial revolution and peaking during the 50s when McCarthyism and anti-homosexual sentiment was so high that NOT being in a core family was dangerous to your career and maybe even your freedom.
Historically, there have been far more “extended family/small tribe” models than “core family” models, which require a substantial enough gap between the providers (usually men) and their spouses to effectively force compliance. Given the choice, most people do not opt for the core family.
This is not a small point. I take a lot of flack for openly flaunting humans’ “natural non-monogamy” but the situation you describe is parsimoniously explained as a return to egalitarianism. Before men figured out how to accumulate resources and monopolize women through force, humans were probably openly non-monogamous, and raised children in tribes, not core family units.
What women have largely achieved since the 60s is practical equality. Yes, they still make $0.70 on a man’s dollar, and yes, they are still under-represented in many areas of cultural life. But the primary equalities — education and sufficient resources — are substantial enough that as you say, women can raise children on their own.
So… what are they doing? Unconsciously reverting back to the FIRST TIME they didn’t need any particular man. They’re behaving as their biology says they ought to. Non-monogamously.
Now, there is substantial political, social, and religious pressure to both behave monogamously AND want to behave monogamously. There is brutal slut shaming for women who do not try to land one man and secure his monogamy. Women who move between men, and dump them when they’ve outlived their appeal, are called gold-diggers.
And there’s plenty of legitimacy to both accusations. Our society still hinges on the appearance of monogamy, even though it’s well acknowledged that precious few of us actually do it. All our laws — and marriage itself — are designed to punish non-monogamy and reward monogamy. And this provides plenty of justification for women to stick to the appearance of monogamy if not the practice.
So what I see when I look at this situation is not some abberant period of chaos, but a neo-primitivism, where women have equality and are discovering that monogamy and equality just don’t go together very well.
Oh… and to answer the big question: Why are men behaving like boys? Because they don’t have a tribe. In a tribal setting, nobody knew whose child was whose, so every man hunted, fished, and gathered. Parenthood was not the dividing line between manhood and boyhood. It was a non-issue. Men worked for the tribe. Period.
Men and women are no longer UTILITARIAN to one another. Whatever a woman needed a man for in the past she can do herself and whatever a man needed a woman for in the past – well he can now do himself as well.
I see this as more a result of industry and technology than feminism.
The question is: how does the species perpetuate itself under such circumstances, and is that even neccessary?
If you travel the world one thing will stand out – Western and Northern Europeans and their descendents (Americans and Canandians) are not as “family oriented” as the rest of the world. We can say this is a people of palor vs a people of color thing.
People of palor value things like individualism and “having my own space” while people of color value “connection” and “extended family”.
Again, I would say it has more to do with industry and technology than genes per se.
Hymowitz makes me think of Roissy’s recent post. Just like visual porn has desensitized men to sex with average women, emotional porn has desensitized women to relationships with normal men. Sure, men are less masculine than they were two generations ago, but women are far less feminine as well. The women of this generation are getting the men they deserve.
Most American women have romantic expectations far out of line with what an efficient dating market will actually give them.
Roissy writes:
American women, it’s time for you to woman up. Put down the celebrity rags and stop diddling the bean to the latest news about Jake Gyllenhaal’s love life. The future of your country rests on bringing your unrealistic ballooning expectations back down to earth, in line with what your flabby bodies, unfeminine personalities, galling sluttiness and crow’s feet actually offers men.
As for Jewish chicks, I’ve been involved with a few and have only found one worth dating. The other Jewish girls were far too masculine. The one who was worth dating was also the most religious of the group (not sure what she was doing with an atheist goy like me), and the one that was the least suitable for long-term commitment was a rabid atheist, FWIW.
Dragnet said:
That’s a basically sound observation, I think. When women were tied financially and socially to men, it made good sense for a man to be a stable long term provider. When women broke free of those ties, for better or worse, they took away men’s primary motivation to be stable long term providers.
The funny thing about it from my perspective (see above: I’m not on the enforced monogamy bandwagon) is that feminism was absolutely right about one thing: Women want sex as much or more than men. They want it differently and sometimes with different frequency, but they want it. And they’re getting it, regardless of whether they get the relationships they say they want.
So we have to ask ourselves: Which do they really want more?
If the deepest desire of their heart was a stable long term relationship, they wouldn’t have to convince themselves to shut their legs until a relationship came along. They’d do it naturally, unconsciously. And by “they,” I mean the majority of women. And that would create a seller’s market for women. And they’d get the relationships.
But women — like men — tend to get what they want most immediately. And by all accounts, that appears to be sex.
@MAC: If the point here is forming a stable relationship, why would I want someone who doesn’t share my values and future plans? I don’t need a man to “provide” for me, but I sure as hell don’t want to wash his dirty socks unless he also washes mine.
So if he doesn’t want a masters and will be contributing less to the overall providing for the *family*, then he should be prepared to take up the slack in all the rest of the work needed to take care of a family. Like, laundry, shopping, cooking and things like that.
If doesn’t mean you sit around in dirty socks and play a mmorpg all the freaking time.”
* To be fair I don’t think American men, at least those under the age of 60, expect their wives or live-in partners to pick up their socks and clean up after them. American men who have lived on their own as adults have done their own cooking, cleaning and laundry for years already. Most of them don’t stop doing that when they get married, nor do they expect to.
It seems that Hymowitz only collected statistics on the decline of marriage.
I find it rather weird that she didn’t collect the relevant statistics on median male income as she implicitly defines “good man” as “high earning man who wants to get married and have kids”.
Susan, I appreciate your analysis and critique of Hymowitz views, but I really don’t think the genie of changing social norms is going back in the bottle. Marriage is on the way out.
Shouldn’t cohabition be based on mutual benefit and satisfaction rather than a legal contract that punishes men and makes lawyers wealthy?
TO: All
RE: Hambydammit
The “core family” model, so popular these days with the right, was an odd little anomaly, gaining popularity after the industrial revolution and peaking during the 50s when McCarthyism and anti-homosexual sentiment…. — Hambydammit
Three guesses here, too.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The enemy of my enemy is my friend. -- Arab truism applied to feminazis]
TO: All
RE: Additional on Hambydammit
Why are men behaving like boys? Because they don’t have a tribe. In a tribal setting, nobody knew whose child was whose…. — Hambydammit
Sooooo…..
….how is it that damn near EVERY culture has a reverence for marriage? Eh?
Doesn’t seem to matter if it’s Judeo-Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or Apache or whathaveyou. There’s a common thread of ‘marriage’: a man and a woman.
Yet, Hambydammit seems to rail against it.
Why?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
TO: Workshy Joe
RE: Heh
Marriage is on the way out. — Workshy Joe
Not really.
Only amongst those who don’t really give a good ‘damn’ about the future. And that includes men as well as women.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Children, n., Messages we send to a future we shall never see.]
P.S. Thinking of you, ‘Princess’…..
@Geoff
I think a big reason why they were happier when I was single was because they were aware of my inability to “select” the right type of boys. When I brought home my first serious bf, they didn’t like him because they thought that he didn’t seem serious enough and was “just having fun”. I didn’t listen and got my heart broken and my marks dropped during a very critical period. I also spend a lot of time rationalizing/analyzing everything he or I said/did in a relationship or what went wrong and I get very emotional about it. In other words, I am a bad dater. So my parents were kind of like “since you can’t date effectively and that affects your performance in other areas such as school, don’t date, at least right now. Wait until you’re out of school and bit more mature before you make too many “hooking up” mistakes and damage not only your mental health, but also your future”. I am in my last year of my Master’s now and my mom is exactly like Susan – she’d point out at boys who are dads not cads and basically “encourage” me to find some good, homely boy and snatch him. And I can tell that she is extremely worried that I am selecting the wrong types. Although I know that she is right, there is some rebellion in me – it could be the fact that my parents have always had so much influence on my life to the point in which I’ve felt the need to make own decisions in life that are different than their decisions. They put a tremendous pressure on me to achieve and I was allowed little time “to have fun”. I also keep wondering if that is the main reason, why I never developed a sense of humor! I was also discouraged from spending time on “hobbies” my parents though were useless or somewhat risky to finding a job later in life. So when a “fun boy” was hitting on me, it was like he was getting me out my shell and bringing me to another world that I never knew before. Stupid, eh? At least I am realizing it, so that I can do something to change. I stayed at home during my bachelors and finally went away for Master’s to get some distance from my parents. They still try to “control me” through skype and e-mail almost every single day, but at least I have a bit more freedom to grow up on my own and to find myself. My parents have had extremely positive influence on my development and they kept me in the right track when I was steering away, but since I’ve been living on my own, traveling on my own and dating on my own, I’ve grown up so much and feel like I am finally starting to “get some things right”. I am still trying to develop my own opinion/views on certain topics and thank god, my parents don’t have a chance to contribute their influence for once.
-Florence
Actually, more and more men are going their own way. Leave us alone. Your shaming language has no effect on us whatsoever anyway….
TO: Florence
RE: YOU….
….are SERIOUSLY ‘conflicted’.
The only advice I can give to you is to get ‘out of your shell’ that you and others have put you into. A shell that constricts your approach to living your life to the fullest.
And HERE it is…..
Who Can Find a Good Woman?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Her worth is greater than rubies. -- Proverbs 31]
P.S. I’m fortunate to be married to such a woman. And it’s all true, what is said about such a wonder—in THIS day—as she.
P.P.S. If anyone can find anything ‘bad’ in that passage….
…I’d like them to explain it.
Chuck said: “Three guesses here, too.”
I’m not sure what you’ll guess, but the smart money bets that Mac and I are different genders.
I’m not sure what the implied joke is here. But then, I’m a pretty literal kind of dude. (Oh, damn… Gave it away…) There are clearly two sides to the question of forming stable relationships, and both sides have their own legitimate gripes. Once a household is formed, there are responsibilities that come with it. Traditionally, women have been more domestic, and have “defaulted” to housecleaning and childrearing. (There’s never been a period in any history I’m aware of in which men were the primary child-rearers.) So it makes sense that as men distance themselves from the “provider” role, women feel the disparity when they are still expected to fulfill the domestic role.
As I implied (and admittedly did not explicitly say) egalitarianism leads to mutual dissatisfaction with traditional relationship parameters. There’s an obvious question — if I’m not gaining anything by being in this relationship, why am I in it? And both genders are justified in asking the question.
So again… not sure what the joke is.
TO: Hambydammit
RE: Three Guesses….
I’m not sure what you’ll guess, but the smart money bets that Mac and I are different genders. — Hambydammit
….answered.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Three guesses, why….
Hambydammit, I don’t know what direct experience you have with “tribal life”, if any. There are several places on the globe where tribal people are living lifestyles practically unchanged for thousands of years and it simply is not true that “nobody knows who’s child is who’s”.
Inexperienced people tend to assume that “extended family” means a model wherein fathers are marginalized as other people in the family, as well as other unrelated tribal members, take on the raising, teaching and providing for of children.
Such is not the case.
Even in tribes where polyandry is practiced (South Asia, where I’m from) paternity is KNOWN, all the husbands/fathers remain committed to the family and live with their children. Its not a free-sex-free-4-all but a highly organized and heirarchal family model that evolved for various socio-economic reasons.
I’ve also read on white-dominated-manosphere-blogs that the entire African continent is a matriarchal free for all where women mate with “dominant alpha males” and then raise their children “communally” amongst women only.
Complete and utter hogwash.
Sheesh. Even a Discovery Channel program can school you on how that’s not true.
I am not a neo-con-nuclear-family-model-worshipper HOWEVER nobody has any business bringing children into the world unless they can provide for them financially, mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually without any government wefare.
This is usually best accomplished when there are at least 2 adult parental figures working conjointly for the betterment of their child.
If circumstances dictate that a responsible parent somehow finds him or herself alone and without a spouse/partner, then common sense and dignity dictates that they do not engage in “single parent dating” and trying to get laid, but rather invest ALL of their time into the care and loving of their child.
Anything less is child abuse in my opinion.
I’m glad you asked! It’s a funny thing, what happens when history gets written. You know the adage, right? “History is written by the victors.” In the West, the victors were the Christians. For better or worse, the Christian emphasis on monogamous marriage has redefined marriage for all of us. Throughout the 20th century, as anthropologists surveyed the world, they found that most every culture has some concept which can be called “marriage.” What has gotten left out of the popular dialog is that the parameters of “marriage” are so wildly varied across cultures that it’s almost useless to discuss the term as a discreetly defined phenomenon. It refers to everything from sex for a night (I forget the Muslim word, but it’s a “temporary” marriage) to political union (see: European Aristocratic History) to polygamy to monogamy.
Further clouding the waters is the fact that the institution of marriage and the practice of marriage have usually been significantly different. In Western Culture, marriage was primarily used as a mechanism for passing on property. (For bonus points, see if you can guess why the Church changed the laws of marriage from Biblical dictates after Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity.) What a man did (or produced) on his own time was irrelevant so long as it remained properly hidden and he produced a viable heir.
If you’re interested, here’s an article (with references) summarizing the transformation of “real” traditional marriage (which was polygamous) to Western marriage.
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/myth-sexuality-and-culture-the-influence-of-the-church/
This is part two of a three part series. References at the end of part three.
@hambydammit, as a married heterosexual I support gay marriage specifically for the legal benefits. You just can go and meet with a lawyer and make up enough papers to sign to get those benefits. Apparently seeing a loved on in the hospital is an example. Kids? Property? Assets? You want legal support.
Anyway, women are not showing a clarity of vision regarding mates who could be less successful than they are at making money and still of course wonderful people. There isn’t a roadmap on how to have that sort of relationship and let’s face it, most people aren’t exactly analytical hard thinkers. If you are a traditionally minded woman and want a traditionally minded man, I’m not talking about you — enjoy yourselves.
Why would a woman marry a man who doesn’t fit the old model of provider when she knows he sure isn’t going to take over the household either (would rather sit around and play Wii)? What’s a good man? A provider? A househusband? A partner?
I don’t have a good answer, though I’m very happy to have found a man with that balance. (oops, secret is out) What I’m here for is what I can do to help my kids of both sexes navigate this situation.
@Hambydammit, please see my comment here
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/02/22/relationshipstrategies/how-women-made-good-men-passe-and-sabotaged-their-own-futures/#comment-31459
for a perspective from someone with direct experience with “tribal life”.
Moreover, as a Hindu from a multi-millenial culture, I can assure you that neither monogamy nor “family unit” ideas had their origins in “Christianity”.
@Florence, “I also spend a lot of time rationalizing/analyzing everything he or I said/did in a relationship or what went wrong and I get very emotional about it.”
Florence, this is very common in girls and young women. In my culture relationships are something that is best left AFTER you complete your studies.
My parents didn’t even allow me to date until I was 18, and even then they tried to dictate who, what, where, when. (I did sneak out a few times).
Kids do better in school without extra emotional drama. That’s why studies show girls do better in all-girls schools and boys in all-boys schools.
Sexual segregation has its benefits.
TO: All
RE: Hambydammit
In the West, the victors were the Christians. — Hambydammit
Actually…
Christians are hardly the ‘victors’ in the West. Just look at the way they are demonized by feminazis and their compatriots, e.g., homosexuals and other camps of the ‘progressives’.
Anyone with (1) more than two synapses to rub together, (2) any modicum of understanding IPB and a totally unbiased approach to reality would see the truth of it at even the most casual observation.
Now, the likes of Hambydammit consider it ‘their time’. And, in this venue-time, it could well be. We—Christians—were warned about this so long ago. But they are sadly mistaken as to the final outcome of the ‘engagement’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
So I saw an ad for this movie today. Alex Pettyfer makes a particularly blunt comment about the SMP beginning. Do you think this movie will be more “realistic” (about love, obviously the magic isn’t realistic) than previous teen romances (like Twilight)? I’m not holding my breathe but I think there is a chance.
TO: Mac
RE: Sooooo….
hambydammit, as a married heterosexual I support gay marriage specifically for the legal benefits. — Mac
….answer my question.
You sound like a feminist to me. If not an outright feminazi.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth....it's out there....]
TO: All
RE: Out of ‘Curiosity’….
….why is it that I’m the only person here—other than Susan Walsh, if I ‘appreciate’ her properly—using their REAL NAME?
Something to do with ‘plausible deniability’, pehaps?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Courage is the greatest of all virtues, because if you haven't courage, you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others. -- Samuel Johnson]
Men have been liberated from only having that one role. The thing is, what did women do when they could not be the provider? Oh, that’s right, they ran the household and raised the kids. That’s your choice. It’s not being a provider vs sitting on your ass playing videogames.
Actually that’s exactly where the disconnect lies.
LIberation for men is not abandoning being the provider for a family and instead becoming the male wife to a female provider. Liberation for men is abandoning family life altogether — i.e., again, not taking on the previous “wife/female” roles, but simply opting out of committed relationships or, at the very least, putting that off for as long as possible.
This is what Hymowitz is talking about. And it makes perfect sense to me, as a man. If I were in my 20s today I’d probably be doing the same thing, really.
TO: Brendan
RE: Heh
This is what Hymowitz is talking about. And it makes perfect sense to me, as a man. — Brendan
You are not all you think you are.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[One man with courage is a majority. -- Thomas Jefferson]
P.S. I doubt if you’re that ‘man’…..
Mac said “Why would a woman marry a man who doesn’t fit the old model of provider when she knows he sure isn’t going to take over the household either (would rather sit around and play Wii)? What’s a good man? A provider? A househusband? A partner?”
I don’t have a good reason. I suppose if I were a savvy woman, and was looking at a relationship as an improvement (or at least status quo) in material security, I wouldn’t. But then, I’m a dude, and I don’t have any idea what it’s like to think like a woman, so maybe it doesn’t seem so smart from the other side of the fence. I dunno.
As am I. As you can probably tell, I’m not a big fan of telling everyone that they have to conform to traditional relationship models. I think traditional marriage is basically on the way out, but it’s going to take a long time to transform into something more societally and individually functional. Old habits die hard.
That being said, I think both women and men have a chance of getting what they want if they play it smart. And I’m happy to offer strategies for getting a monogamous long term marriage if that’s what someone’s after. It’s difficult, but workable.
On the other hand, I also encourage people not to “default” to pursuit of such a relationship, just because that’s what everybody’s doing. At various times in our lives, the “traditional” thing just isn’t practical. And there’s no good reason I can think of not to pursue the type of relationship that makes the most sense at any given time.
Chuck said: “Christians are hardly the ‘victors’ in the West. Just look at the way they are demonized by feminazis and their compatriots, e.g., homosexuals and other camps of the ‘progressives’.”
Dammit… didn’t accept image embed code…
[img]http://www.goldrush.com/~ladyhawklh/ChristianHelp.gif[/img]
Look me up. You can figure out who I am if you like. There’s only one Hambydammit on the net that I know of. I’m not going to help you cyberstalk me though
I use a pen name because it’s fun. And I like it.
TO: hambydammit
RE: ‘Look-Up’
Look me up. — hambydammit
I have no need to. You’ve identified yourself enough. Something to do with recognition signals.
All of my comments have not been about you-and-me. Rather, about you-ane-the-uninformed.
Something about ‘know your enemy’. I was trained by the best.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Target Recognition is essential on the field of 'battle'. Be it armed combat or politices.]
Why don’t you boys get a room? The latent homosexual tension of you two arguing with each other is no longer titillating.
TO: Geoff789
RE: Too Funny, But….
….thanks for pointing out the unnatural nature of hambydammit.
Personally? I’m married to the woman who reminds me of the female lead in…
….Life Force….
….http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089489/
She even has the same—pardon the expression—maiden name as the female lead therein.And her sensuality is the epitome of a ‘steam-punk erotica’ short.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Eat your heart out, boy…..
P.P.S. About that ‘get a room’ business….
Long ago and far away in the land of cadet training at some silly fort in Kansas….
…I was coming back from the ‘shower point’ on the ‘rifle ranges’ one night….
….when a dark figure sidled up to me and asked if I, “wanted to go hunting for ‘snakes’”.
I replied that, “….the only ‘snakes’ I found woud have their ‘heads’ cut off with THIS KNIFE.”
the ‘dark figure’ disappeared into the darkness of the field.
Point being…..
…you want to shack up with a pervert, you’re responsible for the outcome, HIV, AIDS, whathaveyou.
@LJ
The reason you don’t see any research occurring in this area is that feminism is a third rail in politics. There are plenty of academics studying the issue and sort-of blaming men, including several males, btw. However, I have not seen a single study that takes into account the long-term consequences of the Women’s Movement. Not one. Without an unbiased look at cause and effect relationships, we’ll just have to keep making intuitive judgment calls. I agree that’s not sufficient.
@Mac
This is a good point. Women are confused about male roles in society, just as men are. It’s also true that women are not being analytical enough – this is hardly surprising, as we tend to intuit emotionally. That “radar” isn’t working very well in this SMP.
@GudEnuf, @Joe
I think this is a very interesting choice of words. So traditional values are irrational? Are there any worth keeping? I don’t understand why new is always better than traditional.
Re the zero sum game question, it really depends. If the pie stays the same size, and we have to now divide it up among twice as many people, then men have lost opportunities. That is the worst case scenario. If the pie increases in size due to innovation, productivity and/or gains in efficiency, then the effect may be mitigated. Only if the pie doubles in size does everybody win. That is the best case scenario. My own guess is that the pie has increased in size a bit, but some of that is government financed.
Interestingly, a very popular topic is the increase in the wealth gap – the gap between rich and poor. Many of the “rich” are households with two educated earners. When you take out the affluent marrieds, the gap shrinks considerably. This is not PC to talk about, and I heard a guest on NPR get shot down for pointing this out, because he went so far as to say the solution to the wealth gap is that more women opt out of the work force.
Expanding efforts to get more women in STEM will succeed only to the extent that women are interested in STEM and feel discouraged from entering those fields. Unless we have substantial evidence of this, it sounds like an expensive and pointless exercise.
Agree 100% that we cannot and should not blame anyone for their life choices. As long as they aren’t looking for taxpayer support, to each his own.
Kay Hymowitz also wrote an article about the 1960s ghetto family “structure” indictment “The Moynihan Report” here;
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html
Her premise is that it was ignored and vilified for being “racist” and now almost 50 years later Americans, both black and white, are paying the price.
In this article she qoutes Supreme Court Justice William Brennan as describing the “extended family” as something in any culture where extended family is the norm, would be unrecognizable:
”Take, for instance, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who wrote a concurring assent in the 1977 Moore v. City of East Cleveland decision. The case concerned a woman and her grandson evicted from a housing project following a city ordinance that defined “family” as parents—or parent—and their own children. Brennan did not simply agree that the court should rule in favor of the grandmother—a perfectly reasonable position. He also assured the court that “the extended family has many strengths not shared by the nuclear family.” Relying on Robert Hill’s “science,” he declared that delinquency, addiction, crime, “neurotic disabilities,” and mental illness were more prevalent in societies where “autonomous nuclear families prevail,” a conclusion that would have bewildered the writers of the Constitution that Brennan was supposedly interpreting.”
I have found this misconception common amongst Westerners wrt to their understanding of “extended family”.
I come from a culture where “extended family” is the norm. IT DOES NOT MEAN THE ABSENSE OF FATHERS FROM THE HOME.
Rather, it means the PRESENCE of grandparents and a few aunts and uncles in the home.
The thought of an “extended family” WITHOUT a functioning father is UNHEARD OF.
And that is why we are so successful when we immigrate and expatriate.
If our “extended families” looked they way they do in the US – children not knowing who their Daddies are and being “babysat” by our Grandmoms while our Moms were out “dating”…..do you really think South Asian kids would be winning all those spelling bees and getting awesome jobs when they grow up?
@Joe
Yes, this was not even mentioned in the article, and I suspect it is a very relevant and important factor. Sons of divorced parents have often not had the opportunity to spend as much time as necessary with their fathers. Even in cases where both parents are willing to share custody, it’s a very tough assignment for the father who is now living in an apartment, paying bills for two households and child support. And of course, the kids have very mixed feelings about leaving the house to go stay in a strange place, possibly located outside their normal friend zone.
If you want an egalitarian marriage, and it sounds like you do, then I recommend adopting the “from each according to his ability” philosophy. If both parties are applying themselves fully, that should suffice. A man who is an addiction counselor, for example, will make a fraction of a lawyer’s salary, but he may work every bit as hard. In my experience, marital finances should be combined and not tracked by individual, as long as both parties are fully committed to contributing however they can.
You can support “traditional” positions with rational arguments. I can have an honest debate with people who believe God, abstinence, and anti-feminism. But people who are against gay marriage don’t respond to rational arguments. They get all their positions from tradition. Sure, they’ll confabulate arguments if you put them on the spot. But those arguments aren’t the real reason they believe. And if you want to spot these people quick, ask them what they think of gay marriage.
With college costing 50+K per year, I can tell you that a drop in grades due to a preoccupation of any kind is most unwelcome. Whether it’s joining a frat, playing a sport, falling in love – whatever – college makes no sense unless you can apply yourself fully and do well. There are many worthless college degrees in this country, and many poorly educated college graduates. Of course, no parent wants to see their child suffer, but Florence didn’t indicate that she was heartbroken. In fact, being heartbroken is probably a common cause of failing grades.
Does anyone else smell the odor of thread-derailing troll in here? Or is it just me?
Keoni Galt said this here recently – we’ve feminized our men and masculinized our women. And I think that’s what Stuart was getting at, at least in part, when he talked about women being the good men they’re looking for.
@GudEnuf
“realistic” (about love, obviously the magic isn’t realistic) than previous teen romances (like Twilight)? I’m not holding my breathe but I think there is a chance.
You know the thing that bothers me about Twilight criticism is that everyone seems to have an opinion about something they don’t bother to read. Read the books first have an opinion about it later and if you are too good to read them, don’t express the one you read from a friend of a friend.
@Susan.
Is indeed a shame everyone is too afraid to actually ask the hard questions about Feminism 40 years later. I’m pretty sure we could recover a lost faster if we could find the flaws and try to do something about it, before social crisis get to us. I’m really sad that probably 100 years from now our descendants will look at us with disdain and confusion. That is if we survive this crisis.
“in my experience gay marriage is dividing line between the people who think rationally, and the people who think traditionally.”
I am pretty traditional and I totally support gay marriage. I really think that if you thing dating is bad on straight relationships as off now, gay relationships without restrain and guidance are even worst, they don’t have a biological clock so they can settle down whenever they feel like it, if they ever want to and they don’t have any incentive for any higher goal except bang as many hot men they can, or bang as many men as they can and this leads to four times the issues we see here. Again I’m talking about the gay dating scene in my country and I had a ton of gay friends, but so far I think its a good sample size of how things work on general. I firmly believe that if Jesus were here he would totally be trying to get gay people to church, marriage and adopting babies, because they need it as much as we do. Of course I also accepted traditional values mostly because they work for the best on the long run for our society d I happen to be in love with humanity and I want us to prosper so that might explain my political inclination.
@Florence
As a mother who has exerted too much influence from time to time, I applaud your struggle for independence. Your parents will get in line when you demonstrate the conviction of purpose that comes with true maturity – they won’t have a choice. If you were my daughter I would be quite proud of you – you’re thinking deeply about important issues.
Re: Gay marriage. They should have the legal right to as much misery as hetero couples.
Re: American men being less masculine than before – any examples?
And define exactly what you mean by the word “masculine”.
Florence said….”I also keep wondering if that is the main reason, why I never developed a sense of humor!”
From the general tone of your comments, I doubt that you’re completely lacking in a sense of humor. You seem to have a pretty good level of self-awareness, which is usually lacking in humorless people.
@GudEnuf
Re Beastly: Is it possible the girl would still fall for the guy after he became hideous looking? Yes, if she is of sterling character and was attracted to a lot more than his looks from the beginning. If she is just another girl taking her shot at the top dog, she’d run the other way at 60 mph. And if he’d looked like that from the beginning? She would have never given him a minute of her time.
I heard about a study on NPR recently, can’t remember the specific source right now, that said, “Oh, yay, good news! Men are now welcome in the caregiving professions – they are accepted as employees in schools, hospitals and nursing homes!” They then interviewed men, who made it clear they wanted absolutely no part of being told they should now pursue a profession as a “nurturer.” It’s just a major FAIL!
For the record, I have no problem with people using pseudonyms. It gives people the freedom to speak uncensored thoughts, which are always the most interesting. I thought long and hard about using my real name to blog. If I were not a blogger, but a commenter, I’d probably use an alias. Also, for the record, someone outed a commenter here in a very cruel way last year, and that was in spite of her using a pseudonym. Using your real name can make you vulnerable to nut jobs.
Good men have not disappeared. They are all over the place, largely being ignored. Or these good men are just too preoccupied with making something of themselves to bother with clingy, needy women with personality disorders.
Seriously, if there is one common thread I’ve noticed with women who use the “where have all the good men gone” line, it’s that they almost universally have serious personality disorders and expect to be treated as queens right off the bat because they have a vagina. If you want to get them mad, ask them what they have to offer that’s so special. Their reaction is priceless. Denial is much a much easier route to take than admitting to your own shortcomings.
“Pig heaven” sounds like a vastly preferable alternative over being emasculated by some domineering drama queen who can only find faults in the other 6 billion residents of this planet, but can’t give a moment of pause for self-reflection.
I also agree with the point about the bar being raised for men. Now that manual labour has become obsolete and women are competing with men for jobs, it is not as easy for men to fulfill the role of provider as it was in the 50s.
Additionally, I’ve never encountered a generally pretty and “nice” woman, with a good head on her shoulders, who hasn’t been able to pick from the cream of the crop. If you repeatedly find yourself humped and dumped, but no one wants to commit to you, then the problem is probably you, not the entire male sex.
This may be hard for some women to wrap their head around, but men are much better at distinguishing f**kable women from relationship-worthy women. You can have all the beauty and “status” (as if we give 2 craps about that) in the world, but that isn’t what’s going to make a man want to settle down with you. You have to be a generally pleasant person to be around. Many women simply aren’t…especially the ones who think there are no good men left.
*LIberation for men is not abandoning being the provider for a family and instead becoming the male wife to a female provider.
*I heard about a study on NPR recently, can’t remember the specific source right now, that said, “Oh, yay, good news! Men are now welcome in the caregiving professions – they are accepted as employees in schools, hospitals and nursing homes!” They then interviewed men, who made it clear they wanted absolutely no part of being told they should now pursue a profession as a “nurturer.” It’s just a major FAIL!
*
I find this a tad offensive toward men who ARE in those professions – like Athol Kay.
A recent visit to a local hospital proved to me that there are many male nurses, nurses aids, orderlies, physical therapists, etc, and that amongst those men providing those “nurturing services” several are African American.
Regarding “male wife” – a man cooks, cleans and does laundry for himself when he is single. He also does the same when married in a dual income home. I see no shame in a man doing the majority of household chores in a situation where he is either employed part-time or unemployed.
Particularly SAHDs – stay at home dads – with babies/small children pull more than their weight in the family.
@Steph,
“Jesus were here he would totally be trying to get gay people to church, marriage and adopting babies, because they need it as much as we do.”
.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I would bet my left testicle that you have never, in your life, read the Bible in its entirety. Watching “The Ten Commandments” every year at Easter does not make you an authority on Christian doctrine.
.
Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” –So Jesus is saying the Old Testament still matters.
.
And the Old Testament is pretty clear on this issue: Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
.
Also, Matthew 19:4 he defines marriage as a union between male and female.
.
So while I don’t believe Jesus would call for the stoning to death of homosexuals as does Islam today–Jesus would CERTAINLY not be telling them that homosexuality is just fine with God, cuz God’s cool with being your own self, whatever that is. God destroyed the city of Sodom after men in those towns attempted to rape 2 male angels. There aren’t many things in the Bible as crystal-clear as the statement that homosexuality is an abomination.
.
I now declare this thread officially hijacked.
“Even in cases where both parents are willing to share custody, it’s a very tough assignment for the father who is now living in an apartment, paying bills for two households and child support. ”
*
I don’t know what its like amongst the uber-rich but amongst lower, lower-middle and middle class folk, the divorced father pays bills for 1 household – his own – and child support.
@Geoff
Leviticus also has a HUGE l list of sins that include things we as modern people don’t consider abominations like no eating shrimp, or wearing mixed fabrics and my personal favorite not eating four legged insects (something that doesn’t even exist on the real world) No to mention Jesus did changed to the old testament laws that were no permitted like no working on Saturdays, and of course he said whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery another thing that many Christians do get divorced even when there is no sexual immorality (so according to this not even abuse classifies as grounds for divorce). Has it occurred to you that all this commandments and rules are always being used on the context? Picking and choosing is the main difference between the myriads of Christian faiths, I will add that Jesus was criticized by the priests for spending his time among the sinners, do you remember his answer to that?
I actually studied theology so I did not only read it entirely I analyzed from Christian, Jewish and atheists POV’s and I still do. I also I read every holy book written on every mayor single religion, except the Scientology one (for obvious reasons I hope) but don’t worry I don’t want your left testicle,I’m pretty sure you need it more than I do thank you for the offering though
I like your blog and I wish more women were able to understand the content.
Didn’t James Watson say something to the effect that Africans didn’t have the intellectual capacity to understand any policies that could be implemented to benefit them?
Isn’t this the same problem men are facing whenever they try to explain to a woman the crux of the issue and what remedies are available?
I just don’t see the point of wasting my breath trying to explain something to a person who doesn’t have the ability, let alone the motivation to help themselves.
Nothing will change for the men who are of marrying age presently. It will get sorted out in a few generations after the impending demographic/economic/social/spiritual/emotional collapse of society.
Till then?
A lonely, crying woman is a beautiful thing to see. Funny – I’ve gone from wanting to be the kind of guy who could dry a girl’s tears to the kind of guy who laughs at them.
All it took was time.
And why do articles like this never address the rampant sluttery of modern american women?
Why should sluts expect a good man?
Chico: That is true. But is also true that given today’s society/culture that normally only means a woman who will treat you “fairly” in a divorce, not someone who will stand by you through thick and thin.
Susan,
First off I want to say I’ve really been enjoying your posts as you are really fair about the subject matter that you discuss. I also would like to state I am not party to MGTOW philosophies or that vocal in regards to Mens Rights, but what I am is a “REAL” man who is of character and chooses to be with women who choose to be of similar character. When I deal with women I am fair, considerate and there might be a few women around who would say I am very loving. It took a lot of time to focus on myself as a man making mistakes like all men do, with that said I’m proud of the person I am and the fact that I am a man.
While I feel I am essentially late to the party comment wise I do believe I have a small morsel to impart. As a 37 year old man who has a degree in engineering but chooses to work in a more blue collar environment that I enjoy, I do believe that Mrs, Hymowitz just doesn’t understand the whole story regarding why men who are in my opinion are just following what best interests them in the long run.She brings up the fact that young men today are essentially loutish and seem to be retreating into the oft used and very tired description of peter pan’s “Lost Boys’. She also cites the fact that women today seem to be the more “serious” of the sexes and are soon to be the predominant group in charge in the future working environment.
I use a small snippet of her own words to illustrate how delusional she is.
“Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.”
I have a question for Mrs Hymowitz what happens to these successful women when they are past thirty, approaching their middle thirties and crest out into their forties without these obsolete men?
I used my age 37 (38 in march) to illustrate a point, and that point is like it or not the reality of life without men hits them with a vengeance when they try to do things such as inseminate themselves with donor sperm and raise a child on their own, whether women like it or not IVF is not always successful, conjointly it is very expensive and most of the time it takes multiple tries to accomplish successful implantation. I would add that there is a psychological toll on some women when their bodies betray them and they essentially have to deal with it alone without a partner to hold their hand. But lets say that they indeed get the child they want? while they may indeed feel blessed, now they have to deal with raising a child all alone and while some women who are at an higher socioeconomic ladder have the means to do so do quite well, the majority of women do so but suffer difficult episodes along the way. I have dated women dealing with this and I have seen the uglier side of women raising kids alone. Mrs, Hymowitz lauds the fact that women are capable of doing this, but in the end how many women really want to?
Mrs Hymowitz also debates about how women are flocking to schools of higher learning and out-pacing their male peers in obtaining degrees. While that may be true what type of degrees are they obtaining and I might also ask what is the relative value of a BA, MA, or a PHD today? I have women friends with Masters degrees in Art history, Teaching, Social Services, and Law, etc…. making $40,000 to $50,000a year, some even less! These friends have school loans in the range of $80,000 to $150,000. A few male friends of mine as well as myself who eschewed the traditional manner in education namely, going into the military directly out of high school, touring the world, then going to college and graduating on a GI bill while I worked as an electricians apprentice. When I graduated I realized I made more as an Electrician than I did with my engineering degree relatively debt free. So it only makes sense for some men who are not ready for school just don’t go. I’m sure most men would agree with me and say eventually these dreaded peter pan men eventually grow up all on their own and when they do grow up they seem to be quite successful and they pick women who are of character.
In closing I really don’t think Mrs Hymowitz really talked about what she “really’ wanted to talk about. What I believe she really wanted to talk about was that unfortunately women like her aren’t able to control men fully and so they try to build an audience of other women and Mangina’s to shame men into falling into situations with women of low character who don’t have their best interests at heart.
TO: Susan Walsh
RE: [OT] It’s a Matter….
I have no problem with people using pseudonyms. — Susan Walsh
….of ‘courage’. Or perhaps ‘character‘.
That was the point being made.
People can say whatever they like from behind the anonymity of noms des blogs. But somehow they lack the personal conviction necessary to convince me or other folks who have the ‘character’ to face the world and declare their honestly held opinions as themselves. An analogous scenario would be going to a single’s bar, effecting a hook-up and giving a false name.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin. -- Proverbs]
TO: StrikeforceMorituri
RE: TARGET!!!!
….I believe she really wanted to talk about was that unfortunately women like her aren’t able to control men fully and so they try to build an audience of other women and Mangina’s to shame men into falling into situations with women of low character who don’t have their best interests at heart. — StrikeforceMorituri
Cease Fire….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Entered the Army after the first year of college. Got a Bachelors and Masters and then some via the GI Bill.
@ Geoff et al
I truly hope one day people become more accepting of homosexuals.Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time and just because some people see it as a abomination, it doesn’t mean that it is. I have some homosexual and bi- friends and they’re quite talented, interesting and intelligent. If you haven’t been to countries where gay marriage is legalized, you should go. You will realize how liberated and laid back everyone is. Those are societies that will accept you the way you are instead of judging every little aspect of you.
-Florence
“I know what you’re thinking. Why, oh why, didn’t I take the blue pill?”
The more I read, the more depressing it gets. Bitterness lurks around the corner, yet I forge on. The only way to overcome the quagmire of the SMP is to look at it honestly and openly; it hurts.
“Seriously, if there is one common thread I’ve noticed with women who use the “where have all the good men gone” line, it’s that they almost universally have serious personality disorders and expect to be treated as queens right off the bat because they have a vagina. If you want to get them mad, ask them what they have to offer that’s so special. Their reaction is priceless. Denial is much a much easier route to take than admitting to your own shortcomings.” -Chico
This statement makes me realize how much I’ve debased myself as a man before women. “Worshiping the pussy” as it were. Everything I ever thought about marriage has been tossed on it’s ear. It’s not that I was wrong, just unrealistic. Women need to measure up to me. I’m rare, attractive women are a dime a dozen, and newer models become more accessible every day. What do they have that makes them so special?
In a way, I was objectifying women by placing them on a pedestal. (despite all my claims of never wanting to be such an asshole.) I’m just now starting to look at them objectively. Suddenly they’re human. That the name “taken from man” has very real connotations.
@Plain Jane
If you read my comment carefully, you’ll notice that I did not say no men want to be nurses. I said they resent being told that now that women have entered the boardroom, we’re in desperate need of health care workers and elementary school teachers so men should take those jobs. There’s been a clear implication on the part of some feminists that men should eagerly pursue the very careers that they worked so hard to get women out of. It has nothing to do with race.
Re SAHDs – that’s entirely up to the couple, I think society respects men well enough who go this route. However, having raised two children in a city with many career mothers, I can tell you that I’ve only ever known two SAHDs. One was a novelist (successful) and the other a real estate developer who worked from home.
I agree that there is no shame in a man doing household chores, and many do.
Let’s keep religion out of it altogether. I cannot imagine any occasion where it’s relevant to HUS, except perhaps in a discussion of virginity, and even then I prefer to steer clear of it.
In Massachusetts, where I live, alimony is alive and well.
@SN2
I don’t have any problem with acknowledging that many women sabotage their own long-term interests, whether through ignorance or denial, but there’s plenty of evidence in this post alone that women do not lack intellectual capacity.
@StrikeforceMorituri
Welcome, and thanks so much for your kind words and support. Re women having children alone:
I agree that Ms. Hymowitz is way, way off base here. I think the number of women who knowingly choose to play the field well into their 30s and then go to a sperm bank is miniscule. Most often it’s a case of “I just never met the right guy” and a desperate attempt to become a mother in the only way still available. Lori Gottlieb, who wrote the book Marry Him: The Case for Settling actually had a child by herself believing this would attract more men. I have no idea what planet she was on. Of course, she found it extremely difficult, physically, emotionally, and logistically to care for a child alone, and any opportunities to date vanished. The quote that I started the post with is not only offensive, it’s ridiculous. Women do not want to have families without a partner.
Your own experience re a college education is interesting, and very telling. As I’ve alluded to in another comment, the value of the college degree has declined dramatically. It does not surprise me that you can work as an electrician and do better than you could in a white collar job. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds over the next 10-20 years. Many women with college degrees will marry men who don’t have them, or remain single. Some will choose the latter, but I predict that many women will happily couple with men in the trades.
TO: Florence
RE: [OT] On Homosexuality
It’s not us who is hostile to homosexuality. It’s the Big Guy upstairs. You can read about it in His Book.
We just warn them about them about the ‘cliff’ they’re driving headlong towards. And we’re considered ‘hateful’ for telling the truth as we understand it. So if we’re ‘hateful’, what do you do if you see a drunk in a bar pulling out his car keys as he staggers towards the door? Let him go off and kill himself and/or someone else?
Hope that helps….
….but I have SERIOUS doubts as to that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It never hurts to help, unless you're helping a 'progressive'.]
@Susan,
“I cannot imagine any occasion where it’s relevant to HUS, except perhaps in a discussion of virginity, and even then I prefer to steer clear of it.”
.
Agree wholeheartedly. But she started it. Nanny nanny boo boo, etc.
I’ve only skimmed this & not sure how much of it I agree with, but thought y’all would like to see this post from the always-interesting Dusk in Autumn.
Value of a college education…Several years ago, Mike Mandel (then the chief economist of BizWeek) observed that a college education was an investment with an unusually high rate of return, and that it was not natural for such rates of return to exist for prolonged periods of time, because they get competed away as others discover the investment and/or the costs of the factors involved in the investment rise due to higher demand.
Looks like it’s pretty much happened…
@david foster
Not sure why the writer claims that promiscuity has plummeted in the last 20 years?
TO: Susan Walsh
RE: Religious Aspects of HUS Discussion
I cannot imagine any occasion where it’s relevant to HUS, except perhaps in a discussion of virginity, and even then I prefer to steer clear of it. — Susan Walsh
Actually, one cannot have a discussion about morality—and sexuality IS all about morals—without recognition of the moral basis of someone’s perspective. Granted people have different sets of morals, but morals are what drives human behavior more than anything else. Just because someone’s morality is based on a religious perspective is not justification to suppress their contribution to discussion….that is if the discussion is to be honestly open and candid.
Indeed, any interjection of moral perspective should be able to throw a line to the topic at hand, e.g., “I think this is true based on my observation of THIS [INSERT RELIGIOUS REFERENCE HERE} and here is why [INSERT CORRELATION TO TOPIC AT HAND HERE].”
As some Englishman put it….
Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one nor the other. — John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn
In this venue, I would paraphrase the Viscount to say….
Those who would treat sexuality and morality apart will never understand either.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[All Law is based on morality.]
TO: All
RE: Speaking of Religion and this Thread
Looking back on the heartache the likes of Hymowitz are experiencing having emasculated and thereby marginalized so many men and then complaining that they can no longer find a ‘good’ one to live with….
….I’m reminded of a passage in that Old Book. From the ‘Fall’….
….thy [woman's] desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. — Gen 3:16
These ‘feminists’—these ‘feminazis’—are complaining about their desire for a good man. But they are conflicted by a good man being able to ‘rule over’ them. The problem is one of overreaching ‘pride’. They are too proud to take a man that they cannot control. And the men they CAN control are not what they want.
We’re talking SERIOUS cognitive dissonance, here. And if they cannot overcome their pride, they’ll end up trying to raise a child by themselves. And if they raise a boy-child, they’ll likely turn him into a the sort of milksop they are complaining about.
Hillary is wrong in her assertion that ‘It takes a village to raise a child’. It takes a FAMILY to raise one….properly.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. -- C. S. Lewis]
Susan re the Dusk in Autumn link: “Not sure why the writer claims that promiscuity has plummeted in the last 20 years?”
Not sure either, but he’s a very quantitative guy and actually has another (not free) blog focused on social science statistics. On his free blog, he’s posted data showing a decline of violence, but don’t remember seeing any about promiscuity…I’ll ask.
It’s a glorious time to be a divorced man.
There’s more ass out there than ever before – from sea to shining sea *sniff*.
Please keep the marriage crisis going….some of us are having too much fun.
It’s too beautiful!
Sincerely,
Getting Tons of Ass
I do worry about the young American men of today, though, seriously.
How will they ever be ready for future alimony and child support payments if they can’t find full-time jobs?
Hello Ms. Walsh,
Once again, excellent article. And incidentally my post today takes up a very closely related topic, which I will refer to with a direct quote from Escarondito’s comments above:
“The “test” of manhood is much higher for our generation. To become a “man” in my day and age is what extraordinary men were in the last. In other words, the image of men has related to women’s image of a collective man. And, the bar has been raised by a collective of women with higher standards that most men cannot reach, and therefore cannot compete.”
Esca must’ve been reading my mind! Here’s a bit of what I wrote earlier today:
“You know, after spending a bit of time in the (virtually all White) Manosphere, one thing becomes very clear to you: that the bulk and mass of the guys there, are what I call Marginal White Males – White guys who are, for all intents, in the middle of the social, economic and educational pack. They’re usually at the least, nominally middle class, though some have more working class roots, have attended decent, but not stellar (read: elite) schools for the most part, aren’t dumb by any stretch but aren’t geniuses either, and who mostly work as cogs in the wheel, either in the private sector, or in quite a few cases, for the very government so many of them decry as the ruination of our entire way of life. Although there are obvious exceptions, for the most part, the denizens of this demographic in the Manosphere, are the de facto losers of the Brave New World in which we live – in more ways than just one…Marginal White Males have none of these things, and worse, in aggregate, have almost no chance to acquire them either, since their human potential for learning Game is limited, and not enough with which to attract Today’s Women, who simply require more in the way of the kinds of traits Alphas display – hence their consternation on the aforementioned blogs, among a great many others throughout the (White) Manosphere. These are the guys who proudly refer to themselves as Reactionaries – who want to rollback the clock on human progress and accomplishment. Too bad for them, that not only is such a thing ever gonna happen, but that even if it could, they would still run the very high chance that they could wind up losers in the SMP. After all, history has always recorded that there have been more male reproductive losers than female, the latter greatly outpacing the former in this regard. Of course, back then, one big factor was early death of the males in the round of sexual competition, be that death due to fighting in wars, dying on workplace accidents, disease or indeed, being killed by a sexual competitor. In today’s world however, all of these possibilities are moot, at best, since all of these things have been greatly ameliorated. Hence the strong presence on the Internet of such guys – the surplus of the Male side of Humanity.”
– The Plight Of The Marginal White Male
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62391
To be sure, I’ll have more to say about you, Doc Stuart’s and Kay Hymowitz’s thoughts in due course, because the topic goes beyond purely what I am talking about above; but surely, I trust you all can see what I am saying.
Holla back
O.
@Obs
Thanks for the citation. As for the situation, I think I am ahead of the curve by trying to constantly elevate my status and position and not resting on my well-paying desk position. For PJay’s generation he’s just riding the wave. For mine? To a much more stringent filter than before our genes must be fine-tuned, or die off.
Hooray for feminism! Woot woot!
Puff puff pass
)))))
@Escarondito:
You should just “ride the wave”, too. We called it something else when i was in my 20s.
Tri-pho-ri-aaaaaaaaaa!
RE: SaHDs
I’ve known exactly one. Interestingly, he was fiercely Republican, highly sexist, racist to a fault, and loved, loved, loved being a stay at home dad. He had six (count em) six children with a woman who had no interest in staying at home. She was a very successful lawyer pulling well over 6 figures a year, and kept her husband in the style befitting a kept man with great daddy skills. He carted them to ballet, baseball, church (three times a week without fail), school, and anywhere else they needed to go. Kept house like a five star hotel maid.
So… yeah, SaHDs definitely exist. Frankly, I’m waiting for a rich woman to pay me to stay at home, write, cook and clean. I’m not interested in the children part though. And I’m a liberal heathen.
The point I’m making is that argument from anecdote simply isn’t useful in this kind of discussion. Everybody’s probably met one SaHD in their life, and that’s fine. But it’s worth pointing out that hardly anybody’s met more than two or three, and that’s no small thing. I suggest that this is largely due to — go figure — a female double standard. They talk big about wanting equality in the home, but I honestly don’t think many of them really want it. If the dude’s not pulling enough income to keep things comfortable, most women I know are like… “DUDE! Get a goddamn job! I don’t care if you’re cleaning the house!” The thought of making more than their dude and “picking up his slack” is appalling.
Which pulls it back around to the original idea. Equality doesn’t breed real equality. It simply takes away both gender’s “need” for the other one to stick around in a committed relationship. One of your posters hit on something really important that I’ve mentioned in the past. Ask most women “what do you bring to the table besides the vagina?” (Do it more tactfully than that, please.) No matter how nicely you ask, you’re going to get a lot of angry responses. That’s because the average man doesn’t need the average woman’s salary. He doesn’t need her family. He doesn’t need her charming wit.
On the other side of the fence, whether it’s true or not, many women still behave as if they need a man in their life. I suspect many believe it, either subconsciously or consciously. And if that’s true, then men are the sellers and women the buyers. And if that’s the case, women have to offer something.
But they can’t, because they got equality. It’s a nasty mess.
@Hamby
Women need men, and want men, IMO, no matter how much money they make. We want loving partners to journey through life with. Women may often behave in such a way that actually prevents them from getting that – but I do think it’s what women want.
You make a really important point about men being the sellers. If men can just refuse to make the life choice to partner, or at least to delay it significantly, then they are indeed the sellers. They’re in no rush at all, and women hear tick tock. So women are at a disadvantage b/c they can’t force commitment. They will indeed have to offer something, and they’re going to have to offer it to men who may have achieved less than they themselves have – or they’re going to go it alone.
At least Kay Hymowitz expressed in the article I linked to above that the highest OOW (out of wedlock) teen birthrate was in the …. drumroll ….. 1950s!!!
“There was just one small problem: there was no epidemic of teen pregnancy. There was an out-of-wedlock teen-pregnancy epidemic. Teenagers had gotten pregnant at even higher rates in the past. The numbers had reached their zenith in the 1950s, and the “Eleven Million Teenagers” cited in the Guttmacher report actually represented a decline in the rate of pregnant teens. Back in the day, however, when they found out they were pregnant, girls had either gotten married or given their babies up for adoption.”
Isn’t that the Ozzie and Harriett era that all the men here hold up as a shining example of virtue and “family values”?
Helen Fisher takes the sledgehammer to Hymowitz’s piece here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/manning-up-or-wimping-out-men-dont-exist-to-serve-womens-desires/
The basic point remains: if you view men and our actions through a gynocentric lens, you will very often be disappointed and/or dismayed.
Benjamin Fox,
I am glad I helped you realize your epiphany. I hope it helps you change your perspective. This took some time and many mistakes for me to learn as well.
Think about what it means to “man up”. Now try to remember the last time you heard a female being told to “woman up”. Let that sink in for a moment and you’ll realize that women have just about everything handed to them on a silver platter. They do all the choosing, and why? Because we, as men, give them their vaginal power by putting them on the pedestal in the first place.
@P Jay
It’s a glorious time to be a divorced man.
There’s more ass out there than ever before – from sea to shining sea *sniff*.
…..
P Jay, your male sluttiness is pretty gross. I hope you don’t have any children. By engaging in meaningless affairs with Ex-es and other women at the same time, are you aware of the kind of example you might be setting up for your sons or other young men who’re reading your posts? Seriously, you should be ashamed of your self. We’re trying to teach/encourage men here to be committed boyfriends and husbands, not manwhores.
-Florence
@ dragnet
And by Helen Fisher, I meant Helen Smith—d’oh!
PS: Consider that your shit-test if you want
-Florence
@P Jay
How will they ever be ready for future alimony and child support payments if they can’t find full-time jobs?
………
They can always chose to marry career/educated chicks like me, stay at home and watch the kids
-Florence
@Chuck, “These ‘feminists’—these ‘feminazis’—are complaining about their desire for a good man.”
* Kay Hymowitz is a “feminist”? I doubt the majority of women complaining about not finding ‘good man’ identify themselves as “feminists” per se.
If you would like to see a Feminist take of Kay Hymowitz’s piece then check this;
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/02/21/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone/
@ Chuck, “But they are conflicted by a good man being able to ‘rule over’ them. The problem is one of overreaching ‘pride’. They are too proud to take a man that they cannot control. And the men they CAN control are not what they want.”
* Rule over??? Control???
Do people still think in those terms when negotiating a partnership?
Chuck, may I ask how old you are?
Oh, Florence, you’re so right *sob*.
I’ll stay home this weekend and reflect on my dissolute past full of exciting relationships and cutting-edge sexual escapades…and feel horrible.
Thank you for steering me in the right direction.
Yours in Penitence and Self-abnegation,
PJay the newly-Chaste
*wink*
TO: PJay
RE: Florence
Actually, she has a point. But she doesn’t deliver it very well. Too much arrogance, if you ask me.
On the other hand, you’re no different that Hambydammit. Just with a different ‘orientation’, i.e., target. In the ‘End’, you’ll pay the same price he does.
Still and all, you ARE a prime example of the sort of men these feminizes are whining about. And your input here, as an example of the ‘bad’, is quite useful. I suspect that there are many more like you. And that’s the ‘problem’. Or rather the ‘symptom’ of the ‘problem’ the feminazies have created for themselves.
Hope that helps….
….but I have SERIOUS doubts as to that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth 'hurts'....only those who are afraid of it.]
“Overall society is drifting towards the black social model”
This is what I think a lot of people are missing, and should be frightened of. Our current social trends point to one very important thing: the culture of the ghetto is going to spread everywhere.
In a generation or two America will be a nation of single mommies who are dependent on the last of the tax payers, and men who will largely turn to apathy or crime. It happened to blacks, and white people aren’t so different that we won’t do it too.
TO: Walenty Lisek
RE: Heh
In a generation or two America will be a nation of single mommies who are dependent on the last of the tax payers, and men who will largely turn to apathy or crime. It happened to blacks, and white people aren’t so different that we won’t do it too. — Walenty Lisek
Indeed. But it’s all part of the ‘Plan’. And that ‘Plan’ is a topic that doesn’t seem to fit in the HUS venue. [NOTE: Too narrow-minded, if you ask me. Something to do with the correlation of 'morality', 'politics' and 'sexuality'. It's out-of-the-box think.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Don’t you just LOVE IT when a ‘Plan’ comes together?
@Walenty
Woah! WOAH! Hold the fuck up. Obs, Dragnet, you hear this shit. White folk will be put in the same position as Black folk. Might they finally….#empathize? Human-sexual-social-economic-politically dynamic corporate funded American government population subjigation plan FTMFW!!!!
*CSI: Miami Meme Voice*
YYYYYEEEEAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948
TO: Escarondito
RE: Heh
Black. White. Red. Yellow. Brown. Or green.
It’s all part of the ‘Plan’. And if you were a Christian, you’d recognize it too.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
@ Chuck, regarding “feminazis whining about men” please see here:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/02/21/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone/
Hymowitz is not a feminist and women whining “where have all the good men gone” are mainly amongst traditionally-minded, non-feminist women.
***
Regarding White America becoming like Black Ghetto America, PLEASE READ THE 1965 MOYNIHAN REPORT HERE:
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/moynihan-report-1965
At the time the report was poo-pooed as “racist” and “sexist”. Almost 50 years later and HUNDREDS OF BLACK MEN (and also some black women) are on Youtube and Generation X making videos saying the very same thing!!!
This was all under the LBJ administration. Instead of tackling the issue from the root (the marginalization of the black man within the black family) the government bowed under hysterical cries of “racism” and “sexism” and LBJ’s newly minted “welfare program” excasperated the problem, REWARDING irresponsible sexual behaviour with money.
This was the worst possible thing that could happen for Black America at the time. It also the reason why many black children grow up unable to take advantage of the rights and oppurtunities acquired for them from the Civil Rights Movement.
According to Kay Hymowitz, the 1950s, contrary to popular belief was the decade with THE MOST OUT OF WEDLOCK TEEN BIRTHS, however the difference between then and now is that unwed pregnant teens would either get married OR put their baby up for adoption. It was a “shame” to be an unwed mother and the government was NOT going to fund it.
Currently there is neither shame nor a threat of poverty for an unwed teen mother – from either the Black community or White.
Liberals, Civil Rights Activists and Feminists refused to address this issue amongst Black citizens living in the ghetto during the 1960s. Perhaps they assumed the problem would fix itself if money was thrown at it? Au contrare, it exasperated the problem and it is now common for teen girls to get pregnant, demand no responsibility from the father, and expect the government to pay for it, and no one bats an eye.
This goes on everywhere from the urban ghettos to the pearly white gates of gated communities.
The Moynihan Report breaks down the “tangle of pathologies” behind such phenomena.
Though written in the 60s wrt to Urban Black Ghettos, both then and especially now, it applies to everyone.
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/moynihan-report-1965
“Indeed. But it’s all part of the ‘Plan’. And that ‘Plan’ is a topic that doesn’t seem to fit in the HUS venue. ”
The Plan? Yeah I know all about the plan the Cylons have.
@Chuck Pelto:
Good luck overturning hundreds of years of common law precedent!
I prefer to go with the flow. My way is not “bad”, it just is.
You’re never going to bring Marriage 1.0 back, and the profitability of all the lawyers, therapists etc., gives the current system a lot of traction where the divorce industry is concerned.
Protect and educate your daughters and sons, but realize, too, the old ways are gone, and your kids will have to adapt to the new reality.
@ PJay, I support your “right” to promiscuity as long as you are practicing safe sex and my tax dollars don’t have to go to supporting your accidents.
TO: PJay
RE: Heh
Luck has NOTHING to do with it, buckie.
And as far as ‘your way’ is concerned….I look forward to your ‘tap-dance’ before the Judgment Seat.
Additionally….as for Marriage 1.0….I don’t NEED to ‘bring it back’. I’m living it.
You’re the one who’s eating your heart out. If you doubt this, just re-read my comment at….February 22, 2011 at 7:43 pm of this thread. The ‘old ways’ are not ‘dead and gone’. It’s just that people like you want to believe such.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Marriage is the natural state of mankind. The problem is that too few want it over their personal pride.]
You make a really important point about men being the sellers. If men can just refuse to make the life choice to partner, or at least to delay it significantly, then they are indeed the sellers. They’re in no rush at all, and women hear tick tock. So women are at a disadvantage b/c they can’t force commitment. They will indeed have to offer something, and they’re going to have to offer it to men who may have achieved less than they themselves have – or they’re going to go it alone.
Indeed.
The men have adapted. They really have. The new rules don’t force their hand in terms of commitment, and they know they have the clock on their side, too. If you think of that in terms of a business negotiation, you can easily see why men are acting this way in such numbers. If you were the party sitting across the table from a counterparty who really needed to sign the contract by Date X, but you had another ten years until you felt the same pressure to do so, as well as other counterparty opportunities in the interim, you’d also have all the bargaining power. And that’s were the desirable men (the ones these whines are about, really) are, today: holding all the cards with women who are running out of time, the guys have all the time in the world. Men have adapted to the new rules and what the new rules allow them to do, in terms of their own bargaining position. Women start out strong, but have constantly weakening hand and, worse, a clock to work against as well. In that way, the old rules worked better for women because they placed a lot more pressure on men to commit. Take that away and advantage goes to …. desirable men, full stop.
————————
But it’s worth pointing out that hardly anybody’s met more than two or three, and that’s no small thing. I suggest that this is largely due to — go figure — a female double standard. They talk big about wanting equality in the home, but I honestly don’t think many of them really want it. If the dude’s not pulling enough income to keep things comfortable, most women I know are like… “DUDE! Get a goddamn job! I don’t care if you’re cleaning the house!” The thought of making more than their dude and “picking up his slack” is appalling.
I remember reading an article in The New Yorker a year or two ago about women with partners earning less than them in Manhattan and to the last one they were displeased with the situation, thought the men weren’t pulling their weight, thought they were picking up his slack and so on. These men were mostly artists, photographers, writers — that is educated professionals who earn less money than many other people in Manhattan. Several of the women were in the middle of divorces or contemplating divorce. One of them was already divorced and said that she would never again partner with a man who made significantly less than she did.
Of course, there are other women out there who have successful arrangements, but there are so uncommon as to be outliers. And it isn’t because lesser-earning men are unavailable as mates for women, either.
.
Florence: Ah, what a good laugh I got out of this! Guys like PJ and myself have been responsible boyfriends and husbands. I believe he has gotten the shaft, and already lived the life of being responsible and being… in a word, screwed, for it.
.
(Second, I shouldn’t probably say is that he’s deliberately playing it up to get a rise out of you, so that you can show your inconsistencies.)
.
.
So says you, someone who isn’t a man, isn’t a parent, and isn’t a parent of a boy.
.
No, we are not. At least I’m not.
.
As a kid, my only option was to grow up beta. No role models otherwise, even though my dad was pretty alpha in his younger years, it never got transmitted to me. I didn’t have the choice, it was the only reality that existed for me. Lots of guys are the same way, if not most.
.
As a father to boys, I now have a choice – raise my kids as I was, and sentence them to a liftetime of betadom and being ignored by women. Or, I can open their eyes just a little bit and let them make an informed decision, based on knowledge of women’s feral nature. I can’t really be an example to him, it’s too late for me, but I can point them in other direection. I can now say to them: do you want to get married young and be father, or, forget all that and be a happy bachelor for life? It’s your choice. You get the same choices that women take now. These are the benefits and drawbacks of them. Choose wisely.
.
Except (unlike girls hear today) I will tell them that I expect them to accept the consequences of their behavior, and they don’t deserve anything they don’t work hard for.
.
So no, I’m not going to tell my boys to be Beta Unter Alles. I’m going to teach them they have to choose their path, because women are doing so, and and you don’t choose deliberately you will lose.
.
Women now have the choice to be liberated and opt out of traditional roles. As long as that happens, then so can men; so can PJay. You can’t it both ways.
@Chuck Pelto:
Been there, done that. Lawyer’s fee total = ~$220K. Two daughters, both doing great, had them 50% for 9 years, which is where all the legal fees came in.
Read up on family law, or go to http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/ to get a taste of how the third party in your marriage views you.
My time in the Big House is over, now am looking for a good woman who doesn’t need my legal and financial obeisance to feel good.
We’ll see what happens over the next ten years, but right now my first allegiance is to myself and my daughters.
The ex already torpedoed a great relationship last year when she got wind I was getting serious. $52K later, I was back where I was.
Never again until the kids leave home.
Interesting post. remind me of a theory I wrote about on Grerp’s post yesterday. I’ll re-write it here as I think it applies to this post as well.
This corner of the internet is primarily caucasian. Many of the concerns, therefore, apply predominantly to white communities and concern white people for the most part. That’s not a bad thing.
In fact, I find it extremely useful. This corner of the internet gives a lot of forewarning for the bad things that could befall society should the negative trends discussed(male marginalization, hypergamy, illegitimacy, etc) continue unabated.
You shouldn’t even have to substantiate many of these concerns-you already have a model demonstrating their consequences.
Just take a look at Black America, everyone. Nearly every major negative occurrence warned about on sites like these, including those associated with Ms. Hymowitz’s article, has run rampant there already.
Here, look at these examples:
-Illegitimacy and rampant out of wedlock births? We talk about the breakdown of the family structure here on HUS(and on associated blogs written by Athol, dalrock, etc) quite often. Look at black america if you want to know what happens when that breakdown is complete(70% illegitimacy rate and climbing). The nightmare scenarios being predicted in much of the manosphere regarding out of wedlock births (resulting largely from unchecked hypergamy) have already been played out there.
-Here on Hooking Up Smart, we talk about alpha/bad boy chasing all the time and the damage it can have on society, but a model for that damage already exists in(you guessed it) Black america.
There may be no female more hypergamous than the average black american girl(and, ironically, there is no female with a lower rate of marriage). The culture places a tremendous emphasis for men on the possession of traits matching those of urban masculine culture(read: swagger, aggression, hard-edged, etc). Stereotypical “nice guys”(academically inclined, “chivalrous”, etc) more marginalized and insulted in black american culture than just about anywhere else.
You think the sexual market value of the average white/asian nerdy kid is low? Try being a black one and having your entire culture tell you your intellect makes you an insult to the culture/race.
Think about it: there is no culture in this country more generally hostile to education/academia and more welcoming of general “bad boy” behaviours and figures. Only in Black America can a man with the character of Lil Wayne, 50 Cent, or Ray Lewis be considered a primary role model for youth.
Bad-boy love and the hypergamy that comes with it has ruled the black community for a couple of generations now. That nightmare is reality.
-Want to know what will happen when illegitimate children raised in fatherless households become the norm? Once again, I offer you black America and the exorbitant rates of crime and other social ills that come with it.
-We’re talking about the marginalization of men here on HUS right now.
What happens when men are marginalized and households become largely matriarchal? Men will have high unemployment and incarceration rates, and young boys will be prone to violence and poor academic performance. 75% of college and advanced degrees will be earned by females. A culture hostile to academia will arise, alpha male posturing(see modern rap) will become the norm to compensate for lack of other pursuits and the next generation will live a cycle of generally dysfunctional sexual behavior(more sluts and more cads at earlier ages) and illegitimacy.
In other words, you end up like Black America right now.
———————————————————————–
Bottomline: If you want to get an idea of what will happen when the most negative trends in your society(like the marginalization of men we’re talking about with the Hymowitz article here) become dominant and run their course, Black America might be the crystal ball required.
.
Sorry, missed something.
.
Who’s “we”? I don’t know if you meant “we” as the HUS commenters, or Sue, or you and people you know?
.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the mission of this blog is to encourage women to make informed decisions about being a ho vs. girlfriend, not to “teach/encourage women to be committed girlfriends, not whores.” All of the Sue’s articles and comments here would be of a quite different tenor if it were the case.
.
I would hope that if Sue had any advice for young men, then it would be the very much same the thing. I hope so, because it would be pretty unequal to say to women “you’re free choose between whoriness and responsibility” but say to men “your only choice is responsibility”.
1 2 3 »
{ 1 trackback }