478»

Are Feminists Finally Noticing That the Men Have Left the Building?

“Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles.”

Kay Hymowitz

 

Since my recent post criticizing Kay HymowitzWhere Have the Good Men Gone? she has had more to say on the subject. Mostly, she’s overwhelmed by the anger that men feel at her judgmental and unfair assessment of their motives, choices and actions. She should have expected it, as she has encountered it before when speaking in a similar vein.

In any case, she clearly felt the need to respond to the outcry. Yesterday The Daily Beast published a new piece by Ms. Hymowitz – Why Are Men So Angry? After sharing some examples of irate comments from readers, she actually puts her finger on something very interesting:

I’ve stumbled onto a powerful underground current of male bitterness that has nothing to do with outsourcing, the Mancession, or any of the other issues we usually associate with contemporary male discontent. No, this is bitterness from guys who find the young women they might have hoped to hang out with entitled, dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling—and did I mention gold-digging?

As far as I know, she is the first person in the mainstream media to even examine the behavior of women as having a causal effect on men’s choices. She might as well be describing Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte and Samantha, a foursome often praised for their independent, modern sensibilities.

In attempting to understand men, she adds some new explanations to her previous focus on male immaturity. Backlash against feminism, people acting out on the Internet, and misogyny are part of it too, in her view. There is some truth to this, but she misses the interrelatedness of the causes of male dissatisfaction. Feminism flipped gender roles, and there is considerable confusion on the part of both sexes as they navigate a sexual marketplace that now seems upside down. Hymowitz addresses the question of how today’s women want both contemporary equality and old-fashioned chivalry:

Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure. The might hook up as freely as a Duke athlete. Or, they might want men to play Greatest Generation gentleman. Yes, they want men to pay for dinner, call for dates…and open doors for them. A lot of men wonder: “WTF??!” Why should they do the asking? Why should they pay for dinner? After all, they are equals and in any case, the woman a guy is asking out probably has more cash in her pocket than he does; recent female graduates are making more than males in most large cities.

Perhaps most significantly, she goes on to identify – for the first time in the mainstream media, perhaps, the concept around which the sexual marketplace revolves: female hypergamy.

Far worse in the bait and switch category is women’s stated preference for nice guys and actual attraction to bad boys…enough of them are partial to the Charlie Sheens of this world that one popular dating guru, David DeAngleo, lists “Being Too Much of a Nice Guy” as No. 1 in his “Ten Most Dangerous Mistakes Men Make With Women.”

Frankly, I have no idea what Kay Hymowitz’ motives are. Perhaps she’s opening her mind to new ways of understanding. Perhaps she’s just trying to sell books. Whatever her reasons, she is the unlikely ambassador of this very real truth.

Of course, the feminist gestapo couldn’t let her get away with such a thing. Amanda Marcotte, the dragon of Pandagon, filed a retort yesterday at Slate’s XX, Why Are Men Angry? They’re Not. Marcotte resents the portrayal of women as “marriage obsessives” and denies that men are “universally angry with women.”

Her evidence for this?  The rantings of men on internet boards that are dedicated to misogyny.  That’s like reading a white supremacist website and concluding that all white people worship Hitler.

Having once again proved that her favorite man is made of straw, Marcotte continues:

Honestly, I don’t particularly understand why it is that women reading this are supposed to be so upset that a handful of men who hate women so much don’t want to date you.  Men who are upfront about their hate save you the effort of worrying what they think of you.

Predictably, Marcotte chooses not to acknowledge the very real losses that young men have experienced in education and the workplace. She’s happy to write off a whole generation of dissatisfied men because she has no use for men anyway.

Women who like men, need men and want men in their lives should make every effort to understand that if men are unhappy, women must become unhappy. A society that marginalizes its men cannot function.

Here’s Amanda, still not getting it:

(Hat tip: Stuart Schneiderman. Don’t miss his own excellent post on the topic here.)

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADylz6XoeWg&feature=related

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Wonderful post Susan!
    Really even if some of this women are lesbian they don’t have fathers, brothers,uncles, male friends… they care about on some level? Is like they live on Venus or something. Half of the population becoming angry is a HUGE problem, not something to yell “good riddance”

  • VI

    I expect the misandrists to go down fighting. Most of them will continue rationalizing their hate long after the majority of women move on.

    However, regular girls are starting to take notice. Once they try to look at things from a man’s perspective, it’s not hard to see what it is about modern girls that turn men off, and what girls need to do to appeal to men again.

    For all the damage that’s been done, I don’t think it will be that hard to get gender dynamics back to normal. It takes constant BS to keep things the way they are now. Let nature takes it course, and girls will once again discover that men like to do nice things, for nice girls. Men will again discover that women actually like them to be strong. Gloria Steinem wept.

    She might as well be describing Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte and Samantha, a foursome often praised for their independent, modern sensibilities.

    It’s an instant turn off when a girl mentions she likes the show.

  • JM

    Amusingly, OffTheCuff managed to make it onto the live chat they did after the original article (though unfortunately the format didn’t really allow for any discussion of substance):

    http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/02/23/live-chat-where-have-the-good-men-gone/

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Wow! It looks like our own Off the Cuff may have been the one that inspired KH to take the hypergamy issue seriously. Well done OTC!

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    There really are men, good men at that, who have opted out of the dating market. My husband was one of those men, and when I met him he said he was resigned to be single for the rest of his life. He had never lived with a woman and hadn’t had a LTR in years. He has said that he can’t stand or be with bitchy women, and that most women are bitchy, so he couldn’t really be in a relationship.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Hope.
    Heh I was my husband last chance, he was already preparing for monkitude and only the fact that he had a strong drive to be a father convinced him to sign for the website we meet. I would say that I was also preparing myself for spinsterhood for a while before deciding to outsource.

  • Denise

    @Hope.

    My husband has bought a house and run into sexism in his desire to adopt a child when he met me. He honestly thought he’d be single his whole life because he had been ignored in the SMP for so long.

    I took one look at a man who was his neighborhood’s big brother, who was willing to drive a long distance to dig my car out of snow, owned a house and had a good job and fell in love.

    I don’t t think I was preparing myself for spinsterhood at the point- I had finally grasped that I had value after staying way too long in a relationship to an omega man and deserved a man who valued me for who I was. I didn’t think alphas would value me. Betas did. I won the dating game.

  • Escarondito

    Oh Auntie Sue. You gets all the internetz today.

  • SN2

    They’re noticing (maybe) that the men they want are leaving the building. The holdovers are the unattractive ones. That being said, once these women turn 28, almost any guy will do.

    Big deal.

    Nothings gonna change. TV (the oracle of women) will see to that.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    I like that all of these discussions are getting out in the open. The attention is good-hopefully something positive comes out of it. Some of the comments have led me to believe that feminism in general may not be the root cause of our issues.

    While I was reading the comments on Hymowitz’s articles, I noticed more mention of foreign women than I’d expected. I know I’ve beaten this foreign-girl drum here more than enough on this site, but I think I have a useful point so just roll with me here.
    Here’s an example of a comment I saw:

    Tony Hines

    I can’t say how it happened but this is comming from a guy who has been all over the world.

    The USA is the only place I have ever been where women behave the way they do toward sex and men in general. Here in the USA most women see men as an obstacle to getting what they want and they seem to truly enjoy demascualting and destroying anything that is male.

    Every other place I have been women have been much more interested in playing and being friends with men. Just for the fun of it or for the relationships that come from it.

    Here sex is a weapon and in every other nation I have been to is was something that people do.

    Take a trip to Quebec City, France, Indonesia or any of a thousand destinations before you judge what I just wrote.

    Let’s leave the guy’s point(and whether or not we agree) aside for a second. Notice the nations the guy mentions-a usual suspect(Indonesia) known as an expat destination and definitely a developing country with fewer empowered women but…France? Quebec(Canada)?

    The trend I’m seeing, which this and several other comments of the same intent have made clear to me is that feminism may not be the main issue irking men in the US. Sure, they tend to mention feminism in general when citing their concerns, but then a whole bunch of guys get on a soap box about foreign women and mention countries like Japan, Korea, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, etc, as destinations where men can do better relationship wise.

    I’ve heard all of those nations touted consistently, and yet ALL of them are, by and large, westernized, liberal and feminist. Japan and Korea have some of the most educated and career focused women on Earth thanks to their rigorous education systems(and they have the painfully low birth rates to show for it). Same with Singapore, another often noted destination. Sweden and Norway are among the most egalitarian societies on the planet-Scandinavia is practically a feminist utopia as far as the legal system and the cultural mores go. Canada is…well, Canada. Feminism is a force in all of these countries and, in some, you can reasonably claim it is a bigger force than it is here.

    And yet we have American men who still want to go to these places after having visited and experienced a clear difference in the way they are treated. It’d be one thing if they were only mentioning developing nations where women simply didn’t have the same opportunities, but they’re talking about nations where women are arguably more empowered and independent than they are here.

    The comment I quoted hints at this, but I posit that feminism in general is not the issue. Rather, I think there are specific American cultural trends(I suppose they may influence a particular americanized brand of feminism, I dunno) that are creating concerns amongst men.
    The problems men are having with women may be more of a symptom indicating larger socio-cultural issues as opposed to being the primary result of feminism writ large.
    Clearly, in other contexts, men can live with feminism, even in its most extreme forms(Scandinavia). But here we’ve got all of these crazy side effects(as Hymowitz has noted).
    So what’s so different about Americans that they end up arguing and complaining so much about it relative to everyone else?

  • Abbot

    It’s an instant turn off when a girl mentions she likes the show.

    .
    well, not necessarily a sexual turn off but it raises a mighty high red flag otherwise. Great wife-material first-date weeder-outer question…hint: its not about the prolific shoe obsession

  • Jess

    My take on all this is that there are some men who are bitter but there there tends to be an underlying reason.
    .
    Most guys I know socially are cool and together and far from bitter. They would go to to lengths to avoid outwardly bitter guys and would notmwish to be associated with them.
    .
    However in some jobs I have been exposed to, I have seen guys who are enraged with life and or women and they have serious issues involving criminality and mental health problems.
    .
    I have observed some guys a few years back who were bitter because they couldn’t get laid and there were good reasons why women were sidestepping these guys. Its wasnt the silly roissy dynamic it was simply guys with bad breath or terrible dress sense or aggressive dating tactics who would put a women off and then wail that girls were too fickle.
    .
    Of course I dispute the 80/20 thing. I think it’s more like 30/70 the other way but that’s based on observations that are decades old or might just be plain wrong- I accept that.
    .
    I think women that are super militant feminists may get avoided but most modern women just don’t have too much of a problem and nor do their female counterparts as far as I can tell. My younger co workers who i have spoken to have no idea about any ‘problem’ and they agreed with my 30/70 estimate. Maybe it’s just the ones I spoke to…..

  • OffTheCuff

    Well, thankee, I had no idea they posted the transcript. Kudos to Badger for the heads-up about the live chat.
    .
    Honestly, the chat exactly what I expected – unenlightening, as all the answers felt like the prefabricated answers of a politician. Looks like I tried to fit too much into one question (hypergamy, responsibility of consequences, prioritization of character vs. tingle, where the good guys DO go) since that was my only shot.
    .
    I found it telling (and rather predictable) that she didn’t answer the question part of the question – what responsibility do women have for their own choices? That says to me the answer is “None, you silly man!”
    .
    Still, if it made her consider the issue even a bit, I’m thrilled. Perhaps in due time people like her will the discover “other half” of the Manosphere like HUS (yes, you count, it seems) and MMSL, which espouse the same underlying red-pill principles as Roissy et al, without the harshness that’s so easily rebuffed on emotional grounds as bitterness or misogyny.

  • Abbot

    most modern women just don’t have too much of a problem

    .
    Where are these so-called “modern women?” and how do they stand out from the billions of women on the planet? Is it a cult or a club of some sort? Is it a blip on the radar going the way of the dodo bird as suggested by that very revealing feminist-infuriating video above?

  • hepsas

    >She’s happy to write off a whole generation of dissatisfied men because she has no use for men anyway.
    .
    This is a wildly irresponsible misrepresentation of Marcotte’s post. Her point was Roissy and his ilk do not speak for all men. And she’s clearly right about that.
    .
    I think Roissy gets a lot of things right, but he certainly doesn’t speak for me. And when I read the Hymowitz’s quotes from the responses to her previous piece, my reaction was, “geez, these guys sound like losers, I hope I never catch myself saying anything like that.” I think I’m pretty typical in this regard – I rarely hear anything remotely like that stuff from my guy friends.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hepsas

      She’s happy to write off a whole generation of dissatisfied men because she has no use for men anyway.

      This is a wildly irresponsible misrepresentation of Marcotte’s post.

      First, my statement that Marcotte has no use for men is based on her body of work, not just this particular essay. She is generally very hostile and derisive in her attitude towards men.

      Second, she failed to address the only real issue – men are lagging in college enrollment, GPA, jobs after graduation, and pay compared with their female peers. This issue is the subject of Hymowitz’ book, and all of her recent essays. Instead of giving that any consideration whatsoever, Marcotte employs her usual snark in saying that all the men who feel that way are misogynists anyway. In this one essay, she invokes Hitler, Sodini, and Darren Mack. She describes men who object to Hymowitz’ portrayal of them as immature men who mail-order brides and waste their money on PUA scams.

      True, not all men are languishing in pre-adulthood. But when the college ratio is 60/40, we’ve got a serious problem, Houston. Yet Marcotte writes as if we’re talking about a miniscule number of men with borderline personality disorder (at best).

  • GudEnuf

    Repping the feminist movement, even if I don’t have time to write a coherent argument right now.

    —-
    I bet Kay will read this post.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @GudEnuf
      I count on you as our resident male feminist. I look forward to your thoughts.

      Re Kay, that would be kinda fun. I give credit where it’s due, and I do believe she has shed light on a very important subject. Finally.

      I thoroughly enjoyed my interactions with Amanda Marcotte here last summer. Even though she said that I am just envious and worried that my man will have sex with sluts like her.

  • AnonymousF

    @Susan
    “She’s happy to write off a whole generation of dissatisfied men because she has no use for men anyway.”

    If feminists like Marcotte, me and the one from Feministing (who also failed to see a trend of no-good child-men), then it may be because our social milieus don’t have a man shortage or a commitment shortage.

    The thing about “overeducated” liberals and/or feminists that a lot of conservatives don’t fully understand is that most of us, lead fairly conventional, dare I say conservative, personal lives. Men and women are expected to pair off monogamously, and they mostly do.
    That doesn’t mean that there are no problems in the US as a whole (marriage does seem to be nosediving at lower socioeconomic levels), but it explains why manosphere rants fail to instill the fear of spinsterhood in most of us. As far as I can tell, men haven’t left *our* building.

    Also, I don’t know what you mean by “no use for men”. Amanda is straight and I believe she has a boyfriend of several years who she lives with.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If feminists like Marcotte, me and the one from Feministing (who also failed to see a trend of no-good child-men), then it may be because our social milieus don’t have a man shortage or a commitment shortage.

      Do you realize how elitist this is?

      Furthermore, one has only to look at the ranks of prominent feminists to see that they marry and reproduce at a low rate compared with other white women of similar education. Indeed, the ranks of sex-positive feminists are largely filled with women who aren’t quite sure why they’re still alone, but enjoy a robust sex life with a variety of partners as they explore their sexuality and discover their outer sexual boundaries. (Jessica Valenti and Rebecca Traister are two exceptions.) If Marcotte is monogamous and committed, it’s not something she freely admits. Last summer on this site she boisterously identified herself as a slut.

      I think it’s great that you found your life partner. But if you are at all tuned in to the zeitgeist, surely you must see that your local bookstore is making space for the rash of spinster lit books. And do you believe that hookup culture in college is a myth? Do you fail to see that there is indeed a commitment shortage? Perhaps not for you, but for many women aged 18-30? I find it difficult to believe you are ignorant of this – which leads me to believe you are being disingenuous at best, obtuse at worst.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Oops if they are getting it the next generation will not: We got a younger version of Sex and The City on the works on HBO. http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/01/hbo_orders_lena_dunham_pilot_t.html
    God help us all

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stephenie
      Lena Dunham has gotten great reviews for her film Tiny Furniture. Her whole family is incredibly high achieving. Sounds like they’ve hired a PR firm and had great success. I hope they’re wrong about the resemblance to SATC, though.

  • Esau

    Jess: ” there were good reasons why women were sidestepping these guys. Its wasnt the silly roissy dynamic it was simply guys with bad breath or terrible dress sense”

    Hmm. So, you think that “terrible dress sense” counts as a “good reason for sidestepping a guy.” Do you grasp how shallow that is? To each their own, but I think that any woman who operates this way should (1) be honest about her shallowness (most men are) and just openly admit that grooming is more important to her than character; (2) _never_ complain when she herself is passed over for a hotter chick in skimpier clothing; and (3) never, _ever_ complain that “there are no good men left,” since — I’ll let you in on a secret here — men who don’t pay attention to shallow things are more likely to be decent and honest in the long run, while more likely to be passed over for just that reason.

    You girls are all heart, Jess. Really, all heart.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Esau

      You girls are all heart, Jess. Really, all heart.

      Jess does not represent all “girls.” I’m not saying that all of us are good-hearted, but many women are, hypergamy notwithstanding.

  • Clarence

    Athlone:

    I partly agree with you, but I mostly disagree.
    Let me state where I agree with you first.
    I think most of the other nations that have a highly feminist inspired judicial machinery still have less overt misandry than exists in the US. And that is what it really is all about. Women are not competing in the same way, and those societies tend to be slightly less toxic in terms of female and male relations and in what they consider a “male loser” to be.

    Where you are being a wishful thinker is when you fail to notice how low the native born populations of these countries birthrates tend to be (indicating issues of some sort), how many of these countries have a strong marital institution, and -most importantly- just how misandrist and in some cases openly discriminatory many of the laws of those countries tend to be. That the women of those countries may seem more pleasant as individuals due to better socialization doesn’t mean the women involved don’t fully support feminism and many of those laws.

  • VJd

    [Hang on this is heading someplace in the end!]

    So in another world, far far away, Suze Rotolo died recently @67 in NYC. She was Bob Dylan’s first muse when he came to the Village in NYC in the 1960′s, during the great folk music ‘revival/scare’. She was a 17 years old when she first met ‘Bobby’, 20 in 1961 in Greenwich Village. They lived together mostly on & off for the next 4 years in NYC.

    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/suze-rotolo-muse-and-girlfriend-to-bob-dylan-dies-at-67/?partner=rss&emc=rss

    Dylan recalls that moment:

    “Right from the start I couldn’t take my eyes off her,” Mr. Dylan wrote in his memoir, “Chronicles: Volume 1,” published in 2004. “She was the most erotic thing I’d ever seen. She was fair skinned and golden haired, full-blood Italian. The air was suddenly filled with banana leaves. We started talking and my head started to spin. Cupid’s arrow had whistled past my ears before, but this time it hit me in the heart and the weight of it dragged me overboard.”

    Other than being young lovers in a different age, what’s remarkable here is the perfect ordinariness of the situation. They shared this tempestuous 4 year relationship, with Dylan writing about, to or for her often. She was his true ‘muse’ at the time. And yet, she was just a young gal in the city, trying to make her way in the art world. And despite the glowing descriptions of her, she seemed pretty average looking overall, but also having some real depth of character and learning at a young age. But overall? Looking at the pictures of them both together [below] you saw how much she admired Dylan at the time, and how much she enjoyed being with him. It showed. It showed on her face, and she could not & did not hide that sense of ‘innocent’ or senseless simple loving joy at just being with him. [It actually sold Albums too!]

    That’s what’s the missing element here is in all too many ‘modern relationships’: they’re not only often devoid of that kind of simple, heedless joy, but even the possibility of that kind of joy.

    Pics of her here:
    http://www.google.com/images?q=suze+rotolo+photos&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1KNtTeqpBI2TtwfazoXWBQ&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1439&bih=587

    Men like women who like men & like being with men. Not as ‘eternal’ adversaries or ‘comic foils’, rhetorical punching bags or ‘useful’ literary, ‘pathetic’ examples of what not to do or become. They just want someone to come home to who likes being with them, and who will or can express some simple joy in that basic fact of human contact and togetherness. And sadly? That’s getting harder & harder to find today. Suze had it as a natural gift. Cheers, ‘VJ’

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VJ
      The photo of her and Dylan on the cover of The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan is a powerful symbol of my own childhood. That album was played constantly in our house – my father in particular adored Dylan. I’ve always loved that photo, and the kind of easy intimacy it portrayed.

      I fear that NY as a place where a young, idealistic artist could go and live and work no longer exists. Or at least it’s far less hospitable. Aspiring teenage girls used to pack a suitcase, hop on a Greyhound bus, and go live at the Barbizon Hotel for women. Quite a few famous actresses and artists got their start that way. e.g. Lauren Bacall.

      Human contact and togetherness – perhaps that also is too pricey today.

  • VJ

    [Geez, Yes, that was the 'usual' VJ who posted the above. Sorry for the extra 'd' that snuck in there from the next line. Sorry for any confusion] Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Clarence:

    Where you are being a wishful thinker is when you fail to notice how low the native born populations of these countries birthrates tend to be (indicating issues of some sort), how many of these countries have a strong marital institution, and -most importantly- just how misandrist and in some cases openly discriminatory many of the laws of those countries tend to be. That the women of those countries may seem more pleasant as individuals due to better socialization doesn’t mean the women involved don’t fully support feminism and many of those laws.

    Well, as far as birthrates go, I’ll agree that low birth rates in those countries are indicative of a large and serious problem, but what issue is that specifically? The lack of fertility surely isn’t coming from some a dearth of healthy relationships between the genders, so what’s going on?

    Some of these nations aren’t losing the fertility battle to the US(at least, not by much). Sweden and Norway are at 1.9 and 2 respectively (compared to the American fertility rate of 2.1-stats from the World Bank).
    The main issue is what causes the difference in toxicity in gender relations here and there. Would you posit that fertility rates have a lot to do with it?
    From what I can see, low fertility doesn’t seem to preclude good gender relations. The US, with the highest fertility rate in the developed world, might also have the most toxic male-female relations. But why?

    I also agree that many of the laws in some of these countries (especially Sweden) are openly misandrist, sometimes shockingly so.
    Then again, you and I both agree that in spite of the presence of these laws, the systems in some of these countries seem somewhat less misandrist overall than what we in the US are used to(hence less toxic male-female relations). Again, this in spite of the harsh feminist-promoted misandrist laws we sometimes see there.

    The key is how and why is that? Sure, the women there support feminism and its laws. Somehow, though, they are able to maintain less toxic relations with men than we see in the USA. How is it that they manage to put feminism to the forefront and stay more positive than Americans can?

    I just think that there may be a more complex answer behind American problems. Feminism seems like just one piece of the puzzle here. It is a big piece, but it clearly isn’t the only one. If we can figure out what is making US gender relations so much more adversarial than we see in so many other developed nations, maybe we can get a little closer to the solution.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    That’s what’s the missing element here is in all too many ‘modern relationships’: they’re not only often devoid of that kind of simple, heedless joy, but even the possibility of that kind of joy.

    “I think the word used on ancient times (the 50′s) was magic”

  • Esau

    “Even though she said that I am just envious and worried”

    It’s something I’ve definitely noticed about these feminist bloggers and the commenters who sympathize with them: they’re very quick to change the subject from debating facts about the world, to ridiculing the supposed motivations of people who disagree with them. Men and women are both entitled to receive this treatment, as you’ve seen first-hand. Really, this habit doesn’t raise my opinion of women’s ability to reason, sorry to say.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Really, this habit doesn’t raise my opinion of women’s ability to reason, sorry to say.

      Understandable, but for what it’s worth, the men who are feminists use all the same tactics. It’s a definite snarkiness, evident at Jezebel, Feministing, Feministe, Pandagon, etc. It’s an avoidance tactic – the last refuge of frauds, really.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    If we can figure out what is making US gender relations so much more adversarial than we see in so many other developed nations, maybe we can get a little closer to the solution.

    US interpersonal relations are adversarial in general, more so than many other places. There are gender tensions, interracial tensions, ethnic tensions, religious tensions, class tensions, regional tensions, and political tensions. There are even tensions between subcultures (nerds vs. jocks, sports team rivalries, and so on).

    These “us vs. them” mentalities tear at the basic social fabric. Even members of a family can be at each other’s throats. The country I grew up in, most people had a national sense of identity that everyone who was living in the country was your neighbor. There are national sports teams, and they only play against other countries. Most people look similar and have similar beliefs. There just aren’t that many social tensions.

    In many ways the US is at war with itself, and that shows up in interpersonal interactions. Diversity does foster a great deal of creativity and innovation, and America leads in those areas. But as far as social cohesion is concerned, America is simply comprised of too many different groups to be truly harmonious.

  • SayWhaat

    Men like women who like men & like being with men. Not as ‘eternal’ adversaries or ‘comic foils’, rhetorical punching bags or ‘useful’ literary, ‘pathetic’ examples of what not to do or become. They just want someone to come home to who likes being with them, and who will or can express some simple joy in that basic fact of human contact and togetherness. And sadly? That’s getting harder & harder to find today.

    No offense, VJ, but I think this argument is the male version of a girl’s “I like nice boys but go for bad boys IRL”. Every single girl I know just wants to be with a man she loves. How and with whom she falls in love with is up to the girl (to some extent–we can’t all help who we fall in love with), but at every girl’s heart is the simple desire for companionship. We all want the simple joy of being together.

    Girls today are seeking answers for why they aren’t in relationships. I have offered exclusivity to every guy I’ve dated and fallen for, and I have been rebuffed every time. I’m not offering him a relationship because I want a foil or punching bag. I’m not offering a relationship because I want his money and his BABIEZ. I’m offering him a relationship because wow, I really, REALLY like him and I just want to be with him.

    It is just as depressing for good girls to see these young men chase after sluts, or refuse us relationships after being traumatized by a psychobitch, knowing full well that we could offer so, so much in terms of companionship, and beyond.

    These girls are not getting harder to find. They are hiding in plain view. I enjoy being with men. I enjoy and crave the intimate ‘togetherness’ when I am with someone I have feelings for. I consider myself to be exactly the kind of girl you have described and, as flattering as it is, I refuse to believe that I am a rare, special snowflake in this SMP. Girls like me are everywhere, they are reading this blog, they are sitting next to you at your favorite coffee shop, they are NOT missing out on you and they are NOT messing around.

  • SayWhaat

    they are NOT missing out on you

    Argh. Meant to say, “they are NOT missing you”, as in “they are not overlooking you”.

    It’s been a long night.

  • Esau

    E:You girls are all heart, Jess.

    S:Jess does not represent all “girls.”

    That was intended specifically to the “sidestepping” women that Jess knows and refers to, presumably including herself; not meant generally. Sorry if that wasn’t perfectly clear.

  • Abbot

    enjoy a robust sex life with a variety of partners as they explore their sexuality and discover their outer sexual boundaries.

    .
    That’s the “modern women” rationalization. “I am not a slut. I merely enjoyed a robust sex life with a variety of partners as I explored my sexuality and discovered my outer sexual boundaries…and its those experiences that formed the person I am today; the person you will love and marry”
    .
    ONLY ONLY in America will you actually read and here such things. What is wrong with this society? Only an insecure idiot would blame men for screwing locally and proactively marrying globally. Cut that gene pool off right here and now. Break the cycle.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Hope
    I was actually discussing this with my inlaws and my husband on Christmas (yeah I know we are a bunch of bores) how it amazes me Otherness of their culture when pretty much everyone here descend of immigrants but leave them a couple of years living here and they start to hate the ones that come, you see the tensions between the races, when the Irish came, the jews… is like everyone blame the new kids for everything (when in my country our natives practically sold the country to the Spaniards and we had kept our foreigners are cool policy, not to good results always), and even old immigrants start to socialize by doing the same. This model can be seen on everything from religion, to race, to subcultures really is like everyone is at war.
    I will also said the culture of the Bully is very strange to me for understand why is tolerated. Did you had bullies back at home?

  • AnonymousF

    @Susan
    “Do you realize how elitist this is?”
    That’s why I acknowledged, in the same comment, that our not seeing it doesn’t mean there’s no problem elsewhere. I was trying to explain the disconnect in perception. As for the spinster “zeitgeist” you describe I see it in media but not so much in real live people. Friends, former classmates, coworkers. Yes, I realize this is a class issue. I’m not advocating it, I’m being descriptive and trying to explain how Marcotte and others don’t see what you and Hymowitz see. I believe you yourself have noted numerous times that the women who “don’t know” why they’re alone have passed up commitment-desiring “decent” men more than once. So the issue doesn’t seem to be commitment shortage for them.

    As for hookup culture, almost everyone I know, men and women, hot or dorky, hooked up at least a few times in college. It doesn’t appear to lead to spinsterhood. YMMV.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @AnonF

      Yes, I realize this is a class issue. I’m not advocating it, I’m being descriptive and trying to explain how Marcotte and others don’t see what you and Hymowitz see. I believe you yourself have noted numerous times that the women who “don’t know” why they’re alone have passed up commitment-desiring “decent” men more than once.

      There’s a lot going on in this comment. First, there is a class issue in the broad sense – socioeconomic status. However, I would argue that the issue is real and problematic at Harvard, Duke, Stanford, etc. I meant elitist in a different way – in the sense that you have what you want in life and hang out with similar people, but you don’t acknowledge the very real dilemma that women like SayWhaat are in. Commitment in college is hard to come by, for a variety of reasons. Physical intimacy generally precedes emotional intimacy. This is not the script for a few unlucky souls. This is the dominant cultural model.

      Marcotte is anxious to achieve sexual equality for women, and believes that men are guilty of perpetuating an unfair double standard. The problem with this view, as I have written many times is that:
      1. Unleashing female sexuality has exploded promiscuity and led to many women turning themselves into sexual objects.
      2. It is not possible to re-educate men about sex. Biology trumps politics.

      On the point about women passing up decent men, you are correct. That’s another frequent theme in my writing. It is the result of female hypergamy. Marcotte does not accept this, or the notion that decent men are losing out. She writes off the men who are losing out as misogynists or weirdos.

      Feminism sidelined the decent men. That may have been an unintended consequence, but it’s one that needs to be addressed. Your comments do not address the very real demographic data that clearly demonstrate young men as a whole are not thriving. You got yours, which is great, and I’m all about individual strategic action, but gaining a clear understanding of the environment will be essential for some. The trends of later marriage and fewer marriages mean that many women will not get theirs.

  • Clarence

    Athlone:

    Actually, I think the birthrates issue says more about the state of sexual relations in a society than you think it does. Mind you, I’m not talking about 4 kids or (like in the past and in many poor countries with limited lifespans and no contraception) or 6 or more children. I’m talking “replacement” level here, which I believe is approximately 2.0 children per married couple. The only other factor I can think of that explains the birth- dearth so well in a society is the overall economy as regards the expense of family formation.

    Anyway, I think the vast majority of the US population actually has a birthrate below those of many European countries. I’ll explain.

    The calculations of the census department to get population figures include the children of illegal aliens, and last I saw (around 2007 or 2008) that was still the fastest growing segment of the US population. It’s been said in many places that the only reason the US population is above replacement is because of the fertility of illegal immigrant women. Remove them from the picture, and remove the Mormons and and the one or two other large protestant sects that are busy reproducing at larger than average rate, and you will still be left with 90 plus percent of the population, black, white, and hispanic. I wonder what an adjusted birthrate for the 90 percent plus of the legally born, non fundamentalist part of the US population would be? I bet its rather far below replacement, actually.

  • Mac

    As a feminist let me add that women who want equality AND ‘chivalry’ really piss me off. I do not like a man to open a door for me, unless of course he happened to go first. And I just hate when a man gets that panicked look when I happened to go first and held the door. Just go through the friggin’ door.

    I don’t think men have left the building. I think that it has gotten harder in some circles to find men who are not boy-men and women who are not girl-women. I know mostly happily married couples, with several kids. The only divorce amongst friends was because one went off to become a fundie.

    I see the problem as both sexes being completely coddled and it being expressed differently due to gender biased parenting.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mac
      Welcome, thanks for leaving a comment.

      I know mostly happily married couples, with several kids. The only divorce amongst friends was because one went off to become a fundie.

      Yes, this mirrors my own experience. However, things are very different for my daughter, who is in college. Eventually, those kids will marry, but it will be later than is perhaps desirable, biologically speaking. Many women and men currently in college have not been in a relationship and may not do so for several more years. And of course, the 60F/40M ratio in American colleges means that we’ll have a very real shortage of marriageable men, assuming that women prefer to marry someone with the same level of education.

      I agree that both sexes have been coddled by my generation of parents, and I’m surely guilty of it myself. But I’m curious to know what you mean by gender biased parenting, and how that plays a role.

  • AnonymousF

    @SayWhaat
    Don’t get discouraged. This might sound lame, but you’re better off with a direct “no” on exclusivity from those guys than a “yes” to exclusivity that would waste months or years of your life before trainwrecking. As a general rule (yes yes, exceptions exist), I believe that a guy who doesn’t have at least *some* “oneitis” for you early on isn’t going to be the right one for the long haul (same goes vice versa) anyway. You sound like you’re outgoing enough that you won’t miss the right guy if he comes along.

  • Clarence

    Hope:

    I think you are even righter than you know.

    The US has long had three strands of thought that, when overdone, could potentially fray at the very fabric of the society.

    One is excessive competitiveness. This is in part based on our (mostly a good thing) capitalist economic system, but people in the USA tend to look at even youth sports and the game of love as having necessary winners and losers. Like a game isn’t worth playing unless someone has to lose.

    The second is the “protestant work ethic”, so to speak. Nothing wrong with this in moderation: it helped build the US into a worldwide power after all. But this is why our society could never handle the very idea of a ‘siesta’, and why our societal memes regarding time off of work are so screwed up.

    The third, and last, is the strain of American sexual puritanism. People are still very judgmental about how other people love and conduct their sex lives and that goes for most sex-pos feminists as much as with the most hide-bound sexual traditionalists. I think this explains in part why many men and women seem to actively hate or disdain all members of the opposite sex: Feminism got the idea of guilt and taint from our puritan heritage and has been busily applying it to all men.

    The second strand is

  • OffTheCuff

    I have offered exclusivity to every guy I’ve dated and fallen for, and I have been rebuffed every time.

    .
    How about this? Count up the times you’ve been rebuffed by such guys. Now, count up the times you’ve explicitly rejected you’ve guys who have asked you out, or tried to make conversation with you. (In reality, you’d have to multiply that second number by about 5 to account for the implicit rejections you gave by strenuously avoid eye-contact, or flat-out escaped the scene, or guys just never even noticed in the first place.)
    .
    I don’t expect those numbers to be equal, but you have to realize, you are rejectING far more than you are rejectED and to put yourself in the rejected role is fatuous.
    .
    I believe that girls who are good-hearted like you say you are, are quickly snapped up by guys at or slightly above your own level… so long as you want them.

    It is just as depressing for good girls to see these young men chase after sluts

    Again, those are the high-status guys. Round and round we go.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    On why American feminism is so abrasive:

    “US interpersonal relations are adversarial in general, more so than many other places.”

    Hope is right, but white-collar American feminism doubles this up and lives by one tenet: don’t take any shit from a man.

    It’s not about equality, or equal opportunity, or competing fairly. It’s about the longtime-oppression meme and sticking it to men whenever they can. That explains equality-when-we-want-it and chivalry-when-we-want-it.

    Frisky writer Jessica Wakeman, who has re-discovered chivalry and male provision as she has realized she’ll be unplushed and poor for life as a journalist, wrote a column where she described a waiter or a date (I can’t recall which one) pulling out her chair for her at a restaurant. Instead of sitting in the seat she made a big point of walking around to the other side of the table and pulling out her own seat to show she wouldn’t be put in anybody’s social debt. (The guy didn’t walk away from the date at that exact moment which is what he should have done.)

    That’s not feminism, that’s just being difficult for its own sake. And these drills repeat themselves every day. If a woman doesn’t take an opportunity to push herself ahead at a man’s expense she’s letting down the feminist sisterhood.

    AAMOF grerp wrote on this: http://grerp.blogspot.com/2010/10/piece-of-advice-74-do-not-confused.html

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Badger
      Jessica Wakeman has undergone a radical change. Now she’s all about not being cut out for casual sex, while admitting that for years she thought she was and acted accordingly. With the Editor Amelia’s similar sexual makeover, I’m wondering if The Frisky is going to be less sex-positive overall. I hope so.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    I don’t envy SayWhaat’s position but I do empathize. As I’ve said before she is in the same position I and many betas were in in college – lots to offer but just not getting it right in the scene. It’s a little of us, a bit of who we’re pursuing and a LOT of poor fortune.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Clarence, ah yes, also fierce individualism.

    I disagree that traditional attitudes toward sex makes gender relations difficult. In Asia there is still a strong tradition valuing sexual morality, and people are very judgmental about others’ love lives. A year or two ago there was a big deal made about a young couple making out in an elevator — that would never be news here unless it was some celebrity gossip.

    But it is like the grown-ups telling you to each your vegetables. I absorbed that lesson well and am reaping the benefits. Those kids who rebelled (like the feminists rebelling against sexual morality) might have fun in the short term. In the long run, they are likely to have issues. There are perfectly healthy people who have eaten nothing but junk food all their lives. But that’s not something you can count on for most people.

    @Stephenie, bullying was very rare and was stomped out by adults as soon as any signs of it showed. Those who would be likely bullied in America, or the “geeks” and “nerds,” are the highest academically achieving kids, and they were the most admired and the ones that all the girls wanted.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hope

      Those who would be likely bullied in America, or the “geeks” and “nerds,” are the highest academically achieving kids, and they were the most admired and the ones that all the girls wanted.

      This is fascinating. What constitutes social dominance is culturally determined, then. And it must be determined by parents – they define early in a child’s life what success is, whether it’s being the star on your Little League team, or in your science class.

  • SayWhaat

    @ OTC:

    Ugh, again?

    Now, count up the times you’ve explicitly rejected you’ve guys who have asked you out, or tried to make conversation with you.

    Zero. That’s right, I said zero. I have not once turned down a guy who has asked me out on a date, nor have I ever ignored any man who has tried to make polite conversation with me.

    The only times I have turned down a guy is after the first or second date, after I have already given him a chance. Turning someone down after one or two dates is not expressing preference for an alpha cock carousel, it is simply an issue of compatibility.

    gain, those are the high-status guys. Round and round we go.

    You know what? If I want an ambitious, intelligent man who possesses good character, and if that man is what you consider to be high-status, then so be it.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @ Hope and Clarence:

    I think you guys pretty much cover it. Puritanism, from what I can see, seems to be at the root of a lot of interesting quirks(both positive and negative) within American culture. I think it explains a lot of the animosity we see.

    Not sure how we can go about correcting that, as it would involve altering the root of what has made America what it is. Then again, you never know I guess.

    @Clarence:

    I wonder what an adjusted birthrate for the 90 percent plus of the legally born, non fundamentalist part of the US population would be? I bet its rather far below replacement, actually.

    Interesting. I just took the figure for the whole population.

    The white, non-hispanic population in the US is supposedly at about 1.8-definitely below replacement but high for a population in a developed nation. Mormons are at roughly 2% of the US population, maybe add 1% for other smaller hardcore fundamentalist groups throughout the nation. I’m not sure how to apply the math here to get an exact figure but I’d assume their influence at such a small percentage couldn’t be exceedingly high.

    If I just had to throw a figure out there excluding these groups…1.7 or so, 1.6 at the lowest. That’s just BS guesswork though on my part.

  • filrabat

    @Jess

    Placing such high emphasis on a man’s dress styles (a superficiality) is about as fair as a man placing such high emphasis on tits and ass (a superficiality).

    As for Marcotte’s attitude, the Wikipedia entry for her highlighted an unflattering aspect of her character – namely taking a highly insulting attitude toward a certain religion…which ABC’s Terry Moran wrote on his blog “”her comments about other people’s faiths could well be construed as hate speech.”[3].

    (I’m NOT starting a religion debate here — I only brought this up because personal beliefs about religion are hot potatoes that anyone with an IQ of a carrot should know to tread lightly and respect around – particularly wordsmiths as high up the food chain as Marcotte. This suggests that she’s either really lacking in social skills or simply doesn’t give a damn about respecting people whose views are different from hers.)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @filrabat
      Yes, she has been accused of hate speech against Catholics. That scandal led her to resign as John Edwards campaign blogger after just a couple of months. Marcotte also published a book that used a cartoonish illustration of a gorilla carrying a scantily clad woman. She was accused of racism, and the publisher had to recall all the copies and reissue it. Finally, to this day she maintains the guilt of the Duke lacrosse players. She is really a terrible person.

      P.S. Sorry, I see that others have already covered much of this ground. Still, I’ll leave it up b/c I can’t stand her, haha.

  • SayWhaat

    @ AnonymousF:

    I believe that a guy who doesn’t have at least *some* “oneitis” for you early on isn’t going to be the right one for the long haul (same goes vice versa) anyway

    Yeah. I think the biggest thing that sucks for me right now is that I fell for a guy who had (has?) feelings for me, but was so scarred from being in a relationship with a huge bitch that he just cannot fathom the idea of being in another one, even years later.

  • http://gameforomegas.wordpress.com Omega Man

    As bad as many women have it in the SMP they don’t have it as bad as a low status man. I think of all the appalling treatment I’ve received from women, even or maybe even especially undesirable ones. Expressing interest in a woman seems license for many to dump on somebody. The old forms of courtship, where less-than-perfect people met other less-than-perfect people for actual relationships, seems to be pretty much dead.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Omega Man:

    I’m sorry to hear that was how you were treated. It makes me sad to know that women behave that way–even if you’re not interested, at least be polite!

  • OffTheCuff

    SayWhaat. You must either be the only woman in history to never turn down a man, or, you simply are so unaware of men who do like you that you are unconsciously rejecting them with a “business friendly” demeanor. There are too many millions of men who find young women attractive for you to have zero true rejections. I just don’t believe it, any more than I’d believe a guy who has never been turned down.
    .
    I also note you carefully said “dated and fallen for” which implies you have… well, rejected the guys that you didn’t fall for.

  • DF

    Here, Here to VJ’s above post.

    To Mr. Mcginnis

    The problem with America, is the lack of any cultural fabric. Culture informs the way we make value judgments, tastes. It allows for reference. This is the source of both America’s ability to invent itself so easily and destroy itself, a double edged sword. The ugliness of feminism has spilled-over into other foreign nations. The difference is that these foreign nations have a strong cultural narrative for men and women to full back onto, if a young girl is confused she has folk stories and other such traditions to inform her. It means that on a superficial level feminism very much exists there but at the ground level sexual relations still go on as they always have. America’s lack of a consistent cultural identity and narrative, like a vacuum, allowed feminism to flourish. An interesting observation is how puritanical American feminism is, it must continually push itself into every human sphere much like a religion. I notice also that it is sold as a ready made identity for young girls, this is both evil and so sad.

    Here are some interesting links, the man has a mind like a diamond anvil, of course he is deliberately iconoclastic and inflammatory:
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HG04Aa02.html
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EL16Aa01.html

    Feminists have no armies.

    A large pool of unemployed,disenfranchised, angry young men is an army. Just look at the middle east and every other revolution.

    Marcotte is frankly suicidal

  • Plain Jane

    I’m sick of hearing “nice guys” whine and rant about how life is unfair to them. Our resident “nice guy” Athlone McGinnis has admitted to wanting to collect “notches” before snagging a “nice girl” for the long haul. And outlined his plan to do just that. How “nice” is that?!

  • Plain Jane

    The ugliness of feminism has spilled-over into other foreign nations.

    Take that ugliness, times it by a thousand and put it on amphetimenes and testosterone shots, and there you have the “mens rights movement”.

    I’m glad I’ll be dead with a few decades…

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Hope.
    The same in my country if a kid bullied they called their parents and told them to find a way to control their kid or he/she will be expelled with a black mark on their record so other schools would be wary of taking them. THAT usually fixed it them right away and you could ask anyone if they will go to HS again and I will say 98% of them would love to. I was totally surprised by the fact that in here people hated HS and most of them wouldn’t go back again most of them had a bully story to share. I agree about the values of different cultures there was of course the prettiest girl on the class and the handsomest guy, but usually you could gain status by developing other skill, being smart, nice, a leader on a class so there were few if none lonely kid no to mention we were socialized to try and make the class come together so even the most antisocial kid will have at least a couple of friends to interact and talk during their class and who invented the dances on HS? We had our parties but everyone participated had fun and both males and females were socialized to dance with everyone because rejecting people is RUDE, specially on public. There was no such a thing as someone that was better than the other, making this huge event were high rank kids get even more attention and the low classes one gets reminded how unpopular they are…Again.Terrible idea altogether competition, competition, competition from the cradle to the grave, specially on a society with little or non-existant emotional support and with kids that are starting to get out there. No wonder everyone acts like everything is a fight, it is a fight an ugly one at that.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Yeah. I think the biggest thing that sucks for me right now is that I fell for a guy who had (has?) feelings for me, but was so scarred from being in a relationship with a huge bitch that he just cannot fathom the idea of being in another one, even years later.”

    Please take this in the best way – it’s probably not you or him; she must have been one hell of a bitch. I believe most normal young guys would not turn down a relationship opportunity with a woman we liked because of earlier dating scars unless it was really bad. She really must have been real bad to turn him off to LTRs for years.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    OTC,

    I’m willing to give SayWhaat the benefit of the doubt – everything she’s told us, and she’s been quite open, suggests she’s dating in good faith. That it’s not working out doesn’t have to mean she’s giving dagger-eyes to 80% of the guys.

  • Plain Jane

    @VJ:

    “Right from the start I couldn’t take my eyes off her,” Mr. Dylan wrote in his memoir, “Chronicles: Volume 1,” published in 2004. “She was the most erotic thing I’d ever seen. She was fair skinned and golden haired, full-blood Italian. The air was suddenly filled with banana leaves. We started talking and my head started to spin. Cupid’s arrow had whistled past my ears before, but this time it hit me in the heart and the weight of it dragged me overboard.”

    Other than being young lovers in a different age, what’s remarkable here is the perfect ordinariness of the situation. They shared this tempestuous 4 year relationship, with Dylan writing about, to or for her often. She was his true ‘muse’ at the time.

    If a talented musician talked about me like that, and wrote about, to or for me often, I’d “express joy” at being around him also.

  • Mike C

    Actually, I think the birthrates issue says more about the state of sexual relations in a society than you think it does. Mind you, I’m not talking about 4 kids or (like in the past and in many poor countries with limited lifespans and no contraception) or 6 or more children. I’m talking “replacement” level here, which I believe is approximately 2.0 children per married couple. The only other factor I can think of that explains the birth- dearth so well in a society is the overall economy as regards the expense of family formation.
    .
    Probably more economics then sexual relations.
    .
    In the last 100+ years we’ve transitioned from an agrarian, agricultural society where most people had limited education to a hyper-specialized society where advanced education is a necessity to a earning a good living.
    .
    In agricultural society, kids were workers for the family. There was no college to put them through. Net-net, they were probably an economic positive in that their work output exceeded the expenses of raising them. So you saw 5, 8, 10 kids.
    .
    In today’s society, kids are expensive, especially for middle to upper middle class and beyond. There is dance class, and piano lessons, and football camp, and then 4 years of private college. So you get your 2.1 kids or below.
    .
    Like the SMP, or really anything for that matter, incentives matter. There really is no incentive to have kids beyond the fact that I suspect for 99%+ of women there is some instinctual drive for motherhood, and I think probably 70-80% of guys want to pass on their genes for ego reasons (part of me will “live forever”).
    .
    But from a strictly economic view, kids are definitely massively negative present value. Additionally, in our socialized society, “government” will take care of you instead of your kids. Social Security payments are not tied in any way to the number of productive workers you produced for society to pay those benefits.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Stephenie, most of my elementary school years were spent in a foreign country, but my middle school and high school years were spent in the US. You are right that it is an experience that I would not want to repeat. My husband and I both went to private high schools, and even though bullying was more subdued, it was still clear to both of us that we were the “low status” people. In my case I just didn’t even bother socializing and settled on being an outcast. He on the other hand tried to fit in which gave him more trouble. But the upshot is he has many more colorful stories from high school than I do.

  • Plain Jane

    A comment at http://www.feministe.us urges early baby-making:

    I have to laugh at this post and the comments. The only reason not to wait is that it’s hard as hell to raise young children in your 40s if you’re not as wealthy as Hollywood starlets who all have nannies.

    I’m 51 – I have an 11-year-old and an 8-year-old and I’m done in. I”m exhausted beyond description. I love my kids more than my life, but the middle-aged body wasn’t meant to do what I’m doing. I saw the worn-out moms at my Catholic school and for some reason never saw myself in that picture, but here I am.

    I was the first wave of feminism when we would no longer be slaves to our “biology” – we’d all have scintillating careers and leave the babies to the “breeders.” Callous, hideous attitude now that I look back. Cause no career comes close to having a family for satisfaction.

    Beyond that, I came out of college in a rotten economy but I had never seen the prosperity that your generation and it’s really set back maturity for sure – you don’t know it when you’re in the middle of it.

    So go have the babies now and save your back. Mattie

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Hope
    Life is so strange sometimes.

  • PJay

    @SayWhaat

    “I’m not offering him a relationship because I want a foil or punching bag. I’m not offering a relationship because I want his money and his BABIEZ. I’m offering him a relationship because wow, I really, REALLY like him and I just want to be with him.”

    Yeah, but you have the option whenever you want to take his money (and his BABIEZ) away from him with the power of the legal system behind you. Who can say you wouldn’t do that down the road?

    Every divorced guy has heard the same “promise” in the early days of his marriage, let me tell you. It’s worth absolutely nothing.

    You want a man to commit? Wait until our legal system, especially the civil code concerning family issues, stops treating women as a highly privileged legal class.

    Until then, there are plenty of examples all around us men here in the US of how women’s “promises” usually mean nothing at all after 8 years of marriage, especially with the prospect of possible lifetime alimony and many years of tax-free child support dangled in front of you.

    More men should hang out with their friends and avoid the legal and financial gulag of marriage.

    More men should say “no” to the slavery that long-term relationships inflict on so many.

    To the men in Kay Hymowitz’ article, I say, “Keep doing what you’re doing!”

    These men can stay at home, mind the kids, and divorce their working wives to inflict the peonage of divorce on their ex-wives, the same peonage that has been inflicted on countless men in the past up ’til today. Beautiful!

    The oppressive prison of old-school marriage is no longer.

    Work harder, women! Go to war, work in the mines, work on weekends and evenings, stay up late! Work, work, work to support me and your family.

    If you do not make me happy, I will take away your kids, your money and your future. Better not make me mad!

    Welcome to the feminist utopia!

  • filrabat

    Now that the subject is back to “winners and losers”, the competitive nature of American culture, etc., this is my cue to repost this link

    What Darwin Didn’t Mean: How Social Darwinism Fails Us

    It’s long, but worth it.

  • ExNewYorker

    Ahh, Amanda Marcotte, what a piece of work. I’ve been reading Pandagon for a while, and boy, she’s one of the least empathic people I’ve seen blog. How about her defensiveness about one of her book covers (ah, overblown, it must be and not racially insensitive)? Or her many threads with snark toward women who valued motherhood or wanted relationships? How about the disdain of all those “Nice Guys” (TM)? In a strange way, she mirrors the lack of empathy and lack of ability to walk in someone else’s shoes that she so heartily condemns in her nemesis of the Religious Right…
    .
    So it’s not surprising for her ignore the “mens” in her latest screed. Her modus operandi generally seems to be that she doesn’t see any such issues in her circle, so it can’t be true, or it’s just misogyny. Must be mens who should check their privilege. It was quite amusing seeing her cast Susan as a some insecure woman worried about keeping her husband from the “bad women out there”.
    .
    One of the things to note in the MGTOW approach that she so heartily disdains, is that for a large contingent, it’s not about angry men, or divorced men, or men who are bitter (though those will figure in the more vocal segments). It’s a lot of just plain ignored men, disdained men, under the radar men. There are some men who are dropping out because there’s nothing actively making it worth their while not to do so. How prevalent is this? I don’t know, but anecdotally, it seems it’s more than just one’s crazy unmarried uncle…

  • Plain Jane

    XNYer: “How about the disdain of all those “Nice Guys” (TM)?”
    *
    I don’t consider guys who are pissed off that they are not able to notch up the numbers that the alpha guys are to be “nice guys” just because they are shy/geeky/nerdy and not “getting any” from women. A genuine “nice guy” would not be envious of players and he would not want to notch up numbers. He would be relationship-minded. We have our own “nice guy brigade” right here on HUS and they are all passive-aggressive haters and number notch wannabe’s.

    Boycott the Nice Guy TM and big-up the REAL nice guy – if he even exists.

  • Plain Jane

    Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure. The might hook up as freely as a Duke athlete. Or, they might want men to play Greatest Generation gentleman. Yes, they want men to pay for dinner, call for dates…and open doors for them. A lot of men wonder: “WTF??!”

    And they can keep wondering “WTF??!”

    We women know that these are markers of provider status. In a country that does not provide paid maternity leave at all, what to speak of a prolonged period of time so that you can recover from PPD, breastfeed your infant around the clock and take the time needed to bond with him/her – then YES – women still require “providers” at least during that time and longer if they lose their job because of pregnancy, maternity, PPD, breastfeeding, mother-child-bonding, etc.

    I believe its Sweden or Finland that provide a 3 years paid leave for the mother and 1 year paid leave for the father. Oh those evil Socialist/Feminazi regimes!

    So, unless these same men who are wondering “WTF??!” are on board with extended paid maternity leave for women – the potential future mothers of their children – then they better just stfu wrt complaints about working, paying for stuff and possibly supporting their wives.

    RE: “an entire generation of dissatisfied men” —- Susan, are you serious? You really believe this generation of men – the whole lot of ‘em – are dissatisfied?

    I know a few dissatisfied guys, however its not because they can’t get laid or the girl next door is bedding down with the bad guy. Its because they don’t fit in with America’s mass consumerist materialistic society – AND THEY DON’T WANT TO.

    And guess what? They don’t have to.

    Let them live as happy bohemian couch surfers. What’s wrong with that?

  • Clarence

    ExNewYorker:

    You forgot she threw the Duke 3 under the bus early on, continued to insult them by calling them racist sexual predators after they were declared innocent by the Attorney General, and never apologized, though she did try to erase her posted thoughts about their exoneration. Thank God for screenshots and The Way Back Machine.

    She’ll throw people under the bus for ideology. That’s really all you need to know about her.

    And now I’ve done two posts about the same person on this blog. That’s never happened before, and I’m going to try to keep the Evil Ones name (only slight snark) from passing my lips again.

  • Benjamin Fox

    @Mike C.
    Your post about children being expensive reminded me of Jonathan Swift’s “A modest Proposal.” I just had to share the laugh.

    Mention was made that some men had gone so far as to consider (or implement) adopting just to fill their need to be a father… Now that is a scary idea. Suddenly that bluegrass song that personified an old man’s relationship with his dog is a lot less ridiculous. Will the new cliche for Betas be collecting dogs? Has the crazy-cat-lady finally found competition?

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    SayWhaat, OTC….Whatever the case may be with SayWhaat, it is probably true tht the average woman rejects 5-10 times as much as she is rejected….BUT there is a huge difference between being “rejected” by someone you’re just met and isn’t interested in conversation or more, and being rejected by someone who you’ve spent time with and who has give you reason to believe they’re very interested in you.

    Kind of like the difference between not getting a response from a potential employer when sending a resume, on the one hand, and getting fired after your first 2 weeks on the job, on the other.

  • Abbot

    “Feminism sidelined the decent men.”
    .
    Sexually speaking, yes. But, per the feminist click, that does not give those men the right to opt out of subsidizing the cost of paid maternity leave, state funding to abort alpha-male-inseminated pregnancies, onerous social programs or any other decent-men-tax-funded women-dependent program du jour.
    .
    “A genuine “nice guy” would not be envious of players and he would not want to notch up numbers. He would be relationship-minded.”
    .
    There are many “nice guys” with those highly sought after characteristics out there. Another character trait those men have is self respect. Therefore, a small subset of women are denied the privilege of being rescued by such relationship-minded men. Even a staunch feminist has enough sense to know that a self respecting nice guy will not sully himself.

  • http://www.sexandthetwenties.com Cali Bradshaw

    Great post, Susan! The original article prompted a lot of discussion amongst me and my friends, but I hadn’t heard about this follow up article. I think she is dead on about woman today wanting both equality but then old fashioned chivalry when dating. I actually had a full on argument with my ex about this. He claimed that he thought that since I was so independent I wouldn’t want him to do such old fashioned things like paying and setting up real dates. I think the truth is that becasue we are so independent and strong in the work place and in social settings, that we look for a time (dating) where we can take a little break from all that and let someone else lead the way for once. At least that is the case for me! Great post. Very interesting…

  • Abbot

    “…men are guilty of perpetuating an unfair double standard.”
    .
    Meaning that some women can and do spend years of perfectly “fair” screwing around [couched as "exploring" and "boundary defining"] but if one man [read: the one she wants to marry] rejects a woman for having done so he is perpetuating an unfair double standard. He is also perpetuating such a standard if he proactively seeks a foreign wife. If all this is true, then men should be proud of perpetuating an “unfair” double standard.
    .
    Here is an article:
    .
    Feminism of the Future Relies on Men
    .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/europe/23iht-letter.html?_r=1
    .
    good luck
    .
    “The only thing that can level the playing field at work is a level playing field at home. And that requires a major shift in public policy and corporate culture.”
    .
    Yep, pass laws that force men to be “fair”.

  • AnonymousF

    @Susan
    “I meant elitist in a different way – in the sense that you have what you want in life and hang out with similar people, but you don’t acknowledge the very real dilemma that women like SayWhaat are in.”

    I believe SayWhaat is still in college. When I was in college I had a boyfriend for a while, but also had over 2 years without a boyfriend during which I met some good guys and some not so good. I’ve experienced having feelings for someone (a good guy by the way, just not into me) who doesn’t return them equally. Most of my friends’ college experiences were similar: one or two “official” relationships and 1-3 years of awkward singlehood with both dates and hookups (which I consider to include stuff as mild as making out). I also know people who married their college boy/girlfriends, so that happens too.

    It never occured to me to blame a wholesale “lack of good men” or “commitment shortage” when a guy wasn’t into me, because I knew I’d turned down some good men for lack of attraction or lack of long term compatibility. As I said a while back, I acknowledge things may have changed a lot in the past 5-6 years. And some schools may have worse cultures than others.

    It’s not that “I have mine” because I’m so awesome and SayWhaat isn’t. Rather, I am 6-8 years older. I’d be happy to bet money that by the time SayWhaat is my age, she has hers too. Even now, it appears quite a few guys are willing to invest the effort to take her out on real dates even though she’s not sleeping with them. Presumably they’re at least entertaining the idea of making her their girlfriend because otherwise I don’t see the point. It’s not like they’re inviting her over at 2am to hook up for 2 months before rejecting commitment. The fact that she hasn’t found the right mutual “click” yet isn’t that alarming.

    Hymowitz’s data is evidence of later marriage, but not evidence of less overall lifetime marriage. She conveniently only cites stats about 25 year olds and 25-29 year olds. As far as I know, lifetime marriage rates for college-educated women aren’t dropping significantly. Later marriage can be a problem fertility-wise, but I’m not sure later marriage is a result of men’s caddishness rather than both men’s and women’s education and career ambitions, and the increasing trend of men and women to relocate in pursuing these.

    The lack of men in college isn’t problematic if men are earning, as machinists, plumbers, soldiers, startup dropouts. A friend of a friend earns a respectable middle-class income playing poker online. Women, in my experience, are much less likely to take riskier paths to making a living. They prefer to go the well-behaved, establishment-approved way which is college followed by grad school. Men still largely outearn women, except for a handful of cities where women slightly outearn men. That latter is the only data that I truly find problematic (and even then, only if the trend continues and the gap widens), and I haven’t yet seen a convincing data-based connection between that and changing sexual mores, though I’m open to such an argument.

    By the way, I do have single friends, including good men actively seeking committed relationships with marriage potential. I try to help them in any way I can, including with introductions, wing-ing and so on. I hope you realize that I don’t have a negative view of men. That’s why I *don’t* agree that most of them are immature Apatow-ish slackers or commitmentphobes.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      As far as I know, lifetime marriage rates for college-educated women aren’t dropping significantly.

      The most often quoted data on this is that 78% of male college students say they wish to marry eventually. Obviously, that’s the vast majority, but that percentage has been declining steadily, and this is the first year it went under 80%.

      Later marriage can be a problem fertility-wise, but I’m not sure later marriage is a result of men’s caddishness rather than both men’s and women’s education and career ambitions, and the increasing trend of men and women to relocate in pursuing these.

      The rise in the average age at marriage is increasing for both women and men, largely due to longer periods of education, as well as focus on careers. As you say, geographic mobility also plays a role. I don’t believe that men who wish to delay or even avoid marriage are cads – I reserve that word for men who practice deceit to get sex with women.

      The reason that a lack of college educated men is problematic is that women strongly prefer to marry someone of higher status than themselves – female hypergamy. In contemporary society, women are high achieving, and so will usually mate with someone of similar education and background. Men, on the other hand, have a strong preference to marry a woman with the same or less education than they have. All of this has been shown repeatedly in studies.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Susan..”What constitutes social dominance is culturally determined, then. And it must be determined by parents”

    Often equally if not more determined by peer group, as in “Johnny is a good boy but I just don’t know, he’s been running with a bad crowd lately”

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    AnonymousF…”Women, in my experience, are much less likely to take riskier paths to making a living. They prefer to go the well-behaved, establishment-approved way which is college followed by grad school”

    A fundamental principle of finance is that when an investment with high returns is discovered by many people, the rates of return on that investment fall. Mike Mandel (back when he was chief economist at BizWeek) observed that this principle should also apply to college degrees, and that it was abnormal for the rates of return to stay so high for so long. There is lots of evidence that this is now changing, and indeed there are many stories of people who’ve spent years & years in college/grad school, accumulated huge debts, and are now finding their job prospects pretty dismal.

    You can’t drive very successfully by looking in the rear-view mirror, yet this is what many people attempt to do in their careers as well as in investing. The “safe” course is often in reality the dangerous one.

  • rick

    Plain Jane-

    You’re just outed yourself as a silly socialist-utopia advocate.

    Who do you think pays for all that leave? “Other People”.

    That’s the defect in people like you – you have no empathy for anyone except the people that you wish to be the recipients of such government-mandated “Benefits”.

    Here’s an efffing GREAT IDEA. You want three years off after having a kid? Save up the money ahead of time through work and sacrifice, rather than excising from the labor of other people. Or marry a guy with a good job. The US has it RIGHT on this issue.

    But the shoe and purse budget would never allow for that kind of savings, would it? Hair, makeup, nails, oh my.

    The fact that you are an economic illiterate and cannot understand why such policies will destroy an economy is sadly, probably not rectifiable at this point.

    Your thinking is textbook proof of the absoluteness of American Womens’ entitlement mentality.

  • AnonymousF

    @david f
    Agreed. Frankly, if I had my way with college attendance there’d be far fewer men *and* women attending 4 year schools, and fewer employers requiring 4 year degrees for basic entry level jobs. And we’d have more demanding vocational 2yr programs that would actually be respected by employers. But I don’t want to threadjack :)

  • Clarence

    rick:

    While I disagree with you on a fundamental point – that is, I think reproduction has to be one of the central concerns of any nation or culture and I think its good if a state encourages it- I will agree with you that PJ does have her head up her butt in a way. She wants all this, but she forgets about no fault divorce, easy restraining orders, and all sorts of other things that make it easy to break up one’s family. I have sympathy for women and men who want to create stable family units and I wouldn’t mind helping them to do so. But replacing daddy with the state and not even requiring responsibility is the worst of both worlds.

  • Plain Jane

    Here’s an efffing GREAT IDEA. You want three years off after having a kid? Save up the money ahead of time through work and sacrifice, rather than excising from the labor of other people. Or marry a guy with a good job.

    Blog after blog. Website after website. Article after article. Post after post. Comment after comment…………….. American men say they DON’T WANT TO GET MARRIED AND PAY FOR THE WIFE AND KIDS.

    That’s my whole point.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      American men say they DON’T WANT TO GET MARRIED AND PAY FOR THE WIFE AND KIDS.

      That’s not what I read. What I hear men saying is that they don’t want to put everything on the line in a marriage, get kicked to the curb, and pay unfair awards. All while they’re forced to move out, reduce their standard of living, and lose much of the time they spend with their own children.

  • Abbot

    “reproduction has to be one of the central concerns of any nation or culture and I think its good if a state encourages it”
    .
    The state represents the people and therefore has to be sensible and fair. The state should only encourage and in some way financially support women under the age of 28 to reproduce. That will begin the process of correcting the imbalanced SMP, is biologically appropriate and benefits the majority of the male voting bloc.

  • Workshy Joe

    Hymowitz original positions was: modern men suck.
    Her addendum is: modern women suck too.

    She’s wrong on both counts. Let’s not forget that we are talking about life-style choices and aspirations here. No-one is being coerced.

    Marriage is on the way out. So is the superior socio-economic position of the typical western man. That’s my take on it. The only question now is how we respond to that as individuals.

    Its interesting that Hymowitz mentions Chivalry. The traditions of Chivalry involved high status men deferring to much lower status women. So it was a powerful act.

    If a man who fills the shelves at Walmart defers to a woman who works in an office cubicle it doesn’t really have the same impact.

  • Plain Jane

    If a man who fills the shelves at Walmart defers to a woman who works in an office cubicle it doesn’t really have the same impact.

    This is my point.

    Men are complaining about women being “gold diggers” or only wanting dudes that have more money than they do. There’s some very good reasons for that.

    PREGNANCY. BREASTFEEDING. MOTHERHOOD.

    Women must be supported during those stages. Stay at home moms and their kids need money too. They need to feel financially stable and secure.

    There is absolutely no getting around this.

    Regarding taxes being spent on a “socialist utopia” – the US has been spending trillions on exactly that – utopian wars meant to bring about utopian societies in other countries as well as a utopian global regime with the US at the helm.

    I’d much rather my taxes go toward building that dream IN MY country, rather than my country trying to take over OTHER lands and build it THERE.

    (and did you know our taxes go to NASCAR as well? yes, NASCAR of all f*cking useless things! look it up)

    There’s no getting around it – we will always have to pay taxes.

    If given a choice of what to pay taxes for – most of us would not check off the NASCAR, war and unneccessary global military boxes.

    All that bullsh*t, if cut by just a fraction, could go toward not just “maternity leave” but “parental leave”.

    Sweden, for all the cries of “Fascist Feminazi Regime” from the bitter MRA-sphere, has parental leave.

    See guys – Swedes want you to bond with your babies, too.

  • Plain Jane

    The state represents the people and therefore has to be sensible and fair. The state should only encourage and in some way financially support women under the age of 28 to reproduce. That will begin the process of correcting the imbalanced SMP, is biologically appropriate and benefits the majority of the male voting bloc.

    Single moms below a certain income in the US can get WIC, medicaid, foodstamps (its a card now), and Section 8 housing. So “the state” is already financially supporting women under the age of 28 to reproduce.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Susan “What constitutes social dominance is culturally determined, then. And it must be determined by parents – they define early in a child’s life what success is, whether it’s being the star on your Little League team, or in your science class.”

    This is the case across the entire culture, and parents are only a small component of it. The most intellectually and academically skilled kids as well as adults are revered throughout Asian societies. Teachers show them the best treatment. Adults of all stripes openly praise them (I remember visiting other girls’ homes, and their parents would go on and on about my good grades in front of their own kids). TV shows, books, popular culture, and all sorts of media venerate them. Japanese anime and manga, big throughout East Asia, feature male lead romantic that would have Americans scratching their heads — smart, studious, hard-working, and “beta.” So when Asian girls come to America, they still go for the nerds.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    “traditions of Chivalry involved high status men deferring to much lower status women”…this may have been true in an idealized form of chivalry, but the same knight who behaved with exquisite courtesy to a lady of rank (still lower status than *him* based on gender, but very high status in comparison with other women) might well have raped and murdered a woman of “the common sort.”

    Even much later, say the Victorian era, a chivalrous gentleman (in relationships with women of his own class) might well seduce, impregnate, and abandon a whole series of lower-class girls without feeling particularly guilty about it.

    (My last post: thinking and memorizing, continued)

  • SayWhaat

    That it’s not working out doesn’t have to mean she’s giving dagger-eyes to 80% of the guys

    Thanks Badger. I think the important thing to recognize is that no one should be taking rejection too personally when dating. There are so many factors at work that can influence whether or not the girl/guy you’re trying to make a connection with will actually respond to you. The best way is to just assume that the other person likes you, and behave accordingly.

    In light of what david foster said re the difference in rejection, I’m going to amend my answer and say that yes, I have rejected men. I don’t think there’s anything wrong in rejecting men that I don’t believe I’m compatible with, if the incompatibility is apparent after one or two dates. But I have never coldly ignored or punished a man for making an honest effort.

    All the same, I can’t reject men if I have no idea that they are interested. Similarly, I can’t say that I’ve been rejected by men if they have no idea that I am interested. You can’t keep building a chip on your shoulder if the people you like have no idea that you like them.

  • SayWhaat

    @ AnonymousF:

    Even now, it appears quite a few guys are willing to invest the effort to take her out on real dates even though she’s not sleeping with them.

    Maybe, but most of my dating has been online. I’ve only recently been ableto go to (the nicer) bars and organically meet people I wouldn’t meet in my day-to-day life. Other than that, I’m too busy to meet new people unless they’re in class or through other friends, and it’s not like every one of those encounters results in a date.

    Presumably they’re at least entertaining the idea of making her their girlfriend because otherwise I don’t see the point. It’s not like they’re inviting her over at 2am to hook up for 2 months before rejecting commitment.

    I dunno…I dated a guy for a month and a half before he revealed that he really didn’t want a relationship, and this other guy I’m seeing/was seeing seems to be perfectly happy just casually meeting up, getting drinks, and making out. I think that there are guys who just like to casually date and don’t really see dating as a means to a goal (i.e. finding someone to love), which is annoying, because it is a huge waste of my time.

    The fact that she hasn’t found the right mutual “click” yet isn’t that alarming.

    Perhaps, but the fact that I am 21 years old and have never been in a relationship bothers me.

  • Abbot

    “Marriage is on the way out. So is the superior socio-economic position of the typical western man. That’s my take on it. The only question now is how we respond to that as individuals.”
    .
    If your goal is marriage combined with a superior position, then just immerse yourself in the endless sea of women who happily enable you to have both. One way to accommodate men is to legislate a marriage-age female-only immigration policy, screeching and howling from feminists notwithstanding. Short of that fun idea, just grab your passport.

  • SayWhaat

    the “geeks” and “nerds,” are the highest academically achieving kids, and they were the most admired and the ones that all the girls wanted

    Yup. Also explains why I have a weakness for guys with glasses. :p

  • AnonymousF

    @SayWhaat

    I don’t mean to invalidate your feelings. I had periods of anxiety during college too, and so did everyone I know, including men. I’ve been on both ends of the commitment decline, and I know it feels crappy to get shot down. I don’t think you’re unreasonable or strange for being bothered. I just meant to say that I believe your odds of ultimately getting what you want are good.

    I do find it odd that guys are dating you “casually” for more than a couple weeks without demanding any escalation past making out *and* knowing from the *very beginning* that they have no intention of a relationship no matter what happens. Not to be crass, but that would be considered a waste of time by all of my guy friends, both “player” types (who would aggressively push your boundaries) and boyfriend types (who would either want a relationship or not want one and then stop seeing you). I don’t have any experience with such a phenomenon, so maybe it is something new that’s sprung up.

  • Plain Jane

    Men: if you are marriage minded, only date women who are lower than you on the economic scale and assure her that you will provide for her in the event of maternity leave or choice to be a SAHM.

    Never date women who are your financial equals or superiors.

    They will not consider you for longterm.

    Its not *fair*.

    Life is not fair.

    It just is what it is.

  • Passer_By

    “I do find it odd that guys are dating you “casually” for more than a couple weeks without demanding any escalation past making out *and* knowing from the *very beginning* that they have no intention of a relationship no matter what happens. Not to be crass, but that would be considered a waste of time by all of my guy friends”

    Yes, this is curious. Obviously, we’re not there, so it’s hard to say. But I think guys suddenly saying “I’m not interested in a relationship right now” is really them saying in a nice way “I’m not interested in a continuing relationship with you because you don’t seem sexually into me, or perhaps you’re just not very sexual at all.” Sexless relationships for guys are a huge depressing and frustrating drag, and there is no reason they should all want to sign up for one.

    Now, I’m sure saywhaat would disagree and say that she’s ready to unleash a torrent of sexuality on these guys just as soon as she gets the commitment she wants, but it seldom works that way in reality. And how is investing two months in dating not some form of commitment? Like I said, I’m not there, so I can’t say for sure, but she is probably not giving any indication that she is really craving any sex from them – just that she wants companionship and likes the idea of having a boyfriend. Relationships that start without much passion tend to stay that way, and I think guys intuitively understand that more than they use to.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By
      I recall that Hamby said once that for women who want to wait for monogamy to have sex, they need to make it clear up front that they are hot for the guy. I think he suggested something like, “I don’t have sex with people I don’t know well and trust, but if we become exclusive I’m going to rock your world.” I liked that suggestion – a bit of sexual directness on the part of the woman might go a long way to convincing a guy it’s worth waiting for.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    I love the Freewheeling cover.

  • Clarence

    Yeah, speaking for me only, but…

    If she hasn’t “put out” by the end of two months, I’m outta there. It should be obvious that “playas” don’t hang around that long, and at the same time, why be in a sexless relationship? What does SaayWhat expect of us non-religious guys?

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Jessica Wakeman has undergone a radical change. Now she’s all about not being cut out for casual sex, while admitting that for years she thought she was and acted accordingly. With the Editor Amelia’s similar sexual makeover, I’m wondering if The Frisky is going to be less sex-positive overall. I hope so.”

    Every Frisky post I read brought up the same mental imagery – naive, bubbly teenagers having a pillow fight and squealing “I HAD SEX!!!!!!!!!!”

    They hitched themselves to false idols, showing more enthusiasm than judgment, and now they find they’ve been backing the wrong horse for years – not to mention they’ve put it all on the Internet for any guy they date to see!

    ““traditions of Chivalry involved high status men deferring to much lower status women”…this may have been true in an idealized form of chivalry, but the same knight who behaved with exquisite courtesy to a lady of rank”

    This is something modern women really don’t get about chivalry – it was for gentlemen and ladies. Most women today are not ladies. The idea that a knight was incumbent to treat a pauperess with “chivalry” (forgetting their duties as security officers of the state) is madness. Yet women today think they deserve goodies because they have a vagina.

    As I see it chivalry wasn’t really a gender-relations philosophy as much as a set of social markers for how noble people would act – a cultural shortcut to showing status and flipping the attraction switches. Every culture has had drills and customs that signal high social status.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      They hitched themselves to false idols, showing more enthusiasm than judgment, and now they find they’ve been backing the wrong horse for years – not to mention they’ve put it all on the Internet for any guy they date to see!

      I remember seeing a tweet from Diana Vilbert, a writer who went to swingers clubs, got naked, and then wrote about it for The Frisky. She had a hot date planned with some guy, and he found her articles online, then reneged. She laughed it off saying something like “Oops! Just lost a date b/c I go to swingers clubs on assignment!” It’s one thing to be Lena Chen – who is going to have a career based on her slutty college experiences. But some freelance writer? Insanity.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    ” I think that there are guys who just like to casually date and don’t really see dating as a means to a goal (i.e. finding someone to love), which is annoying, because it is a huge waste of my time.”

    I find this strange. Why would a guy date a woman for kicks? Sex or an LTR or both are the only reasons to date, anything else is just a waste of the man’s time too. I bet they are low-game guys who realize there’s not enough spark to get in your pants and so quietly back out of the arrangement without pushing too hard for it. Also guys without a lot of social life and so they use dating as a replacement for the hanging out, going out with friends etc that they lack.

  • Hope

    Passer_By has a good point. Men really want a woman who is passionate and sexual, while still remaining loyal and relatively chaste. The so-called lady on the streets, freak in the sheets is the ideal girlfriend. It really is the most important component of a romantic relationship for men. It isn’t that men aren’t romantic… their version of romance just involves a lot more boners and a lot less flowers.

    It’s actually easier to demonstrate your sexuality online because it’s completely safe, with no actual physical contact, and a girl can really get a guy hooked with fantasies. If you aren’t at least doing that two months into dating a guy, he’s likely to bail and look for something different. Unless you’re a Jessica Alba look-alike, even the good men aren’t going to wait around for you to get more sexual.

  • Workshy Joe

    @David Foster: That’s true!

    People always seem to be harking back to some bygone age where things weren’t screwed up. I’m not convinced that there was such an era.

  • Passer_By

    @hope
    “It isn’t that men aren’t romantic… their version of romance just involves a lot more boners and a lot less flowers.”

    Best sentence ever on HUS.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      “It isn’t that men aren’t romantic… their version of romance just involves a lot more boners and a lot less flowers.”

      Best sentence ever on HUS.

      Haha, yes it’s good, but I’m still cracking up from your comment about the 5 yo who was determined not to marry without a job.

  • Clarence

    Badger et al:

    There was no “one” code of chivalry. There were -for the most part slight but still-differences between the implementation and the codes of various kingdoms and countries, and between knightly or courtly chivalry and Victorian era chivalry. Generally, the more believed the King or local ruler and the more “Christian” his realm, the more likely the Knights were to treat everyone with a bit of respect, even if , in the end, they owed more to people of higher rank. The Knights of Round Table legends are pretty instructive in this regard. Ideally, Knights were not to abuse their station or their power and even peasants had to be taken into account as subjects of the King and creatures of Christ. Of course in the real world it only worked this way sometimes, not often in times of war, famine, or bad rulers. It usually wasn’t as bad as everyone being chattel to the Knights and Nobles but it normally wasn’t as gallant as is often portrayed in film and romance either.

    Now I’m no scholar on Victorian times even though they were much closer in time to our own. My familiarity with them comes from some scientific biographies, depictions in movies, and a few books of fiction, mostly written by male science fiction writers such as HG Welles. Still, if I remember what I have taken in from all that it would be that the Victorian era (at least in Britain, I know even less of how this played out in the US , ironically) still had concepts of what it meant to be a “lady” and females could lose their honor and thus some of their rights to pedestalization as the Goddesses of moral (including sexual) propriety. Far as I know, chivalry didn’t extend to men as the Geneva Convention wasn’t until the next century. Unlike in medieval times a Lady, while being owed all this deference did not have to show any in return. I think in some ways that is the same dynamic that exists through modern western style feminism where they get all these rights without any responsibilities.

  • JLW

    I enjoy reading about middle-aged women who are “reformed” and no longer think hooking up is a good thing. That’s like Charlie Manson giving up space travel for lent.

  • Plain Jane

    JLW, you may think so, but how come there is no dearth of middle aged women who are “getting some” – whether than “some” is no strings attached sex, boyfriends and even husbands?

    So many divorced, single moms remarry – often divorced single dads but sometimes single, child-free men as well.

    If a woman is decent looking and has a half-way decent personality – she will not be at a loss for action of any sort – be it short term or long term.

    The only problem for women is: DOES HE HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS?

  • hepsas

    she said that I am just envious and worried that my man will have sex with sluts like her.
    .
    If Marcotte is monogamous and committed, it’s not something she freely admits. Last summer on this site she boisterously identified herself as a slut.

    .
    *breathe, Hepsas, breathe*
    .
    Susan, a quick Google search brings up instances of Marcotte talking about her boyfriend on her blog. It’s possible they have an open relationship, bit isn’t it also possible that that in her comment she was, you know, joking? Making fun of the way you perceive her, rather than intended to announce that she was, at the time, sleeping around?
    .

    Marcotte employs her usual snark in saying that all the men who feel that way are misogynists anyway.

    .
    What way? The “that” here is lacking a referrent. Personally, I’m with her on thinking the guys Hymowitz quotes are misogynistic losers. But if you’re suggesting that Marcotte is dismissing all 20-something slacker guys as misogynists, that’s again an absurd misrepresentation.

  • Workshy Joe

    @JLW: Ha ha ha!

    Yeah, I’ve decided to pass up a glittering career as a premier league soccer player for similar reasons. ;-)

    I don’t think I could deal with the fame, the stalkers, the underwear-modelling contracts etc. I’ll leave that to the likes of David Beckham and Christiano Ronaldo.

    I’ll let them have a go instead.

  • Workshy Joe

    @Plain Jane: I certainly take your point about economic security for children.

    In the economic/political absence of well-paid stable careers for the majority of men, no-one should be surprised that there is an acute shortage of Hymowitz’s “Good Men”. Men that are better-paid than their partners and willing to put their partners needs above their own.

    Although I’m not a huge fan of government-run Ponzi Schemes like the welfare state, I take your point that there are worst things that governments can spend money on: foreign empires, banker bailouts, subsidies to third world dictators (aid), the “war on drugs”, the “war on terror”, crony-capitalist boondoggles, etc.

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ hambydammit

    I’m probably crossing a line here, but what the hell. I’ve noticed a connection between the kind of feminism you’re describing and right wing fundamentalism. Republicans scream and moan about how the poor are lazy and uneducated, and that they need to get out there and get a job. But they completely ignore the cause/effect relationship between poverty and poor underfunded school systems that are still arguing over whether or not to teach a 2000 year old myth as science. They ignore the fact that the vast majority of bankruptcies in the U.S. are from medical bills, all the while screaming that people should be able to afford high risk health care on minimum wage.

    The feminists are screaming about how men ought to be everything women want, and ignore the cause/effect relationship that they have created with the success of their initiatives. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. Birth control is awesome, and it’s great that women can get it by simply walking into a clinic. (Well… we’ll see about funding for Planned Parenthood… that might not be the case soon.) It’s great that women are expected to be an active participant in birth control. It’s great that women are nearly equal in the business world, and that they don’t need men. It’s great that they have the protection of law when they have children, and that men are forced to pay for their children’s care.

    But all these things come at a price, and that price is the value of the vagina. It’s simple market economics, and ignoring that reality is naive at best.

    You want a man to take all the initiative, pay for all the dinners, bring home the bacon, help with the kids, commit long term, and keep you in nice things? Ok… why don’t you stay at home and keep the house spotless, have dinner on the table every day, put out every time he asks, and sign a pre-nup?

    Sound awful? Yes. It does sound awful. No reasonable man would ask that of a woman he loved. And no reasonable woman would ask a man to live up to pre-feminist standards of “manhood” in the face of the devaluation of the vagina which was an inevitable result of egalitarianism.

    It’s very, very, very simple economics. If two things are equal in value, one seller doesn’t get to charge more and expect to pay less.

  • terre

    ExNewYorker, I remember Devlin making the hypothesis once that women aren’t naturally imbued with a sense of justice because it has little use in child-rearing (in my personal experience, this ties into the massively overrated female knack for empathy). Unless a man is directly threatening my livelihood, I tend to sympathize with him and want to help him out. But women couldn’t by and large care less.

  • terre

    To Plain Jane et al: women who take maternity leave with the expectation of not having their job replaced are an enormous stress on everyone else. This probably doesn’t exercise itself much in the urbane upper-class educrat circles that this blog attracts, but when real work has to be done the loss of a single coworker means everything gets shunted onto everyone else’s shoulders. My own parents have had to clean schools into the twilight hours because of women cleaners who never show up.

  • stillcode

    @Hope

    “This is the case across the entire culture, and parents are only a small component of it. The most intellectually and academically skilled kids as well as adults are revered throughout Asian societies. Teachers show them the best treatment. Adults of all stripes openly praise them (I remember visiting other girls’ homes, and their parents would go on and on about my good grades in front of their own kids). TV shows, books, popular culture, and all sorts of media venerate them. Japanese anime and manga, big throughout East Asia, feature male lead romantic that would have Americans scratching their heads — smart, studious, hard-working, and “beta.” So when Asian girls come to America, they still go for the nerds.”

    .
    You’ve said a lot of insightful things in this thread Hope and I agree with you. My experience of having lived in Japan largely corroborates with your “smart, studious, hard-workings boys/men = attractive” in Asian countries.
    Outside of populous and dense places like Tokyo, the ideal catch for a young women is the hard-working beta. In the rural area that I lived in, I never saw a single instance of any woman yearn for the irresponsible, likes to party, promiscuous, loudmouthed type of man. They all wanted the man who had a high-salaried job, worked hard and had social status (via his company, not his group of friends). In Japan, the young man who works his butt off studying and makes it into a prestigious university is the prize. Boys like Tucker Max don’t stand a chance in Asia (outside of the big cities).

  • Bob

    @SayWhaat

    It sounds as though you don’t get very physical with the guys you date. I think that’s smart.

    The double standard does have practical roots. When you’re catching, you’re much more likely to get an STD from your partner. Your investment and risks in a pregnancy are much greater. All in all you have much more to lose in a sexual encounter than a man. It makes sense for women to be conservative about sex.

    This is apart from any problems you may have in bonding with your partner that increase as your “experience” increases. I believe both sexes have this problem, though with a man it’s at least partly because once he learns the trick to scoring it’s difficult for him to give it up.

    I graduated college 30 years ago. In my day women were still a large minority on campus. There were guys who never had trouble getting dates and sex, and there were the rest of us.

    I suspect that the vast majority of guys on your campus aren’t getting any, either. They haven’t the looks, social skills, and whatever else that tickles girls fancy. They just don’t show up on the radar. They may not even show up on your radar.

    Those guys who date you casually for a while and then stop? I suspect they were hoping to add you to their strings.

  • terre

    You’ve said a lot of insightful things in this thread Hope and I agree with you. My experience of having lived in Japan largely corroborates with your “smart, studious, hard-workings boys/men = attractive” in Asian countries.
    Outside of populous and dense places like Tokyo, the ideal catch for a young women is the hard-working beta. In the rural area that I lived in, I never saw a single instance of any woman yearn for the irresponsible, likes to party, promiscuous, loudmouthed type of man. They all wanted the man who had a high-salaried job, worked hard and had social status (via his company, not his group of friends). In Japan, the young man who works his butt off studying and makes it into a prestigious university is the prize. Boys like Tucker Max don’t stand a chance in Asia (outside of the big cities).

    .
    I’m not sure that this is true. I think the inclination towards family men is certainly stronger, but players can clean up just as well as anywhere else (one of my good friends was the biggest player I’d ever known until he moved back to Hong Kong). Asian girls just tend not to blab about it.

  • Passer_By

    “That’s not what I read. What I hear men saying is that they don’t want to put everything on the line in a marriage, get kicked to the curb, and pay unfair awards. All while they’re forced to move out, reduce their standard of living, and lose much of the time they spend with their own children.”

    Correct. While it’s working out so far for me (knock on wood), I’m not sure I would take the chance again given what I’ve seen men I know go through (to say nothing of stuff you read about).

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hello Ms. Walsh,
    Well, as I had anticipated, Ms. Hymowitz’s handiwork has finally reached that sector of the Internet that I refer to as the Afrosphere; today’s topic over at Very Smart Brothas takes up her writings in the WSJ, and cites as backup for their post a member of the Sistarati named Sista Toldja, who gives her take on the whole ball of wax here:
    http://thebeautifulstruggler.com/2011/02/wsj-discussesthe-extended-adolescence-of-some-american-men.html/comment-page-1#comment-18471

    After leaving a shorter comment earlier today and reading Ms. Toldja’s response, I then left the following comment:

    “Hello ST,
    I think faulty assumptions abound, with all due respect, not just with your take on Ms. Hymowitz’s piece(s), but with said pieces themselves. This explains, for example (and which you did not include in your review), why at last count, Ms. Hymowitz got upwards of *1500* comments in response – one of the highest responsed-to pieces in WSJ history. And the bulk and mass of said responses came from Men, who felt that Ms. Hymowitz just didn’t get it.

    While you were correct to note that Ms. Hymowitz failed to take into account racial and class differenes here, she is by no means any stranger to such things. I am very familiar with her work and so know very well that she sees what has been happening in Black America for decades, now beginning to take place among those I refer to as White Folks Who Matter – which is the topic of her articles and dare I say, book.

    That said, the huge problems I am having with both you and her take on all of this, is in the very nature of you both deigning to question what makes a Man, a Man – I mean, can we honestly say that Ms. Hymowitz, or you, or anyone else, would even think of putting finger to keyboard, asking why so many Women are wasting their best and most fertile years chasing degrees and working as cogs in the corporate wheel, instead of “growing up” and having babies and getting married? To ask the question, is to answer it – and we all know it. Yet, folks like you and Ms. Hymowitz feel fit to determine, for Men, what it means to be a Man. I notice that only Women do this, by and large, and that, quite frankly, isn’t only hugely disrespectful, but its also old – since, again, if Black America is any indication, such a strategem simply doesn’t work.

    Moreover, you left out a key consideration as to WHY so many Men are “going their own way”; in a followop piece for the Daily Beast, Ms. Hymowitz rightly observes:

    “Far worse in the bait and switch category is women’s stated preference for nice guys and actual attraction to bad boys. Now, clearly this is not true for all women. Many, maybe even most, want a guy with the sweetness of a Jimmy Stewart and sensitivity of Ashley Wilkes. But enough of them are partial to the Charlie Sheens of this world that one popular dating guru, David DeAngleo, lists “Being Too Much of a Nice Guy” as No. 1 in his “Ten Most Dangerous Mistakes Men Make With Women.” At a website with the evocative name Relationshit.com, (“Brutally honest dating advice for the cynical, bitter, and jaded,” and sociological cousin of Dating-is-Hell.com) the most highly trafficked pages are those asking the question why women don’t like good guys.”

    This, I submit ST, is what is lacking both in the broader conversation on this topic, to say nothing of you and Ms. Hymowitz’s original “takes” on the matter, and which, if we’re serious, must be addressed in brutally honest fashion. The simple truth of it is that there is a growing cohort of Men who, after surveying the dating and mating scene, rightly decide that they have better options elsewhere, and avail themselves of said options. The guys that you suggest are using women as “estrogen play things” are in fact a very small slice of Men overall; they usually are NOT those who you and Ms. Hymowitz gives the side eye to for choosing to play Atari or Call of Duty. Those are the winners of a vastly changed sexual marketplace; the rest are veritable losers in said SMP, and are then called upon when Women pass through their “Grrl Power” phase and are ready to settle down and have children and get married, well into their 30s and all that comes with it, and if these Men refuse then suddenly, they’re excoriated for being immature, they need to “Man Up” and so on and so forth.

    Do you see what I’m saying here?

    This is why I had such a difficult time getting my head around both you and Ms. Hymowitz’s articles, because at the very least, it seems both of you are so willfully blind to the facts on the ground that it strains credulity. Millions of White Folk Who Matter – to say nothing of the scores of Black Men over the decades – aren’t “going their own way” out of a vacuum, Sista. They are responding to legitimate concerns out there on the sexual market, and have said, “no thanks; I have other, if not better, things to do”. That you, or Ms. Hymowitz, may consider those things puerile or immature, is irrelvant – as irrelevant as any Man who sees a Woman exploring her options educationally and in the work-a-day world and putting off home and hearth as being self-centered. In the end, the feminists of yesterday intoned, what this is about is giving Women choice – as in, “my body, my choice” – which has become the sine qua non of our age. But such lofty intentions and aims seems to end at the skirt’s hem; when Men decide to determine for themselves what they will make of their lives, suddenly they are accosted by a virtual army of Schoolmarms wagging the finger of shame. The sheer hypocrisy of it all is enough to do the trick here, let alone all the other things I have noted, and more that I have not.

    “Choice for me, but not for thee”, like a MoFo.

    Hmm.

    Holla back

    O.”

    Comment and reply, holla; also, feel free to register your thoughts over at Ms. Sista Toldja’s place.

    The Obsidian

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    @Susan

    Yes, she has been accused of hate speech against Catholics. That scandal led her to resign as John Edwards campaign blogger after just a couple of months.

    Well apparently scienceblogs did a survey which showed there was a correlation between social autism and atheism. She’s just a victim of her genetics.

    @Plain Jane

    Never date women who are your financial equals or superiors.

    Very wise advice. I hope those women won’t be whining in a few years time that they can’t find a man.

  • SayWhaat

    Gaaaaahhh. I need to make some clarifications!

    First of all, re the guy I dated for 1.5 months. Things did escalate; in fact, it was when things started to get fairly intense physically (stopped short of third base) that I brought up exclusivity.

    I think that there are guys who just like to casually date and don’t really see dating as a means to a goal (i.e. finding someone to love), which is annoying, because it is a huge waste of my time.

    I think I erred here. When I wrote this I was expressing frustration over this guy that I’ve sort of been seeing (the 29-year-old hipster musician from the bar). I can’t tell if he’s interested in me or not, so I kinda feel like I’m a makeout buddy of sorts. You would think that if a guy isn’t interested, he would stop responding to a girl’s texts, or at least tell her he’s not interested after three dates. I think realistically what’s going on is:

    A) he’s really busy
    B) he’s met other girls closer to his age who are easier to sleep with (not like he hasn’t tried to escalate with me; on our last date he was a little touchy-feely, as guys are wont to do, but it was only the second time we’ve ever made out so I wasn’t going to go there)
    C) he’s lost interest in me (he’s 29 in NYC and I’m only 21, why wouldn’t he?), but he’s too polite to stop responding whenever I text
    D) he found a radioactive monkey that is threatening to destroy the world unless he keeps it under control
    E) all of the above

    I’m going with E (haha!). I met him a while ago, I’m just frustrated that things weren’t moving faster. I think I’ve gone into this more than I needed to but basically I feel like I’ve reached out to him enough at this point where I’m just going to let him reach out to me if he wants. I’m not optimistic, but if he does I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

    In the meantime I’m back to square 1, with zero love interests at the moment. Maybe I can fix that this weekend. :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @SayWhaat

      I feel like I’ve reached out to him enough at this point where I’m just going to let him reach out to me if he wants.

      Good call. It’s one thing to initiate to get the ball rolling. It’s quite another when you have to continue initiating and he is in response mode. If you have to wonder if he likes you, he doesn’t like you enough. Not if you’ve made your interest clear. He does sound like a nice guy, but “hipster musician” has trouble written all over it, haha, and you know it!

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    @ SayWhaat

    In the meantime I’m back to square 1, with zero love interests at the moment. Maybe I can fix that this weekend.

    If you’re looking for a LTR make sure that the guy knows you want one. Though I don’t know if it’s the first thing to bring up in conversation. There should certainly be conversation though. Get him talking about something that interests him.

  • AnonymousF

    “The reason that a lack of college educated men is problematic is that women strongly prefer to marry someone of higher status than themselves – female hypergamy. In contemporary society, women are high achieving, and so will usually mate with someone of similar education and background. Men, on the other hand, have a strong preference to marry a woman with the same or less education than they have. All of this has been shown repeatedly in studies.”

    I’ve seen data indicating that women outearning their husbands by a large factor is a risk factor in marriage, and a substantial turnoff in dating. People tend to associate income with education, and there’s some correlation, but there are a lot of highly educated low earning women (see david foster’s comment above).

    I’m dubious that, on a large scale, women with PhD’s in Sociology earning $40K/year will refuse to date men with a bachelor’s in Engineering who earn $85K on account of a disparity in formal education, but it’s possible that I just haven’t seen the data. Women may express a preference to date men with more education, just as they express many other preferences. In practice, most will end up compromising on at least a few (as will most men in their spouse hunt).
    The percentage of married women with less-educated husbands has increased since the 1970′s and the number with more-educated husbands has decreased, so clearly this preference is elastic, and I’d guess it is much more elastic than the preference for a higher-earning husband (which women are also increasingly compromising on).
    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1466/economics-marriage-rise-of-wives

    On marriage rates in general (unfortunately not equally encouraging for everyone):
    “In 1950, less than three quarters of white college-educated women went on to marry by age 40 [compared with 90 percent of high-school graduates]. But today, 86 percent marry by age 40, compared with 88 percent of high-school grads.”
    “Today, 70 percent of black college-educated women marry by age 40, compared with 53 percent of those who never finished high school.”
    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/30/want-to-be-happily-married-go-to-college.html

  • Hope

    @terre, Asian women are still women, and modernization/westernization has changed things significantly, and often not for the better. There are signs that the country I grew up in is now filled with extremely materialistic and status-oriented women who are no longer satisfied with a normal life, but want new cars, houses, the latest fashions and luxury goods.

    These changes took place rapidly over the span of just under 20 years. I’m sure things are changing sexually as well, as western pop culture has become very popular there. I never saw a single American movie until I moved here (17 years ago), and I also never saw people kissing on TV or anywhere else for that matter. On the other hand, kissing is no big deal in children’s cartoons in America, not to mention more risque films like Sin City, and these same movies are all over the world now.

    The culture definitely gets changed by popular media. Certain traditional roots might still remain, for instance academic excellence is still prized, but other elements (globalization of tv and movie industries) might have eroded the sexual traditionalism in most countries since the 1990s.

  • AnonymousF

    @SayWhaat, @Jason
    I agree with Jason. Don’t bring it up on the first date, but after 2 weeks of dating you can go for it. No need to drag things on for over a month while anxiety festers, you get increasingly attached and you miss other opportunities in the meantime.

  • LJ

    I agree with a lot of what AnonymousF is saying. I’m late 20′s female, and among my peers I don’t see discomfort with dating men who earn equal or slightly lower salaries, or who have lower formal education. I imagine a larger disparity would be awkward for everyone involved, though, and so if the college attendance gap were to continue increasing (along with diminishing opportunities for careers that don’t require college), then I would find that concerning. But I dunno, I just don’t really see that need to be with a guy who earns more among the women I know.

    @ SayWhaat, with your 1.5 month dating guy, I think it’s a good idea to lay low for a while. If he’s interested, he’ll come around. Unfortunately I suspect you’re correct that he’s just been distracted by other women who may be more quick to sleep with him. And I have to say, 21/29 is a big age gap. In my experience, the 29 y/o guys who are interested in committed, long-term relationships are dating 24-30 y/o’s, not college students — if only because people in college are less settled & likely to still be living in the same city even 1 year from now.

  • Abbot

    “She had a hot date planned with some guy, and he found her articles online, then reneged.”
    .
    He reneged because, well, he could and he merely “left the building.” He has self respect and a woman hanging on his arm better have that too. But most of all, he knows that 99.99% of women in the world don’t even know what a swinger is. Lets keep it that way. We will keep it that way.
    .
    Wisdom from..Beyonce:
    .
    Nasty put some clothes on, I told ya
    Don’t walk out your house without no clothes on, I told ya
    Girl what ya thinkin’ bout lookin’ that to’ down, I told ya
    These men don’t want no hot female that’s been around the block female, you nasty girl
    .
    These men have left the nasty girl building.

  • Plain Jane

    ME:

    American men say they DON’T WANT TO GET MARRIED AND PAY FOR THE WIFE AND KIDS.

    -
    SUSAN:

    That’s not what I read. What I hear men saying is that they don’t want to put everything on the line in a marriage, get kicked to the curb, and pay unfair awards. All while they’re forced to move out, reduce their standard of living, and lose much of the time they spend with their own children.

    *
    Fair enough. Women also have to think for their financial future and marrying a man who can support them and the kids through maternity leaves and possible choices for SAHM status.

    That man who suggested quiting college to get married very young without having any degree or working skills is mad.

    NO.

    Women have to think of their financial status every step of the way.

    Imagine quitting college, signing a pre-nup, getting married and then the dude dumps you with kid in tow!

    Imagine graduating from college, working at a financially stable career for some years, then getting married to a man who does not earn much and then having a complicated pregnancy that forces you to stay home with no maternity leave, and your man can’t support that.

    And dudes are complaining about paying for dates?!?!

  • Jess

    At filrabat,
    As it happens I’m not into dress sense as much as most women. I go for grunge and casual as a default and don’t follow fashion at all.
    But its true to say that MOST women simply cannot FANCY a guy who dresses AWFUL. I mean real awful.
    Condemn as shallow if you want but be careful not to chuck rocks around inside the glass house.
    I daresay there are some deal breaking, female physical characterestics that character alone would not cure in your own mind. But you need not feel shame because thats also true of every living human on earth.
    .
    I don’t know if you directed your marcotte comment at me, if you did I should say I dont know much about her but I would say that I find religion distasteful and inhumane so I’m afraid I possibly wouldn’t side with you given your descriptions.

  • Jess

    Vj,
    I noted your take on sex and the city
    I sometimes think I am the only girl in the uk who hates that show.
    I think those 4 women are HORRIBLE people.
    ‘is my hair too shiney?’
    .
    I often like usa imports but that show sucked so bad.
    And I am always disappointed when a friend or colleague says they liked it or even worse went to see the film.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Terre: “My own parents have had to clean schools into the twilight hours because of women cleaners who never show up.”
    *
    There’s a huge difference between “maternity leave” and just “never showing up”.

    If you have a heart attack and have to be hospitalized shall we call it, “not showing up” for your job?

    Regarding empathy and women: Father Theresa did not exist.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Jess
    I don’t know I watched the show sporadically mostly to know what the fuss was about. But my take was that Harry Potter had less fantasy on it. Samantha was the slut’s fantasy: sex with all types of guys on her own terms with no downhills, no need to settle or have kids ever, Carrie the working girl fantasy: always desirable with a lot of money and getting the attention of the richest man in the city no matter how screw things went. Charlotte and Miranda were a bit more realistic, The ones that want to get marry and have the white fence (although was she was so promiscuous tells me she missed a ton about how to go about it) and Miranda who I believe would be the confused modern woman, because she is not the most attractive, neither the most fashion orientated so she becomes a serial dater workaholic without realizing that family and a stable relationship is what would make her happy and satisfied.
    Anyway I had to stop to watch the show after Aidan. The way Carrie treated him God! I have a list of fictional characters I wish a time machine can sent them to a nazi camp and she won a spot on it over Aidan. That ^%%#$%*((%#@, YMMV.

  • AnonymousF

    I recall that Hamby said once that for women who want to wait for monogamy to have sex, they need to make it clear up front that they are hot for the guy. I think he suggested something like, “I don’t have sex with people I don’t know well and trust, but if we become exclusive I’m going to rock your world.”

    I realize you’re not necessarily advising that world-rocking should occur immediately on declaration of exclusivity, but just in case anyone is reading it that way…

    My advice to a woman who considers sex to be a big deal and hasn’t had it before would be emphatically against promising a guy outright that she’ll have sex as soon as he says the magic exclusivity words. Aside from the obvious incentive for him to flat out lie, she’s probably not going to be magically ready overnight. Especially if the couple hasn’t already spent some time doing everything else and building up the comfort level to where both parties feel secure and unselfconscious. If a guy cares about you, he’ll take some time, even after exclusivity, to let you work up to sex in a natural progression kind of way. As always, YMMV.

    P.S. A woman can easily demonstrate sexual interest, drive and intensity at the milder levels of hooking up (long before any pants are removed).

  • Abbot

    “That man who suggested quiting college to get married very young without having any degree or working skills is mad.”
    .
    You’re right. That is why the State should provide for very young women who want to marry and have children…up to the age of 25 only. And married only. After that, she is on her own. That’s social engineering we can all live with.

  • filrabat

    @ Hope (March 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm)

    In that case, then, if you still have a great command of your native language, maybe you can spend time on your native land’s romance and love forums and warn them of the dangers of “The American Way”. I wouldn’t wish our way even upon our country’s worst enemies. Better yet, maybe you can translate the Hymowitz, et al. articles and post them :D

  • Passer_By

    @abbott

    “That’s social engineering we can all live with.”

    speak for yourself.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @AnonymousF
    I think you are right on the part of the woman showing that she is really into the guy without having sex with him. But subtlety is a lost art on this time and day. Maybe you could give her some pointers?

    @Abbot
    I would go at it on the opposite way, giving a lot more incentives to couples the longest they remain together. Of course this couples should be evaluated to make sure they are cheating the system, but if a couple is on their 15 anniversary and are raising three kids the state should be able to make things easier for them to remain together, like helping them with the mortgage of the house offering some help on the education of the kids and so on. Of course liberals hate the idea of placing a relationship as better than others alternatives, but given how attractive divorce has become for women, some incentive on the other direction might not be a bad idea, YMMV.

  • Jess

    To sr
    You think miranda was the least attractive? Was that the Ginger one?
    I thought she was prettier than the skinny blonde one.
    Gosh she had a frightening countenance! Used to make me wince.

  • AnonymousF

    @Stephenie
    Haha – I would love to share if I knew SayWhaat in person. I’m not shy at all in talking about sex and its gory details. In fact I thought about writing something more detailed & sharing experiences. But I have a nagging fear of being outed, and if that were ever to happen, I would be embarassed to have shared those kinds of things in writing or to have them linked to my real name in Google :/

  • Abbot

    Incentives from the State can also encourage women to marry much younger in their prime years for birthing. That would also encourage men to marry earlier since women would demand commitment and men typically left out of the demented SMP would find mates. Is such a scenario unprecedented, historically speaking?

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Plain Jane said: “Regarding empathy and women: Father Theresa did not exist”

    But Father Maximilian Kolbe did.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Please dump the Plain Jane troll. Please.

    O.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “Haha, yes it’s good, but I’m still cracking up from your comment about the 5 yo who was determined not to marry without a job.”

    Ha! Based on the other comments to the post, I almost felt like I was the only one who understood the point of your post, which really wasn’t that hard to grasp.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Jess
    Oh I meant within the show. Cynthia Nixon was very attractive but in the show they usually had her play the ugly duckling and paired with the less attractive men. Although I always found Steve a lot more attractive and interesting than Big so she got a better partner on the end. Big looked like gorilla douchebag IMO.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @AnonymousF
    Heh I totally got your point. Maybe we should ask Susan for a PM option or something. I know I got off topic waay to often on other forums and I usually can take it to PM.

  • filrabat

    @Jess

    I was bouncing off Esau (March 1, 2011 at 9:35 pm) with my remark toward you – specifically in regard to “terrible dress sense” remark. Granted, I don’t know precisely what you mean by that, but in my experience most women use “terrible dress sense” to mean “anything that looks out of fashion, ‘poindexter’, or anything even moderately peculiar” (then again, this may be a U.S. thing, although I think it more likely it’s a general “First World” thing). Yes, we all have our superficial limits. for example, I admit I can’t feel attracted to anyone who is outright obese, but that doesn’t mean I can’t find heavy set women 20 or even 40 lbs ( 10 – 40 kg) overweight attractive (In fact, I have, I assure you).

    The only think I will concede a bit about is that I might have imposed too broad a defintion of “terrible dress sense” upon you phrase; for even “terrible” is relative when it comes to aesthetics. Even then, it’s still the case that A LOT of people in this society (and probably yours too) react with Pavlovian distaste to anything or trait that’s even moderately less than perfect (“moderate” by however 90% of your society defines it) and refuse to look at the substance.

    The Marcotte remark was NOT directed at you. That’s a completely separate matter. FYI, her beliefs about the matter are not the point, the point was her tone and spitefulness (which she habitually employs against anyone who disagrees with her to even a moderate degree). Had she simply challenged that institution’s practices and showed why she disagreed with them, nobody outside that institution would have even noticed her remarks. As it was, she needlessly created a brou-ha-ha for John Edward’s presidential campaign in 2008.

  • Plain Jane

    Abbot:

    the State should provide for very young women who want to marry and have children…up to the age of 25 only. And married only. After that, she is on her own. That’s social engineering we can all live with.

    I am inclined to agree.

    I don’t propose the State keep funding dysfunction such as teen girls getting knocked up irresponsibly by irresponsible teen boys. Dysfunction should never be rewarded, it will just spread like a virus.

    However, I do propose financial reward for those responsible citizens who practice self-control, safe-sex and future-time-orientation, such as maternity leave for working women, or better yet “parental leave” for both parents.

  • SayWhaat

    with your 1.5 month dating guy, I think it’s a good idea to lay low for a while.

    This was a different guy, and unfortunately that door’s swung shut. :( But yeah, laying low from the other guy shouldn’t be a problem, haha!

    He does sound like a nice guy, but “hipster musician” has trouble written all over it, haha, and you know it!

    Haha, most likely!

  • SayWhaat

    @ AnonymousF:

    Don’t bring it up on the first date, but after 2 weeks of dating you can go for it.

    Hmm…how do you suggest girls bring it up without appearing too clingy and scaring off the guy?

    I’m not shy at all in talking about sex and its gory details. In fact I thought about writing something more detailed & sharing experiences. But I have a nagging fear of being outed, and if that were ever to happen, I would be embarassed to have shared those kinds of things in writing or to have them linked to my real name in Google :/

    Euuuurgghh I have the same fear. :/ But I would love to hear these tips! :)

  • SayWhaat

    Btw, thanks to everyone for their support and advice. Sorry for boring y’all with my personal life, lol.

  • stillcode

    @Plain Jane

    Women have to think of their financial status every step of the way.

    Imagine quitting college, signing a pre-nup, getting married and then the dude dumps you with kid in tow!

    Imagine graduating from college, working at a financially stable career for some years, then getting married to a man who does not earn much and then having a complicated pregnancy that forces you to stay home with no maternity leave, and your man can’t support that.

    I agree with you that women need to be very concerned about their future finances. That is why it is imperative that women choose to marry men who are responsible, hard-working and have stable jobs. Not the promiscuous cads or drug-using thugs that they find so exciting and sexually attractive.

    In the past, it was well known that young men and women wouldn’t make the right choice in choosing a mate because their hormones clouded their minds. That is why when a daughter dated a man the father needed to approve of him and see whether he would make a suitable husband. Young women also were advised by their mothers, aunts and grandmothers in who to date. Many cultures even today are such that the parents are the ones who get together and decide who their sons and daughters are to marry.

    Involving the government into marriage means that perverse incentives are going to be created. Nowadays, women are able to divorce their husbands, keep the children and still receive child support and alimony. There are no consequences for women who dump their husbands and many women have been taking advantage of this.

    Rather than forcing the government to pay child support and alimony for his ex-wife, marriage would be in a much healthier state if women chose to marry men with the approval of their parents and other family members. When a woman marries a bad-boy and then gets abused after she chooses to marry him over the hard-working beta in IT, she shouldn’t be surprised.

    Neither should she be surprised when she marries a man who doesn’t make much money or have a stable job, gets pregnant, then has to adjust her quality of life downwards because she’s now out of the workforce. Having children takes money and people need to plan for them without having to rely on big daddy government to come in to the rescue.

  • Jess

    To filrabat,
    Fair enough. My original point was that some guys have an overtly unattractive feature or behaviour that almost everyone else but themselves pick up on.
    .
    Dress sense is sometimes the issue and can either be because the guy really does look diabolically bad or because the girl in question is very fashion conscious and very fickle.
    .
    My own view is that people should try not to get put off by trivial things as they might miss out on a great partner. I know some women only want hot guys but I actually think many women are more forgiving body wise than guys are. I remember a guy I dated who never believed I liked him cos he considered me out of his league. But I was really attracted to him cos of the combo. His belly and bald patch didn’t matter. There is currently a uk comedian who is the polar opposite of my sexual tastes but I would melt in his arms due to his mind.
    .
    Anyway I digress a bit, but I was suggesting that the highly vocal minority of bitter men may be less bitter if they junk the attitude, clean their teeth, buy a new sweater and join an agency. I mean it’s worth a try in my view.

  • Anonymous

    There’s a huge difference between “maternity leave” and just “never showing up”.
    If you have a heart attack and have to be hospitalized shall we call it, “not showing up” for your job?

    .
    Uh, why wouldn’t you? The difference between the two is that a heart attack is a completely sympathetic reason to give your work share to coworkers. “Maternity leave” is not.

  • Abbot

    “The difference between the two is that a heart attack is a completely sympathetic reason to give your work share to coworkers. “Maternity leave” is not.”
    .
    Shhhh. You dont want to expose the whole scam. We are all supposed to subsidize this happiness for women.

  • Jess

    Eh? Why isn’t it? Kids have to be looked after?
    You had to be looked after? When you were a kid.
    Having kids is arguably the most important job cos, well, you know, no one would be alive otherwise.
    We all benefit from ever ones kids cos they drive the future economy and will be looking after you in years to come. Today’s 3 yo will be your oconolgy expert in 30 years time.
    I assume you wouldn’t expect a company to sack someone cos they got a tempo ray illness? Mothers have to have recuperation time and need bonding time too. Most countries have laws controlling notification and timings and pay rates etc
    Not many companies get abused by the system.
    Most primary schools have mostly female teachers.
    Most havevtheir own kids. If you sack all primary school teachers when they are pregnant who will teach the kids? I think you need to brush up on employment law generally cos you have very out of date attitude.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Jess, since you are in the UK you may not necessarily understand the American attitude towards maternity leave. In most other Western countries as well as Asian countries, maternity leave is basically commonplace. In America, it’s extremely uncommon to give paid leave to new mothers. There is no law mandating paid maternity leave whatsoever, and it’s up to each employer to grant it. Some employers will allow long-term sick time to be used for maternity leave, which often either has no pay or a reduced pay. Other employers will only allow for a few weeks of leave. There is zero leave for fathers.

    Therefore, he is pretty “up” on employment law. Americans attitude toward maternity leave is just the way it is.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Hope.@Jess
    Yeah in my country (third world LA country) we got three months of maternity leave that can be extended if the baby had any medical complication and is against the law to fire a pregnant woman unless she has a clear violation of workplace code, also recently fathers can take a week for the same reasons, of course is little time but, recently they are talking to extend it.So yeah is an American thing.

  • Abbot

    “Having kids is arguably the most important job cos, well, you know, no one would be alive otherwise.”
    .
    Typical canned rhetoric. If the entire tiny group of female maternity-leave-demanding middle class careerists had no kids it would have no impact on Earth’s wildly growing human population.

  • Esau

    Jess, Filrabat, etc.,

    I think the emphasis on how women will judge or appreciate a man’s dress sense is severely overstated; or have you never peeked here?:

    http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

    Really, it is the silly Roissy stuff after all: “social dominance” (as Susan puts it) rules, first last and always.

    * The hamster on forward: if a woman feels a man’s magnetic pull of social dominance then it doesn’t matter how badly he dresses, she’ll find a way to overlook it — and maybe even congratulate herself in the process! for not being shallow (what a laugh).

    * The hamster running in reverse: if a man doesn’t have the requisite social dominance then he’s lost and nothing else matters; but since a woman can’t admit that to herself, she’ll make up a reason to find him unattractive, and “bad dress sense,” being totally subjective, is always a safe choice.

    Of course, social dominance can be _expressed_ through clothing and grooming, even to both extremes: an expensive suit and haircut can say “I have wealth and therefor high status”, while a grubby biker ensemble can say “I have so much going for me I don’t have to care about what anyone else thinks about my clothes”. But either way this is a tricky deal; the clothes alone will not make the man, he has to have the basic dominance thing going to have it all work together.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Esau
      I have to agree re clothing. A guy with “style” can wear almost anything and pull it off. By style I mean that he’s chosen a look, or archetype, and he knows how to work it. Hipsters have a uniform, corporate executives have a uniform, we all do. I’ve seen guys look hot in t-shirts with a Twister board game logo, but they were musicians, not lawyers. A man who pays careful attention to his “uniform” likely has some social dominance, as demonstrated by his vanity.

  • Passer_By

    @hope

    “In America, it’s extremely uncommon to give paid leave to new mothers.”

    Well, having complemented Hope earlier, I must now call bullsh!t. 3 to 6 months is pretty common in the US. Less for fathers (maybe 1 or less). That some countries give 3 years seems silly, but I might feel differently if I were there. There are a lot of factors impacting this. As un PC as it may be to point this out, somebody is always subsidizing this. And the unfortunate reality is that that some races would take massive advantage of it at the expense of others.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    “3 to 6 months is pretty common in the US.”

    Paid leave is very uncommon for the bulk of the working class or the hourly wage workers. For middle class folks, yes, but this was not common even for middle class folks until more recent legislation was passed. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) went into effect on August 5, 1993, and it only allows 3 months of unpaid leave.

    My mother-in-law said that the 3 months of maternity leave my company gives was very generous. She worked as a nurse and only got a month, but she gave birth in the early 80s. This is not to say that unpaid leave is necessarily a bad thing, but the legal protection is only up to 3 months (12 weeks), and definitely not 6 months.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    By the way, I gave birth not too long ago, so I did my research. You can call bullshit, but there really is no federal law mandating paid maternity leave in America.

    And yes, the race/class issue is another thing that divides Americans and prevents a lot of the more “socialist” policies from ever getting implemented here. Most other countries don’t have this issue, at least not to the same extent. Some European countries that are experiencing massive immigration are becoming more American-like in policy, though.

  • rick

    The flip side of the overrated female empathy is what some of us would call lack of moral courage.

  • rick

    I might add that despite all the shrieking, the feminists are beginning to lose ground.

    Ground that will not be reclaimed within our lifetimes.

    My prediction is that within twenty years, the word “feminist” will sound like a punchline.

  • Lavazza

    Sweden does not have 3 years of paid parental leave. I am a Swedish expat, so I am not totally up to date, but it is generous (12-15 months or something like that), but not that generous. It is financed by an insurance paid by all employees and gives the parent 80 or 90 % of the income up to a limit that is slightly higher than the average wage.

    This system keeps the Swedish nativity close to replacement level, but it also makes people postpone having children, since 1) it is hard for the young to get steady jobs, to a large degree they are temping for slightly older people on parental or other leave and 2) since you are paying for the goodies you want to get that steady job, so that you can get your money back.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

    Concerning SATC I have read all of Bushnell’s books and they are shock full of manosphere themes and memes. I see the women in the series as tragic people even given the glam and lack of realism of the series. If you look at the pilot and view the rest of the series with the pilot in mind, I think most would get a different impression of the series, in the sense that the cracks are made to be seen for those who are looking.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Abbot:

    Typical canned rhetoric. If the entire tiny group of female maternity-leave-demanding middle class careerists had no kids it would have no impact on Earth’s wildly growing human population.

    That’s a fair critique of a perhaps slightly over-generalized point, but I think it is worth pointing out that while careerist societies’ low birth rates wont have too much of an effect on the expanding human population in the short term, it does have larger demographic implications for the world. When the educated western middle and upper class fail to reproduce while other societies expand rapidly(Middle East, Africa, SE Asia, etc), you can expect large changes. The culture of those educated westerners might face marginalization in such a scenario, which could be the bigger point that Jess might have been getting at.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Maternity leave (or paternity leave) is logistically fairly simple when you have a substantial number of employees all doing basically the same thing; it is more complex in the case of people whose jobs are unique or higher-level. If you have a sales rep out for a year, you can probably just divide up her accounts temporarily among the other 7 reps in the region. But what if she is the region manager? Maybe you can pick one of the other reps as acting region manager, with the understanding that you’ll send him somewhere else when the regular manager returns to work..IF there’s a management job open elsewhere, if not and he has to return to his previous job, you’re probably going to lose him. Or maybe you can get someone in a headquarters marketing job who has been looking for a temporary sales assignment…not without risk, by any means, though.

    I know someone who was chairman & ceo of a pretty substantial company whose wife developed serious health problems. He gave up the ceo job, retaining the chairman position which is of course much less all-consuming in terms of time, so he could spend more time with her. Probably the best solution–extended personal leave for a ceo is not usually going to be feasible.

    (my latest post: Antarctica in 1915, in color)

  • Abbot

    “The culture of those educated westerners might face marginalization”
    .
    Much less so if western men take wives from outside the West, as they are increasingly doing. Superior children are the likely outcome when the best marry the best.

  • Passer_By

    “but there really is no federal law mandating paid maternity leave in America. ”

    I didn’t mean to imply there was a federal law mandating it. I just meant that, in my experience, most company policies allow for it to one degree or another – at least in the office environment. Maybe not for smaller companies. I believe it’s six months at my firm – and my observation is that many (maybe even most) women (at least the lawyers) take it and then don’t come back afterwards. That’s hardly encouragement for employers to make that accommodation.

    I would accept your observation that hourly and lower class employees don’t get as much.

  • Passer_By

    and by “six months” at my firm, I mean six months of paid leave – though it’s possible that i’m confused and that only the first 3 months are paid and then the next 3 are unpaid. I’d have to confirm that

  • Plain Jane

    Sex & City:

    “Concerning SATC I have read all of Bushnell’s books and they are shock full of manosphere themes and memes. I see the women in the series as tragic people even given the glam and lack of realism of the series. If you look at the pilot and view the rest of the series with the pilot in mind, I think most would get a different impression of the series, in the sense that the cracks are made to be seen for those who are looking.”

    People who think that show was glorifying that lifestyle probably never saw it. All but 1 of the main characters was always whining, complaining and crying over not being able to find “the one”, settle down and have kids. None of them married until they were 40 or close to it, already looking old and ragged. They will be parents of young kids through their 40s and teenagers through their 50s.

    Have you ever known old parents? They are wiped out and frazzled. The body was just not made to run after terrible 2 year olds at that age. And having to deal with smartass teenage drama when you are 55 and menopausal/andropausal? A NIGHTMARE!

    Athlone as Anonymouse:

    “The culture of those educated westerners might face marginalization”

    Educated Western Society might do well to be marginalized. It is highly materialistic, superficial and not family oriented.

    We can however learn from cultures that are more family oriented and inward looking. Cultures that due to respect for elders, accept aging as a natural process and thus do it gracefully with some dignity.

    Its such a shame to see aging people over 40 trolling bars like pimps and hos.

    Pre-andropausal men and pre-menopausal women need to accept this fact and retire their desires to do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

    That a blog like Roissy’s is not written by a 20 year old but rather a post 40 year old man with greying pubic hairs is a disgrace.

    Let our “culture” be replaced by something a bit more respectable so that we can finally feel “proud” to be Americans.

  • JLW

    at PJ: there’s somebody for everybody if you’re willing to take anybody. And if making it with horny omega males gets the middle aged ladies through the night, great.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      there’s somebody for everybody if you’re willing to take anybody. And if making it with horny omega males gets the middle aged ladies through the night, great.

      I couldn’t agree more. Love is hard to come by in this world. I don’t judge anyone from getting love, sex or just comfort wherever they can.

  • Abbot

    “Educated Western Society might do well to be marginalized. It is highly materialistic, superficial and not family oriented.”
    .
    Agreed. Contain it. Some, after taking advantage of pill culture, will migrate out and assimilate happily into non-pharmaceutical biologically-appropriate cultures and reap the benefits inherent in extended families very similar to what existed in the West pre-1960. The rest will remain behind and whine, as they do now.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Speaking of “uniforms” and the like, hopefully the following will help out the kinds of guys that tend to frequent venues like this one:

    “Shii-Cho Game” & Killing The “Brainy Guys Don’t Get Laid” Fallacy
    http://www.obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62839

    Comment & reply, holla.

    O.

  • Clarence

    Plain Jane:

    You are a ridiculous troll.
    It’s rather common for humans to mate within age ranges of 5 to 15 years of each other , esp if you look at other cultures and throughout history. Usually this is older man/younger woman often a straight up exchange of fertility for resources. I’m not sorry that the male bio clock runs slower than the female one, and you can whine and rail about it all you want, but things are the way they are and you will never succeed in changing them.

    You seem to be nothing but a very bitter person who has nothing better to do than troll various blogs under assumed names. I suspect once people here start ignoring you under this one, you will come back under another one. It’s called not having a life, and is far more pathetic than a forty year old man or woman still chasing tail. At least they are trying to have one, and both will probably have some success.

  • Plain Jane

    Jane:

    “Educated Western Society might do well to be marginalized. It is highly materialistic, superficial and not family oriented.”

    .

    Abbot:

    Agreed. Contain it. Some, after taking advantage of pill culture, will migrate out and assimilate happily into non-pharmaceutical biologically-appropriate cultures and reap the benefits inherent in extended families very similar to what existed in the West pre-1960. The rest will remain behind and whine, as they do now.

    *
    Abbot, I agree. Personally, I have no stake in the maternity leave topic because I am childless and will remain so, out of choice. I have lived in what you refer to as non-pharmaceutical, biologically-appropriate cultures, and the artifically enhanced, materialistic American pop “culture” is invading them, thanks to “globalization”. By “pop culture” I mean both popular culture (media promoted) and pill popping culture.

    I ask you though – if you are for the State giving financial incentives to young women under 25 to breed within marriage, why are you not for “maternity leave” or parental leave?

    Why did you (or it may have been another commenter) refer to it as “sponsoring the happiness of these women”? Its more like sponsoring the mental and physical health of infants. Why do you think the child, teen and adult populations of our nation are popping so many anti-depressant and anti-anxiety pills? A human’s most important and formative years are the first 5. Bonding, security, human touch, constant care and love are needed at this time to grow up mentally, emotionally and physically healthy.

    Who do you suggest provide all this for the infant if not the infant’s own parents?

    Who will take care of a 2 month baby when his/her mother and father are working?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Lavazza
    I will try and rewatch the pilot at least. The show was too…unrealistic for me to become attached to it, like I said I just watched it because I really don’t like to be ignorant of pop culture. I did the same with Friends, everybody loved it so I watched it to find out why I didn’t. It took me a while to get: Oh right this show is stupid so I could stop watching it with good faith. Yes my husband thinks I’m a masochist or something :p

    @Abbot
    As much as we are fighting the good fight, there is the truth that nature is ruthless and survival of the fittest also applies to cultures. If western world stopped being useful then naturally something else will take his place. I don’t believe it will disappear but possibly just mix with the other cultures and who knows maybe it will be better than what is happening now, YMMV.

  • Abbot

    “By “pop culture” I mean both popular culture (media promoted) and pill popping culture.”
    .
    That’s the birth control bill. Its what drives the difference between Western and other cultures in terms of family formation. Men should have pill fun aka empowering women and then get out and seek wives elsewhere.
    .
    “are you not for “maternity leave” or parental leave?”
    .
    If its going to be subsidized, then the philanthropists aka taxpayers should decide how its doled out. Only to married women under 25 because at least then our money is going toward normalizing the mating market and adherence to appropriate values.
    .
    “sponsoring the happiness of these women”?
    .
    Yep. we are speaking here of middle class, women’s studies indoctrinated white careerists. Its all about them.
    .

  • Aldonza

    Uh, why wouldn’t you? The difference between the two is that a heart attack is a completely sympathetic reason to give your work share to coworkers. “Maternity leave” is not.

    .
    Right, because some lard-ass who eats an all-American meal of a cheeseburger and coke and watches 4 hours of TV daily should be entitled to more consideration than a woman who is creating the next generation of workers and consumers.

  • Plain Jane

    Abbot:

    If its going to be subsidized, then the philanthropists aka taxpayers should decide how its doled out. Only to married women under 25 because at least then our money is going toward normalizing the mating market and adherence to appropriate values.

    A government that does not allow its philanthropic tax-paying populace to decide how to spend our money on the “war on drugs”, “the war on terror”, global military bases and our military itself (our tax dollars go to the military to pay for their NASCAR event!), is NOT all of a sudden going to consult us on how to spend our tax dollars on parental leave.

    If our government would cut back just a small amount on all of the above, healthcare and parental leave would not be an issue for us.

    If given a choice in the “land of the free” – I would check the “paternal leave” taxes box and leave the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” boxes unchecked.

    But we ain’t that free, are we?

    Re: the person above feeling “guilty” about having a certain threshold of attractiveness before he/she can consider someone for a relationship, on the right side of Susan’s blog under the heading, “More From Blogher” you find the words “Unattractive Sex”. I clicked there and the link led me to this;

    UNATTRACTIVE SEX

    We’ve all heard it said that sex without love is just sex, but sex with love is the best. Kind of like bad sex may be bad, but it’s still sex. But is it possible to have sex with some one you aren’t attracted to?

    Well, I know it is, but would you? And I’m not talking “I was drunk and they looked better through beer goggles” sex, but a choice to go to bed with some one you absolutely find unattractive just for sex. Why would you?

    My wondering comes about because a guy I’ve know for about five years now has gotten back in touch with me. I think he’s an okay guy, but I am in no way physically attracted to him. I kissed him once on our second date five years ago. The boy can’t kiss. He looks like an overeager puppy coming at you with his tounge flappin’ in the wind. Oh, I shudder at the memory. However, he seems to think that I am dying to go to bed with him. According to him I should because he can “rock my world.”

    More here;
    http://www.rantingsofasinglegirl.com/home/2011/2/28/unattractive-sex.html

  • Aldonza

    @Passer_by

    Well, having complemented Hope earlier, I must now call bullsh!t. 3 to 6 months is pretty common in the US. Less for fathers (maybe 1 or less). That some countries give 3 years seems silly, but I might feel differently if I were there. There are a lot of factors impacting this. As un PC as it may be to point this out, somebody is always subsidizing this. And the unfortunate reality is that that some races would take massive advantage of it at the expense of others.

    .
    And I call bullshit on this. I’ve worked at quite a few companies, big and small, including one “white glove”, strategy, consulting firm that Susan knowns well that gave the best benefits I’ve ever heard of. They gave 12 weeks paid parental leave (to new mothers, fathers, adoptive parents.) Most other companies pay for nothing, although some offered (usually employee-paid) short-term disability policies that covered up to 66% of base salary for 6 weeks for a vaginal birth or 8 weeks for a c-section. And these were all professional, white-collar firms. The average worker gets FMLA, which is up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. However, the average worker usually can’t afford 3 months without a salary, so most women go back much sooner.
    .
    Other countries fund paid maternity leave out of unemployment insurance, which everybody pays into. There was a bill in Massachusetts a few years back to do just that. However, our female Republican governor vetoed it. That would be the same female governor who had the state police chauffeuring her in helicopters to her home in western mass, used aides as babysitters and had a *year* of “working leave” while she stayed at home with her twins and people trucked out to see her.
    .
    What you guys are not seeing is that children are good for a society. They are the next generation of consumers, workers, scientists, cops. Further, people will continue to have children because it’s a basic human drive. Children have to be paid for one way or another. You can either pay for social programs and support, or you can pay for incarceration and higher crime rates later. Further, those of you bitching about child support should know that it was an *anti-socialist* measure to shift the costs of children onto the parents instead of the state.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      What you guys are not seeing is that children are good for a society. They are the next generation of consumers, workers, scientists, cops. Further, people will continue to have children because it’s a basic human drive. Children have to be paid for one way or another.

      A low birthrate produces a moribund economy, which means importing more and more labor from other countries. Those immigrants may or may not choose to assimilate. With the western birthrate as low as it is, we may all be living in a Muslim caliphate at some point. It is in the best interest of both the public and private sectors to subsidize the creation of families.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Aldonza
    Heh wonderful, my hat off to you. You can totally argue that we already pay the medical consequences for the choices of many people: smoking, eating unhealthy, not exercising…and no one here is proclaiming that we should stop paying for their health-care. So maternity leave shouldn’t be an issue either, specially when the children in question a few decades later would be part of the labor force needed to sustain those people when they got to old age filled with medical issues.

  • Abbot

    “Right, because some lard-ass who eats an all-American meal of a cheeseburger and coke and watches 4 hours of TV daily should be entitled to more consideration than a woman who is creating the next generation of workers and consumers.”
    .
    That is a main reason why most hate Obamacare. You have the right to not be healthy, to be healthy, to have or not have babies. Since you have the right you then have the obligation to pay for your choices. If you want others to pay, then they must also get the right to decide how you care for yourself and how you raise those babies.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot

      That is a main reason why most hate Obamacare. You have the right to not be healthy, to be healthy, to have or not have babies.

      I must say the idea of ignoring pre-existing conditions when qualifying for insurance really ticks me off. And obesity is a pre-existing condition. I’m going to be heavily subsidizing these idiots. A friend of mine recently took her kids to Disneyland, and she could hardly walk down Main St. because of all the motorized wheelchairs. The disability? Obesity! You can rent one for only $12 a day! I can’t even imagine how that works – how do these people ride the Matterhorn, or spin around in a teacup?

  • Plain Jane

    “Right, because some lard-ass who eats an all-American meal of a cheeseburger and coke and watches 4 hours of TV daily should be entitled to more consideration than a woman who is creating the next generation of workers and consumers.”

    I know super healthy and health conscious people who lead ultra healthy lifestyles almost fanatically and many of them still get sick. Some even die young. Preventative measures can’t prevent genetics and “fate”.

    I don’t understand how or why anyone could or would be against parental leave. I don’t have kids, never wanted kids and will never have kids and even I see the benefit in it, even the *need* for it.

    People who oppose it obviously don’t understand how difficult pregnancy and childbirth is, nor do they appreciate the needs of infants for constant parental, especially maternal (breast feeding) care.

    If a man who desires family, a potential husband and father, opposes it, then he better work his ass off to support a wife and kids otherwise he has no business procreating.

  • Hope

    More tax money go into military spending than anything else (42.2 cents of every income-tax dollar). We are also paying for the health care of career politicians and medicare/medicaid for the oldest and poorest. 10 cents of every income-tax dollar go toward the national debt. In the grand scale of things, is it really problematic to have universal healthcare? Alas, it appears that nobody wants “socialism.”

    Incidentally, my husband proudly calls himself a socialist, and it confuses the heck out of people who try to argue with him and try to call him a socialist as a derogatory phrase. He’s just that “alpha” and confident about his beliefs, lol.

  • Abbot

    “It is in the best interest of both the public and private sectors to subsidize the creation of families.”
    .
    Then to be fair, those who provide the subsidy must also have the option to decide what type of families get their money.

  • Abbot

    “I must say the idea of ignoring pre-existing conditions when qualifying for insurance really ticks me off.”
    .
    Pre-existers vote and there is a lot of them. Democrats notoriously buy votes by giving breaks or giving away money, OPM.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I can’t even imagine how that works – how do these people ride the Matterhorn, or spin around in a teacup?

    Oh there is a magical device called discrimination lawsuit that makes many things possible for morbidly fat people. Its like fairy dust really.

  • Abbot

    “I don’t understand how or why anyone could or would be against parental leave.”
    .
    Who is against it? If a woman can afford to take off and needs to she should.
    .
    “If a man who desires family, a potential husband and father, opposes it, then he better work his ass off to support a wife and kids otherwise he has no business procreating”
    .
    Correct. Only the strongest and most capable should reproduce.

  • Lavazza

    I found the SATC pilot on YouTube. A lot of good stuff there.

  • LJ

    I must say the idea of ignoring pre-existing conditions when qualifying for insurance really ticks me off. And obesity is a pre-existing condition. I’m going to be heavily subsidizing these idiots. A friend of mine recently took her kids to Disneyland, and she could hardly walk down Main St. because of all the motorized wheelchairs. The disability? Obesity! You can rent one for only $12 a day! I can’t even imagine how that works – how do these people ride the Matterhorn, or spin around in a teacup?

    Wow. I have a pre-existing condition. Thank goodness I have employer-sponsored health insurance, or else I’d be uninsured (at least until 2014 when Obamacare fully goes into effect). I also have a long-term / chronic injury that prevents me from walking significant distances without pain, so if I were to go to Disneyland I’d be renting one of those $12 wheelchairs. And I’m not obese by a long shot – 120 lbs in fact.

    Not everyone who is unhealthy is sitting on the couch eating potato chips all day long. Some people actually acquire diseases by chance / bad luck.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @LJ
    And that is fine and dandy, but the way the system works is that there is no difference between people that have bad luck and people who actively do their bad luck. It would be better if people that could make a change about their lifestyle to improve their health and CHOOSE not to, needed to pay more for their insurance than people who didn’t had any choice, IMO.
    That is part of having your cake an eating too. I read enough posts on Jezebel about how is no one business if they are 300 pounds so anyone calling them fat or trying to make them lose weight was on the wrong, but then they want all of us to pay for the consequences with insurance if they decided to keep weighting 300 pounds.

    I mean some people can’t help it, its true but I would bet that the majority just don’t have impulse control and decide to just give up, so you think is fair that you are on the same boat than people that could walk and not need the chairs if they just choose to?

  • Anon

    Hope:

    “More tax money go into military spending than anything else (42.2 cents of every income-tax dollar). We are also paying for the health care of career politicians and medicare/medicaid for the oldest and poorest. 10 cents of every income-tax dollar go toward the national debt. “

    Don’t forget all the money that goes to feeding 3 meals per day and subsidizing the medical care of rapists and murderes in jail!

    Hence why I am PRO capital punishment for rapists and murderers, especially of the seriel variety.

    And yes, people actually go to jail for selling POT of all things! And we get to pay for the meals and medical too.

    LEGALIZE IT.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @LJ
    My apologies, I spoke insensitively. I was specifically thinking of preventable conditions that come from bad lifestyle choices, e.g. overeating, smoking, alcoholism. It’s an empty complaint, really, because we really don’t know and could never prove why people develop diseases.

    I do believe that everyone should have access to health care, but unfortunately, there will always be those who abdicate personal responsibility. And then there’s the question of how we’re going to pay for it…

  • LJ

    Apology accepted. The thing is, if you want everyone to have access to health care, then you HAVE to regulate the insurance industry to offer insurance to all, regardless of whether they have/had cancer, diabetes, heart disease, mental illness, etc.

    No doubt many make bad choices to contribute to poor health. But you’re correct, it’s impractical to make a distinction between those who are unhealthy because of choices and those who are unhealthy through no fault of their own. Obesity has a large genetic component too. So does alcoholism. Losing weight and keeping it off is extraordinarily difficult. So is quitting an addiction. Sure you can fault people from getting to the point of being obese/alcoholic in the first place, but I don’t think they should be exempt from compassion.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    @Anon

    Hence why I am PRO capital punishment for rapists and murderers, especially of the serial variety.

    Yes to capital punishment for murderers, but not for rapists. Making the penalty the same for both means there’s no incentive for the rapist to leave his victim alive, and after all she is a witness.

  • Clarence

    Hmm on the ol’ Rape Front:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/03/proposed-reforms-will-make-it-easier-to-convict-your-son-of-rape-even-if-hes-innocent/

    Yeah, I really think crimes that often come down to testimony instead of physical evidence are GOOD crimes to use the death penalty for. Not.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    “The thing is, if you want everyone to have access to health care, then you HAVE to regulate the insurance industry to offer insurance to all, regardless of whether they have/had cancer, diabetes, heart disease, mental illness, etc.”

    Agreed. Also, those same people with the various pre-existing conditions, including obesity, are already in the health care system. They are driving the prices of premiums up for everyone. If we had a health care system that everyone buys into, then the premiums would go down for everyone. The risks are more spread out, basically. This is the reason why health insurance companies are more willing to take on large corporations than small companies, and the premiums are lower, because with a bigger pool then the risks are lower.

  • Tired of Misogynistic BS

    It makes me sad that so many here are beating up on Say Whaat with this misogynistic crap. Do you men who are attacking her think that a woman is obligated to be interested in every man who asks her out? If so, then you should be obligated to ask out every single woman you see. Do you do that? No? Then you’re “rejecting” all those women you don’t ask out.

    The truth is that you only ask out women who appeal to you. Well, guess what? Women have a right to say “yes” to only the guys that appeal to them. That’s how it works. And david foster is right. Rejection is a heck of a lot more serious when you’ve been dating for several months and have grown attached to someone than when a girl or guy you don’t even know isn’t interested upfront because you’re just not his/her type.

    I have to wonder why you would even want a woman who isn’t attracted to you to go out with you. How much fun do you really think that would be? Or are you so arrogant that you think you could magically change her mind and make her attracted to you?

    And don’t even get me started on all these lies being perpetuated about the divorce process. I’m all for more joint custody arrangements, but alimony has already been on the decline for a long time outside the upper class. But never mind that, how many men do you really know who would want full custody of small children? In my experience, most don’t want primary responsibility for daily caretaking. And most women certainly don’t divorce for the money. The majority of women experience a decline in their standard of living after divorce, whereas most men actually see an increase.

    Look, I’m no fan of divorce, but it takes two to tango in relationships. The “men’s rights” crowd paints this misleading picture that all men are model husbands and fathers, so it’s always the woman’s fault when a divorce happens. In fact, lots of men are lousy husbands and fathers. Plenty of women are lousy wives and mothers, too. But just because women are more often the ones who legally file for divorce doesn’t mean that all men are just innocent victims. These days, most women are expected to work full-time, then come home and work a second shift of housekeeping and child rearing, often with little help or appreciation from their husbands. (Yes, research on this still shows that women do a great deal more of this kind of work.) If a man is cold, critical, demanding, and uninvolved on top of it, sometimes the woman can’t take it anymore. And I don’t want to hear that all your male friends have gotten divorced and they were such blameless saints. You’re only hearing one side of the story, and I could tell you about an equal number of female friends who got a raw deal. The truth is that when a marriage fails, both parties are usually to blame.

  • Michael of Charlotte

    Great article Susan.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Plain Jane:

    I’m sick of hearing “nice guys” whine and rant about how life is unfair to them. Our resident “nice guy” Athlone McGinnis has admitted to wanting to collect “notches” before snagging a “nice girl” for the long haul. And outlined his plan to do just that. How “nice” is that?!

    You’re clearly a troll, but I’ll bite anyway.

    “Nice guy” is what girls use to describe men who they consider unoffensive but disposable and unattractive. Nice guys don’t matter. Nice guys are expendable, and nobody really cares about them.

    I was a nice guy. I don’t plan on retaining that title. I do not see why any sensible male in this society would if given the opportunity to be something else, someone people actually valued.
    Bottomline: I’m not your “resident nice guy”. Maybe a year ago I was dumb enough to retain that type of title, but not now. Troll about something else.

  • Anon-E-mous

    @Hope: I’m not certain what your source of numbers are for the federal budget, but the DOD is less than 20% of total federal spending, rising to 25% or so in times of war. For the big dollars in the budget, you need to look to Health and Human Services, and other agencies that are loaded with non-discretionary dollars (over 50%).
    .
    If you are arguing that DOD is 40% or more of discretionary spending, that may be close to the mark. Not that any of that matters with the current economy: reigning in discretionary spending will not produce a sustainable budget. Entitlement spending is currently wildly unsustainable and will fall dramatically in the next 5 to 10 years. The Ponzi schemes are topping out.
    .
    Though the data is for the 2010 fiscal year, this graph does a respectable job of collating federal spending data into a digestible (if stomach-churning) picture: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=172

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Hope/Athlone…to add to what Athlone said: When looking at government spending, you need to look at state/local as well as federal governments; failing to do so can lead to distortions. Several years ago, for example, Ben of Ben & Jerry’s put up an animation using cookies to represent $10 billion each with stacks of cookies demonstrating that “we” spend only $35 billion on K-12 education, as opposed to $400 billion in defense spending.

    In actuality, we, the United States, spend almost $500 billion in government money on K-12 education annually–more than we do for defense. And if you count higher education, vocational training, etc, the U.S. spends twice as much on education as it does on defense. (2004 data)

    A very high % of this educational spending is wasted, but that’s another subject…

  • Clarence

    Tired of Misogynistic BS:
    You are clearly misinformed on divorce and its effects on Men and Women. I know the standard feminist party line is that women’s standard of living declines after divorce more so than men, but I’m actually willing to bet that isn’t the case unless the male is actually wealthy or there are no children involved. Far as I know there’s been no non-feminist funded studies in the USA on the issue of divorce in terms of financial impact and family law and enforcement has changed dramatically in the last 15 years. As for alimony, that’s been looked into a lot and it is a problem in some states, particularly Massachusetts.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      As for alimony, that’s been looked into a lot and it is a problem in some states, particularly Massachusetts.

      Yes, in my state there are many second wives paying alimony to their husband’s first wives, because once he remarries, the award is recalculated based on household income. Alimony reform has been opposed by women nonetheless. It’s ridiculous, but then, so are a lot of things in Massachusetts.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Anon-E-mous, medicare and medicaid costs are so expensive and rising so rapidly because medical costs in general are so expensive and rising rapidly. The middle class and working class (biggest portion of the taxed population) are both paying for the taxes and the higher premiums of health insurance, and may never see the benefits from their social security taxes or see benefits from medicare at this point.

    The issue as I see it is that we who are able-bodied and working right now are still paying into the federal budget and likely won’t be receiving much of anything 40 years from now when we’re retired. The final issue? Simply cutting social security and medicare doesn’t mean we’ll be paying less in social security taxes or taxes in general. The huge national debt will still be there, and there’s no guarantee when we’re 65+ we’ll see a dime from social security or medicare.

    Again, how is it fair when the old folks in political office who put the country in debt in the first place are getting health care right now? Medicare is tied into social security since it was an amendment to existing social security legislation, and it’s partially financed by our payroll taxes. But when we’re 65+ we will likely die an early one from lack of health care (because retired people don’t have jobs, and jobless people don’t have health insurance), even though we didn’t do anything to create the current debt. Here are some quotes on the subject:

    “Social Security is far from bankrupt, with a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus. The federal government has borrowed most of that surplus to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Wall Street bank bailouts, and the Bush-era tax cuts. The government is now wondering how to pay back the loan – it’s not their money – it belongs to Social Security.”

    “For much of the past 30 years, Social Security has run big surpluses, which the government has borrowed to spend on other programs. Now that the program is running deficits, the federal government will have to find money elsewhere to pay back Social Security, so it continue to issue benefits.”

    So yeah, social security is now broke. I guess the system doesn’t work! Better save up for retirement now. And pray you don’t get sick.

    This is a good strategy. Break something, then say, hey it’s broken, so it doesn’t work!

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    “When looking at government spending, you need to look at state/local as well as federal governments; failing to do so can lead to distortions.”

    Fair enough, but people are not paying state income taxes of all 50 states, just one state, and the federal taxes. So when looking at federal plus state/local spending vs. tax contributions, you can’t add up the spending of all 50 states.

    “And if you count higher education, vocational training, etc, the U.S. spends twice as much on education as it does on defense. (2004 data)”

    Hence, your argument is misleading, because it looks at totals as opposed to percentages. Here’s a better breakdown of where an individual’s tax dollars go:

    http://education-portal.com/articles/Iraq_War_Spending_vs._Education_Spending.html

  • Clarence

    david foster:

    Yeah, it’s fun to play with statistics and I see both liberal and conservative groups do it all the time.
    Let me take an example that is a bit off topic to this blog but will illustrate the principle really well.

    As you may know after Loughner was arrested for killing Giffords, many of the normal suspects begin braying for more laws concerning gun -control. In order to support their cause some of them rolled out a map that purportedly showed “shall issues” states for concealed carry versus states that were not “shall issue” and compared crime rates. Crime rates were higher in states with “shall issue” laws. Much crowing was done. Problem is, when you look into the state data and into counties and cities, an entirely different picture emerges. Many of these “shall issue” states had one or two large cities. Almost invariably the cities did NOT have “shall issue” policies, mostly being able to create their own much more restrictive gun laws. Yet , once again, almost without fail it was the heavily regulated cities that had by far both per capita and as a percentage the amount of gun crime. The more rural or suburban counties with often strong “shall issue” laws and populations of hunters and and sport shooters tended to be much safer and have far less gun crimes. And you would find this out by looking into practically any state in the Union.

    Anyway, often what level of government you choose to collect your statistics from will have great impact on what your results are. Generally the more comprehensive the analysis the better.

  • Clarence

    ACK!! should have said ATTEMPTING to kill Giffords..my Goddess…!!
    What a mess.

    That being said, I do agree with Hope in that the spending priorities of our government are entirely out of whack, and I honestly don’t think we are getting out of this within the same financial system anyway. I think the world is going to have to “reset” alot of countries debts over the next ten years including ours, and I think lots of banksters and big Wall Street players are going to have to take a haircut. This country needs a new social contract between workers and businesses very badly.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    On the gun issue, the family owns guns and taught me how to shoot a gun. More people are killed by cars annually than guns. I’m not that worried about dying by a gunshot wound, but I’m terrified of our family dying in a car accident.

    Liberals often focus their energy on some really time-wasting stuff, like feminism and gun control. The real issue is money. Follow the money.

  • Anon-E-mous

    @Hope: It’s a forgone conclusion that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are expensive, and won’t be there. They haven’t really been there at all, as they are not true “trusts”. There have never been any surpluses in SS, as the money is not and has never been in a sequestered trust account, nor is it invested (if only to protect its value, much less increase value.) It goes into the general federal fund, after non-negotiable notes (essentially valueless IOUs) are written by the Treasury and placed in the SS “bank.
    .
    This has been true since before Ronald Reagan, and Reagan accelerated this process. These programs are merely transfer payment conduits to siphon money to other government programs, though they weren’t at their inception. (As with many federal programs, the originators of SS wouldn’t recognize the intent or scope of the Frankenstein Monster it has become.) Like all Ponzi schemes, these programs begin to fail when times get tough or the number of new participants begins to dwindle. Again, Mr. Denninger has a current post discussing some of these items, and more, to include health care : http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=181429
    .
    Is it fair that Boomers reap benefits from their creations or aberrations of entitlement government? No. But don’t worry; they’ll reap the economic whirlwind that is coming. It won’t be pretty or easy for them, because in the main, they are weak and cowardly.
    .
    BTW, could you please cite the source(s) for your quotes? Thanks.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anon-E-mous
      Yesterday I heard a panelist on the news share a good metaphor. He said that in 2010 his daughter asked him for a pony. He didn’t buy the pony. Should he be allowed to claim credit in 2011 for all the money he saved on ponies?

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    @Anon-E-mous
    http://www.socialsecuritymatters.org/Take_Action!_files/FinalFullToolkit08102010.doc
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security

    Also, the boomers didn’t create social security, but they are primarily the ones who caused the federal deficit to happen and will likely be the last beneficiaries of the “entitlements.”

    I’d like to know if these programs haven’t “been there at all,” where are people’s current payroll and social security taxes going?

  • Anon-E-mous

    @Hope: As I said, your SS contributions go directly (via the Treasury) into the general fund.
    .
    While the Boomers didn’t create SS, they distorted it horribly from being a small savings plan under FDR to the pays-more-out-than-it-takes-in monster it has become.
    .
    Boomers are relying heavily on underfunded 401Ks and SS for retirement … they aren’t getting out from under this, even though they have been trying to push to the tab for the luncheon off onto both their kids and their grandkids

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Boomers are relying heavily on underfunded 401Ks and SS for retirement … they aren’t getting out from under this, even though they have been trying to push to the tab for the luncheon off onto both their kids and their grandkids

      I know several couples who are upper middle-class who have recently shared, to my horror, that they have no savings to speak of. They plan to work indefinitely, into their 70s. Yet one of the wives just bought her husband a Saab convertible for his birthday. Boomers do not believe it can all come crashing down. It’s insanity.

  • Anon-E-mous

    BTW, thank you for your links.

  • Anon-E-mous
  • Anon-E-mous

    And this is more than a little sobering: USA, Inc.
    .
    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/03/usa-incorporated-grim-look-at-financial.html
    .
    Not certain I’ll be investing in a corporation with those financials.

  • Mike C

    I’d like to know if these programs haven’t “been there at all,” where are people’s current payroll and social security taxes going?
    .
    To pay those currently collecting benefits. The “trust fund” is an accounting fiction.
    .
    Let’s say I create a fund called “Mike C’s gasoline fund” and then I proceed to spend more money overall then I make, and I stuff little pieces of paper with IOU written on it into a box labeled my “gasoline fund”. Does my gasoline fund really have any “assets”. Of course not.
    .
    The Federal Government is one consolidated entity. Ultimately, the budget is everything in totality even if you want to pretend Social Security is some separate fictional entity that holds government bonds as assets. How will those government bonds get paid? From future taxpayers and workers. And therein lies the problem because now you confront the demographic elephant in the room because you have to raise payroll taxes massively to pay the promised benefits, or cut benefits, or simply start printing the money. My money….seriously…I will be betting my real money we’ll choose that last option. After watching Wisconsin, I am more convinced then ever that as a society we will try to take the easy way out not realizing that ultimately it would be worse then some collective sacrifice. Inflation once unleashed is a monster.

  • OffTheCuff

    Hi TOMBS! You definitely come in with guns blazing, like Annie Oakley. You’ve stuffed so many words into my mouth and attacked me that I shouldn’t answer. But I will go against my better judgement and give you a single rationale response before I write you off in the “Plain Jane” nutter category.

    It makes me sad that so many here are beating up on Say Whaat with this misogynistic crap. Do you men who are attacking her think that a woman is obligated to be interested in every man who asks her out?

    No. No guy here has ever said or implied that.

    If so, then you should be obligated to ask out every single woman you see. Do you do that? No? Then you’re “rejecting” all those women you don’t ask out.

    Ridiculous, and we’ve covered this before. If I walk past a woman, and simply don’t ask her out, then she feels no rejection at all. This bit of logic is tortured, which means as a married man I am rejecting every woman in the world. I’m such an evil misogynist, leading on all those poor ladies.

    Rejection is when you say NO to someone who asks for something. Let’s not dilute words to mean what you want them to mean to suit an argument.

    The truth is that you only ask out women who appeal to you. Well, guess what? Women have a right to say “yes” to only the guys that appeal to them. That’s how it works.

    Of course you do. I agree completely.

    And david foster is right. Rejection is a heck of a lot more serious when you’ve been dating for several months and have grown attached to someone than when a girl or guy you don’t even know isn’t interested upfront because you’re just not his/her type.

    This is bullshit competing victimhood. I said nothing about the severity of rejection.

    What I was saying is that if you are in the position to explicitly reject people, then you have some options to the people you date. If you have some options, then you are responsible for the choices you do make. Chooser can’t be beggars.

    I have to wonder why you would even want a woman who isn’t attracted to you to go out with you. How much fun do you really think that would be? Or are you so arrogant that you think you could magically change her mind and make her attracted to you?

    I have to wonder why you insist that men are saying this. I mean nothing of the sort, and no guy here ever has. Really, go find a quote where a guy says “Women should accept 100% of all date requests”. I’ll wait. Really.

    There is nothing sexist about this. Let’s review:

    1. If a guy is being explicitly rejected (this means SAYING NO to someone) by 100% of the women he approaches, then I’d tell him he’s approaching the wrong girls. He is doing badly at evaluating attraction levels. Most likely, he’s aiming too high in the looks department.

    2. If a guy seems to get into relationships and 100% of his girls always cheat on him, then I’d tell him: he’s picking the wrong girls. He is doing badly at evaluating character, and I’d also say he has a lack of personal boundaries and self-esteem to work out. He’s a bad picker, and needs to work things the factors will change the type of person he runs into and dates.

    Which brings us to…

    3. If a young girl, like SayWhaat, has 100% track record of not having a boyfriend despite has lots of dates, then she’s picking the wrong men suited for a relationship.

    That doesn’t mean she’s required to say YES to every man in the world the approaches, that’s merely words you have stuffed in my mouth. It means she’s responsible for the guys she chooses, and if she wants a relationship type of guy like she says she wants, she should see her role in choosing those guys and change her strategy.

    This is the entire theme of HUS, but you don’t call Sue a misogynist for stating the exact same thing: choose wisely.

    So, call me misogynist again and willfully misinterpret everything I’ve said. I’ve seen it before, and the faster you do it, the faster I can ignore everything you write from now on.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Susan:

    I know several couples who are upper middle-class who have recently shared, to my horror, that they have no savings to speak of. They plan to work indefinitely, into their 70s. Yet one of the wives just bought her husband a Saab convertible for his birthday. Boomers do not believe it can all come crashing down. It’s insanity.

    Makes sense.

    I’ve got a feeling that America’s economy is, in many senses, kind of a rigged game. I’m going to put on my tinfoil hat and rant about it for a minute(no class today, too much time on my hands).

    The society starts by promoting the growth of rampant materialism/consumerism amongst Americans from an early age, with the media as a main tool. They learn early on that “bigger is better”, regardless of whether it actually is. A celebrity centric, materialist culture heavily focused on spending and the trappings of it(as well as how to look like you have it) is the result. Add American culture’s uniquely competitive/adversarial nature to this and you’ve got an even bigger phenomenon, with Americans all striving to outdo one another in this materialistic effort(“Keeping up with the Jones”) and spending money they don’t have in the process.

    Then the society uses a host of clichéd but heavily romanticized tropes about the “American experience” that are designed to reinforce all of this.

    The first important trope is “The american dream”(sizable suburban home, some land, fence, two $30,000 cars, etc), which is romanticized to an extent that many Americans can’t be satisfied with anything less. That, combined with the promotion of materialism/consumerism mentioned earlier, makes them susceptible to overspending to acquire it, ensuring that they never have much to save. Of course, thanks to the promotion of the trope, most Americans still feel it is all worth it even if they can’t afford it and go into debt.

    Then you have another important trope involving work ethic. This stems from Americas puritanical roots, and basically is the reason why Americans work more and vacation less than almost anyone else in the developed world(save for some parts of East Asia). This is the type of trope that keeps the average american worker bee laboring almost constantly.

    All of these things, combined, help to ensure that the average american is always spending, never saving, and constantly producing with relatively less leisure. The wage slave, the majority of the USA’s populace, can’t save(goes into debt due to ideal of American dream, keeping up with the Jones’ and bigger is better) and so can’t stop working. He/she is, in essence, a slave to consumerism.

    The tropes noted are particularly important, since they essentially cover the bases even for most of the minority of Americans who earn more (upper middle class or above) and could in theory end up saving more. Because materialism/consumerism are so heavily promoted and “bigger is always better”, those who make more(like the upper middle class individuals Susan mentions) rarely use the surplus to save-they just spend more, even dipping into pools of money they don’t have for frivolous things like Swedish convertibles.

    Thus, you have a rigged game. Nobody really wins. Even when you do “win”(read: succeed as a capitalist and gain a high income), you end up losing because you spend it all trying to outdo everyone else and/or live up to the materialistic ideal that have most likely been drilled into you. In the end, even these high earning individuals have nothing more to show for it than those below their income level(unless, of course, they’re aware of these tropes, which most Americans aren’t).

    This is actually kind of an intricately brilliant formula, and a great way to maintain the hegemony of those at the top. I assume this elite group might consist primarily of “old money” families, those that still maintain an ethos of inter-generational wealth(read: controlled spending, investment, etc) and often control much of American finance, manufacturing, government, etc.

    Same goes for the small minority within the American populace that can see this all for what it is and avoid falling into the consumerist trap. I don’t think this is more than a fifth of the populace(probably a lot less actually), but thats just my opinion/educated guess. Those few people can do very well here by just being more reasonable with their money than the average Joe.

    But I’d say about 80% of Americans are kind of screwed. The few beneficiaries I mentioned will be able to work to live, but most Americans will always live to work.

  • Mike C

    Athlone,
    .
    I hope this doesn’t come across as patronizing, but you are brilliantly insightful for a guy your age. What you wrote there is a “tour de force” of exactly how the American capitalistic socio-economic game is set up. The game is to brainwash you from a young age about all the useless junk and more and more and more you “need” to buy. You have to have a 3,000 sq ft house instead of 1500 sq ft house. You have to buy a new car every 3 years instead of 10-15 years despite the fact that modern cars maintained diligently will last that long. You have to have 50 pairs of shoes instead of 5. And it very much is set up in the framework of a competitive dynamic…. “keeping up with the Joneses”. Whatever you make, 30K, 50K, 100K, 250K, you must spend absolutely all of it, and actually take on debt to live up “to your peers”
    .
    By doing so, you are on the hamster wheel of a debt and wage slave to your old age. It took me much longer in life to fully realize what you have realized at a very young age. I had an extended bout of unemployment that gave me the opportunity to do a lot of introspection, and really ask myself “what makes me happy”. Is it more useless junk, or the free time to go for a walk with my GF, read books, etc.
    .
    Here is the thing. The part of the game that isn’t “rigged” is how you choose to play. My GF and I earn north of 6 figures. My operating philosophy is not play that game of competitive acquisition of consumer goods. I save enormous amounts, invest it, and then plan to live the last 30-40 years of my life without having to do paid employment of any sort if I don’t want to (check out the book Your Money or Your Life). My GF has bought into my philosophy 110%. If she hadn’t I wouldn’t even consider marrying her. In a few more months, her car will be paid off. She will NOT buy another car for at least 7 years. The amount of money we will be able to save will skyrocket.
    .
    Take yourself. Sounds like you will be a high-powered high-earning attorney, let’s say 200K. Instead of living on 200K or even more (500 K mortgage) and trying to compete with the other attorneys live on 30-40K and save the other 160-170K. In 10 years, you’ll have over 1.5 million. Properly invested, it will compound to even more. Then, when you are 40-45 you can say f it and go do whatever you want while those other guys drop dead of heart attacks in their 40s from the long hours and stress.
    .
    The entire career/money/spending/ dynamic is actually very similar to the SMP in my mind, in that you just have to take the red pill, and realize there are other ways to live life that 99.9% of the population never considers because they are so brainwashed. It’s like the pure Beta who can’t believe what his eyes are seeing when the aloof guy with the neg gets the hot girl.
    .
    But you are absolutely right, the entire system is “rigged” to keep the majority of people “chasing the brass ring” until their bitter old age. I’ll tell ya, I’ve spend the last few years saving a ton of money, and there is a certain peace of mind that comes when you are in a position where you don’t need a job, you don’t need next week’s paycheck, or the one after that, or the one after that. If I ever get pushed too far, I can tell whoeve to f off, and not worry about paying rent that month.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Re Athlone:

      What you wrote there is a “tour de force” of exactly how the American capitalistic socio-economic game is set up.

      It really is! Save it Athlone – you may be able to use that in some class.

      Mike C, your strategy is just the one promoted in The Millionaire Next Door. There are so many people who live simply – we assume they are barely middle class, and they’ve been socking away savings for years, accumulating interest, and they’re worth more than my neighbor with the Range Rover.

      We currently live in a big old Victorian house, and it costs a ton to heat, maintain, landscape, etc. Now that our kids are finishing school we’re seriously thinking about downsizing, and I mean waaaayyy down. I’d be very happy to live simply in a small space. I sort of hate to give up the dream of having my grandchildren gather round the Christmas tree in my house, but who knows when and if that will ever happen! That dream is a very, very expensive one.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Mike C
    I will add that Sluthood culture is part of the trapping. How much money is spent on serially dating from teen years to 30 something? Counting birth control methods, clothes, dinners, movies…then there is this HUGE wedding industry ridiculous pushing for you to spent insane amounts of money on your “special dream day” then of course the American Dream of the house and the cars like you mentioned, but you keep hearing this messages of more and better and finding reasons why your marriage is somehow responsible for you not being happy and how you can do better and so on, aimed directly at women BTW. Cut to less than a decade later and you are spending a ton of money on lawyers for a divorce and going back to the house chasing market, the dating scene and so on. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: All
    RE: Liked the On Feminism Vid?

    Here’s another one, related to this topic….

    ….on why men don’t take women, especially these feminists, ‘seriously’.

    Enjoy,

    Chuck(le)
    [Woman, n., the unfair sex. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's DIctionary, 19th Century columnist]

  • Chuck Pelto

    P.S. Apparently only the blogmistress can embed.

    HERE is a link to it.

  • Chuck Pelto

    P.P.S. I’m particularly impressed with what transpires at 4:30 into it. I’m reminded of the ministers wife who murdered her husband by blowing him away with a shotgun blast to his back while he slept.

    She got several months in a mental-health spa. If a man had done that to his minister wife, three guesses…..

    Then there are the women who murder their children and get pretty much the same thing. The one in Texas who drowned her six children, one-at-a-time, in the bath tub, as an example.

  • Hope

    I started saving in my early 20s and have no debt. BUT the problem with the current financial model is that inflation and currency devaluation make our savings unpractical in 40 years when we’re planning to retire. Participating in the stock market (401k etc.) is the only thing that could beat inflation, but it’s still part of the larger “scheme.”

    My husband’s parents took a different approach to their retirement. They saved up hardcore for 10 years, built a house that runs solely on solar power, energy efficient and they could even sell power back to the grid. They own a large land they can plant their own food on, as well as get all their own water out of their well. They still don’t spend much at all and have a lot of savings left.

  • This is Tom Who White Knights for Sluts

    real life men and real life answeres……

    http://forums.plentyoffish.com/9055365datingPostpage2.aspx

  • Tired of Misogynistic BS

    @Clarence: If you know of no studies that can back up your claims, then how do you expect me or anyone else to believe those claims? Without any kind of statistical support, it’s all just hearsay. You say that I’m misinformed, but right now, I’m the one who has research evidence. All you can do at this point is refuse to recognize that evidence by advancing the argument that all peer-reviewed journals are conspiring against men. I have a hard time taking conspiracy theories like that seriously. What makes you think YOUR sources are credible?

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Mike C.

    If I ever get pushed too far, I can tell whoeve to f off, and not worry about paying rent that month.

    That’s my goal as well. Freedom is invaluable. I don’t want to go 100mph until I drop dead.

    Regarding spending habits, people shouldn’t get me wrong on all of this. I want nice things to. To use myself as an example, I am a car nerd, and I’ve always had an infatuation with Aston Martins. I love Lambos to, always wanted one. For all my railing against consumerism, it is likely that you’ll one day see me making an effort to grab one of these, among other expensive cars.

    I’m not saying one should never purchase these things. The key is to just do it within reason, which means making sure you can REALLY afford them.

    That new Lamborghini LP-700 Aventador, for example, looks great to me, but unless I can buy it cash(and said sum is less than 10% of my total liquidity available, which in this case would mean that I have nearly $5 million banked and a cumulative net worth even higher than that with zero debt), I won’t do it. If those conditions aren’t met, then I can’t truly afford the car.

    That is where the game is rigged. It says “if you want it, you should have it!” not “If you want it, make dead sure you can afford to have it”. People who really know cars will tell you that the only good way to buy an exotic car is to put the cash on the hood up front, but nobody listens to them.

    So you end up with a bunch of well-to-do worker bees calculating just how much credit they can get away with taking to afford the monthly payments on a Ferrari, while others, instead of buying the Lambo cash like they ought to, get on a payment plan, rack up other expenses, and end up living paycheck to paycheck on a $350k a year salary.

    But they still have the nice car so they’ve “made it”.

    The entire career/money/spending/ dynamic is actually very similar to the SMP in my mind, in that you just have to take the red pill, and realize there are other ways to live life that 99.9% of the population never considers because they are so brainwashed.

    Absolutely-seeing through the SMP is as hard as seeing through the larger game. In fact, I think a lot of the tropes associated with our modern sexual marketplace are intimately related with the consumerist/materialist tropes we’ve been talking about.

    Betatized and married men, for example, make much better wage slaves, and in fact form the backbone of this system. Their instilled “duty” to their wives and family is easily co-opted and exploited to fit the rigged game. Now its not just about competing with other individuals, but outdoing other families(bigger houses, two or three nicer cars in driveway, bigger vacation trips, better and more expensive private schools, etc). The element of family just makes the consumerist/materialist stakes a lot higher.

    The ability of a betatized and married man to see through the game and avoid its pitfalls is much lower than that of a disconnected single guy, especially when single guy is anything like Roissy or Solomon2. Because he is betatized, he’ll see few other options aside from slaving away into eternity and going into debt to provide what America calls “the perfect family life/American dream”.

    The game knows that the ethos of materialism/consumerism it promotes is especially effective on women, who shop and consume more often and more leisurely than men do and are much more wary of their social status relative to one another(which means they’ll want to compete more, spending more in order to do so). Modern marriage serves to link the betatized men to these women. Result? He is likely to face a lot more pressure from his wife to push further and further(bigger house, money for shopping, nice car, etc, etc-men complain about this nagging all the time), more pressure than he’d likely deal with if he were just on his own. Women are often a little less willing than the average guy to drop out of it all and quite keeping up with the Jones’. By linking them, the game helps to keep men in the fold more firmly.

    Her presence will also make it more likely that more of his income goes into consumer purchases than it would on his own(women do much of the shopping in these families, and thus control how much of total household income is spent).

    All of this is key to keeping the worker bee in line, and also ensuring that there will be more future worker bees(kids = much more money spent come christmas time and many other occasions = even more indebted and dependent worker bees = profit, successfully rigged game).

    In the case of divorce? The game has a simple solution: shift laws in womens favor so as to guarantee that, more often than not, they will garner a larger sum of the male’s income(alimony, etc). The game realizes that women are more prone on average to their message of consumerism, so it seeks to ensure that a decent sum of money still remains in their hands in all scenarios.

    Thus, the SMP is geared to create more betatized men. The game needs them in order to work, and they’re the main force holding it all together. If too many men start going their own way and forgoing marriage(and the expensive duties now intimately linked to the institution), the game might lack for players.
    That is when society has the type of issues guys like Whiskey have warned about(“Misandry Bubble”, etc).

    And now I’ve written entirely too much and will be retiring my tinfoil hat.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Hope:

    I started saving in my early 20s and have no debt. BUT the problem with the current financial model is that inflation and currency devaluation make our savings unpractical in 40 years when we’re planning to retire. Participating in the stock market (401k etc.) is the only thing that could beat inflation, but it’s still part of the larger “scheme.”

    Very true. But I think your step-parents have found the answer to this conundrum: land.
    Income is not wealth. Expensive commodities aren’t wealth. REAL money and real wealth is with those who own the land.
    That is how the “old money” of today(Welds, Roosevelts, Astors, Vanderbilts, etc) really got where it is. The truly wealthy are not merely high earners-they’re landowners.
    That is the greatest lesson my grandfather ever taught me. Whatever you do, make sure that you can own land. That is a crucial key to success.

  • Mike C

    @ Hope,

    Regarding your what your husband’s parents did, as a general principle I think it is smart to try and make yourself as independent from “the system” as possible, but in a complex, modern, techno-industrial society you’ll always have some interdependence unless you want to live like the Amish.
    .
    In my view, there are what I think are the easy basics. Choose a living space just large enough to accomodate you. Anything larger is wasted money on heating and air conditioning. Again, for many their home is something they “compete” with others on. Live close to your job to minimize commuting expenses. I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know or probably have done, but to me the key is to “disconnect/unplug” from the “competitive, consumerist, materialist” rat race the other 99.99% of the population is living in. It really is amazing just how much expenses can be cut. It really doesn’t take much money to live a basic sustenance lifestyle. The key I found is to make it a game and one in awhile treat yourself.
    .
    I started saving in my early 20s and have no debt.  BUT the problem with the current financial model is that inflation and currency devaluation make our savings unpractical in 40 years when we’re planning to retire.  Participating in the stock market (401k etc.)  is the only thing that could beat inflation, but it’s still part of the larger “scheme.”
    .
    Aha…yes…but here is the problem. In all likelihood, the system isn’t going to change, and you certainly are not going to change it. The very elite at the tippy top are wealthy beyond belief by having everyone else living life as a debt/wage slave. Inflation and currency devaluation are insidious because the mass populace don’t recognize them.

    “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

    Keynes

    Here’s the thing. Just as the pure beta or omega has to learn some Game or alpha traits to be really successful with women, the person with savings HAS TO LEARN the ways to PRESERVE AND GROW the value of their savings over decades when those forces of inflation and currency devaluation are at work. It is way beyond the scope of this response for me to try and cover everything. There are other things that will likely beat inflation besides the stock market (real estate and land would be one but you have to buy right) but stocks should be part of that plan. Is the stock market a “scheme”. Yes and no. I simply cannot do justice on this subject without typing a 1000 word essay on stocks, but at the end of the day owning stocks represents ownership in something “real” as opposed to nominal. If you own Exxon Mobil stock, you collect your dividend, and if oil goes to $200 a barrel because of inflation and U.S. dollar devaluation, there assets will go up.
    .
    Some people can go the do-it-yourself route when it comes to investing and preserving and growing their wealth, but most people would be best served finding a quality, competent investment advisor, and even that can be difficult as there are a lot of idiots out there.
    .
    Money is three things:
    .
    1. Medium of exchange
    2. Unit of account
    3. Store of value
    .
    Essentially, under our current system, holding cash doesn’t serve the “store of value” function.

  • jess

    Lavassa, your clip reminded me how awful SATC was. terrible acting.
    .
    Athlone- a question out of curiosity given your recent posts, how old are you and are you single? And what type of industry/vocation are you in?
    .
    Clarence- I doubt you will take my word for it, but in the uk, both parties suffer after divorce. But if there are no hildren involved the non earner or lower earner always suffers a much larger decrease in qulaity of life.
    Its one reason why women stay with violent husbands because they are scared of life on their own post divorce.
    Divorce laws have changed over time for humanist reasons. Fairness. Decency.
    I’m not saying there are not flaws or that some individauls dont take advantage- but the premise is about fairness.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: All
    RE: Teaching ‘em….

    Young

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Used to be that education replaced an empty mind with an open one. Not anymore.....]

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Jess:

    19, Single, college student. I’ll probably end up in law.

  • Mike C

    Betatized and married men, for example, make much better wage slaves, and in fact form the backbone of this system. Their instilled “duty” to their wives and family is easily co-opted and exploited to fit the rigged game. Now its not just about competing with other individuals, but outdoing other families(bigger houses, two or three nicer cars in driveway, bigger vacation trips, better and more expensive private schools, etc). The element of family just makes the consumerist/materialist stakes a lot higher.

    The ability of a betatized and married man to see through the game and avoid its pitfalls is much lower than that of a disconnected single guy, especially when single guy is anything like Roissy or Solomon2. Because he is betatized, he’ll see few other options aside from slaving away into eternity and going into debt to provide what America calls “the perfect family life/American dream”.

    The game knows that the ethos of materialism/consumerism it promotes is especially effective on women, who shop and consume more often and more leisurely than men do and are much more wary of their social status relative to one another(which means they’ll want to compete more, spending more in order to do so). Modern marriage serves to link the betatized men to these women. Result? He is likely to face a lot more pressure from his wife to push further and further(bigger house, money for shopping, nice car, etc, etc-men complain about this nagging all the time), more pressure than he’d likely deal with if he were just on his own. Women are often a little less willing than the average guy to drop out of it all and quite keeping up with the Jones’. By linking them, the game helps to keep men in the fold more firmly.

    Word. Not sure I can add much to such a brilliant connecting of all the dots.
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wg1DNHbNU
    .
    I think a lot of guys fall into the betatized worker bee slave to everyone else sort of by accident. Before they know it, they’ve got that huge mortgage and then they are fucked. I think the reason many guys have that “mid-life crisis” is because one day at 40 or 45 or 50, they wake up and ask themselves “how did I get here”. Now don’t get me wrong…I’m not badmouthing fatherhood and family but really the excessive consumerist aspect that creates the slavery to the bi-weekly paycheck.
    .
    And although it may be sexist, women absolutely are more susceptible to the consumerist/materialist message because they respond to status and want to compete with what the other wives and girlfriends have.
    .
    I met my GF when we were both 32. From 22-32 she lived with her parents. Paid no rent, they actually still paid her car insurance. She earns a considerable amount. When we met, she had NO savings at all. I was flabbergasted. How could you possibly piss that much money away the previous 10 years. Thankfully, I’ve been able to fully unplug her. I’m not sure how many women can be unplugged from the multi-year brainwashing of Cosmo and Marie Claire.
    .
    We beat to death here the promiscuity/slut thing and frankly I think fiscal responsibility and lack of materialism is 10x more important for an LTR/marriage. I’d rather marry a very fiscally responsible slut, then a chaste/low number spendthrift.

  • SayWhaat

    I met my GF when we were both 32. From 22-32 she lived with her parents. Paid no rent, they actually still paid her car insurance. She earns a considerable amount. When we met, she had NO savings at all. I was flabbergasted. How could you possibly piss that much money away the previous 10 years. Thankfully, I’ve been able to fully unplug her. I’m not sure how many women can be unplugged from the multi-year brainwashing of Cosmo and Marie Claire.

    That’s crazy. My parents taught me to always save at least 10% of every paycheck I make, and I’m still just a college student barely getting by.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      That’s crazy. My parents taught me to always save at least 10% of every paycheck I make, and I’m still just a college student barely getting by.

      I’m reading an interesting book: We Have Met the Enemy: Self-Control in an Age of Excess by Daniel Akst. In it, he talks about precommitment, which is setting up structures so that we can’t fail. We do this because we know we don’t have the self-control. Companies often offer a sort of enforced savings plan, where they’ll match a portion. Always, always do this to the maximum allowed.

  • Tired of Misogynistic BS

    @OfftheCuff: First off, I don’t know who “TOMBS” is. You’ve clearly mistaken me for someone else. Second, I apologize in advance if I make a mess of the block quote function because this is my first time using it on this site.

    It makes me sad that so many here are beating up on Say Whaat with this misogynistic crap. Do you men who are attacking her think that a woman is obligated to be interested in every man who asks her out?

    No. No guy here has ever said or implied that.

    I disagree. I do think that some of the responses to SayWhaat implied that.

    If I walk past a woman, and simply don’t ask her out, then she feels no rejection at all.

    Really? How do you know what a woman feels when she goes to a bar or a singles event and no one asks her out all night? There’s such a thing as passive rejection.

    This bit of logic is tortured, which means as a married man I am rejecting every woman in the world. I’m such an evil misogynist, leading on all those poor ladies.

    I thought it was understood that we were talking about single men and single women in dating situations.

    Rejection is when you say NO to someone who asks for something. Let’s not dilute words to mean what you want them to mean to suit an argument.

    Again, there is such a thing as passive rejection.

    And david foster is right. Rejection is a heck of a lot more serious when you’ve been dating for several months and have grown attached to someone than when a girl or guy you don’t even know isn’t interested upfront because you’re just not his/her type.

    This is bullshit competing victimhood.

    I’ve never heard the term “competing victimhood,” so I can’t comment on that as I don’t know what it means.

    I said nothing about the severity of rejection.

    Perhaps you didn’t. Perhaps david foster said something about it, and I made an observation in support of what he said. And, yes, I do believe that it is more painful to be rejected by someone who actually knows you than by someone you’ve met for all of five seconds. In my own experience, that’s certainly the case, but YMMV, I suppose.

    What I was saying is that if you are in the position to explicitly reject people, then you have some options to the people you date. If you have some options, then you are responsible for the choices you do make. Chooser can’t be beggars.

    And I never said that women have no options. Now you’re putting words in my mouth. But–correct me if I’m wrong–you seem to be arguing that women are really the ones in the position of power, that women make all the choices. But before a woman can say yes, a man has to ask her. And many, many men she likes may never ask her because they aren’t interested in her.

    I have to wonder why you would even want a woman who isn’t attracted to you to go out with you. How much fun do you really think that would be? Or are you so arrogant that you think you could magically change her mind and make her attracted to you?

    I have to wonder why you insist that men are saying this. I mean nothing of the sort, and no guy here ever has. Really, go find a quote where a guy says “Women should accept 100% of all date requests”. I’ll wait. Really.

    Of course no one on this thread said those exact words. I asked whether that was the intent because that seemed to be the natural outgrowth of some of the arguments I was seeing. As I read it, Say Whaat was complaining that the men she has dated haven’t been interested in committed relationships, and your response was that she should stop complaining because there must certainly be men who asked her out who she wasn’t interested in. (She eventually responded that that was not the case, and you then said you didn’t believe that.)

    Now what am I to understand from your argument? If you don’t believe SayWhaat has any right to be upset that none of the men she has dated want a relationship because she hasn’t said yes to every guy who’s ever asked her out, then what should the reader think that you’re advocating? You said you were trying to explain to her that “if you have some options, then you are responsible for the choices you do make.” What choice is it that you think she could have made other than to say yes to every man who has ever asked her out, regardless of whether she found him attractive, compatible, etc.? If she had said yes to every man who ever asked her out (which, in fact, she even claims she has) and still none of them wanted a committed relationship, would you still say that this is somehow the result of choices she made? Again, I ask: What choice is it that you think she should make?

    Regarding your points 1., 2., and 3., I do see what you’re saying, but your argument seems to be that there are plenty of great men who are interested in commitment, so Say Whaat and others like her only need to look for the right guys. Is it possible that men these days might be, on the whole, less interested in commitment than they were in the past, which would mean that Say Whaat and others like her might possibly find themselves having a very hard time finding the ones who are interested in a LTR, which is what she was saying has been the case for her?

    I’m guessing–and I could be wrong–but I’m guessing you’re going to say yes, it is the case that men are less interested in commitment these days. And then if I asked you why, I’m guessing that you (or at least a number of other men on this board) would say that’s all because of women. And that’s where I see the misogyny here. I saw an attitude at this board that women are mostly or entirely to blame for the sad state of relationships in our culture. Maybe that is or isn’t your personal attitude, but then, I didn’t address my original post specifically to you, so I never said it was.

    Look. You can threaten to ignore me or whatever. I don’t care whether you respond or not. I made a general comment on the attitudes I saw, which wasn’t specifically addressed to you. You chose to respond. I came to this site via a Google search about narcissism, which is a topic that I thought Susan addressed wonderfully, so I stuck around to read some of her other posts and was upset enough about the attitude I saw that I felt compelled to say something. If that makes me a “troll,” so be it. You feel that I unfairly attacked the men here while not calling Susan out. To be honest, I do think some of her attitudes are misogynistic, too. It’s entirely possible for a woman to have misogynistic attitudes. But since this is her blog, and I respect her as both the blog owner and as someone who I thought had a number of insightful things to say about both narcissism and hook-up culture, I didn’t want to say anything that could be contrived as disrespectful to her. The comment I left wasn’t written in hopes of getting a response but in hopes that someone who stumbled onto this blog, as I did, and saw some of the negative attitudes here would also have something to read countering them. You can respond or not, as you will. It certainly won’t put me out either way.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @TOMBS

      You feel that I unfairly attacked the men here while not calling Susan out. To be honest, I do think some of her attitudes are misogynistic, too.

      If by misogynistic you mean not pro-female then you are correct. If you mean that I am not a feminist in the modern sense of the word, then you are correct. I do not advocate a return to traditional “wifely” roles. I do, however, believe that unrestrained female sexuality, as we have today, is bad for women, and it’s bad for men. It’s bad for society, it’s bad for the culture, it’s bad for families, and it’s bad for the economy.

      I started blogging to address the pervasive unhappiness of American women, as measured by sociologists since the 70s. I’ve learned a lot, and now I blog to address both genders, and to bridge the gulf between women and men. There are some misogynists who show up here from time to time, but I don’t censor (much) and anyone is free to engage them in debate.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    MikeC…”most people would be best served finding a quality, competent investment advisor, and even that can be difficult as there are a lot of idiots out there”…..in order to even *pick the right advisor*, though, I think an individual needs to develop some level of sophistication in understanding investing. In addition to the outright idiots & plain old crooks that are out there, there are a lot of advisors, brokers, etc who are not idiots and are well-meaning but who are not very deep and who too often are crowd-followers in the way they invest.

  • Abbot

    The feminists do see men leaving the buildings. They might stick around if not for useless “studies” to prove this or that point. Here is a gem:
    .
    http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot
      That post is by Thomas Mcaulay Miller, a male feminist who was here last summer vociferously defending the sluthood of Jaclyn Friedman. He got to the point of sharing how he likes to be a “bottom” to his wife’s “top.” We were not sorry to see him go. I’m thinking of posting and linking to him though, just for fun.

  • jess

    tired of- well written and not unlike my history of coming here.
    .
    I hadnt hard the term passive rejection before. I suppose its true but couldnt be as horible as putting yourself out there and then getting refused.
    .
    my advice to anyone who wants to get noticed is to smile and ask a guy the time. he will take it from there and if you are really desperate wear a nice dress too. simple and works a treat.

  • jess

    ahlone-
    .
    you are in the prime of your life and seem bright and intelligent.
    Throw your pc in the bin and go dating.
    You are being cotaminated by bitter people here.
    Avoid extreme mysoginists or extreme feminists and live your life.
    .
    find a girl and enjoy your youth. Be careful but have a blast.
    You will not be 19 for ever. Nobody ever looks back and recalls a great time typing into a blog. You can do that when you are past it like me.
    .
    Seriously, go and meet a sweet girl, I promise you will not miss any of us….

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Jess:

    you are in the prime of your life and seem bright and intelligent.
    Throw your pc in the bin and go dating.
    You are being cotaminated by bitter people here.
    Avoid extreme mysoginists or extreme feminists and live your life.
    .
    find a girl and enjoy your youth. Be careful but have a blast.
    You will not be 19 for ever. Nobody ever looks back and recalls a great time typing into a blog. You can do that when you are past it like me.
    Seriously, go and meet a sweet girl, I promise you will not miss any of us….

    I’m shocked at just how disconnected from reality most of this post is. It is relatively short, and yet I can find enough wrong with it to tear it apart and write a manifesto. Its kind of annoying, actually.

    To keep it short:
    -I’m not in the prime of my life, that’s over a decade from now. A 19 year old girl is in her dating/sexual prime, a 19 year old male is not.
    -Being “bright and intelligent” counts for nothing at my age, especially as a black male in the US. No use mentioning it in the context of relationship value, girls don’t care.
    -Going to “meet a sweet girl”(much less begin and maintain a relationship with her long term) is not as easy as you imply.
    -My access to this blog and others like it is not the reason why I am not dating or “enjoying my youth”.

    I’m surprised you post here and can remain so ignorant of some of the concerns inherent to beta males not unlike myself. Read more.

  • SayWhaat

    If a young girl, like SayWhaat, has 100% track record of not having a boyfriend despite has lots of dates, then she’s picking the wrong men suited for a relationship.

    The guy I am currently brokenhearted over said he didn’t want a relationship because he was still scarred from his last one. This is not the sort of thing that is apparent to me at the outset of dating (especially since we continued to date), and it certainly is not a characteristic that I select for. So I question your attitude of “you reap what you sow”.

  • Lavazza

    MikeC: “I’d rather marry a very fiscally responsible slut, then a chaste/low number spendthrift.”

    Well, at the age when women are old enough to be sorted into these slots there are more sluts than chaste and more spendthrifts than fiscally responsible. Still I am quite sure it will be much easier to find a chaste spendthrift than a fiscally responsible slut. For some reason fiscally responsible people feel seldom feel any need to compensate for their effort by letting go in other areas.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lavazza, @Mike C
      So a fiscally responsible, attractive woman with limited sexual experience should have it made. That’s going onto my list of what men want in a partner.

  • Lavazza

    SayWhaat: One might argue that you choose men whose qualities and experiences are very likely to leave them either non-committing out of pleasure/convenience or non-committing out of fear of getting hurt again.

    What you should look for in men is cluelessness and/or lack of options. ;-)

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    MikeC…”I think fiscal responsibility and lack of materialism is 10x more important (than low number) for an LTR/marriage”..agree that it’s very important and this factor has not been discussed enough in comparison to the sexual factor.

    I would guess that “number” is fairly uncorrelated with fiscal irresponsibility as long as it is within reasonable bounds (whatever those may be) but once number reaches very high levels, it is probably correlated with heavy spending based on a common factor of lack of impulse control.

  • filrabat

    Now that the subject is “everybody’s second favorite subject” (behind sex)

    All you really need are food, clothing, shelter, utilities, medical care and transportation. The rest is truly irrelevant. Anything else is ultimately either peer pressure or egotism (bragging, showing off, feeling special about having this ‘classy’ thing or that, etc).

    I’ll just close by quoting Michael Wood, host of the 6-part TV series Legagy, which traces the history of six civilizations. His eposide about India contains an especially insightful quote from Mark Twain

    “We in the wealthy West think of the Indians as intolerably destitute. But in matters of the spirit, it is we who are the paupers and they who are the millionaires (keep in mind this was late 19th century millionaires!)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @filrabat

      “We in the wealthy West think of the Indians as intolerably destitute. But in matters of the spirit, it is we who are the paupers and they who are the millionaires (keep in mind this was late 19th century millionaires!)

      Research on happiness shows that people who live on $1 a day may be as happy as affluent Americans. In general, once the basic human survival needs are met, wealth doesn’t buy much in contentment.

  • Lavazza

    I could not find the figure again. Maybe it was not in a blog but in a comment. I found this though:

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/2002-male-and-female-statistical-data.html

    Promiscuous men (20+ partners) are as likely to be divorced as almost chaste women (3 partners).

    Anyway, my idea is that men who are doing OK in the SMP will want to notch up a high number or get into a committed relationship with a very attractive woman, whatever comes first. My idea is that a man who has what it takes to get a very attractive woman but does not find her quite early in his sexual career will come to a point where he will prefer what he knows and is skilled at, which is convenience sex with women who are less attractive than the most attractive woman he can get, to the unknown (a very attractive woman who only wants a committed relationship). My guess is that for most men this tipping point is around 8-10 partners.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lavazza
      Thanks very much. Your idea is intriguing, I’m going to think more about that.

  • OffTheCuff

    TOMBS would be short for “Tired Of Misogynistic BS”, e.g, you. I suppose I could change my handle to “I despise feminist man-hating whores”, but that wouldn’t be mature and conducive to an honest conversation now, would it? So pardon me if we got on the wrong foot, it’s because you shot mine off walking into the room.
    .
    You come in here guns blazing, but don’t seem to realize that my comments have months of context behind then, from me, other men, and Susan, that you haven’t read up on yet. Individually, SayWhaat and I have been back and forth for months, sometimes I learn form her, and sometimes (I think) she’s taken a few points from me. It’s a good honest exchange of ideas that you are more or less pissing on.
    .
    Because you haven’t been around, you don’t recognize the themes we touch on over and over, and you misrepresent my position by taking it to an absurd extreme, in order to prove it’s wrong. I encourage you to stick around, read up on the smart guy posters who are more lucid than I am (Mike C, Badger, Brendan, XNY, etc). Maybe you can learn or thing a two, rather than just lecturing.
    .
    Yeah, this blog is run by a woman, but she’s not typical, and she just called you out on your flawed definition of misogyny. It’s why there are so many smart people commenting here, male and female, and comment threads run into extended topics. We’re not tarred and feathers we dare suggest that men have feelings or rights, or that women have responsibilities/consequences for their actions.

    Athlone: Don’t listen to Jess. You are totally right. I’ve heard the “Stop complaining, go be happy” ploy over and over, and it’s always used by the winners to convince the losers to shut up and stay in their rightful place. As a guy who was 19 and hopelessly beta, it’s better you be informed at 19 about the truth, than stick your head in the stand and hope things work out. I’ve learned a lot from your posts how being a black beta is even worse than white due to differing cultural pressures. Keep up the good fight.

    SayWhaat: I think you need to be clearer about wanting a relationship earlier then, if that’s what you want. Remember you’re not going to change a guy’s mind about it, he’s already made up his mind before he met you, and your job is to find out soon enough if he’s into monogamy. There are guys who are, lots of them, I insist. Also, consider this… now I think about it being “heartbroken” is the perfect excuse for keeping your options open, it’s very difficult to counter that without looking cruel. Is there a chance he’s lying about it?

  • Wayfinder

    My guess is that for men the partner count is correlated but not causative to divorce risk. My guess is that the underlying mechanism that shapes his attitude is the ease of finding a new partner. A beta male who has trouble finding someone new is both less of a risk and has a lower partner count than a top 20% alpha who can get a high partner count easily. If my hypothesis is correct, there should be a subset of males with very high partner counts and a large group of males with very low partner counts, and nothing much in-between (controlling for age and opportunity).

    Once anyone learns how to get easy sex from new people in the short term, it’s difficult to bring them back to long-term thinking. So if it’s easier for women (especially young women) to get sex, then we should expect that the promiscuity tipping point for men should be higher.

    For either case, this predicts that the partner count curve is logarithmic rather than straight bell curve. There should be a few people in each sex getting most of the attention and a majority getting very little.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Wayfinder

      There should be a few people in each sex getting most of the attention and a majority getting very little.

      This is the conclusion I’ve come to. Men in this corner of the internet tend to assume that most women are having sex with alpha guys. In truth, many women are not having sex with anyone in college. I believe that there are about 20% of each sex that is highly promiscuous, and they’re mostly having sex with each other.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    “All you really need are food, clothing, shelter, utilities, medical care and transportation. The rest is truly irrelevant. Anything else is ultimately either peer pressure or egotism (bragging, showing off, feeling special about having this ‘classy’ thing or that, etc).”

    A lone person in a deserted island with all of those things you mentioned would go mental after a year. Humans are social animals. Keeping a person in social isolation is depriving that person of a fundamental and basic need. Humans need love in one form or another. We may not need it as much as we need food, air and water, but we do need it.

    That’s why keeping a prisoner in solitary confinement, despite having all of those other basic needs for survival taken care of, makes the prisoner go nuts after a while. It’s also one of the forms of punishments that doesn’t seem so bad until it happens.

    And I say this as someone who has scored 100% introversion on the MBTI.

  • SayWhaat

    One might argue that you choose men whose qualities and experiences are very likely to leave them either non-committing out of pleasure/convenience or non-committing out of fear of getting hurt again.
    What you should look for in men is cluelessness and/or lack of options.

    I think this is fair to say, although I can’t know a man’s experiences with commitment upfront, so I can’t “select” for it. I don’t have a problem finding men with lack of options, but I’m wondering if you could elaborate a little more on the “cluelessness”?

  • Lavazza

    SayWhaat: A clueless guy is a guy who has something women wants but 1) who does not know that and who does not take advantage of that fact and 2) does not wise up when one or several women take advantage of his cluelessness.

    Most guys who have something to offer women end up in the pleasure or fear of getting hurt categories.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lavazza
      Handsome beta guys are almost always clueless in this way. I’ve known some in my kids’ social circles, and they can be truly overwhelmed by the attention they get from sexually aggressive girls. These boys would never aim for a pump and dump deliberately. Essentially, they’re just nice guys in a pretty package. Tough, aggressive women chew them up and spit them out. These kids are smart and ambitious – I want to pull them aside and encourage them to learn about Game when I see them capitulating to shit tests.

  • Mike C

    Wanted to add a few comments too this:
    .
    This is actually kind of an intricately brilliant formula, and a great way to maintain the hegemony of those at the top. I assume this elite group might consist primarily of “old money” families, those that still maintain an ethos of inter-generational wealth(read: controlled spending, investment, etc) and often control much of American finance, manufacturing, government, etc.
    .
    This is off the top of my head so I could be off a bit on the exact numbers but I believe the top 1% own 99% of the wealth in the U.S. U.S. total stock market capitalization is in the trillions of dollars. Think of that as the total value of productive capacity. When you own stock, you essentially own the physical assets of that company along with a good piece of the productive output of the labor. The feedback loop is for the company’s output to have any value, you have to purchaser’s of the company’s output.
    .
    For Coach (COH) stock to have value, you have to have willing purchasers of the company’s product. For Apple’s stock to continue to grow, you have to convince people to buy a new phone every 6-12 months despite the fact that their old phone is perfectly fine.
    .
    The key is for labor to make just enough to afford the unnecessary products or service the debt taken on to buy the products. Then they are in that debt/wage slave state, and this keeps enormous amounts of money/wealth flowing to those who are the owners.
    .
    Same goes for the small minority within the American populace that can see this all for what it is and avoid falling into the consumerist trap. I don’t think this is more than a fifth of the populace(probably a lot less actually), but thats just my opinion/educated guess. Those few people can do very well here by just being more reasonable with their money than the average Joe.
    .
    Yeah, definitely a lot less. I’d guess around 1%. Maybe even .1%. Ask your football buddies about this stuff. I’d bet not a single one has thought about this stuff or why they need to buy more, more, more, etc.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Relevant, IMO to the consumerism manipulation:

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “One might argue that you choose men whose qualities and experiences are very likely to leave them either non-committing out of pleasure/convenience or non-committing out of fear of getting hurt again.”

    I won’t speculate as to how this plays in SayWhaat’s life, but I think it’s a subconscious factor in lots of young women’s selection strategies. To avoid pain, or to avoid getting in too deep, or to avoid “commitment,” select someone who’s not going to be in for the long haul. Then when it doesn’t work out, you get what you subconsciously chose but can blame it on the bogus “male fear of commitment” trope.

    “What you should look for in men is cluelessness and/or lack of options.”

    I think it means find a guy who is “money and doesn’t know it.” Then he has good market value but is not actually marketing himself. Then when your girlfriends fawn over him he doesn’t think to play to their attention!

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Once anyone learns how to get easy sex from new people in the short term, it’s difficult to bring them back to long-term thinking. So if it’s easier for women (especially young women) to get sex, then we should expect that the promiscuity tipping point for men should be higher.

    This one of the reasons I don’t think teaching Beta’s game will improve the dating situation. If they learn to trick a woman into feel attracted to them. When are they going to stop? They now have the key to easy sex and all they need to do is keep using and that might take a long time. How old is Roissy or the guys like him? They are not looking for commitment so all Game does is turning some of the 80% ignored as part of the 20% that have all the attention. Not leveling the dating market so not a few of them get all the attention and there are less women fit to LTR. So again Game doesn’t really make anything better on the long run and I think the criticism to the way the market is to try and make it better, not the same, YMMV.

  • Mike C

    @Athlone
    .
    Very true. But I think your step-parents have found the answer to this conundrum: land.
    Income is not wealth. Expensive commodities aren’t wealth. REAL money and real wealth is with those who own the land.

    .
    Yes and No,
    ,
    Not sure you are using the word “commodity” here in the context the investment/finance world would (just as alpha means something different in the SMP/Game world and what the average person might think).
    .
    Commodities can most certainly represent wealth or stores of value. Oil is a perfect example. It is arguably the most valuable substance on the face of the planet. Without it, modern life would collapse.
    .
    Land is also wealth as well but it is highly dependent on where. Land in Detroit, Michigan isn’t worth much and has depreciated substantially the last 20 years.

  • Mike C

    @ David Foster
    .
    MikeC…”most people would be best served finding a quality, competent investment advisor, and even that can be difficult as there are a lot of idiots out there”…..in order to even *pick the right advisor*, though, I think an individual needs to develop some level of sophistication in understanding investing. In addition to the outright idiots & plain old crooks that are out there, there are a lot of advisors, brokers, etc who are not idiots and are well-meaning but who are not very deep and who too often are crowd-followers in the way they invest.
    .
    I agree. It is absolutely necessary to do some learning and get some level of sophistication to choose a good advisor. Otherwise, you might simply go with the smoothest talking guy. My point though is it is necessary IF you have substantial savings. If you don’t have savings, it is a moot point as you’ll live most of your life as a wage slave, and then retire on whatever level the government can provide. But if you DO HAVE SAVINGS, then you absolutely have to learn how to maintain the real value of those savings as inflation takes its toll year after year after year. Putting the cash in a shoebox under your mattress isn’t a viable option for those savings to have any value in 30 years.
    .
    Essentially though the screening should be based on philosophy, process, and some track record of decent results over a multi-year time period (because a bad advisor can have a single good year, and a good advisor a single bad year).

  • Mike C

    You feel that I unfairly attacked the men here while not calling Susan out. To be honest, I do think some of her attitudes are misogynistic, too.
    .
    If by misogynistic you mean not pro-female then you are correct.
    .
    I would simply point out/highlight/STRONGLY EMPHASIZE that the simple fact that Susan’s message could in any sense be construed as misogynistic simply serves to highlight the absolutely WARPED perspective many women see the world through. I think it is accurate to say for that for many?some?few? women, the purpose of a man is to serve their interests/pleasures/life goals and nothing else.

  • Mike C

    Men in this corner of the internet tend to assume that most women are having sex with alpha guys. In truth, many women are not having sex with anyone in college. I believe that there are about 20% of each sex that is highly promiscuous, and they’re mostly having sex with each other
    .
    I don’t think this is accurate although I’ll admit I’m speculating. I really think it is more like 10-20% of guys are having sex with 40-50% of women, where maybe half the women are highly promiscuous riding the alpha cock carousel and the other half have a few alpha encounters they mistake for genuine relationship interest, get burned, and get off that ride. So maybe some segment of 5-6 or even 7 women have sex with 8-9 guys a few times, whereas those equivalent 5-6 guys are celibate.
    .
    Again, it would be nice to really see some good studies on this if you could get college aged women to be honest about this (anonymous survey). I’m drawing on personal experience to some degree. I’m thinking back to grad school and 3 girls who I’m pretty sure were not promiscuous, and I have no doubt whatsoever I could have had sex with all 3 (in one case I literally stopped seconds before it was going to happen and it would have been a SNL). At the risk of bragging, in all three cases my SMV was well above theirs. Again, I think this speaks to the common theme we’ve hit on here for many women to mistake sexual interest for the guy genuinely liking them so it might take getting burned a few times to learn it doesn’t work that way especially for 18,19,20, 21 year olds.

  • Mike C

    Upon rereading your statement and noticing the word “mostly” we are probably on the same page.

  • Mike C

    @Lavazza, @Mike C
    So a fiscally responsible, attractive woman with limited sexual experience should have it made. That’s going onto my list of what men want in a partner.

    .
    I guess I can’t speak for 100% of men, but to me, yeah, that would be hitting the jackpot of the relationship lottery. Add pleasant personality and funny, and what else could you ask for? I feel lucky because I have that although the fiscally responsible part was something I had to create where it previously didn’t exist.
    .
    I think the fiscally responsible part is going to become more important. We are in tougher economic times. Higher unemployment (especially for men), lower wages. I think the smart man is going to look to pair up with a woman who “gets it” rather then someone who is going to demand A, B, C, X, Y, Z where those are a bigger house, new car every 2-3 years, expensive private school for the kids, a new outfit every week, etc.
    .
    One practical/financial benefit of marriage is the ability to combine incomes over one overhead (except if you have multiple young children and the wife is a SAHM). If you keep expenses low basically to match 1 income, then the other income provides savings, and if one person loses a job, then the other person can carry the load for just a bit while the other person looks for new employment. In that sense, marriage can be a financial safety net of sorts.

  • jess

    dear Athlone,
    Hi, I’m sorry if my post appeared naive or evangelical. I had had a couple of glasses of vino, (as is the case now actually), but it was sincere.
    I didnt know you were black and whilst I dont have a detailed understanding of he usa daring scene I think I have a fair idea of the uk one and I cant beleive the two are so far removed from each other. We share so much culturally.
    I myself have only dated within my own skin colour (whatever that says about me), but most of my friends have datd a variety of guys and if anything a black guy has a certain cache associated.
    Now please forgive my size 20 feet here, I hope I’m not about to make any gaffes here- but here goes anyway:
    Your options are:
    1. Act like a wise guy, Roissy style and work your way though women and hope you odnt catch an STD
    2. Act like a nice but confident guy and attract some nice grilefriend over the next few years.
    3. Act like a door mat and have zero sex (this is NOT an advert for Roissy)
    4. Argue with me on here for the next 3 years.
    .
    There are LOADS of women, from all cultures, of all ages that WOULD LOVE to date a single 19 yo black male.
    .
    In fact, put yourself out there, and some of th emore sexully agresiv ewomen would likely scasre the hell out of you.
    I get the impression you dont want to screw around and want a nice girlfriend. Then go to young bars, go to speed dating, join a social or sporting club.
    Have a few innocuous lines so your dont fluff your introductions.
    Women want to be flirted with and approached provided you are not a jerk.
    Have you got any female friends, could they give you any advice about your vibe?
    .
    Because, however well meant our advice is here, we dont know you well and how you tick, what you look like etc.
    Whens the last time you asked a girl if she would like a drink?

  • filrabat

    @Stephanie

    Also relevant for fighting off Dark Game, and actually any kind of pressure to have sex. The way I see it, the 80/20 (for men) and 1 or 10″ (for women) isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that our cultural propaganda links sex to good mental health, sex to respectworthiness, and a whole bunch of other things. Even though a lot of people don’t like the MGTOW message, it’s great for decoupling sexual activity from laughingstock status..and even sexual activity from happiness (at least in their literature and claims, and I’m sure a lot of them are genuinely happy without sex).

    In short, the most damaging forms of feminism (and the sexual revolution in general) simply start with the assumption that sexual activity is necessary for happiness and respectworthiness without any shred of evidence of its truth. Thakfully, the True Love Revolution at Harvard is there to attack this propaganda. The rise of the Asexuals into public awareness also helps. Even the chastity rings, as gimmicky as they are, at least raise awareness of the reaction against the Sexual Revolutions limitations.

    Yes, the Sexual Revolution did set a generation free from frankly silly ideas about sex, but it’s finally starting to collapse from its excesses and contradictions. Most blatant is that it devolved from destigmatizing out of wedlock sex to stigmatizing low propensity for sex (especially virginity).

  • filrabat

    Jess:
    Then go to young bars, go to speed dating, join a social or sporting club.

    Of those three, I can only heartily endorse the last one. I’m really nervous about speed dating because – by its very nature – more or less invites judging others on superficial bases. As for bars, my comment here says it all (in short, “Don’t! Just..DON’T..unless you’re in the “gamest” 2% of men AND ,within 30 seconds of first seeing her, can tell a faithful girl from a “ho” with 100% accuracy AND can tell if she and you share common hobbies/activities AND common values)

  • Anon-E-mous

    @Althone: You can add an Option 5 to Jess’ post above:
    .
    5. Studiously ignore all advice from people who are “drunk blogging”.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @filrabat
    I actually mentioned Susan we should have a break down discussing some ideas about sex, specially socially. I think promiscuous people think of sex as a right/necessity “my bulbous buttocks are tingling I have to fornicate and society has to allow me without asking anything from me” While non-promiscuous people treat is as a privilege/optional something that they can indulge in if/when they fulfill certain goals like money, a committed relationship, how to deal with the consequences like a pregnancy and so on. And that is also culturally imposed I will say pre-sexual revolution even if not everyone was a saint the people that engaged on promiscuous behavior were minority but once the SR started to sell sex as a right, then the pendulum went to the other side and only a minority see it as a privilege.

    I particularly don’t like purity/chastity rings because I think it makes the people that wear them more prone to see sex as some sort of goal/prize and not a lifestyle choice and is easy to feel unbound from it once you take it off, no to mention that I think you are more likely to get hit on by a lot of people that will consider a challenge to try and break your will, didn’t a studied showed that a lot of teens that make the pledge of virginity ended up having sex withing a year?

  • Wayfinder

    whilst I dont have a detailed understanding of he usa daring scene I think I have a fair idea of the uk one and I cant beleive the two are so far removed from each other. We share so much culturally.

    All of the comparisons I’ve seen have described the US and UK environments as being very, very different.

    @Stephenie Rowling

    This one of the reasons I don’t think teaching Beta’s game will improve the dating situation. If they learn to trick a woman into feel attracted to them. When are they going to stop? They now have the key to easy sex and all they need to do is keep using and that might take a long time. How old is Roissy or the guys like him? They are not looking for commitment so all Game does is turning some of the 80% ignored as part of the 20% that have all the attention. Not leveling the dating market so not a few of them get all the attention and there are less women fit to LTR. So again Game doesn’t really make anything better on the long run and I think the criticism to the way the market is to try and make it better, not the same, YMMV.

    You’re assuming that Game intrinsically turns them into players. There are people like Athol Kay who are counter-examples and use it for relationships.

    The assumption behind this seems to be that making the guys more attractive to women is a zero-sum game, rather than a height barrier.

    If the SMP is zero-sum, then only 20% of the men in a given community will be able to be players, and a second block of men will pick up the leftovers. Everyone else is shut out in the cold, including the vast majority of women, who will never be able to secure a commitment from a man she actually wants. Making some men more attractive to women just shuffles around the top dogs.

    If the SMP is not zero-sum, then the majority of men aren’t competing against each other, but against a certain standard or expectation held by the women. Sort of a “You must be this high to ride” sign for entry into her personal SMP. As I understand it, Game is saying that the average man is failing to meet the entrance requirements. Because men aren’t in unlimited supply there are plenty of women who would be perfectly happy with him…as long as he can pass her entrance requirements.

    I’ll also say that getting sexual attention and getting easy sex are two different things. The rhetoric of Rossy and others is that if you can’t get easy sex you haven’t made it. That is a destructive attitude, and someone who won’t be good relationship material.

    The problem most young women face is that most of them have no problem getting sexual attention (woe to the one who isn’t!) and never realized that men don’t operate in the same way.

    The problem most young men have is that they have to work for any sexual attention they get and never realized that a woman wants someone that she can want. He was told to do things to make her feel safe, but nothing about getting her interested in the first place. Most young men aren’t told anything about being the kind of man a woman would want, and are confused when the things he was told to do don’t work.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Wayfinder

      If the SMP is not zero-sum, then the majority of men aren’t competing against each other, but against a certain standard or expectation held by the women. Sort of a “You must be this high to ride” sign for entry into her personal SMP. As I understand it, Game is saying that the average man is failing to meet the entrance requirements. Because men aren’t in unlimited supply there are plenty of women who would be perfectly happy with him…as long as he can pass her entrance requirements.

      I firmly subscribe to this interpretation. However, it does make sense that the number of true players will always be limited. Being a player requires a certain set of objectives, as well as certain personality traits, either natural or cultivated. And going for players reflects certain personality traits not found in all women. So the 80% or so are not left out in the cold – they mate with one another, at least in theory. Of course, that was the old system, before female sexuality was totally unleashed. Perhaps now it’s more like 60% of the women for 80% of the men, as Mike C suggested.

  • Plain Jane

    Susan, have you seen this!?!
    http://theslutwife.wordpress.com/

    She’s the female version of Athol Kay!

    And guys please note the products she consumes in order to keep her husband happy.

    If she were single and living alone, I doubt she’d be buying stockings and heels to wear to bed…

    And men say women are the “materialistic” ones?

  • jess

    Wayfinder- are there any studies on this?- I have heard london and new york are very similar anectdodally
    .
    Careful not to overstate your last point
    its true that girls see gallantry as boring, odd, nerdy or sappy but that doesnt mean the guy shouldnt have underlying decency.
    .
    whats this Roissy thing leading to?
    the latest strategy? -A kidney punch, followed by non consensual carnal lustings?
    I mean hey- treat em mean to keep em keen?
    .
    on a serious note, there are some vague ideas that have been around for a while- they apply to both genders- when flirting or on a 1st date:
    keep conversation light and witty
    dont get smutty unless you know for sure it will be apprecaited
    dont get intense
    dont call straight away after a number is taken
    dont seem to keen
    if things get sexual dont do every trick in the karma sutra
    dont act like a nut
    .
    one would have thought the above was obvious but i have heard some horror stories in my time.
    .
    Guys, take a huge pillar of salt along when reading roissy and his ilk.
    This game thing is just too much you know?
    dont confess traumatic incidents from childhood

  • jess

    opps that last line should be 5 lines up- blame the cheap plonk

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Wayfinder
    Maybe my feeble female brain doesn’t get what Game is about or only recognizes that Game is dark no matter the intentions (I’m kidding about the brain joke BTW I do believe I might no understand the principles of Game as advertised by Susan and some of the other posters here)

    When I read the descriptions of Game TO ME sounds a lot like tricking women into attraction that wouldn’t sustain if the guy were to be himself, meaning that the guy is controlling the woman and the moment he is tired of her punani he will just stop gaming her and everything will go to hell or the other way around if a superior gamer comes along the relationship is doomed, or that when the guy hits 70 and his Testorene level makes him more interested on miniature trains than sex the woman in question will be emotionally abandoned because he is not that interested in gaming her anymore.
    I think that my personal issue is that Game sounds a lot like you are wearing a mask to win a woman making the relationship insecure or/and based on a lie.

    Now what I think you are telling me is that Game is like the Force/Midichlorians? Right, I’m a nerd so yeah this is the language I speak, don’t judge me. :p

  • SayWhaat

    Is there a chance he’s lying about it?

    No. Our mutual friends backed everything up. He’s a decent guy, I believe him.

  • Wayfinder

    @jess

    Start with the radically different stats of the mean age at first marriage (33.9 for men in the UK in 2006, 27.5 for the US in the same year, from the UNECE Statistical Division Database).

    Even granting your anecdotal evidence, London and New York may be similar, but New York City holds a mere 2-3% of the total population of the US (vs London’s 13%), attracts an atypical, younger crowd that is more likely to be trying to live the Sex-in-the-City lifestyle, and is in other ways not necessarily representative of the population at large.

    Further, I’m not necessarily buying your original premise that it’s that easy in the UK either. Much frustration originates from men who just want to find a “nice girl” and haven’t been able to. I happen to think that their numbers are overestimated somewhat in the community but greatly underestimated by the world at large. (If you count the marriages that are short on sex, who know how many you’d get?)

    @Stephenie Rowling
    Others are better suited to discuss what Game is or isn’t (I’m not exactly a strict adherent of it myself) but there is a growing community of “Light-side” Game Bloggers. As I understand it, Game at it’s core is merely figuring out what women actually want and learning to ignore what they say they want when it conflicts.

    I certainly don’t endorse anything that is outright harmful to either men or women, but it’s pretty clear that neither sex today really understands each other or themselves.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I certainly don’t endorse anything that is outright harmful to either men or women, but it’s pretty clear that neither sex today really understands each other or themselves.

    Did the sex ever understood each other?

  • VJ

    Something for the Obs crowd: Where are all the ‘good Black men’? Vids:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x6lrRnOZmg&feature=related &

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgyg8vEHraE&feature=related

    Really priceless. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • VJ

    Seemingly plenty of these, along with some seriously unfunny ‘rebuttals’ too:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75FUsDSkCZ8&feature=related

    Just another imaginary ‘vignette’, and yes all of them are NSFW/ w/ Adult language. Cheers, ‘VJ;

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Lavazza
    Oh I remember that pilot now. Yeah the show seemed like BS the moment they exposed a lot of the problems and the solution was giving up on all the work and just have sex. Being Samantha the one that looked the happiest of the bunch.

  • Lavazza

    Stephenie: I have seen about a third of the episodes on different TV channels over a long period of time, so I have a pretty disconnected idea about the “philosophy” of the series. I remember an episode where Samantha was sick and she could not get any of her FBs to come over and help her out. It might even have been early in the series. I think stuff like that, even if it did not happen often in the series, are there to make you see the cracks, without making them too obvious.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Althone: You can add an Option 5 to Jess’ post above:
    .
    5. Studiously ignore all advice from people who are “drunk blogging”.

    Yep, gonna go ahead and go with that one.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I remember an episode where Samantha was sick and she could not get any of her FBs to come over and help her out. It might even have been early in the series. I think stuff like that, even if it did not happen often in the series, are there to make you see the cracks, without making them too obvious.”

    The problem is not so much the show, it’s people who lose the distinction between the show as entertainment and the show as a real lifestyle to aim for.

    I can’t tell you how hilarious and maddening it is to hear girls who dress up to go to SATC film premieres make fun of guys who dressed up for the Star Wars prequels.

  • Abbot

    “girls who dress up to go to SATC film premieres”
    ,
    Knowing that your girlfriend did that is certainly another clue-in and perhaps one of the best reasons to keep her off the wife list. A weeder outer for sure…

  • Wayfinder

    It is actually pretty common to have a show that glamorizes a particular lifestyle but then presents the drawbacks…but because of the format of the show they’re right back to status quo next episode, and the glamor and the glitz is what people remember. Even if most people see the “cracks”, the overall message of the show is that things are just fine, and that’s what gets remembered. The test is to ask someone why they like something. I suspect that for Sex in the City, most people won’t say “because it shows me the real story behind the glamorous facade.”

  • Abbot

    “The problem is not so much the show, it’s people who lose the distinction between the show as entertainment and the show as a real lifestyle to aim for.”
    .
    The show legitimized and propagated behaviors that already existed, albeit in small marginalized urban cliques. Its a cheap shot since its easy to sell what women can do so easily: have casual sex. The show’s platform is unleashed female casual sex made to appear “sophisticated” and “complex” and slightly less cheap when wrapped in glamour, euphemisms and humorous inconveniences on a twisted path to a true love hoax. Its the spicing of fetid meat so it appears and tastes fresh. Choose wisely and prosper.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Plain Jane
    I think that slut wife blog looks awesome! Good for her, she knows that every man wants a slut in bed, as long as she is his slut. It’s exactly her approach that can provide sexual variety in a monogamous relationship, something that women who want faithful partners need to figure out and deliver.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    The hilarious irony of SATC is that it’s basically about gay men, changed to women for marketing purposes. Ann Coulter wrote a column about it.

    The Slut Wife’s subtitle is awesome: “my husband is happier than yours.” Wouldn’t it be wonderful if women competed more over who has the happiest husband/boyfriend instead of who has extracted the most resources from him?

  • Abbot

    For the remaining men who have not yet “left the building,” here are some more reasons to get out:
    .
    http://emporiasexus.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/nice-guys/

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I’m very wary of blaming any media(TV, Books, Video Games…) of the downfall of certain group. In advertising Psychology class we discussed this does the media makes the audience or the audience makes the media? And there is a division I support the idea that the audience already decides what they like and what will “touch” them before the product is made, and that only weak individuals are really manipulated by the media. I also think that there is a lot of finger pointing if women are responding to this messages is because their upbringing did something that allow them to glamorize this lifestyle, also I do believe that a ton of women will watch this show just for fun and not to model their lives after it and the ones that do were already engaging on this lifestyle anyway the show just worked as validation, YMMV.
    @Lavazza
    I do think some smart writers did sneaked some of the realities of this, but could bet that at the end on the episode it didn’t matter and whether one of her girlfriends got the medicine for her or one of the hook ups showed up because she was the best sex he ever had or something like it. On the second movie they also showed some cracks specially with Samantha using a lot of herbal medicines to keep her youth because she knew that after she stopped being a horny she will have nothing to look forward in live, and also a strange look to Carrie and Big once they talked about not wanting to have kids and then cue to Carrie being expecting Big to be for her on every aspect because it was just the two of them, still at the end this issues are glided over and the characters get what the want at the end so IMO if they wanted to sent a message that this lifestyle have downhills they failed miserable, whatever downhills they still got happiness on the end, so moot point.

  • Lavazza

    Stephenie: The series might have been more sugar than spice, but the book it is based on is more grimy/realistic and the series have parts in the same vein. I guess it depends on your own outlook if you want to see them as the big picture or difficulties overcome. I am quite sure I am in the minority, but I saw some episodes of the first season with my 11 and 13 YO and they had the same overall impression as me.

  • VJ

    Men who’ve Really left the building:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A87VbJUY6g&feature=related

    Among the saddest vid I’ve ever heard. One of 2 parts too. The gent never married evidently and it’s because the women drove him from it. An Odyssey.
    ‘VJ’

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Lavazza
    Well maybe you are on the minority the fact that this women were “heartbroken” one week over a bad break up and then happily dating the week after that no to mention that no matter the conflict they always end up on top, makes me think that the message is that this lifestyle is not only acceptable is desirable. Carrie walking out like a goddess because she had sex with no emotions for the guy seems to be what the series was about.
    I personally never became a fan for the reasons I mentioned and many of my friends that did watched were very critic of the attitude of this women (I think the most loathed episode was the shoes one were Carrie makes a woman pay her for the shoes she lost on her party), but again I personally can see both sides but I don’t think the majority of the people see them that way, YMMV as usual.

  • Jess

    Wayfinder- you make some fair points. I didnt know the uk age was 34 for marriage. Shocked by that. Maybe it is a bit tougher for nice guys in the USA and uk. But I still stand by my advice.
    .
    Athlone- if you are not going to try 1-4 then have you considered what options 6 or 7 are going to be?

  • filrabat

    @Stephanie

    I’m very wary of blaming any media(TV, Books, Video Games…) of the downfall of certain group. In advertising Psychology class we discussed this does the media makes the audience or the audience makes the media? And there is a division I support the idea that the audience already decides what they like and what will “touch” them before the product is made, and that only weak individuals are really manipulated by the media. I also think that there is a lot of finger pointing if women are responding to this messages is because their upbringing did something that allow them to glamorize this lifestyle, also I do believe that a ton of women will watch this show just for fun and not to model their lives after it and the ones that do were already engaging on this lifestyle anyway the show just worked as validation, YMMV.

    For adults and even late teenagers, I agree. However, the vast majority of us watch TV from a very young age. Small children and even early teens to a degree are very impressionable. Even if they do take to heart “don’t believe everything you see on TV”, there’s still the matter “Well if that isn’t true, then what IS the truth?”. This is especially so regarding new-to-their-experience issues While they may eventually see the actual truth in some regards, the fact remains that watching literally a few tens of thousands of hours of TV by their 18th birthday can’t help but color their perspective; particularly if the messages they hear DO NOT change with the target audience’s age, income, education, occupation, etc. Of course, most people are smart enough to see, eventually, that even these messages are b.s. However, by that time, the damage is usually done. They have to live with the fact that they were hooked into into a bunch of lies, usually dramatically and cleverly presented.

    That’s why I hugely favor intensive teaching in critical thinking skills from as early on as possible. The Nizkor Fallacies Page, in a simplified language form, is an excellent start; particularly given their years of experience dealing with Holocaust Deniers, who have to be some of the most idiotically and fanatically stubborn people who ever breathed oxygen. Of course, it’s also useful for winnowing out b.s. claims on relationship pages too ;). Therefore I give it a 5-star reccommendation for bookmarking.

  • Abbot

    “…makes me think that the message is that this lifestyle is not only acceptable is desirable”
    .
    Its acceptable and desirable outside of the wife market, for sure. Its an unnatural “lifestyle” as its only possible through substance abuse aka the pill and it mostly benefits men who have fun empowering artificial women, or getting them to express their sexuality. Later, the men marry non-substance-abusing or naturally behaving females, aka wife material. Fortunately, the latter group vastly outnumbers the former.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @filrabat
    I will like to clarify what I meant was that I’m wary to blame ONE work of fiction as the one that create our current issues. But I do agree that if the same message is repeated from early years till, late teens/adulthood without any other message to counteract it by the time SATC aired there was already fertile soil for it to validate the ideas they already had. I mean Gossip Girl is aimed to a young demo and is practically the same decadent message, one of the reasons I’m worried about the younger SATC: Girls on HBO is going to introduce a whole new audience to a new stage into entitled sluthood culture.
    Is there any good TV/Books/Magazines that you consider that counteract this?
    I mean if this was a message on just one or two works of fiction I doubt it would be that problematic, but I’m starting to see it everywhere today for example I was doing some grocery shopping and reading the cover of the magazines (something I do again for research I never buy them) and Glamour has an article called: 12 things every woman deserves in life now! I was like Facepalming myself mentally and I think I read a similar entitlement title in another one. Funny enough Jezebel usually only mocks this magazines when they have skinny women on the cover or there or diet/marriage advice. Is indeed a cultural war against sensible advice.

    I also agree with your idea that critical thinking is possibly the best weapon we can have, but is something only parents will and can do so that is limited because there is no a popular TV show/book called “Critical Cathy and the spotting of BS”. So I guess is up to us breeders to spread the message to make new generations less prone to fall into this traps.

    @Abbot
    But that is the reality, in the series three of them end up happily married with men that adore them and Samantha ends up finding the fountain of youth thanks to some crackpot herbal pills or whatever and ends up getting banged on the cover of a car, by a hot man while fireworks explode, so yeah the show is only selling one side of this and is not the sad one.

  • Michael of Charlotte

    VJ,

    There is a real danger in letting yourself get that far. Myself, I went through a period in my life (about a year and a half) where I choose three horrible women back to back. Those women stopped me from dating for about 5 years. I’m starting to see women as I did when I was a teenager and have let go a lot of what that man felt. But I can definitely see how he and other men get there.

  • Wayfinder

    @Susan
    That matches my personal theory that the breakdown stems from two factors. A minority of women opted out of monogamy to chase after alphas decreasing the supply of women interested in relationships. (The 60%/80% or whatever the actual figures are.)

    The second factor is women’s changing standards of what makes a man relationship-worthy, giving young men a standard that doesn’t measure anything they’re supposed to try to obtain. Young women don’t value the traditional goals we push young men towards, so male success on the dating market is influenced more by random factors rather than consciously cultivated achievements.

    Neither of these are absolute, and the majority of today’s young people will still get married eventually. But it will be later than they wanted, cause more trouble having children, and possibly produce less happy marriages (though the data on the last isn’t conclusive, yet).

    @Stephenie Rowling
    I’d say that a few hundred years ago men and women misunderstood each other differently. (I don’t think the mythical ’50s were all that different from today at their core.)

  • VJ

    It’s pretty sad, but as the gents says, it’s a natural outgrowth of the hatred he feels directly at him regularly. And there’s many guys who feel the same way & get the same reaction. And we’re Not talking ‘TV’ reality here, it’s real life. Hence the MRA ‘explosion’ in recent years. It’s pretty silly to try and deny reality, but plenty of Feminists seem to want to continue to do so. Ergo behind every seeming ‘good man’ is some sinister monster of their own imagination just ‘lying in wait’, and ‘nice guys’ are just some diabolical ploy to subvert their power or goals. Reading some of the exchanges recently on some of their boards is painful. The level of anti-male invective is frankly amazing, as Abbot notes in his link above. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Wayfinder
    Oh sorry that was more an hypothetical question. I do think that on the past people didn’t expected to understand their mates so things were simpler. The wife had a job, the husband had a job so all you have to do is fulfill that job and that was it,nowadays…well we know that part no need to repeat it.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Jess:

    Athlone- if you are not going to try 1-4 then have you considered what options 6 or 7 are going to be?

    You need to stop acting like I’m brand new to this. Your options(1-4) have been tried for years on end-that is how I know they aren’t realistic.
    I have other options, which have been articulated here before. Read around, I’m not hijacking this thread for that.

  • JM

    @filrabat: I agree that fewer logical fallacies would be a good thing. However, I think a much larger problem than logical fallacies is cognitive biases. Although I can’t prove this formally (heh), it seems to me that when there is an intellectual disagreement, it is rare for the people on one side to be so overwhelmingly less prone to logical fallacies as to explain the vast differences in each side’s beliefs. I posit that even if everybody was made incapable of making a logically false deduction or arguing in bad faith, we would not see a dramatic reduction in disagreements.

    This is because, ultimately, any logical argument is only as good as its premises at best. At some point we are going to have to define, usually not fully consciously, our premises axiomatically based on what we judge is “reasonable”. And what is “reasonable” is going to differ from person to person. It would be bad enough if the inherently limited experience and knowledge of each individual were the only problem, but this is also where cognitive biases more than logical fallacies (I’ll admit the boundary between the two is fuzzy) do their damage. This, I think has far greater power in explaining why people have disagreements, especially on moral issues.

    Indeed, I would say that is is trivially common for one to have two contradictory axioms in different parts of the same argument or belief system. Against even one indirect, obfuscated, benign-looking instance of such, the whole of logic is completely helpless.

  • Lavazza

    Stephenie: As I said my interpretation is the minority one. I guess I have read too many high brow novels where the idea is that the narrative I is lying to him/herself and where there are cues for the reader to pick up on this fact. The first in this genre I read was Martin Amis’s Success.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Lavazza
    Don’t worry I also think Americans have issues seeing the diferences between reading and interpreting I was raised under European school system and critical thinking and analysis was pretty much taught from the first grade so I think that is also why you see it was harder for feminism/mainstream to destroy my generation, of course 20 years after that the American educational model has been adopted with predictable results.

    Most of my smart girlfriends from my generation did watched Sex and the City (and their mild equivalent Friends) but they were very open about criticizing when some things were just BS or when a perfectly good man was not accepted as a husband/mate for a trivial reason (I already mentioned the shoes episode but I’m telling you that Aidangate really didn’t did any favors for Carrie and the amount of people rooting for Steve and Miranda was by far double than for Big and Carrie), of course I must say the biggest fan I knew of the show were my male friends, but all of them were players that still needed to do a lot of work to bed a woman,(even the biggest latina slut still need dinner, movie and some time to give it up… so far) so it was like their fantasy come true: women that will give it up easy and cheap. Is funny how many feminists and modern women can’t grasp this concept.

    And I could probably make a HUGE post about other works of fiction that people simply don’t get it on America while on other countries people can of understand that is a fantasy for women in the same vein that warp speed is for men but there is no point to do it now. This reminds me of a joke on another fandom I won’t mention out of shame. It seem like a lot of people watching SATC were not really watching SATC.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “You need to stop acting like I’m brand new to this. Your options(1-4) have been tried for years on end-that is how I know they aren’t realistic.
    I have other options, which have been articulated here before. Read around, I’m not hijacking this thread for that.”

    Those are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others. -Groucho Marx

  • Abbot

    “people can of understand that is a fantasy for women”
    .
    Perhaps for a small subset of women and such fantasies are a reliable marker for a men – a good wife material weeder outer

  • filrabat

    @JM

    Logical Fallacies can expose cognitive biases, but I do see what you are saying. In most cases it’s not so much the biases as it is the willful shoving aside of anything that rains on their “everything is great just the way it is” parade – IOW willful narrowmindedness.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Abbot
    I don’t know about that, maybe on the case of SATC or specific themes like cheating or love triangle (two themes I can’t stand on Romance), but most of my happily faithful married girlfriends are Romance Genre avid readers/consumers, while the ones that don’t like to read the genre or don’t watch Rom Com’s are usually the ones cheating or having marriage or relationship issues. I know is a different culture but maybe having a fantasy/emotional outlet can be good for the health of the couple as long as it not taken to the extreme?I personally enjoy seeing people falling in love in all media and I’m a hard core shipper, and I think so far it hasn’t been something that gives me false expectations about men or pressure my husband to be more like my romantic heroes, YMMV.

  • Jess

    Athlone,
    Did you not say you were 19?
    So you could not have been trying for that long….?
    .
    My worry here is that by coming here you are surrounding yourself with like minded people and succumbing to insular thinking.
    Then ones life can become a self fulfilling prophecy.
    .
    I got the impression you weren’t happy with your lot and bemoaned the opportunity to find a good relationship.
    At 19 you are so young and a chip on your shoulder now may scupper life chances. It’s such a needless waste.
    Look, I’m not gonna convince you either way here I guess but I hope at some point a little bit of this advice might come floating back. You are probably wiser than I was at 19, and you have a bucketful of smarts. Just aim it a bit differently is all. J.

  • testify222

    I have no use for “relationships” with any woman, nor should any other man. The best way to stick it to the matriarchy is to deny women relationships, marriage, support etc – to only use women as sextoys and babymommas – just as alpha males do, and if you can’t manage it just drop out and be an omega and watch pr0n. Starve the femi-beast of what it needs and inflict maximum pain on a generation of women who hate us anyway. Fight club baby. Women and feminists are obsessed with relationships because it is the mechanism they are using to drain men of our power.

    Additionally, men need to drastically increase global capitalism and male wealth and power, and to eliminate chivalry, socialism and all official and non-official transfers of wealth and power from men to women on a worldwide scale. Grind them into the ground. Break down all structures they are dependent upon. Outsource/replace women and female services with prostitution, virtual porn and biotech. We can “create” better virtual women for sexual pleasure, and better and more reliable robotic baby machines to reproduce as many people with superior genetics as we wish. Patriarchy 2.0 baby – that’s the way to put women/feminists where they belong – make them irrelevant and useless – just as they’ve done to (most) men. After all women are only respect/are attracted to men who are way above them (hypergamy) and don’t respect “equal” (beta) men at the end of the day.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Grind them into the ground.

      Yikes. Exhibit A of severely embittered male.

  • demirogue

    “Yikes. Exhibit A of severely embittered male.”

    He’s not alone. That’s the issue that really hasn’t taken effect yet because there are more and more of them out there than what’s really being let on. He wasn’t born that way folks. He was made that way and the words he writes aren’t indicative of someone who was kept down but someone who did everything right and learned, as many men do, that it doesn’t mean squat. And he hits the nail on the head when he writes that women hate us anyway so why even care now.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @demirogue
      I understand the reasons for the bitterness, and I can read a comment like that today without feeling personally threatened. My intention is not to shame men who feel this way. I acknowledge the real pain and anger, but I also find that I want to fix it, which of course I can’t. All I can say is that NAWALT. Just as he differs from you, and you both differ from men with more or less success in the SMP, so women differ from one another. We can say certain things about male nature and female nature, but it is not possible to make an absolute statement about any individual, IMO.

  • Mike C

    @Wayfinder
    .
    Maybe my feeble female brain doesn’t get what Game is about or only recognizes that Game is dark no matter the intentions (I’m kidding about the brain joke BTW I do believe I might no understand the principles of Game as advertised by Susan and some of the other posters here)

    When I read the descriptions of Game TO ME sounds a lot like tricking women into attraction that wouldn’t sustain if the guy were to be himself, meaning that the guy is controlling the woman and the moment he is tired of her punani he will just stop gaming her and everything will go to hell or the other way around if a superior gamer comes along the relationship is doomed, or that when the guy hits 70 and his Testorene level makes him more interested on miniature trains than sex the woman in question will be emotionally abandoned because he is not that interested in gaming her anymore.
    .
    I think that my personal issue is that Game sounds a lot like you are wearing a mask to win a woman making the relationship insecure or/and based on a lie.

    .
    @ Stephenie,
    .
    Let me try to help you here in understanding “Game”. I think you are bringing misconceptions and misperceptions to the table.
    .
    The word “Game” to me is unfortunate because I think the very word can have the context of “dark manipulation”. I also think you are way off-base with the very concept of a “guy being himself”. In my view, the very concept is an absurdity. What is “yourself”?
    .
    If I get higher education to become more knowledgeable and intelligent, am I no longer “myself”? If I try to break bad habits, am I no longer “myself”? If I lift weights and change my body, am I no longer “myself”. The very concept of being “yourself” implies stasis, never changing, adapting, or improving yourself.
    .
    All learning Game is basically how to improve your dating/sexual interactions with women. That’s it. And to me, it is very simple. Game is about displaying the behaviors and personality traits, and communication style that basically ALL women find sexually attractive and NOT displaying the ones that are NOT sexually attractive.
    .
    Now I could write an exposition here on EVERYTHING THAT ENTAILS, so let me take just one set of traits that are polar opposites. On the one side of the spectrum, you have SUPPLICATION. On the other side of the spectrum, you have aloof indifference and/or playful teasing. Now the simple fact of the matter is that supplication does NOT get the pussy wet, while the latter does.
    .
    From a purely logical, rational point of view, one would think women would go for the guy who goes out of his way to do all the nice things (I certainly believed that for years) but the simple fact is that is not true. I think many Moms raised their sons to be supplicating but that is another subject. In terms of playful teasing, David DeAngelo teaches to act like girls are your “bratty little sister”. Now one can go overboard on the aloof indifference and teasing, and it has to be calibrated properly, but the fact of the matter is women get turned on by that style. Contrast James Bond to Charlie Sheen’s BROTHER on 2 and half men. He is the quintessential supplicator.
    .
    Now some guys somewhere along the line “naturally” picked up the right attitude, behaviors, tone, communication style, and some of us got to our 20s completely screwed up doing all the WRONG things. The idea that we are supposed to just “stay ourselves” and accept our lot is just ridiculous. You can retrain your behaviors and communication style. The more you do it, the more it becomes “who you are” although the reprogramming of all of childhood, and teen years, is probably never fully wiped out.
    .
    I still “run Game” to this day on my GF in terms of displaying the “right” behaviors. Don’t get me wrong. I”m affectionate, helpful, and attentive when the situation calls for it. But I still know when to mix in a little alpha. A smack on the ass for “misbehavior” works wonders, and I KNOW it is a turn-on.
    .
    Interestingly, I’m convinced my GF runs some girl Game on me as well. I think maybe she has done some studying as well on how to elicit certain responses. And good for her. I chuckle fully realizing that she may be “manipulating” me.

  • Tom

    @ Susan

    This is Tom Who White Knights for Sluts says:
    March 4, 2011 at 5:04 pm
    real life men and real life answeres……

    http://forums.plentyoffish.com/9055365datingPostpage2.aspx

    ____________________________
    Very clever!.. Doesnt change the facts, however. There are a lot of men who will date and get into relationships with certian sluts, as long as the sluts pass all his expectations…..
    Questions//// How long until a slut is no longer a slut?.. Is being a slut an attitude or an activity?…If they change their attitude and their lifestyle, are they still sluts?
    If a woman was once a slut, got married and 15 faithful years later her hubby died, is she still unfit for the average man here on THIS forum

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Tom
      *I* would have been unfit for many of the men on this forum. It is what it is. They have that right.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Mike C
    When I mean yourself mean, for example, that if you favorite hobbies is playing Dungeons and Dragon but that won’t gain you sexual attention from women you quit it or hide it from them in order the get laid. Now if this for ONS it might be harmless but if you deep down miss it and only the sexual impulse keeps your from sharing it then you are on a constant state of anger, and I think in the long run will make you resent women in general for not letting you engage on something that you truly enjoy. So I do believe there are core personality traits that shouldn’t be suppressed just to get a mate, neither for male or female. I think the difference is that you seem to believe that we all Tabula Rasa and there is nothing that comes with you, I happen to believe that there are certain things that are born with you and that denying to yourself will only bring problems on the long run. But then again I might be wrong and there is not such a thing as a true self.

    Oh BTW in two and a half men I always preferred Alan. NAWATL ;)

  • Mike C

    @ Stephenie
    .
    When I mean yourself mean, for example, that if you favorite hobbies is playing Dungeons and Dragon but that won’t gain you sexual attention from women you quit it or hide it from them in order the get laid. Now if this for ONS it might be harmless but if you deep down miss it and only the sexual impulse keeps your from sharing it then you are on a constant state of anger, and I think in the long run will make you resent women in general for not letting you engage on something that you truly enjoy. So I do believe there are core personality traits that shouldn’t be suppressed just to get a mate, neither for male or female.
    .
    Well…I do think there is some “core self”. Something along the lines of how you test on the Myers-Brigg. I am naturally an introvert, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to mutate myself into an extrovert. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN that I cannot adapt myself to be more successful in situations where the toolkit of the extrovert is called for. What I am saying is that are specific behaviors and communication styles are very adaptable and malleable to the situation.
    .
    Take two situations. Hanging out with your girlfriends versus going on a job interview. You certainly are NOT going to behave and communicate identically in both situations, yet it would be absurd to suggest in one situation you are “not being yourself”.
    .
    What you are talking about above speaks to compatibility. I sort of joke sometimes with my GF about my “inner geek/nerd”. I couldn’t be with someone who wanted me to completely turn off my intellectual side. But that doesn’t preclude me from exhibiting alpha/Game type behaviors as well. It is a mistake to view it in binary, absolute terms.
    .
    All that said, “success” with women is critical for a healthy mindset. Long-term failure with women wreaks havoc on a man’s psyche. Read some of the comments earlier in this thread if you have any doubt about that. And at the end of the day, all “Game” is is a way to potentially increase “success” with women. It doesn’t mean you have to become an entirely different person or forsake the activities and pursuits you like.
    .
    I think the difference is that you seem to believe that we all Tabula Rasa and there is nothing that comes with you, I happen to believe that there are certain things that are born with you and that denying to yourself will only bring problems on the long run. But then again I might be wrong and there is not such a thing as a true self.
    .
    Tabula Rasa. I had to Google that to find out what the heck that was. Like the reference :) I’m not saying we are a blank slate that can be COMPLETELY REWRITTEN, but there is plenty of room to make substantial change. Again, what is malleable is specific behaviors and communication styles that are dependent on the situation. When I’m at the gym or on the basketball court, I tend to talk with those guys in a very different manner then for example how I write here. No $500 vocabulary words get used. You want to be a “cool” guy, not a nerd.
    .
    Oh BTW in two and a half men I always preferred Alan. NAWATL ;)
    .
    Well…nothing is universally true…but I find that show to be an extremely realistic depiction between the dichotomy between an alpha and extreme beta and the consequent success or lack thereof with women. Of course, in recent seasons, they tried to some extent to betatize Charlie’s character.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I am naturally an introvert, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to mutate myself into an extrovert. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN that I cannot adapt myself to be more successful in situations where the toolkit of the extrovert is called for.

      Precisely. We employ the tools to get the job done.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Mike C
    Thanks that clarifies it a lot. I can see how Games translate to nice guys and I can see why Susan supports it, and makes sense is true the way I talk to my husband is different to the way I talk to my girlfriends to my mother or to my boss, it makes sense to learn how to be more effective in each scenario.

    The main problem is that I read Roissy’s test on what makes a man an Alpha and I can see that 90% he says attracts women would had me running to the hills (and really if a woman gets pushed during make out session by the guy that then proceeds to look distracted and that makes her want him even more I will advice psychological therapy…fast!), so Game will also make men weed out the few women like me that don’t respond to Game. But I guess if we are this scarce they probably do what I did and actively select a guy in question. Is good to remember sexual selection is a bitch.

    Oops sorry about the fancy word I didn’t do it un purpose. Totally slipped from my mind.

    I think the tried to betazied Charlie because there is such a thing as too old to pull again, unless visually. Charlie was showing his age thus having a string of supermodels dropping her panties at his mere sight started to look unrealistic IMO. No to mention that after certain age if you never want to settle down or fall in love you can stop looking like a player and start looking like a psycho. I would say that player can benefit from a marriage even in short term because if you hit almost 60 with never having a stable relationship even the most loose slut might think there is something wrong with you and without youth to get away with it, you get less successful, YMMV.

  • William

    Some people let their actions speak for them, you’d be foolish to think the only people who have a problem are the ones verbalizing.

  • Thrasymachus

    Despite his all too obvious flaws and issues the real-life Charlie Sheen does not appear to have any difficulty in appealing to attractive women. The last I heard he had a live-in harem and was describing Hugh Hefner as an amateur. His character on Two and A Half Men was betaized because …. that’s what television does to alpha males. Most shows are designed to appeal to women, and the sight of an alpha male operating in the way that real life alphas do is just a bit too much for some to tolerate. TV is generally much more comfortable with depicting men who are weak or dumb in their relationships with women.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Thrasymachus
    I was refering to the program as well. I know in real life he might be getting some still for pretty but probably socially lower women wich it doesn’t make him less pathetic, IMO. Is not that hard to flaunt some money and fame to a poor/unknown hottie and get her to tolerate your antics. Of course I say that as a woman, maybe men do not see him that way, YMMV.

  • Mike C

    I was refering to the program as well. I know in real life he might be getting some still for pretty but probably socially lower women wich it doesn’t make him less pathetic, IMO. Is not that hard to flaunt some money and fame to a poor/unknown hottie and get her to tolerate your antics. Of course I say that as a woman, maybe men do not see him that way, YMMV.
    .
    “Socially lower”?
    .
    Your comment is telling in that in once again reinforces that women naturally focus on status and social hierarchy whereas men focus on physical appearance (more or less). At the risk of being crude, hot tail is hot tail whether trailer trash or sophisticated elite. Its hard for me to say whether he (Sheen) is pulling a young hottie more on his alpha lover qualities or rich provider qualities (probably some combination of both). Anyways, putting marriage/wife material aside and focusing on the short-term, basically 99% of guys are going to prefer a Bree Olsen over a fat, ugly women from the upper crust of society. Whatever one thinks about that “type” of woman, it is still reality that only a minority of guys are going to be able to pull them. I’m not passing any type of judgement one way or another, but your comment just jumped out at me at once again showing just how different the male and female brains are wired.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Mike C
    Well yes. Isn’t what we are discussing here? Men are visual pigs, women are hipergamy pigs? I’m not afraid to admit the truth and I already expressed that my personal hipergamy includes smart, sweet, nice nerdy types like the one I’m happily married to, so I believe the issue is not hipergamy itself, but the form it takes for the majority of women that injures the odd of good guys of getting sex/relationships.

    Again what I tried I said is that Charlie Sheen was married to Denise Richards (hot, famous and rich) and now is dating hot poor unknown girls, for a man that might be nothing because the hot is still there, but a question really there is not a part of you (men in general) that says that he somehow is lost something because he cannot get the same type of women he got when he was ot so socially screwed?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Oh and I mean the majority of women on American/Western Modern Culture, I already said that in my country and other countries overflowed by Alpha Jerks the guys here would had to hide from the women that will throw themselves at them, constantly. Really if straw feminists would spent a year living overseas and dating what there is available there, they might find a new appreciation for guys here.

  • filrabat

    testify, demirogue

    If you ask me, about 2/3 of this whole problem is “Nice Guys (TM) associating for Bad Girls” (or even Good Guys associating with the same). While it’s true that “NAWALT but a hefty percentage are”, it’s also true that different kinds of settings attract different personality types. Chances are, there is someone out there for you, BUTyou have to leave the mainstream singles meet-and-greet scene to find them.

    I and many others have said stuff about finding hobbies, interest, goals, and concentrating on achieving goals, and figuring out what you really want in life. All I can say to this is just skim through posts on this site until something to the effect “being happy without women is more important than having a woman”, etc..

  • Yuki

    but a question really there is not a part of you (men in general) that says that he somehow is lost something because he cannot get the same type of women he got when he was ot so socially screwed?

    I don’t think so, the notion that the ‘status’ of ones partner has any reflection upon the person is a much more strongly present in women than men, perhaps another example of hypergamy. Men will chastise or make jokes towards the partner of a peer if they find the partner ugly or awkward looking much more quickly than if the partner is lower on the socioeconomic or educational scales. Women, on the other hand, seem much more quick to put down their peers partners for socioeconomic or educational disparities with physical appearance coming in the secondary screening.

    People assign varying priorities to various traits they might find in a member of the opposite sex and the trends observed when aggregating by gender seem to not overlap well with each other. Men seem to trend towards ranking outward appearance and agreeableness highest over all, women trend towards ranking perceived social status the highest. Neither is any more right or wrong than the other because 1) they are just trends and hide all the variance within the samples and 2) half of people are men and half are women. Even if the trends were perfect models of male and female behavior a randomly selected person would be as likely to exhibit one set of values as the other.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Yuki
    That is more or less what I though.
    To make it a summary:
    Unless you earning more makes you hotter (personal trainer, beauty parlor visits, flattering clothing and so on) a guy doesn’t care how much you make or how many degrees you have. Am I right?

  • testify222

    As men see it – female beauty/youth/femininity are what have power over us – that is how we rank women and how we think of women 90% of the time. Women are sex objects. So a poor nobody hottie who is better looking than a rich famous woman – is ranked higher in our minds. Not that the low status hottie can get a real/public relationship with a high status male – status does matter for that because he has an image to maintain. But even with that female status as men see it differs greatly from how women perceive status. This is why the feminists seem so bizarre and clueless to most men – they seem to want to be female versions of the alpha males they idealize, thinking this is what will attract such men.

    Women seem to have the idea that it’s “easy” to get the attention of “low social status” hotties. Pretty, young women – no matter what their status – are the prized pool that all of the men (of all status levels) are subconsciously competing to have sex with and gain the sexual validation/attention of, and who determine how men rank each other to a large extent. Men who can score with these women (and therefore lesser looking women as a result since all women seem to follow the choices of the pretty women) are considered the alpha males, and these men usually can also easily get high status women for relationships if they *want* to. IOW, a man’s ability to score casual sex determines everything for him – it is the hurdle – not relationships. Charlie Sheen is just messing around and having fun – he could easily get some woman of much higher status if he *wanted* to have a relationship. Relationships are a social/emotional/financial cost and a burden for men (look at what he went through with Denise Richards) – I just don’t think women get this. We simply don’t sit around thinking about relationships and the status of women.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: testify222
    RE: Heh

    So a poor nobody hottie who is better looking than a rich famous woman – is ranked higher in our minds. — testify222

    Speak for your poor, addel-brained self.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)]
    [Life is tough. It’s tougher if you’re stupid.

  • pjay

    @Stephenie Rowling:

    “…in my country and other countries overflowed by Alpha Jerks the guys here would had to hide from the women that will throw themselves at them, constantly.”

    Please tell me which country you are from, so that I can book travel immediately.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: Stephenie Rowlings
    RE: True….

    ….a guy doesn’t care how much you make or how many degrees you have. Am I right? — Stephenie Rowlings

    ….for the ‘smart’ guys. Not so much for the likes of testify222.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Who can find a virtuous woman. Her worth is greater than rubies.]

  • Yuki

    @Stephenie

    I wouldn’t say doesn’t care so much as is not going to value those traits over physical attractiveness under any reasonable circumstances. The perception of hotness is the most common non-negotiable issue for men when evaluating women. I do have several male friends who consider degrees or earning potential as additional non-negotiable or high value traits for them to see a woman as a viable LTR partner but they wouldn’t even consider the most lauded nobel laureate or famous actress/CEO/whatever if they didn’t find her physically attractive independent of her ‘status’.

    Also I would emphasize the fact that even if success helps a woman to be more attractive a guy isn’t likely to think about the connection between her attractiveness and her success unless he is forced to. In general he will just see her attractiveness as a part of who she is not what she is. You can however run into situations where a woman can afford to make herself appear far more attractive than she actually is. In such situations once all the makeup and shaping clothing come off or are seen though the guy will evaluate her based on what’s really there.

  • Tom

    @ Susan,

    @Tom
    *I* would have been unfit for many of the men on this forum. It is what it is. They have that right.

    ______________________
    I know they have that right, but what fools they are for judging and turning down a really good lady , such as yourself, for something as trivel as a past sex life.
    I guess that IS my point. Some guys cant see past the sex part and pass on some really great women. Hopefully you agree, not all “experienced “women are the same, not all their reasons for sleeping around are the same, and not all their expereinces are the same.
    Just my opinion, but a man who passes up a woman who has some former sexual experiences is the one with the problem, not her. I know it is their right, but that doesnt mean they are not the ones with the problem.
    I have already stated, I probably would pass on a woman who has had a LARGE amount of men in her past. Most women I have met, who were like that, turned out to just not be my type. It wasnt the number that bothered me, but the personality type.
    I totally understand some men cant handle it, to each their own.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    PJay.
    Well LA at large is filled with women that value “gringos” a lot, I also heard Thai women. Most young professional women in my country are seeking husbands overseas due to lack of commitment orientated males and overflow of jerks. If you are serious about this I must warn you though that 85% of the women are virtuous and nice (in fact I still have friends that are virgins over 25), but there is a minority 15% that will only want the visa or/and dollars and will try to scam you. Can you tell apart a real nice girl from a shark?
    In any case if you are serious about going I can find one of my girlfriends to serve you as guide (not a escort or a date, I’m not a madam, just a local gal that will make sure to keep you out of trouble, show you the real city and get you better deals given that some people take advantage of the facts that tourists don’t know how much everything cost). So leave me your e-mail or give it to Susan so she can sent it to mine if you are serious about this. That is if Susan wants to do it, after all we are competition for all the women that seek his advice ;)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stephenie
      Haha, I’m always happy to play the wing.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Yuki
    That is an interesting point about how much is fabricated and how much is real attractiveness. Reminds me to something I read years ago that happened on the Victorian age or some other period where men were allowed to divorce women that were using padded clothing to “trick” them and they were very disappointed after the wedding night. I imagine things had not changed as much as we believe so.

  • VJ

    Also from LA one of the last men to leave the building. From Japan!
    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-cultural-exchange-20110306,0,3073333.story

    Cheers, ‘VJ’

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VJ
      Haha, my husband read that story out loud to me over coffee this morning. Those wild and crazy Japanese men.

  • pjay

    @Stephenie:

    So what country are we talking about? Los Angeles is, in some ways, a place all to its own, but I think we are talking about a “real” country…

  • ExNewYorker

    I suspect Stephanie, when saying LA, was referring to Latin America…

  • pjay

    @Ex New Yorker – tx.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Pjay
    Oh sorry yes LA is Latin American. I’m from Dominican Republic. Do some research and let me know if you are still interested. I’m really serious about it. Funny enough I do live on LA County I just moved here six months ago with my gringo husband (very happy except that this country is HUGE, too cold and people are…weird and corn flour is too expensive!) and trust me if I could help any of my country women that I consider good marriage material but not able to find good guys gain a husband and nice gringo boys here to avoid being lonely I’m totally down for it, In fact if you check out many men actually go to my country seeking for a bride and so far both sides are happy with their choices. :)

  • ExNewYorker

    And while LA (Latin America) has some benefits, it’s pretty clear that “Feminism” is making it’s inroads there as well. It’s maybe a couple of decades behind what it is in the States, but it’s getting there. There’s been large migration to urban centers, with a decline in family as the social force, and Catholicism has declined as a cultural power. So they’re on their way to our wonderful utopia of the modern SMP.
    .
    That being said, of all the regions I’ve visited, LA did seem to have the largest combined “percentage” of women who I would personally consider “marriage-worthy” (and please, I’m not saying any other places don’t have such women) and percentage of male cads.

  • AlekNovy

    Jess Said:

    Most guys I know socially are cool and together and far from bitter. They would go to to lengths to avoid outwardly bitter guys and would notmwish to be associated with them.”

    Hepsas said: 

    my reaction was, “geez, these guys sound like losers, I hope I never catch myself saying anything like that.” I think I’m pretty typical in this regard – I rarely hear anything remotely like that stuff from my guy friends.

    Ladies, you’re forgetting something – the difference between online and offline communication. These same guys don’t say any of this stuff in the offline world either. 

    Truth is this is how all of us guys talk when there are no women around. On the Internet men can say it to women, because of the anonymity the Internet provides. 

    The reason you think these men are outposts is because you’re comparing apples and oranges. You’re comparing how your male acquaintances talk offline in the presence of women to how men speak online under anonymity. 

  • Phil

    “Truth is this is how guys talk when there are no women around.”

    100% true. I didn’t even realize that for many women, this is the first time seeing how men talk with each other. For most men, this type of conversation is normal. It must be a real shock for some women. They have been sheltered in that sense for a long time.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Phil

      I didn’t even realize that for many women, this is the first time seeing how men talk with each other. For most men, this type of conversation is normal. It must be a real shock for some women. They have been sheltered in that sense for a long time.

      I’m wondering how guys handle it when they do start dating one person. Do they allow other guys to say, hey, high five, she has a sweet gullet? Or wow, her grip was the best I ever had! How do men transition within their peer groups to making this kind of talk off limits? Or do they?

  • Abbot

    “I’m wondering how guys handle it when they do start dating one person. Do they allow other guys to say, hey, high five, she has a sweet gullet? Or wow, her grip was the best I ever had! How do men transition within their peer groups to making this kind of talk off limits? Or do they?”
    .
    One major reason why men must steer clear of such women if anything more than sex is on the table. Bringing shame to himself, his family and future children aside, how will a man bond with a woman if he overhears “I hit dat” when out with her at a local eatery or store? The blame is not on other men since they had to make an effort to “hit dat” and therefore have bragging rights. The way to “handle it” is to avoid the circumstance altogether and that is actually easy since those “hit” type women represent a very small group.

  • OffTheCuff

    Not all men, I guess. I really never discussed sex “locker-room style” with other men my entire life. In fact, I was quite surprised to find out that my wife and her female friends DO talk about it. Not that I think it’s wrong, but because I thought I was held to a higher standard of behavior. Now that I know women have no problems discussing sex with each other, I’m not going to sit out and “be a good boy” anymore.
    .
    Just another case of when you “behave” you get screwed. Might as well wallow in the mud, because everyone else is.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OffTheCuff
      I think the discussion of sex varies quite a bit among individuals and peer groups. I have never discussed a sexual experience in detail with anyone except my partner. In my experience, women do tend to talk about frequency more than specifics. However, the promiscuous young women I know will immediately demand details re penis size, did he know how to finger, did he go down, what position, etc. They really put it all out there, like some big adventure. I suspect this is the reward that promiscuous women give one another – it’s a female version of the high-five session. But again, this may be something that differs depending on who you ask.

  • Wayfinder

    @Susan
    I avoid peer groups that are that crude to begin with, but yes, in my (limited) experience, the women who get talked about on that level are never considered for anything more…men typically don’t like the experience of other men knowing that level of detail about the women they’re in a relationship with. But if it’s just sex, its just keeping score. So, in my experience, the transition to seeking a relationship involves moving away from peer groups that have that kind of thinking.

    Note that most groups of mature men (of which I have seen many) don’t behave like that to begin with. In some senses, I prefer to hang out with married men, who seldom have any of the bitterness.

    Though I do need to point out that you are cross-contaminating from the other thread. The frank “male talk” that was being discussed here wasn’t the crude frat email but rather the male response to Hymowitz.

  • Abbot

    “men typically don’t like the experience of other men knowing that level of detail about the women they’re in a relationship with.”
    .
    Are women aware of this absolutely true and undeniable fact? and if so, do they care enough to not “express” their sexuality all over town? Maybe the attitude is that men will just have to accept all the “I hit dat” intimate knowledge thrown about town. Are women really this stupid?

  • Wayfinder

    @Abbot
    My guess is that they either haven’t thought about it or are just unaware of how much it affects men. Everything I’ve seen points to mixtures of cluelessness and narcissistism rather than malice.

    Here’s a question for the women: how does the idea of another woman knowing intimate details about your man’s sex life feel to you?

  • blackwolfj31

    I am honestly stunned by the attitude of much of the content on this blog. I feel that the writer is extremely anti-women — especially with comments about how dating, relationships, and women’s place in society is all about “getting married and having babies.”

    More women hold Bachelor degrees than men at this point. Women are realizing that they do not have to be confined to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. They are realizing that they do not have to be baby making factories for the male populace, nor do they have to put up with sexism any more.

    I think you need to spend more time researching high school to college age males and females to get a more accurate understanding of the direction society is turning. The way I understand it, you commented that you have not only been out of the dating scene since 1982, but you have been married for quite some time.

    It appears as though you’re out of touch.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @blackwolfj31

      I feel that the writer is extremely anti-women — especially with comments about how dating, relationships, and women’s place in society is all about “getting married and having babies.”

      Hmmm, I don’t recall ever saying that. Would you mind providing the comments you refer to? In fact, I don’t recall, in 450 posts, ever addressing women’s place in society. I think women get to choose their own place, and pursue their objectives any way they like. I’m just here to try and open their eyes to the real costs and benefits of different strategies.

      I think you need to spend more time researching high school to college age males and females to get a more accurate understanding of the direction society is turning. The way I understand it, you commented that you have not only been out of the dating scene since 1982, but you have been married for quite some time.

      It appears as though you’re out of touch.

      This is hilarious, as most of my time is spent researching the behavior of young people wrt sex and relationships. Additionally, I have two regular focus groups of two dozen college women. What information do you find inaccurate and outdated? Or are you just the typical snarky sex-positive feminist with no fact-based arguments?

  • Mike C

    I am honestly stunned by the attitude of much of the content on this blog. I feel that the writer is extremely anti-women — especially with comments about how dating, relationships, and women’s place in society is all about “getting married and having babies.”
    .
    Just curious, can you provide a single direct quote from an actual blog post that “a woman’s place in society is about getting married and having babies”? This is such a laughably bizarre interpretation given that Susan is highly educated with top-tier professional experience.
    .
    The problem with your “type” is you lack reading comprehension and read into any content that questions feminist dogma the intention to return women to the kitchen, and barefoot and pregnant. You see “patriarchal” bogeymen everywhere.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I really never discussed sex “locker-room style” with other men my entire life. ”
    .
    I did so in my younger years, with a level of shameless bullshitting that belied my betariffic inexperience. Also, good cocky-funny over-the-top sex wisecracks got people laughing to the point they no longer cared about the truth. Guys do a lot of shit-testing to each other, the subject of sexcapades is a big topic. Never let ‘em see you sweat.
    .
    I am not very good at being dishonest by nature, but for some reason I could sell glasses to blind people in the locker room when talking about sex I never had.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “More women hold Bachelor degrees than men at this point. Women are realizing that they do not have to be confined to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. They are realizing that they do not have to be baby making factories for the male populace, nor do they have to put up with sexism any more.”
    .
    Here’s the deal: it’s fine if you feel this way, but don’t let us ever hear you asking “where have all the good men gone?” or say you want a man to treat you chivalrously. (Despite all these degrees the polls show women are less happy than they’ve ever been.)
    .
    What I and many other readers are seeing is young women who are all about slutting it up and saying “I’m independent, I don’t need a man!”, until they decide they DO want to get married and maybe have kids, and then they pour on the bitter shaming against men for not being what they want them to be.
    .
    If you hadn’t noticed, one Kay Hymowitz just wrote an entire book dedicated to the double-thinking desires of educated women who do exactly this. She’s been pilloried from coast to coast, because the position isn’t tenable.
    .
    “It appears as though you’re out of touch.”
    .
    As a matter of fact, it appears that Susan is one of the only women writing on this topic who makes a decent amount of sense and gives congruent advice to young women.

  • Wayfinder

    It’s been my experience in all areas of life that the people who yell the loudest about ignoring what “the young people want” usually mean “what I wanted when I was young” rather than possessing any knowledge of what the youth today actually desire. This gets really weird when I get lectured by people who grew up in the sixties about how I can’t really want something that they don’t understand. (Classical music, to give one innocuous example.)

  • blackwolfj31

    Just curious, can you provide a single direct quote from an actual blog post that “a woman’s place in society is about getting married and having babies”? This is such a laughably bizarre interpretation given that Susan is highly educated with top-tier professional experience.

    Mike C, here’s is a quote from Susan’s blog that particularly bothered me:

    …women desire Alpha for a few days just prior to ovulation, in order that she may acquire his strong survival genes for her offspring. The rest of the month she prefers Beta, who is much better company and likelier to stick around.

    It’s from her article,

    First, this suggests that a) all women are attracted to men. b) all women have an internal desire to procreate. (i.e. the mythical ‘biological clock.’) c) so-called “beta” males are undesirable to women on the rag because of some “innate” preference for “alpha” archetypal personalities. This suggests that, as I stated, women’s place in society regarding their attraction to men is largely influenced by the “need” to have babies.

    I am particularly bothered by the terms “alpha” and “beta” when describing men. I like the idea of alphas and betas regarding male archetypes, but I think it’s impossible to apply these terms to every day men. In my opinion, there are just too many factors overlooked when lumping a man into one group or the other.

    So, when suggesting that a women physically desires “alphas” around ‘that time of the month’, I’m inclined to laugh. She is physically desiring a male personality archetype when she’s on the rag? This is a joke, right?

    And the other thing that bothers me, is when I was reading Susan’s article on penis size, I was completely on board with her because she insisted that a woman’s MIND has more to do with who she chooses for a partner than her “biological urges”.

    What happened, Susan??? It seems that, over the course of several months, you may have changed your mind about this.

    And no, I am not a “snarky, sex-positive feminist with no fact based arguments.” I apologize if I came off a little harshly, but I was pretty surprised by some of the content here. I respect you and your blog because you do tend to back up what you say with good factual evidence. However, this comment alone suggests that you’ve got a beef against feminists and/or women who just enjoy having sex as opposed to a committed relationship. I do see that you condemn men for the same thing, so is it that you’re against casual sex on the whole for both genders?? (At least you’re equal about it.)

    Here’s the deal: it’s fine if you feel this way, but don’t let us ever hear you asking “where have all the good men gone?” or say you want a man to treat you chivalrously. (Despite all these degrees the polls show women are less happy than they’ve ever been.)

    Badger, I am not asking “where have all the good men gone”, nor do I require a man to behave “chivalrously.” We live in a society where it should be common sense to be polite to everyone. Hold the door for an old woman the same as you would for an old man.

    I don’t think it’s fair that a man pays for every date. In my opinion, they should either pay for their respective meals/tickets/etc. OR each pays for every other date. I believe in fairness. Why should a man have to carry the financial load when women are now able to hold jobs and make good money?

    What I and many other readers are seeing is young women who are all about slutting it up and saying “I’m independent, I don’t need a man!”, until they decide they DO want to get married and maybe have kids, and then they pour on the bitter shaming against men for not being what they want them to be.

    How absolutely chauvinistic of you. As though there is not an equal number of men out there “slutting it up” and going through girlfriends like a sifter in water until they decide to get married…oh, I don’t know — two or three times? And they are bitter about women, too; make no mistake.

    Let’s look at this in equal terms. There are men and women who love to have casual sex; then, there are men and women looking for relationships. Society, on the whole, has historically been about men having sex whenever they please and with whomever they please, while women must be chaste, get married, have many children, and remain responsible for household duties.

    Why is a woman a slut and a “bad girl” if she has casual sex? Why is a man a player and considered cool when he has casual sex? You have been brainwashed by a male-dominated society. Culture still dictates, even in movies, that women have to give up careers for love, for children.. I just saw Red Riding Hood the other day and even though it’s a movie presumably taking place in olden times, the female protagonist was the object of male affection. Her only role in the village was to marry and have children.

    This is a message still being promoted by Hollywood. Females like Bella Swan from Twilight and now Valerie from Red Riding Hood always rely on their male love interests to swoop in and save them because they are unable to save themselves, for being so delicate and feminine.

    I suppose my point is that we must strive to stop this nonsense about women being inferior to men. I hope that Susan will explore feminist ideals in the future without a bitter taste in her mouth.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @blackwolf
      First, I said this:

      …women desire Alpha for a few days just prior to ovulation, in order that she may acquire his strong survival genes for her offspring. The rest of the month she prefers Beta, who is much better company and likelier to stick around.

      For more detailed info. on this biological reality, please refer to this post:

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/10/22/hookinguprealities/is-the-pill-making-you-choose-the-wrong-men/

      First, this suggests that a) all women are attracted to men.

      Yeah, this blog is heteronormative, but as far as I know all women experience a testosterone surge just before ovulation. If this process is different in gay women, I’ve not seen any research on it.

      b) all women have an internal desire to procreate. (i.e. the mythical ‘biological clock.’)

      Mythical? Don’t you hear the tick tock? Fertility drops sharply at age 27. That’s a biological reality. It’s true that many women do not want children, but human beings haven’t changed biologically in 10,000 years. Before birth control, reproduction was a given, and we still heed that call today, biologically speaking. Of course, we can override that with our brains, but I’d be amazed if you told me that you stopped menstruating when you decided not to have kids.

      c) so-called “beta” males are undesirable to women on the rag because of some “innate” preference for “alpha” archetypal personalities.

      It has nothing to do with personality. It has to do with securing the best genes for your theoretical offspring. That means strength, courage, risk-seeking, leadership, dominance. That is what we are programmed to desire, and the romance novel industry is just one example of that. Your body is carefully calibrated to test for these qualities in potential partners.

      when I was reading Susan’s article on penis size, I was completely on board with her because she insisted that a woman’s MIND has more to do with who she chooses for a partner than her “biological urges”.

      I believe I said – strongly – that women don’t really care about penis size much. To the extent they do, it’s largely a matter of cultural conditioning, and largely unrelated to the degree of pleasure a woman experiences during sex. It’s not a question of bio urges – I don’t believe that women are programmed to seek a large penis.

      However, this comment alone suggests that you’ve got a beef against feminists and/or women who just enjoy having sex as opposed to a committed relationship. I do see that you condemn men for the same thing, so is it that you’re against casual sex on the whole for both genders?? (At least you’re equal about it.)

      I do have a major beef against feminism, which I believe has created a sociosexual environment where only the promiscuous are rewarded. Sex-positive feminism in particular is completely wrongheaded, IMO. I don’t have a beef against people having whatever kind of sex they want, as long as they don’t try to recruit others to their political agenda or lie to get sex from someone who’s looking for more.

      Rather, I am focused on what is effective. For women or men who want relationships, casual sex is not the best strategy. The sexual double standard is another biological reality, and cannot be “taught” out of men. In addition, there is some evidence that people with a high number of sexual partners are much more likely to cheat and divorce. Finally, the number of sexual partners dramatically increases health risk – I’m sure you’ve seen the stats on HPV and genital herpes. For that reason alone it’s worth rethinking.

  • blackwolfj31

    I apologize for the formatting… I’m not sure how that happened…

  • Anon-E-mous

    Odd. I detect a spirit of unwillingness to review past blog postings. Did someone just break open a time capsule that was buried in the late 20th Century? ;-)

  • Jess

    Alec nova
    .
    Just noticed your post. It’s true we all speak differently in different situations. We all of us are perhaps a little more rauscous in same sex company and after a small glass of vino.
    .
    But no, it’s not true there are millions of men pretending to be nice, when in reality they are seething cauldrons of hatred against womenkind.
    My partner will sometimes tease me about my parking but he respects women as do the vast majority of guys. They also support maternity leave, rape laws, anti discrimination laws blah, blah because they are ethically sound.
    Does that stop guys making smutty comments about the bar maids? Nope
    Does that mean we moderate our behaviour to suit the environment we are in? Yep.
    It’s called ‘not being a sociopath’.

  • Jess

    Off the cuff and Susan,
    I think you are both right about how much women talk about sex now.
    .
    When i was younger anal sex, contraception, penis size were taboo issues. But now they are on Telly and in magazines so it’s normalised it. Women have always talked about details in the past 30 years as far as I can tell. It has got even more explicit though and even I am shocked by some of the details I hear from time to time.
    .
    There is sometimes a need for the phrase “too much information”.
    .
    Cuff- will you not find that blokes aren’t interested in forensic detail? Women may like all that minutae- not sure blokes will?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I don’t have a beef against people having whatever kind of sex they want, as long as they don’t try to recruit others to their political agenda or lie to get sex from someone who’s looking for more.

    I personally will add that I don’t have any problem with people engaging an any kind of sexual behavior they want for all the above but also as long as they don’t complain/mock/humiliate if I consider them an unfit partner for that behavior, if you can have the freedom to behave on any way you want to, you surely can concede the freedom I personally have to say “Thanks, but no thanks” tolerance goes both ways.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      if you can have the freedom to behave on any way you want to, you surely can concede the freedom I personally have to say “Thanks, but no thanks” tolerance goes both ways.

      Excellent point! It’s this last bit that infuriates feminists the most. Manwhores hadn’t organized as a group last time I checked, and there’s much less stigma attached to men obviously. I have had reports from men who regretted their past actions once they fell for someone who balked. I call this the social proof boomerang. That’s why women need to watch for “slut tells” on any guy they date after college.

  • blackwolfj31

    @Susan:

    First of all, I find it interesting that everyone who has responded to me thus far assumes that I am female based on my opinions. Second of all, we will just have to agree to disagree on this idea that women have an innate need to be filled with the sperm of alpha males.
    .
    Again, I understand that you’re blog is “heteronormative”, but that doesn’t erase the fact that homosexuality exists. In case you simply chose the wrong word, heteronormativity implies that men and women fall into two “distinct and complementary” genders with “natural roles in life.” This is where we are going to butt heads because this is simply not fact and I think the millions and millions of gay people throughout the world would beg to differ with you.
    .
    To address your comment that the “biological clock” begins to slow down around age 27, I say to you: many women now have the option to freeze their eggs. On the flip side, men can do the same with sperm. There are many methods besides the obvious conventional ones to have children. In fact, there are many couples out there who simply are unable to physically have children the “normal” way. What do you have to say to them? That they should just give up?
    .
    Furthermore, you aren’t simply saying that a woman’s chance of having a baby decreases with age (fact) you are saying that she has an innate urge to procreate (not fact) — the latter of which is an opinion.
    .
    That you believe feminism is responsible for promiscuity in our society is appalling to me. First of all, there are many schools of thought regarding feminism. Secondly, if not for feminists, you would not be allowed to write your blog, hold a job, or vote. It is a fact that more women were prescribed Valium in the 1950s for depression related to feeling suppressed creatively, socially, and culturally. Thirdly, not only women are feminists; there are males who support feminism as well. You would do good to recognize and accept this fact.
    .

    The sexual double standard is another biological reality, and cannot be “taught” out of men.

    That you believe men are inherently promiscuous and cannot be biologically “un-taught” to be this way is laughable. The only difference between men and women in this respect is that men never stop producing sperm; whereas women are born with their lifetime’s supply of eggs in their ovaries.
    .
    I have actually read your article on the pill and while I do agree that the pill affects women hormonally, I am shocked that some of your points subtly suggest that women should go off the pill. The pill is an advantage of our society; not a disadvantage — just like the condom is when discussing preventing a pregnancy. Both are more effective together than only using one method.
    .
    I concede with you about the number of people with STDs regarding the number of sex partners a person has, but there are preventative measures that can be taken. Furthermore, STDs and AIDs are much more prolific in countries WITHOUT the pill and condom. I.E. Africa.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @blackwolf
      We’re so far apart on so many issues, it’s probably not worth going down the rabbit hole to debate them. You’re new here, but I have often said that I have benefited from the Women’s Movement in many ways. However, I believe that the goals of the early feminists were fulfilled long ago. I also believe that the goals of feminism have warped over time to such a degree that they wouldn’t even recognize it. It’s become the refuge of snarky women who appear to despise men and want to have sex in as unfettered a way as possible. That is OK, everyone gets to choose their own way, but the sex pos media wants every young woman to follow the same path.

      As for the vocabulary around feminist sexuality, I won’t debate the whole heteronormative thing. Last time I tried people started throwing around terms like cisgendered instead of straight.

      The Pill ushered in an era of unleashed female sexuality, with many immediate benefits for women. The longer-term implications are far less certain, but certainly more complicated. The Pill does radically change your hormonal profile, something that males detect unconsciously. You undoubtedly saw the study were strippers made double the tips when ovulating if they were not on the Pill. I can’t imagine why you doubt the effect of suppressing testosterone in a woman (the sex drive hormone, btw) would have profound effects on her, as well as those she interacts with. This strikes me as common sense.

      Gender is not a cultural construct. It is a matter of biological differences.

      Re STDs, the only preventive measure for HPV is the vaccine, and it covers 4 out of 26 strains. Condoms are ineffective, as the virus may be transmitted via contact between thighs and abdomen. Re genital herpes, 75% of new cases are Type I (oral) transmitted to the female vagina via oral sex. Preventing that requires a dental dam – last I checked no one was buying those.

  • Abbot

    ” I don’t have any problem with people engaging an any kind of sexual behavior they want for all the above but also as long as they don’t complain/mock/humiliate if I consider them an unfit partner for that behavior”
    .
    The act of considering them an unfit partner for that behavior is, in the mind of a sex positive feminist, the most egregious type of shaming because it affects the happiness of women who seek long term partners. Humorously, they don’t quite know how to go about changing how men think; that is, without embarrassing themselves or appearing as if they are groveling for change.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The act of considering them an unfit partner for that behavior is, in the mind of a sex positive feminist, the most egregious type of shaming because it affects the happiness of women who seek long term partners. Humorously, they don’t quite know how to go about changing how men think; that is, without embarrassing themselves or appearing as if they are groveling for change.

    Very “fair” of them, they preach to heavens above how women should have standards, no accept men that behave on a misogynistic way (whatever that is that day, it varies) but men have no right to have standards of their own? Really?!

  • Abbot

    “…but men have no right to have standards of their own? Really?!”
    .
    Well, nobody actually likes being held to standards. Bur for some reason there are organized groups of women who proactively seek to shame coveted and highly-desired marriage-worthy men for holding women to a set of standards, most especially if sexual history is part of that mix. Why is that? Why is there such vehement opposition to that being on a list of equally weighted criteria? Even criminal history does not raise hairs! Is there something so unique, so personal, so political about a woman’s penile indulgence that is causing all this angst among women? Do they fell guilty about what they did? Are they ashamed of their abuse of access to casual sex, gluttony and indulgence? After all, indulgence and gluttony are not viewed positively and are a clear indicators of poor character.

    Its time to get to the bottom of this.

  • blackwolfj31

    @Susan:

    I did not throw around terms like cisgendered instead of straight. I merely suggested that by using the word “heteronormative” to describe your blog, you are suggesting that gays do not exist in your world. Please don’t lump me in with the other blogger. I’m just trying to understand your point. Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist and that all men and women are only biologically geared towards each other instead of the same gender?
    .
    Again, you are lumping all feminists into this box dubbed “snarky women” and I find a hard time believing Mike C, who has touted you as “highly educated with top-tier professional experience.” I do not find your answers to be top-tier or professional when you have a tendency to dismiss entire groups of people. What facts are you using to back yourself up this time? Because there are none to be found. Not all feminists are “snarky sex-positive women” — in fact, feminism is still very much relevant.
    .
    We do still live in a patriarchal society whether you choose to believe it or not. Women are still challenged in the work place the way men are not. Women still make less money doing the same jobs as men. They are still laid off and fired for having babies and being mothers while men are given raises when they become fathers. It is still assumed that once a woman becomes a mother, she must give up her career and be a stay at home mom.
    .
    And on the flip side, women do still have unfair advantages over men in areas like child custody and alimony. While I may not support the idea of alimony, I certainly would suggest that whichever parent does not retain custody of the kids should pay child support: male or female. Furthermore, I must also remind you that the statistical number of female to male single parents is completely disproportionate because it is statistically the male partner in a “heteronormative” relationship who tends to abandon his family. This is why there are still so many protective measures in place for women and children.
    .
    Sex positive media is not quite as geared towards woman as you believe. For example, the most targeted demographic in Hollywood are males, typically between the ages of 12 and 45. This is why you have sex kittens and fake breasts in your face whenever you go to the movies. Magazines like Maxism, Playboy, and even ones as “innocent” as Rolling Stone objectify women for male gratification. Pornography is marketed towards males, not females; it’s a biased industry that does not even seek to find ways to make porn that appeals to women. On the flip side, many women abhor pornography and see it as solely objectifying and wouldn’t even want to be marketed towards. But they don’t even have the opportunity to check out female marketed porn because it doesn’t even exist.
    .
    Regarding the pill, I think you misunderstood what I said. I never disagreed with you about the hormonal effects. My exact words were actually, “while I do agree that the pill affects women hormonally, I am shocked that some of [the] points [in your article] subtly suggest that women should go off the pill.”
    .
    What I disagree with is promoting the idea that women discontinue using the pill. Why? Because women are still at risk for unwanted pregnancies the same way men are. The pill and the condom are the two most easily gotten forms of contraceptive. It’s important to protect yourself, male or female.
    .
    Finally, I’m not sure why you’re bringing up STDs again. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are ways to protect yourself from them. It’s up to sexually active men and women to actively seek these methods of protection.

    Re genital herpes, 75% of new cases are Type I (oral) transmitted to the female vagina via oral sex. Preventing that requires a dental dam – last I checked no one was buying those.

    .
    Oh, I’m sorry. Last you checked no one was buying them? That’s simply not true. Allegedly, 8% of men and women know how to properly use a dental dam. This is an extremely low number considering; however, it’s still a number and people are still out there buying and using these items.
    .
    The problem with sex education is that many schools are still striving for abstinence education, which is detrimental to adolescents. More students are more sexually active at a younger age now and it is important to educate them on safe-sex methods as well as how to navigate their own bodies. Again, in the United States, one patriarchal nation under God, white men over the age of 45 are still spouting off harmful rhetoric about abstinence, anti-abortion, and women’s traditional role in the home.
    .
    If you still can’t see the obvious need for feminism in our society…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @blackwolf
      I won’t cover the ground already addressed by others to your comment.

      Are you saying that homosexuality does not exist and that all men and women are only biologically geared towards each other instead of the same gender?

      I won’t even grace the first part of your question with a response. As to biology, this is a question that scientists do not yet understand. As you well know, it is thought that genes play a role in homosexuality, but it is suspected that the dynamics are very different for gay men and lesbians. I believe considerable research is being conducted in this area, but I have not seen any studies yet. I suspect we will learn that biology got re-routed in some way, probably prenatally. For example, a recent study found that being on the autism spectrum was correlated to a strong surge of prenatal testosterone, leading the researchers to describe autism as “an extreme male brain.” This would explain why most people on the autism spectrum are male. Much more work needs to be done before any of this can be considered conclusive, but there are likely vast behavioral differences that can be attributed to biology.

      Re considering feminists “snarky”:

      What facts are you using to back yourself up this time? Because there are none to be found. Not all feminists are “snarky sex-positive women” — in fact, feminism is still very much relevant.

      I draw my conclusions from considerable personal experience, having tussled with numerous feminists in the past here. Also, a quick look at the comment boards of Jezebel, Pandagon, feministe or feministing will confirm that snark is the general MO. You may be a feminist who is not in the sex-pos camp, in which case none of this may be true about you. My experience is primarily in interacting with that group, although I did earn a denunciation from NOW for criticizing sluthood as a way of life :)

      I must also remind you that the statistical number of female to male single parents is completely disproportionate because it is statistically the male partner in a “heteronormative” relationship who tends to abandon his family. This is why there are still so many protective measures in place for women and children.
      .

      70% of divorces are initiated by women.

      Sex positive media is not quite as geared towards woman as you believe. For example, the most targeted demographic in Hollywood are males, typically between the ages of 12 and 45.

      The male market goes to see action flicks, not look at boobs in rom coms. They can get all the porn they want from the comfort of their own homes.

      Magazines like Maxism, Playboy, and even ones as “innocent” as Rolling Stone objectify women for male gratification.

      That’s true, but women objectify themselves for male gratification. This is rampant on every college campus. Furthermore, sex pos feminism has lent credibility to sex workers and porn actors. If women refused to act in these movies, and if feminists didn’t praise their “empowerment,” there would be no porn.

      But they don’t even have the opportunity to check out female marketed porn because it doesn’t even exist.

      Oh yes it does, I’ve seen it. ;) Also, many straight women (and apparently gay women too if The Kids are Allright is to be believed) get off on watching gay male porn.

      Re the pill, that is always a personal decision for a woman to make. I support informing women that the pill changes their hormones considerably, and that they might actually choose a different man while on the pill. As I recall, there was some research among marriage counselors who report couples hitting the rocks when women go off the pill to become pregnant and suddenly find their husbands less attractive. Of course, this must be weighed against other considerations. It is indeed a very effective form of birth control.

      Allegedly, 8% of men and women know how to properly use a dental dam. This is an extremely low number considering; however, it’s still a number and people are still out there buying and using these items.

      I agree that 8 is a number. However, the sheer magnitude of female college students presenting with Type I genital herpes is proof that 8 is a low number, which you yourself admit. In my own experience, when dental dams are mentioned, everybody cracks up.

      The problem with sex education is that many schools are still striving for abstinence education, which is detrimental to adolescents.

      I do not support abstinence-only education, but it belongs in every curriculum as a valid and beneficial choice. There is much abstinence and virgin shaming that goes on, both in high school and college. I did note that in the recent CDC data about sexual activity, the percentage of virgins climbed considerably. It’s not clearly understood why, but it’s thought abstinence education might be a factor. It’s also been suggested that people are growing tired of casual sex as the norm. I would argue that sex is detrimental to adolescents, especially women, though I agree that we need to keep kids safe in any case.

  • PJay

    We do still live in a patriarchal society whether you choose to believe it or not. Women are still challenged in the work place the way men are not. Women still make less money doing the same jobs as men. They are still laid off and fired for having babies and being mothers while men are given raises when they become fathers. It is still assumed that once a woman becomes a mother, she must give up her career and be a stay at home mom.
    .
    And on the flip side, women do still have unfair advantages over men in areas like child custody and alimony. While I may not support the idea of alimony, I certainly would suggest that whichever parent does not retain custody of the kids should pay child support: male or female. Furthermore, I must also remind you that the statistical number of female to male single parents is completely disproportionate because it is statistically the male partner in a “heteronormative” relationship who tends to abandon his family. This is why there are still so many protective measures in place for women and children.

    There are so many lies, inconsistencies and distortions in the above post, I hardly know where to begin. The above nugget is particularly noxious.

    Thanks for reminding me of the entitlement and self-deception that help keep American women single.

    For all the nattering here about social filters to identify “marriageable” women, men should always keep in mind that women are highly legally and socially privileged once they are married to you.

    You could be sent to jail from a decision in a court where rules of evidence do not apply, and the woman you thought was your ally will happily destroy your life and the lives of your children in the name of empowerment and entitlement.

    Until the legal context of marriage changes in the US, marriage is just a precursor to divorce and the poorhouse or jail for countless men in the US:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/nyregion/15divorce.html

    Remember Stephen Baskerville’s words, all of which are true:

    “Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.

    There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.”

    Thank you, blackwolfj31 for reminding us about the institutionalized bigotry that is the true context for marriage and divorce today in the US.

    Your post was a welcome wake up call, kind of like that of a redneck shouting “N*GGER” at group of black people having a civil discussion.

  • Mike C

    There are so many lies, inconsistencies and distortions in the above post, I hardly know where to begin.  The above nugget is particularly noxious.
    .
    Oh yeah, absolutely second that which I why I wonder if I am an idiot for even engaging this person.
    .
    Firstly, Mr. or Ms. Blackwolf, you seemed to bring up the issue on people assuming you are female so about you clear the air on that one. If you are going to bring it up, then it is only fair to state what is the case. Are you female or male?
    .
    The idea that we STILL live in a highly patriarchal society is so laughable. Bottom line, if society were patriarchal then you wouldn’t see 1/10th of the outcomes of divorce that you see. Nor would you see widespread acceptance that Tiger Woods deserved to attacked for his sins while women who cheat and leave their husbands are merely “following their heart”.
    .
    The canard about the pay gap reveals the intellectual ignorance or dishonesty of these folks. Studies have shown once you adjust for the lesser hours worked in many cases, or the time taken off and then returning to full-time work, the so-called “pay-gap” disappears.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Seconding the ignorance and indoctrination on @blackwolfj31 post. Really can you think for yourself or you let your “sisters” do the job? all I see if you echoing all the feminist pamphlet propaganda.

    Had you ever read all the data that show women doing equal or a lot better on many fields? Had you ever go to a men’s right group site that has data explaining the difference on payment? Or you just believe everything a feminist says and don’t fact check? I would like to see all the data backing up this claims, real studies. No to mention feminists are always fighting for high paying, safe jobs for women, did you notice that gender difference between trash pickers, just to use an example? Most of them are male and yet feminists are not parading on the street to get them to hire 50% of women that pick trash on the street. Indeed the inequality is grating.

  • testify222

    Most men are not “secretly seething with misogyny” or whatever because most men are chivalrous beta chumps who have no other choice but go along with the matriarchy, i.e. have “relationships” or get married just to ensure a steady supply of sex because he can’t get sex easily as a single man. Alphas and women can get as much sex as they want within the “sexual free market” and therefore they have the power to choose which people they really want to be in relationships with, unlike betas who are forced to latch onto the first woman who wants him just so he can avoid sexual poverty.

  • testify222

    @blackwolfj31

    re objectification
    Women are sex objects valued for reproduction (youth, beauty, etc) to men, and male entertainment (porn, etc) reflects this. However men are ALSO objects to women – relationship objects – valued for production (status, height, dominance, power, money, etc) and female entertainment (soaps, romance novels, chick-flicks – i.e. “female porn”) reflects this. Feminism is only really concerned with castigating men for their objectification of women, while celebrating women for their objectification of men.

    re double standards
    There is no double standard, but an opposite and equal standard due to the fact that men and women are opposite evolutionary designs. Men are the production gender and therefore need access to female reproduction (via sex). Women are the reproduction gender and therefore need acess to male production (via relationships). Promiscuous men(studs, alphas, etc.) and virginal women (good girls, madonnas, etc) have always been prized, whereas virginal men (i.e. guys who “can’t get laid”, betas, nerds, etc) and promiscuous women (sluts) have always been looked down upon. There are exceptions but generally these rules hold throughout human history.

    re gender roles
    Biology and evolution are the primary reasons for the typical gender identity and preferences of the typical male and female. That atypical gender identities exist (homosexuality, androgyny, etc) are simply exceptions which prove the rule.

    re social constructs
    If human reality (values, abilities, behavior, etc) is an arbitrary social construct then there should be no reason for feminists to want to change society; they can simply reconstruct themselves to like society as it is.

  • jess

    black wolf,
    I thought you made some interesting points and would probably side with you on many or most of the points you raised.
    You mention the biological double standard which is a ‘red rag to a bull’ of my own.
    All the evidence I have see is that women can be just as promiscious as men and indeed in some ancient socities had to be.
    Its only the last few thousand years that religion has forced an unnatural ‘chastity’ on women. I’m not saying if thats good, bad or neutral but thats th eliekly truth of the matter.
    And women wanting muscualr, tall, firm jaw lined, well endowed, aggressive guys is hard wired into their genes.
    This can be overidden due to the power of the human mind (my current fantasy bloke is none of those things) but as a rule its generally true.
    Not that many women lust after Danny DeVito. Charming though he may be.
    .
    Mike C
    .anther red rag thing ‘we are not in a patriachal socirty etc etc’
    Well- you give me the stats on global politiacal power, land ownership, money ownership, voting rights etc.
    The last data I saw put it at 95%+ male ownership in all criterea. Are you you sure its really equal these days?

  • testify222

    I should add that I highly prefer a society of sluts and promiscuous women. Now that women are independent/equal (and therefore have become their own man) there is no real need or reason for relationships, marriage, etc. It turns out that women’s liberation was men’s liberation as well, lol. My only complaint with the current situation is that due to female hypergamy all/most of the casual sex goes to the top 20% of men (alphas) and the rest of the men (betas) get little to nothing, and are forced into relationships and marriage just to survive sexually. There should be more outlets and options for betas (i.e. prostitution, virtual porn, etc ) so that betas too can be sexually independent and be able to make real choices if/when they choose to have a relationship.

  • jess

    black wolf
    Sorry- had meant to disagree with you on one point-
    Women orientated porn is the biggest growth sector in adult media.
    .
    The plots have more dialogue and the male actors are more handsome but theres plenty of commonality with old porn.
    .
    Close ups, penetration, all manner of activies etc.
    And a Bella survey said more than 60% of women in the uk have a sex aid. Thus I think women do have access in a way that was not true say, 20 yrs ago.

  • testify222

    @Jess
    “Well- you give me the stats on global politiacal power, land ownership, money ownership, voting rights etc.
    The last data I saw put it at 95%+ male ownership in all criterea. Are you you sure its really equal these days?”

    Men are the production gender. Economies, politics, technology, culture, civilization (i.e. production) are all outputs of the male brain. Women as a gender lack the ability to create these things – there is simply no use for them to since they can just use sex, babies and manipulation to extract them from men when they get “bored” of playing “independent”. IOW, production outcomes will never be equal, and the fact that they are unequal is not evidence of oppression, since women extract production from men via sex and relationships.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Men are the production gender. Economies, politics, technology, culture, civilization (i.e. production) are all outputs of the male brain. Women as a gender lack the ability to create these things – there is simply no use for them to

      For the record, strongly disagree but will let the comment stand. Free speech and all that.

  • testify222

    @Susan
    Are you denying that evolution selected for very different roles in men and women? Everywhere you look, from past to present, it is the men who take the risks and bear the costs to create the production systems neccessary for survival, and it is women who compete to attract these resources via their relationships (sexual and otherwise) with men. Women use their greater social intelligence and powers of manipulation (i.e. sex, pity, compassion, guilt, shame – whatever) to extract male power and resources. Feminism is nothing more than a wide-scale manifestation of this.

    Sure some women do have productive capacity equal to that of men. But women as a whole do not, and never will. Even if you took the smartest women and put them together they would not produce anything near what even a group of average men would. Because men are not just wired with productive intelligence, but also the social and emotional wiring geared towards production as well. This is why even dumb men are usually smarter at technical things and direction than smart women. It is about hardwiring and innate abilities. The differences between men and women are not simply cultural or physical (as feminists like to say) but really are psychological and emotional as well.

  • Aldonza

    This is why even dumb men are usually smarter at technical things and direction than smart women. It is about hardwiring and innate abilities.

    .
    I was going to say stop feeding the troll, but I guess every court has its jester.

  • Aldonza

    My only complaint with the current situation is that due to female hypergamy all/most of the casual sex goes to the top 20% of men (alphas) and the rest of the men (betas) get little to nothing, and are forced into relationships and marriage just to survive sexually.

    .
    The only reason a man would complain about that is if you were part of the 80% and not the 20%.

  • Aldonza

    Women are still challenged in the work place the way men are not. Women still make less money doing the same jobs as men. They are still laid off and fired for having babies and being mothers while men are given raises when they become fathers. It is still assumed that once a woman becomes a mother, she must give up her career and be a stay at home mom.

    .
    I’ve been laid off three times in my life. Two times as a nursing mother and once while pregnant. The people who remained were largely single people and men with stay-at-home wives. Even now, I deal with a boss who just doesn’t get it when I have to leave to pick up my children from daycare. He will play the “I have kids too” card occasionally, but he also has a stay-at-home wife who picks his kids up so he can work late.
    .
    My career lost a lot of traction when I stayed home with kids for a time. These are prime career years and it’s hard to make that up, especially in technology where only a few years out of the game puts you behind.
    .
    The fact is, women still bear the majority of the burden for children. It’s near to impossible to have a very demanding career and still be a primary caregiver. I think I need a wife.

  • testify222

    “The only reason a man would complain about that is if you were part of the 80% and not the 20%”

    Lol, of course, but that’s most men, and even those in the top often spent years in and out of sexual poverty as a beta before they became an alpha. Very few men (maybe 5%) live their entire lives as alphas.

    But yeah – alphas love them some feminism lol. For them life is like a non-stop porn flick, the fantasy that all men want, but that women only give to a few. This is why I suggest that men should only give relationships, marriage, resources, chivalry, etc – the fantasy that all women want – to only the upper 20% of beautiful women, and simply use the rest of the women for sex or ignore them.

    My point in that post was that unlike other average frustrated chumps (AFC) who have problems with the current situation – I have no desire to go back to the past, i.e to monogamous relationships. I’m not allowing some woman to extract my time or resources as they have from betas throughout human history while really desiring (and secretly having sex with) alphas. Once you’ve “taken the little blue pill” and know the truth about female hypergamy there’s no going back. Let women be as hypergamous and promiscuous as they wanna be and as they’re hardwired to be. The best strategy for men is to just try to get as much of that action you can, and if you can’t just beat it to porn hotties. IOW, men must go their own way. Much better than being the “relationship beta” who mows the lawn while his wife gets banged by alphas.

  • Passer_By

    “The only reason a man would complain about that is if you were part of the 80% and not the 20%.”

    You forgot to accuse him of having a small dick and being impotent.

  • blackwolfj31

    @Aldonza:

    Thank you for illustrating my point. It’s wonderful to find a sane person here.

  • jess

    Can I just ask if people really think the divide is 20/80?
    .
    I asked some younger colleagues a few weeks ago about this and they were suprised.
    .
    They recognised the ‘guy who never gets laid’ but their figures ranged from 50/50 to 90/10.
    .
    Is there conclusive scientific evidence its 20/80?

  • Mike C

    The fact is, women still bear the majority of the burden for children. It’s near to impossible to have a very demanding career and still be a primary caregiver.
    .
    Just curious, what would you suggest? I mean at some point, biological reality is biological reality, and I guess if you want kids, that may mean some life sacrifice in other areas. You seem like you have sufficient life experience to know we probably don’t get all of what we want in this world.

    There is always the option of not having kids and having the hard-charging successful career. Seems to me women come to a fork in the road and have to decide what they want out of life. Maybe in some fairy tale world we could give men uterus transplants and divide up child-bearing 50/50?

  • Mike C

    Can I just ask if people really think the divide is 20/80?
    .
    I asked some younger colleagues a few weeks ago about this and they were suprised.
    .
    They recognised the ‘guy who never gets laid’ but their figures ranged from 50/50 to 90/10.

    .
    Younger colleagues? Would those be women or men? If women, how would they have any idea? Secondly, a lot of guys won’t cop to this. It is obviously embarrassing and a source of shame. I hid my virginity from my 1st sex partner until she figured it out.
    .
    The answer is yes but I think it is a bit nuanced although it would be good to get some really accurate numbers. My guess is the bottom 20% is basically celibate. Maybe the next 20% get laid once or twice every few years. Then maybe the next 40% have some one-off encounters and get laid when they have girlfriends. Then you have the top 10-20% which is literally swimming in an ocean of poon beyond the mind’s comprehension.
    .
    My guess is alot of guys are either under 5 or over 15-20 because if you have the Game/Skills/Look to pull 10 then you can get to 20+ no problem.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    I concur with Mike C. A subset of men are totally celibate (voluntarily or involuntarily). For a large number of men, getting laid is a happy accident, either a woman making a decision in the moment that he benefits from, or happening
    .
    It’s probably about 20% or less (I would think 10% is more likely) of men who have real sexual agency – they can go get sex (or a sexual relationship) when they want it with reasonable effort.
    .
    But it’s not just about sex. It’s about sexual attention, and being desired. A decent number of naturals or guys with game (Athol Kay/Dalrock) are getting it from only one source. That doesn’t stop other women from wanting them. Only a subset of women are hot enough to be desired by most men (many other women do fine in that a relationship with a man yields a man’s desire for the woman he loves), and a smaller subset of men are desired by most women.

  • testify222

    Mike C and Badger describe the situation well. “Sexual agency” is an important concept here, meaning that you actually have a choice and are not just in survival mode. I think “sexual wealth” is also another key concept. Because women will see a beta in a “relationship”(really, he’s just with the girl to get steady sex not because he neccesarily wants a relationship) who is getting some steady sex from one woman, and then see an alpha that is getting banged by tons of different women – and women will conclude that both situations are equal because both guys are getting laid, and some women will even think that the beta in the ltr has it “better” because “he’s in a relationship” – which is what women tend to see as a utopia (but men do not). The alpha has sexual agency and sexual wealth – he gets to have sex with many different women (iow, his notch count is high) and the type of sex is the exciting no-strings slutty type of porn fucking (as opposed to boring girlfriend/wife sex with one woman).

  • OffTheCuff

    Exactly, testify. Compare two college men: a beta who gets very lucky and finds girlfriend and has sex two or three times a week, versus a player who has gets it once a week, but has a new woman every month or so and rotates between the others. Let’s further assume that since he’s so desired, he has no problem turning down all but the hottest women — he’d rather wait for the 9 next week than sleep with the 8 today.
    .
    The player has the choice, the options, the agency, and there’s no way the monogamous beta is higher status, other than in a woman’s mind. The beta has no choice.

  • Jess

    Well they were a mix of gals and guys but admittedly from work.
    I did put forward the theory and they said it was BS.
    .
    I did mention celibacy shame and under or over reporting but they seemed adamant.
    .
    I know there are guys that get hundreds of girls but didn’t think the other 80 percent were only getting laid once a year. It must be so frustrating.

  • SayWhaat

    and there’s no way the monogamous beta is higher status, other than in a woman’s mind.

    But isn’t status in a woman’s mind all that matters? :D
    .
    Furthermore, everything people say about P&D sex vs. emotional sex…there’s no way the two compare. Emotional sex ranks far higher, for both sexes.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    But isn’t status in a woman’s mind all that matters?

    No it only matters if earning that respect lead to sex. Men want others men’s respect, they want women’s “love”. At least that is why I’m understanding on the last posters.

  • SayWhaat

    No it only matters if earning that respect lead to sex. Men want others men’s respect, they want women’s “love”.

    Hmm…I’m inclined to disagree. My impression has been that men want women’s respect, and it is implied that along with that respect comes love.
    .
    A woman cannot love a man she does not respect.

  • Mike C

    Well they were a mix of gals and guys but admittedly from work.
    I did put forward the theory and they said it was BS.
    .
    I did mention celibacy shame and under or over reporting but they seemed adamant.

    .
    Couple of things. Firstly, and this is something you are apparently oblivious to despite my mentioning it along with others….I think you have to be EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL of people’s ability to be forthright and candid on sexual matters. There is going to be a tendency to lie for many reasons of which just one is to “be part of the group”. I can just imagine your conversations asking about this, and “Oh, such and such person said X, is that your experience”, and then that person says “Oh yeah, X is right” just because they don’t want to be heard disagreeing with the group. Here on the Internet, we are mostly all anonymous or close to it, and for the most part nobody give a shit about “offending” someone else so you get the straight scoop. That is why CONTINUALLY what you hear here from the guys doesn’t jibe with your self-selected sample of guys. In one case, you are getting unvarnished truth, and in the other “pretty lies” that someone is telling you who doesn’t want to offend your sensibilities.
    .
    I know there are guys that get hundreds of girls but didn’t think the other 80 percent were only getting laid once a year. It must be so frustrating.
    .
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahhhh. “It must be so frustrating” ROTFMLMAO. You don’t say, huh? The average woman simply has no earthly conception how difficult a task it is for the average guy to get sex because it is so easy for her. If you are a woman, and you’ve gone through a “dry spell” and decide you just need to get fucked, you go out that night it is a triviality to find some guy willing to bang you. For guys, the difficulty is many orders of magnitude higher.

  • Mike C

    Furthermore, everything people say about P&D sex vs. emotional sex…there’s no way the two compare. Emotional sex ranks far higher, for both sexes.
    .
    How would you know that? You are not a guy. Again, I’m willing to state uncomfortable truths. I won’t say far higher, but just different. There is something different…more meaningful…more special with someone you love. No doubt about that.
    .
    That said…and I’m just being honest…there is a feeling with a new girl for the first time that is a high. I’d bet 90%+ of guys who can be honest will admit that.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    That said…and I’m just being honest…there is a feeling with a new girl for the first time that is a high. I’d bet 90%+ of guys who can be honest will admit that.

    I agree with this. One of the phrases I heard was “The best Viagra is a new girl”

    That being said getting addicted to a variety of punanis is as bad as getting addicted to chasing Alpha men on the long run. That is why like Susan I think good women should be very wary of men with high numbers. I know that many guys do satisfy a need for punani and can calm down but there is no way to know which guy is really satisfied or which guy is just wanting the best of both worlds, steady punani at home and a variety of girls on the street. No to mention the amount of them that sincerely think they can settle down and finding out a few years on their marriage that the thirst can’t be controlled as they though.
    Risky people are risks regarding the gender, YMMV.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Stephenie

    “That being said getting addicted to a variety of punanis is as bad as getting addicted to chasing Alpha men on the long run.”

    .
    While these situations might be “equivalent” on some moral/theological plane, they are not the same! What Mike C., Badger, Athlone, and myself have been trying to explain, over and over (with apparently relatively little success), is that these situations are different. The average guy (in the “80%”) in NOT going to get “addicted to a variety of punanis”. He’ll be lucky if he even has access to one! Again, the Apex fallacy: the men who have that problem, the “attractive to women” sort of guys, they will more than likely be less amenable to “settling” for one woman. Why would they in general if they don’t have to?
    .
    In the past, the female propensity to be attracted to the alpha guys was mitigated by various factors: strong role of religion in society, strong family and communal ties (which would “shame” women and “threaten” rogue alphas) among others, but with those weakened, and urban anonymity, the hyperga-mouse has free rein of the cheese factory (thus the need for a blog like this one)…
    .

    “there is no way to know which guy is really satisfied or which guy is just wanting the best of both worlds”

    .
    Here’s some good links to help with that part:
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/03/07/relationshipstrategies/how-to-know-if-hes-the-type-to-cheat/
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/06/09/hookinguprealities/is-she-just-paranoid-or-is-she-getting-played/
    .
    Spotting players isn’t really all that hard. The problem occurs if you’re only looking for players who you think can be “turned”. That’s a much harder detection problem…
    .
    I’ll also second Mike C.’s last comment. Again, since a good chunk of men don’t have sexual agency, any sex would be good…

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The average guy (in the “80%”) in NOT going to get “addicted to a variety of punanis”

    Did you read my whole comment? I said men with higher numbers. I already know that the average guy doesn’t have high numbers. I meant the players only. Not average Joe.

    Spotting players isn’t really all that hard. The problem occurs if you’re only looking for players who you think can be “turned”. That’s a much harder detection problem…

    I will ill advise against even trying to turn a player. In the Neil Clark book he said that there are only 3 things on his experience that change people. Close encounter with death, a strong religious conversion or some time in jail (although I will argue that they usually change for worst, depending on the system) so unless the woman in question has a way to know this guy went through this. Is better to try and date guys that were not players at any point of their lives.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    In the past, the female propensity to be attracted to the alpha guys was mitigated by various factors: strong role of religion in society, strong family and communal ties (which would “shame” women and “threaten” rogue alphas) among others, but with those weakened, and urban anonymity, the hyperga-mouse has free rein of the cheese factory (thus the need for a blog like this one)…

    I will say availability was also part of this. I mean an alpha will have to get married fast and even if he could keep a mistress is harder to get them if they already have a primary relationship specially with a 9 or 10. So women had to readjust their hipergamy to second best and fast before he was snagged as well and keep adjusting till more or less everyone could had paired up. I will guess the fact that part of mainstream sells the idea that women have all the time on the world and that there are more fishes on the sea and better is also part of the problem.

  • filrabat

    If you really want to be a player (i.e. put pussy over principle), then you’re entitled to know what you’re in for:
    RooshV: The Dark Side of Game.

    Are you really sure a piece of ass is worth selling your soul for?

  • SayWhaat

    The average woman simply has no earthly conception how difficult a task it is for the average guy to get sex because it is so easy for her.

    I imagine it’s akin to finding an average guy to commit.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I imagine it’s akin to finding an average guy to commit.
    ZING!
    The truth is that we got men craving for sex and women craving for commitment and both genders angry over their lacks. Sad state of the affairs indeed. The problem is that women started this and they are the ones with the power to fix it, what I think is that they don’t even know this is war already. Mainstream keep selling the idea that men are swimming in privilege when far from it.

  • OffTheCuff

    I imagine it’s akin to finding an average guy to commit

    .
    No, and I knew you’d bring up this false equivalence here. A guy cannot go out to a bar and find a half-way decent girlfriend to commit to him, in a few hours’ time.
    .
    Please stop insisting that they are the same. It’s almost as hard for a guy to find a girl to commit to him, as you find for him to commit to you. I know your experiences make it seem otherwise, but *most* guys are not swimming in a pile of women, just leading them on, not needing to commit.
    .
    In short: Women can get sex easily. Men can get sex with great difficulty. Women can find commitment with great difficulty, and men can find commitment with… slightly less than great difficulty. Neither have it easy.

  • OffTheCuff

    I forgot to add: you don’t seem to see that the guys who dated you, and didn’t commit to you… they had to be rejected by few hundred women out to get that point with *you* in the first place. It’s not “easy” by any means. He is going through almost the exact same difficulty as you are, except… if he feels like casual sex he still has to work equally hard.

  • Mike C

    The average woman simply has no earthly conception how difficult a task it is for the average guy to get sex because it is so easy for her.
    .
    I imagine it’s akin to finding an average alpha guy to commit.
    .
    Fixed that for ya. :)

  • Mike C

    More seriously, OTC is right. They are not equivalent. I assume by commit you mean exclusive LTR.
    .
    You are going to have a hard time persuading me that the average run of the mill guy is going to pass up on fairly steady sex if it means exclusivity with a girl he really likes in exchange for trying to shoot for a harem/rotation. I don’t think the typical average run of the mill guy is that deluded to think he is going to get that. Maybe it is becoming a bit more common as I think Susan has specifically mentioned a few cases of this.
    .
    I think what is really happening is the average girl’s boyfriend bar is pretty high (not making a judgement about it) but once you are reaching that high you are getting to guys who have a number of sexual options so either you are bringing something really special to the table relationship wise or he won’t commit and continue to play the field.
    .
    This reminds me of something. Haven’t seen a comment from Florence in awhile, but I wonder whatever happened with her and engineer/flower/dinner guy. That guy would probably thank his lucky stars to have a steady girlfriend.

  • SayWhaat

    Maybe it is becoming a bit more common as I think Susan has specifically mentioned a few cases of this.

    I think the disconnect is that you and OTC are several years out of the current SMP. Rampant hooking up puts most girls and boys at a disadvantage – but the boys today have a better chance of scoring sex than you did.

  • SayWhaat

    Also:

    I assume by commit you mean exclusive LTR.

    Can we define LTR, please? I never assumed that being in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship in college automatically meant “path to marriage”.

  • Mike C

    I think the disconnect is that you and OTC are several years out of the current SMP. Rampant hooking up puts most girls and boys at a disadvantage – but the boys today have a better chance of scoring sex than you did.
    .
    Certainly a possibility as I was in college in the early to mid 90s. That said, what Athlone has consistently commented here would seem to refute what you are saying, and suggest that “scoring sex” is still a difficult proposition for many college men. That said, you sort of sidestepped/dodged my main point. It would be interesting to get more direct feedback from current college age guys, but not sure we are going to get that. If anything, I’d bet it is actually the opposite. I think in my college days, a 5-6 guy could ask a 5-6 girl out on a date, she’d say yes, and maybe something happens and a boyfriend-girlfriend thing develops. These days the 5 girl is hooking up with the 8-9 frat/football guy on a slow night.

  • Mike C

    Can we define LTR, please? I never assumed that being in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship in college automatically meant “path to marriage”.
    .
    Sure. Long-term relationship as opposed to fling. Not sure where the exact chronological cutoff is. 1 month would be fling and 1 year would be LTR. LTR doesn’t actually have to be exclusive monogamy as there are guys who have multiple long-term relationships.
    .
    I wasn’t assuming “path to marriage” either necessarily although that raises a problematic issue. First, define commit for me. What exactly do you mean by commit? Exclusivity? If not, then what exactly does “commit” mean? A certain time frame? (Obviously not) So the term commit is kind of a mealy-mouth word itself outside from the assumption the relationship might have some logical progression ending in marriage. What is it that I am “committing to”?
    .
    And here is the problem. I became exclusive with my current GF when I felt that at least the *possibility* existed that she would be my future wife. If the possibility is ZERO why would any guy with sexual options limit himself to just one girl. What would be the point? Why make that sacrifice? Now again, a guy without sexual options will likely be very willing to consider that option of exclusivity for steady sexual access, but then were right back to square 1 with the guys many women want to pass over automatically as sexual/romance/love interests.
    .

  • SayWhaat

    That said, you sort of sidestepped/dodged my main point. It would be interesting to get more direct feedback from current college age guys, but not sure we are going to get that. If anything, I’d bet it is actually the opposite.

    My experiences have dictated otherwise. Then again, I’m at a college with a sex ratio skewed in favor of (straight) males. Unless we get more college-age boys here talking, though, we can only speculate.

  • SayWhaat

    First, define commit for me. What exactly do you mean by commit? Exclusivity?

    Yes.
    .

    I became exclusive with my current GF when I felt that at least the *possibility* existed that she would be my future wife.

    Keep in mind that you started dating your GF at an age where marriage would have been appropriate. My assumption is not that marriage isn’t a possibility at any point down the road in a relationship; I just automatically assume that at some point, the relationship formed in college is likely to end, be it circumstance of time or distance (e.g., graduation). We’re metaphorical nomads up until a certain point when we can finally settle down someplace.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    I could get feedback from college age guys. Just have my husband do a trade chat spam in World of Warcraft, or I could ask in the other MMORPGs I’ve played. Although, no college-age guy will publicly admit to not getting laid. They will however readily accuse others of being basement-dwelling losers. So you’re not going to get a lot of good results doing a survey of random college guys.

    I do remember a specific case of a college guy who played WoW. He had the bitchiest girlfriend. He stayed with her regardless of her attitude, although once he did try to dump her only to take her back a week later. I think that sort of backs up Mike C’s theory more.

  • Mike C

    My experiences have dictated otherwise.
    .
    Just so we are on the same page here….you are telling me that you know for a fact that a decent number of the college age boys you are familiar with are getting laid on a fairly regular/consistent basis without having a steady exclusive girlfriend?

  • Mike C

    I just automatically assume that at some point, the relationship formed in college is likely to end, be it circumstance of time or distance (e.g., graduation).
    .
    Given that premise though…that the relationship has a finite timespan, why would any young guy who has options go for exclusivity unless he has moral/religious reasons for being sexually monogamous?
    .
    The sort of bitter irony that I think you are not seeing/don’t want to see is that if you really, really, really want a committed exclusive relationship at this young age where the relationship is on an egg timer anyways, you are going to have to move down far enough in SMP value to a guy who doesn’t have options. It really comes down to cost/benefit analysis.

  • Mike C

    I do remember a specific case of a college guy who played WoW. He had the bitchiest girlfriend. He stayed with her regardless of her attitude, although once he did try to dump her only to take her back a week later. I think that sort of backs up Mike C’s theory more.
    .
    Yup, the term pussywhipped didn’t just come out of nowhere.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The sort of bitter irony that I think you are not seeing/don’t want to see is that if you really, really, really want a committed exclusive relationship at this young age where the relationship is on an egg timer anyways, you are going to have to move down far enough in SMP value to a guy who doesn’t have options. It really comes down to cost/benefit analysis.

    Or she could try and date with marriage on mind. I mean how old are you going to be when you are done with college?
    Many people marry out of college or marry their college boyfriends/girlfriends. I always though that dating with a goal helps a lot to focus and really if you find a really nice and great guy why would you let it get away to try and go back to dating minefield?
    My conservative roots may be showing and maybe you want to play the field yourself, but as a woman you must know that each year is going to make it harder for you to compete with younger and very likely sluttier women unless you plan on hotting yourself up, with the money you will make, that if the career you are doing is going to have an available job at that point.
    Think about it, why would you desire commitment on the first place?

  • Mike C

    Think about it, why would you desire commitment on the first place?
    .
    I guess I am wondering the same thing although I think it would be helpful to stop using the confusing/ambiguous terminology. We’ve sort of established it really isn’t about “commitment” at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Marriage is commitment.
    .
    What we are really talking about is exclusivity until the expiration date of the relationship which is when other life plans happen. And then at that point, it really comes down to the fact that there will be guys who are willing to be exclusive and then other guys who at 20, 21, 22, 25 are simply not going to be exclusive. No chance at all. Question then becomes do you want to share a guy with other girls. From a certain perspective, a guy could have more then one “committed” relationship going on at one time.

  • OffTheCuff

    I think the disconnect is that you and OTC are several years out of the current SMP. Rampant hooking up puts most girls and boys at a disadvantage – but the boys today have a better chance of scoring sex than you did

    It may be marginally easier for a boy to have a hookup these days, in the sense that once he finds a single girl that does like him back, he probably doesn’t have to wait as long to get physical. But not in the sense that he has women that he can string them along indefinitely. I think you’re fooling yourself if you think either option is anywhere near easy. No average guy is swimming in girls today — the top guys sure are, and the average guy has it even worse than Mike and I did.
    .
    I tip my hat to you. By having some standards of NSBM, you are putting yourself in the same situation as an average beta male. You’re just experiencing what most men go through, except, with tons more dates and far less rejection. But still it’s pretty close in results.

  • testify222

    filrabat says:
    March 18, 2011 at 7:08 pm
    If you really want to be a player (i.e. put pussy over principle), then you’re entitled to know what you’re in for:
    RooshV: The Dark Side of Game.

    Are you really sure a piece of ass is worth selling your soul for?

    Choosing to look away from the “dark side” does not make it go away. Game is simply about understanding females as they are, rather than how society (past and present) potrays them to be.

  • testify222

    @Mike C, others,
    -
    Women’s perception and definition of what committment, loyalty and even a relationship is – differs greatly from how men perceive/define it. So even if women are technically “sharing” an alpha, they may think they are “really” the one he wants but that “he just doesn’t know it yet”. And other such rationalizations. This is how female competition works. Women see themselves as equal/similar to alphas, and interaction(even just sexual) with an alpha raises her status in the eyes of other women. So even if multiple women are sharing a few alphas and he actually thinks of them as little sluts/groupies/harem girls way beneath his level – they don’t see it this way, but more of an equal or empowering situation. To them sex with an alpha validates them as relationship material and social equivalence to such men. Also, remember that alphas tend to be players and good at hiding their true feelings/intentions to women, and so will just make her think he actually sees her as an equal or whatever.
    -
    Female hypergamy + male polygyny = rotating polyandry = de facto harems. It’s how we’re wired as a species. Religion/patriarchally enforced monogamy masked this reality. The fact is that we’re a matriarchal, polygynous and hypergamous species – not a patriarchal or monogamous or even serially monogamous one. Most men idealize sex with many women and most women idealize a relationship(committed or not) with an alpha male. But most men cannot easily gain access to multiple vaginas, however most women can easily have (at least) a sexual relationship with an alpha male. This means that the only men who (truly) can live the male fantasy of easy sex with countless women are alpha males. And this is why humans are descended from more than twice as many women as men – even with all of the authoritarian (and sometimes brutal) “monogamy enforcement systems” we’ve tried throughout human history.

  • testify222

    @OTC

    Also, while it may be somewhat easier than it once was for betas to get laid, it is exponentially easier for alphas to get laid by many more and much better looking women than the beta can. IOW, the gap – or relative sociosexual status – between men who are sociosexually “rich” and “poor” is far larger than its ever been and it will only become greater (we’re only about a half a century post-sexual revolution … really, only still in the early stages of female sexual freedom).
    -
    Unfortunately since we’re hardwired this way, there really is no solution, no way to really equalize the sexual gap between alphas and betas without doing something authoritarian/brutal/antithetical to the ideal of democracy. Best thing is for men to simply go their own way instead of following the typical beta path of relationships and marriage. Betas should learn Game to get as much of the action as they can, supplement with porn or prostitution (which should be legalized), etc. And most of all learn to accept the fact that most of us will never get to the top.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Mike C, @ OTC:

    ust so we are on the same page here….you are telling me that you know for a fact that a decent number of the college age boys you are familiar with are getting laid on a fairly regular/consistent basis without having a steady exclusive girlfriend?

    Not a regular or consistent basis, but on a basis more frequent than you and OTC are assuming.
    .
    Straight men are in demand at my school. My impression has always been that they never lack for hookups – should they desire a relationship as well, they are quickly able to secure one. I have known several guys (who are far from alpha, btw) who were able to have one or two girlfriends over the course of their college career. Most of my girlfriends have already stopped dating within our school out of frustration, and are dating outside in NYC instead. The assumption is that men here can get it when they want, how they want, whenever they want. Does that exclude the bottom 20-40% of men? Most likely. But that doesn’t mean that those men are necessarily relationship material, either.
    .

    The sort of bitter irony that I think you are not seeing/don’t want to see is that if you really, really, really want a committed exclusive relationship at this young age where the relationship is on an egg timer anyways

    No, I see it. Trust me. My parents are already urging me to look for eligible Indian doctors so that I can get married and pop out a kid by the time I turn 26.
    .
    When I said that I assume college relationships would end, I meant that I was acknowledging the very real possibility that it would. That doesn’t mean that if I were to get into a relationship, I would expect it to end. Rather, I would hope (and probably work very hard towards) making it work at all costs. Marriage would be a very real goal in any relationship – but at this stage in my life, as a 21yo, it’s not something that is weighing too heavily on my mind.
    .
    FWIW, if a guy told me that he’s fine being in a relationship with me, but has no desire for marriage or kids in the future, I would end it. If there is no end goal in sight then there is no point to continuing a meaningless relationship.
    .

    But not in the sense that he has women that he can string them along indefinitely.

    Please understand that I am not saying that boys who are able to hookup frequently are also able to string along a harem. The two are not equivalent. I am simply saying that the frequency with which a boy can gain sex has risen since you two were in college, and along with that so has his bargaining power, since women get attached very easily after having sex. In this SMP, the boys are calling the shots.
    .

    by having some standards of NSBM, you are putting yourself in the same situation as an average beta male.

    Please also understand that my virginity is not entirely a choice. I simply value it enough to want to have sex with someone I can bond and grow with. That’s going to be in a relationship – I am not saving myself for marriage. I also know that I get emotionally attached very easily. No sex before Monogamy, then, is the best way to protect myself.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    FWIW, SayWhaat’s description of the college SMP is very definitely in keeping with what I hear from other women and some men. Of course there’s a big difference between the alpha players and most betas, but it’s not true that 80% of the male college population is getting no sex. I’d guess there’s a lot more sex being had in general than 20 years ago – no big deal – and a large number of males have benefited. It’s not unusual to hear that most of the males on a dorm floor are hooking up with girls even as freshmen. Keep in mind that when it’s a question of sex with a stranger, there’s often minimal opportunity to even gauge social dominance. Decent looking guys do OK. Obviously, I’m not seeing this first hand – but I thought it worth mentioning that SayWhaat’s assessment is fairly typical.

  • OffTheCuff

    Please also understand that my virginity is not entirely a choice. I simply value it enough to want to have sex with someone I can bond and grow with. That’s going to be in a relationship – I am not saving myself for marriage. I also know that I get emotionally attached very easily. No sex before Monogamy, then, is the best way to protect myself.

    .
    I think that’s a great thing. Honestly, I was the same way as you at your age, can identify with it, and think you’re doing the right thing… for a female. The only difference is my attitude was borne of utter cluelessness; yours demonstrates a lot more awareness.

  • Mike C

    FWIW, SayWhaat’s description of the college SMP is very definitely in keeping with what I hear from *********other women******** and some men.
    .
    Well….we know from exhaustive discussion here that for the most part women aren’t even aware of their own personality sexuality so I am going to retain at least some skepticism as to their accurate gauging of the typical college male’s sexual experience. I’ll admit I simply don’t know how it is now. I know how it was when I was in college. I think Athlone would probably have a better sense of this then anyone here. I’m not sure Susan if you have his e-mail to contact to him to find out the average guy’s 4-year college sexual experience. I’d still BET HEAVILY it leans more towards famine then feast.
    .
    As far as 80% getting no sex, I guess in my mind getting laid maybe a few times in 4 years is closer to no sex then getting laid every single weekend week in week out.
    .
    I’ll admit I could be wrong here but I think the REAL DISCONNECT here is that the average women simply cannot fathom the average man’s sexual experience so they find it unbelievable. To steal from someone else “It is a conversation they cannot hear”.
    .
    Decent looking guys do OK. Obviously, I’m not seeing this first hand – but I thought it worth mentioning that SayWhaat’s assessment is fairly typical.
    .
    “OK” And SayWhaat says “more frequent then I expect”. Both of those are sort of fuzzy terms. Susan, if we were doing a business analysis or strategic changes, would we say profitability would be OK or higher then expectations or would we have specific profit margin forecasts. I realize we may not get these exact numbers, but without some sense of what the specific frequency and variety of partners is, I think we are all just guessing about the *AVERAGE* guy’s experience, and my sense is the female take is to still assume the top 20% guy experience is the defacto experience of all guys because the bottom 80% or really bottom 50% don’t matter anyways.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Please also understand that my virginity is not entirely a choice. I simply value it enough to want to have sex with someone I can bond and grow with. That’s going to be in a relationship – I am not saving myself for marriage. I also know that I get emotionally attached very easily. No sex before Monogamy, then, is the best way to protect myself.

    I didn’t wanted to mention it because usually people start to dismiss all my input/opinions they moment they find out (and maybe this will be the death of me on this blog), but I was a virgin when I meet my husband at 26. It was combination of knowing that when I started to have sex I will attach instantly (family wisdom most of my female relatives dated little and married usually to their first or second boyfriend and stayed married forever), plus is a good screen method for guys that are looking for commitment vs players (the second type HUGE majority on my country) the thing is that is a slow, painful and lonely method so that is part of the issue, I knew that it will take me longer and that I will spent a lot of Valentine’s day lonely, but on the upside I knew that I will get a quality male and I will compensate for all the years I was lonely and sexless and it will be totally worth it, and it was! Very robust sex life with my husband with neither of the messy situations that casual sex brings.
    No to mention that once you start having sex you will crave for it, so if you don’t have a steady partner you will have to invest time, money and energy on getting laid, very detrimental for career or other ambitions and you also have the risk of getting attached to a bastard and putting up with many crappy things because you will be missing/needing the sex (yes women can be like men about that too) and you will still want him. I saw many women doing that and it wasn’t pretty, it can scar you for life. Given that Indian women and Latin women are similar on this aspect is very likely that it could be the same situation in your case.
    So don’t be sad about being a virgin it can work out in the end to your benefit if you have the right attitude about it, YMMV.

  • filrabat

    @Testify222

    filrabat says:
    March 18, 2011 at 7:08 pm
    If you really want to be a player (i.e. put pussy over principle), then you’re entitled to know what you’re in for:
    RooshV: The Dark Side of Game.

    Are you really sure a piece of ass is worth selling your soul for?

    Choosing to look away from the “dark side” does not make it go away. Game is simply about understanding females as they are, rather than how society (past and present) potrays them to be.

    I think you missed my point. It has nothing to do with the myth vs. reality of female behavior. It has to do with telling people in this sex-crazed society – brainwashed with not just sex-positive propaganda but also abstinence-negative propaganda as well. Contrary to pop culture opinion, guy’s don’t have to go crazy if they don’t get sex. It’s also that it’s better for them to NOT compromise their authentic personality (i.e. their real, deep-down selves) just to get a girl in bed. It’s also that you’re NOT a loser if you aren’t getting sex or leaving a “legacy”. The REAL problem is society’s very arrogant attitudes toward people who don’t engage in frequent sex for any reason – even if by choice. Purging our culture of that attitude alone will eliminate at least half the “Dark Game” out there – and incidentally a lot of the “All men are despicable” attitude as well.

    And don’t bring up George Sodini, if that’s what you were about to respond with. Sodini’s problem was NOT failure to get sex by itself – it’s that he chained his self-esteem to getting a woman. IMO, it’s because he couldn’t see his way past the sex-positive, virgin-negative pop culture propaganda all around us – including the pseudo-science of Social Darwininsm, which damages our culture in many ways, not just the sexual marketplace.

    As you can see from my posts from last night, I’m far from being “on the market”, yet I’m doing perfectly well emotionally speaking. It’s because I was able to see past and break free of that propaganda. I’m by no means discouraging people from getting sex, lovers, relationships, families, etc.

    What I am saying is that if you try to be what you are not (feign interest in popular activities you aren’t interested in, or what you know your prospect is interested in, faking a personality, etc), you ARE selling your soul just for a piece of ass. Women will see through that fairly quickly and not only will you not get her, she’ll have less respect for you after meeting you. Also, I’m letting people (especially young men who happen across this blog post) know that there IS an alternative route to “getting laid” as a source of happiness – as you can see through a quick search of many posts on HUS.

  • SayWhaat

    So don’t be sad about being a virgin it can work out in the end to your benefit if you have the right attitude about it, YMMV

    Lol, I’m not sad about it. I’m more unhappy about not being able to get a relationship with a guy I care about.

  • filrabat

    @Testify222,

    Regarding my comment

    As you can see from my posts from last night, I’m far from being “on the market…

    ,

    Apologies, that’s on the We Could Be Friends post, starting here

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Lol, I’m not sad about it. I’m more unhappy about not being able to get a relationship with a guy I care about.

    I know I know, hang in there though. You have it probably a hard as I did. Before I meet my husband I meet a guy at 21 that I cared about but similar circumstances didn’t allowed it to happen and it was very frustrating . Do you have girlfriends on the same situation? Having a female ear to vent your frustrations is very good also I used to celebrate Valentine’s day/birthday having nice dinners with my girlfriends and watching a sappy romantic movies to get enough pheromones on my brain, so I wouldn’t feel so miserable and ended up dating the many married/committed men that used to chase me around when I was single.
    In this circumstances coping mechanisms are vital or you can end up really bitter and depressed, and we don’t want that. The thing about bitterness is that once you get used to it, is harder to try and get other better feelings in because it becomes a familiar feeling and humans are creatures of habit, so watch out for that.

  • Mike C

    Contrary to pop culture opinion, guy’s don’t have to go crazy if they don’t get sex.
    .
    Crazy isn’t the right word.
    .
    I think there are a certain percentage of guys who have low sex drives/tend towards asexuality. Judging from the totality of your comments, I’d think you are probably in that group, so basically removing yourself from “the Game” is a viable solution.
    .
    Most guys this simply will not work. Most men have are going to have very strong/powerful drives for female companionship and more specifically sex. There is no way to “will it away”. It won’t drive you crazy, but it will be problematic for your happiness if you cannot get female companionship and sex.
    .
    I think your recipe for most guys will fail and keep them in a state of unhappiness bordering on depression. I think it was Chico who really had the best recommendation which is do what you can to improve yourself in terms of body, and interactions with women, and then try to do the best you can.
    .
    A life devoid of female interaction, companionship, and sexual activity won’t lead to happiness and good mental state for the overwhelming majority of guys.

  • testify222

    @Filrabat
    .
    I sympathize to some degree with your line of thinking, but I just don’t see this as a practical path for most men today.
    .
    If game is applied correctly, it is simply about self improvement, not self replacement.
    .
    I don’t think society can be changed, as we are in a post-sexual revolution world and the genie (birth control, feminism, etc) is out of the bottle. Men can either choose to embrace the reality or not, but either way reality is reality.
    .
    As I’ve stated above, men should simply choose to go their own way and either take the alpha/player path (just use women for sex) or the omega path (just drop out and avoid women – which is what you seem to be doing). What should be avoided at all costs is the beta path (of marriage and relationships) which is the path that keeps men enslaved to the matriarchy.

  • testify222

    @Susan

    but it’s not true that 80% of the male college population is getting no sex.

    .
    Only omegas at the very bottom are getting absolutely no sex. The top 20% the men hold 80% of the sociosexual wealth pie and that the bottom 80% of the men divvy up the remaining 20%. IOW, betas do get laid but with far fewer women, much longer dry spells, less pretty/young/hot women, far less flings/exciting sex, with much greater difficulty to attain, and often far greater commitment level required to get steady sex – than do alphas. Mike C, OTC and I described the various sociosexual “wealth brackets” above in detail.

  • filrabat

    While it is true that a typical 20-something man’s sex drive is high, and it’s true that (near-asexuals aside) it’s not possible to “will away”….it’s also true that the current cultural attitudes can make that typical man’s problems worse – namely by injecting into his mind the meme that “female approval” and “ability to get laid” are the main yardsticks by which he should judge himself. Currently, the only major counter-memes to this message come from the religious communities –which is great if you already are truly religious in the first place. Fortunately, a group of Harvard students started a non-religious alternative a few years ago: True Love Revolution (link totheir blog ). Plus, a great NYT Article about the TLR. I think this is a great model for countering the harmful memes that even equate low to no sex with “unworthiness”. That takes care of the “getting laid” part, I admit it doesn’t take care of the female companionship part.

    Consider the following items.

    Let A = Failure to obtain female companionship
    Let B = Unhappiness, misery, depression, etc
    Let C = Cultural Attitude taking an arrogant attitude toward people (especially men) not having female companionship

    A often does correlate with B, but as they say correlation does not prove causation. It doesn’t disprove the connection of course but it’s still premature to say A causes B. The table of possibilities are:

    (1)A causes B; (2)B causes A; (3)both A and B are caused by an underlying C; (4) C and A cause B; (5) C and B cause A.

    All of the scenarios are theoretically possible. Yet, “game” and popular culture in general stress (1); (2) I can see most people (especially women) thinking this; the latter three are practically undiscussed as serious possibilities, or even well outside mass-public awareness! Here’s what I propose:
    A causes B, to the extent that C exists in a large segment of society, and likewise for B causing A.


    RE: Game itself

    Some forms of “Game” are good for inspiring self-improvement IF they “Game” concentrates on concentrate solely on helping the man grow as a person BEFORE he seeks out sex. Even here, “Game” itself practically always carries the unspoken but obviously present undertext of “learning success in order to find a woman so you can join the ‘normal’ men out there who are getting at least a non-shameful quantity of sex too”, rather than learning success for its own sake. While I see a place in “Good Game” for that message (minus the “so you can join..” part), “Good PUAs”, so to speak, should promote that as only one of many other improvements available to men. Central among these improvements is finding true peace of mind on the individual’s own terms, NOT on the terms of what mainstream society says is an “improvement”. After all, for all the young men’s strong sexual desire, it’s still the case that there’s things in this world bigger than having sex or being in a relationship – and peace of mind is one of them. Surely women find these men more attractive than men who are an emotional mess!

    To effectively repeat myself, “Good Game’s” real purpose should be to help men find their own authentic selves so they will be more happy, more confident, and have overall more self-esteem in spite of their lack of success with women – NOT so they can get them! Then, they can concentrate on discovering what really makes them happy outside sex and relationships – so they can devote their attentions to those activities enough to take their minds off sex and be more substantively productive and sustainably happy — which will make them MORE attractive to women.

  • Abbot
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot
      Awesome link to “Gender equality inhibits arousal.” It’s perfect for a post I’m working on, thanks!

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Awesome link to “Gender equality inhibits arousal.” It’s perfect for a post I’m working on, thanks!

    Heh you should see what the Jezzies said about that?! They were Stark Raving Mad and telling tales of their hot sex lives with submissive males but they hate that psychology today, nyway so not a surprise

  • udolipixie

    @Badger
    “The Slut Wife’s subtitle is awesome: “my husband is happier than yours.” Wouldn’t it be wonderful if women competed more over who has the happiest husband/boyfriend instead of who has extracted the most resources from him?”
    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if men competed more over who has the happiest wife/girlfriend instead of who has the most attractive one/more sex?
    It’s a biological reality. Men & women desire different things and rank them of different importance. You can’t unlearn biology.

    @testify222
    “Even if you took the smartest women and put them together they would not produce anything near what even a group of average men would. ”
    No just no. Even in a minor procedure I’d prefer a female doctor than some average joe hacking at me.

    @StephanieRowling
    “That is why like Susan I think good women should be very wary of men with high numbers.”
    Actually good women should be very wary of men with high numbers& men bitter that they don’t have high numbers

    “Is better to try and date guys that were not players at any point of their lives.”
    Better not to try & date guys who wanted to be players at any point in their lives. That however is impossible. Generally speaking most guys are players, admire players, want to be players, or looking to be a player. Testify222 is evidence of this since most males (betas) only give commitment to get steady sex & would prefer the player lifestyle “as opposed to boring girlfriend/wife sex with one woman.”

    @MikeC
    A life devoid of female interaction, companionship, and sexual activity won’t lead to happiness and good mental state for the overwhelming majority of guys.
    It will if they are not seeking genuine interaction, companionship, and sexual activity. For interaction they can use pua tactics & go bar hopping. For companionship & sex (repetitive since companionship really just means sex) there’s friends with benefits, pumps & dumps, no strings sex and booty calls.

    So really it’s a life devoid of sex for a heterosexual non asexual male that is negative & since sex is a commodity if the males have the money they can buy it.

  • the super enigma

    @Athlone McGinnis

    I think the gender relations in the USA may be more toxic because there is a tendency to go extreme in American culture.

    For example, look at the high incidence of veganism in many colleges there, especially art colleges. You don’t get that in Europe. It shows that you can’t just be liberal, you’ve got to be a liberated vegan feminist stereotype.

    And you can’t just be Christian, you have to be a fundamentalist Bible thumper.

    You can’t just excercise well, you’ve got to be a fitness freak!

    And then there is Libertarianism.

    In other countries I think people are a bit more moderate with everything.

  • Bill

    This topic is interesting. I believe American men are increasingly opting out of the American dating and marriage market and simply dating and marrying foreign women, or at least immigrants with different cultural values. The data support this view. It is true that most American men still do date and marry American women, but you will find them increasingly opting out. American women try to convince themselves it’s because American men don’t want equality and/or want a submissive wife. Truth be told, the issue is not one of equality but of entitlement. American culture has ingrained its women to believe they are all princesses and entitled. They want equality in the workforce but not in the social or dating scene. And many frankly have unattractive personalities with vulgar language.

    My own personal experience has been the following. I am a white, American male in the US with a PhD in biochemistry and now faculty member at a prestigious American university who earns a great salary. I am extremely athletic and at least a head taller than most American females. After traveling to Asia, it was a breath of fresh air and very refreshing. Attractive, thin, educated women were actually nice! And one need not apologize or feel guilty about being a MAN in Asia like one does in the US. What a revelation! After years of dating American women, I simply opted out and married a wonderful Chinese immigrant who I met while getting my PhD. Our first baby is expected this June. My advice for American men is I feel rather sorry for you because the cards are against you. It’s not your fault or even the women’s fault, it’s your society’s fault that has brainwashed you into believing your life is worth less than a woman’s. I urge American men who have dating problems to opt out of the US market and date and marry foreigners. It worked for me.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Bill

      Thanks for sharing your experience – you’re not alone, several regular commenters here have followed the same strategy. I do have one question – you mention that there’s data that supports the men marrying foreign women trend. Can you cite a source? I have never seen any, and I think it would be very interesting to write about.

  • http://www.tipthedriver.com adam

    It’s just seriously depressing that in today’s society, in America anyway, that women seem to be materialistic, and looking for men to pay for everything, while claiming to want equality. Even with pay. Most of the women I’ve asked have said they won’t date a man who doesn’t make as much or more than they do. They have needs, a certain lifestyle they expect to be able to live. That’s funny, because when women didn’t have equality, men were supposed to pay for their whims. Now that they have equality, and are often making more, men are STILL supposed to pay for that lifestyle. I actually have to date according to income. How sad is that? Years ago I dated a woman who made easily ten times what I was making, but that happened once in my life. I’ve been with a few girls who made as much, but once they wound up making more, things got ugly quickly. They raised their standard of living, and I couldn’t keep up, so it was time to move on. Women want to be treated as equals, but don’t want to treat us that way. It’s just sad. A lot of these girls wind up posting about the jerks they’re with, but seeing as how they rejected all the nice guys along the way, maybe they’re the jerks they deserve.

  • dave

    Ms. Walsh- In response to your question,I believe that there is a government source for figures that there are about 12,000 marriages per year between American men and foreign nationals, up from the 6,000 or so we would see throughout thelate nieneties and early 2000′s.
    Even though the “IMBRA” legislation stopped a number of American based companies from doing international “matchmaking”, there are more “romance tours” available now eher guys take group flights abroad to meet women.

  • HowTrue

    first of all, there are certainly not that many good women left to really meet anymore. and all the good ones are now taken, or so it seems.