Have We Had Enough Feminism Yet?

June 8, 2011

From Marginal Revolution, The Great (Male) Stagnation, with two sobering graphics:

 

WHY? Economists can’t explain it, it’s still a matter of conjecture. Alex Tabarrok’s thoughts:

  • The big difference between female and males as far as jobs, of course, has been labor force participation rates, increasing strongly for the former and decreasing somewhat for the latter. Most of the female change, however, was over by the mid to late 1980s, and the (structural) male change has been gradual.
  • Female education levels have increased dramatically and male levels have been relatively flat.
  • Females are also more predominant in services and males in manufacturing: plumbers, car mechanics, carpenters, construction workers,  electricians,  and firefighters, for example are still 95%+ male.
Why should you care? Because you want to marry a man who earns at least as much as you do, if not more. Who reads the same books, enjoys the same movies and craves the same foods. Lifestyle and interests reflect disposable income and education. If you can’t find that, you’re much, much less likely to marry.

The “Great Male Stagnation” is an enormous threat to our way of life. Relationships and marriage will suffer if we do not remedy it. No society can thrive if its men fail. Obviously.

  • GudEnuf

    Because you want to marry a man who earns at least as much as you do, if not more.

    This is exactly the attitude feminists are trying to fix.

    Like I’ve said before, if a woman wants to be a high earner, she should find a beta male who will support her in the role. The same way high earning men have SAHM’s do make their jobs easier.

  • VI

    Add in the fact that males are treated as second class citizens from birth to death. All of these special outreach programs, none of them target males. We always here how more females are needed in X, Y and Z. Males are the reason X, Y and Z even exist.

  • GudEnuf

    The graph is misleading if you look at it too fast. The median male income is still higher than the median female income. The graph looks like it says women are earning more, but what it’s actually saying is that the ratio Women2010 to Women1947 is higher than Male2010 to Male 1947.

    In other words, female income is rising faster than male income, which is to be expected since women are playing catch up. Men still earn more though.

  • @Gud Enuf
    A high earning woman, e.g. law partner, will only happily marry a lower earner if he’s her intellectual equal, e.g., a history professor at Georgetown (I know this couple). Yes, Tina Fey’s husband takes care of the kids, but he’s a mover and shaker himself. She didn’t marry a guy who never went to college.

    We’ll see more and more women “settling” but I think many of those marriages will go belly up. Humans prefer to mate with people of similar “qualifications.”

    Feminism is trying to “fix” that which is immutable.

    Women are not just “catching up.” Economists, academics, and even policy makers are alarmed by the male stagnation. I’ve even heard the hand-wringing on NPR. (One lefty said we should encourage men to become home health aides, nursing home workers, elementary school teachers, etc. As if women are not celebrating not being limited to those choices anymore.)

    Women are surpassing men. Denying this is willful ignorance.

  • Thank you for addressing this issue Susan.

    You’re doing what Kay Hymowitz failed to do – dig deeper.

    I have a sneaky suspicion that guys will respond warmly to this post and that the female commentariat will just stick their fingers in their ears and say “la la la!”

    I am a man of very modest means and its no co-incidence that my two serious relationships have both been with women whose means were even more modest than my own.

    Why?

    Because those women would consider going out with me long-term and other women just wouldn’t. Hypergamy isn’t going away.

    For the career girls who ask “where are all the single guys?” I’ll tell you:

    1. They are dating attractive women with lower socio-economic status than yourself.

    2. They are stacking the shelves at Walmart or making your latte in Starbucks.

    3. They are unemployed (thank you Central Bankers – you suck!)

  • NickyG

    I live comfortably paycheck to paycheck. That’s why I’ll probably never get married.

  • GudEnuf wrote:

    In other words, female income is rising faster than male income, which is to be expected since women are playing catch up. Men still earn more though.

    Men AT THE TOP are still earning more.

  • Seymore

    Women are surpassing men. Denying this is willful ignorance.

    That’s the intent. Women have such significant advantages granted to them in employment, education, and social policy generally that their predominance is all but guaranteed. It’s surprising that men aren’t further behind. If work force participation and work hours were equivalent, the divide would probably be quite dramatic.

    I’m a big fan of women, but I do worry that we’ve set up a self driving dynamic between the interests of women and the state. That is, government privileges women and women endorse the ambitions of government. So in any competition between males and females, there is a tendency for women to seek government intermediation knowing that this will benefit their interests.

  • SayWhaat

    @ VI:

    All of these special outreach programs, none of them target males.

    Actually, college admissions are admitting less-qualified male applicants over more-qualified female applicants because male applicants are rarer and therefore more valued: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html

  • GudEnuf

    Workshy Joe:

    Men AT THE TOP are still earning more.

    Do you know what “median” means?

  • bsg

    adjust income to income/hours worked and the gap closes significantly

    additionally, these numbers are from all ages. women from ages 18-30 are making more money than men at the same age range.

  • Very interesting. I would like to see that data explained, which professions, which numbers, which genders, etc.

    And how much of that number goes to alimony / child support

  • subscribed

  • Clarence

    GudEnuf didn’t apparently even read her own link.
    And the median wage will always depend on the dataset used to calculate it.

    Once again: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/03/us-workplace-women-idUSN0334472920070803

    There are a heck of a lot of women living in, or near, large US cities (In the US , “large city” is often defined as 100 thousand or above with Metropolis or “Major” city status being obtained at either 500 thousand or 1 million depending).

    Now I might say that hypergamy is a bit misunderstood as well: it doesn’t always have to do with earning more or having a higher status job, but those certainly help. And to the extent that women prefer more successful partners for marriage or ltr’s this is (as the inner cities show) and will be a problem for the larger society.

    • @Clarence

      GudEnuf didn’t apparently even read her own link.

      GudEnuf is our resident male feminist. He’s a very good sport.

  • I’d not seen these stats before Susan, thanks so much for posting. Women in the 20’s – 30’s now out-earn their male contemporaries & the education gap has been widening for decades, as was recently reported:

    http://triggeralert.blogspot.com/2011/05/education-gap.html

  • Im curious what effect the at-home coddling of girls has on this as well. Very rarely do I meet or date a girl who is working her way through school, yet I know (and was one of) many young men who go to school full time and work full time. Most of the girls in their early 20s that I’ve dated all had their schooling paid for by parents, and even the men that I do know who’s parents are paying for their schooling are still required to work full time as part of the deal.

    I’ve known a lot of guys who dropped out of higher education because it became to much for them, where females are having schooling handed to them more readily.

    Shit jobs will always have to be done, the big issue seems to be the guy changing your oil “needs to step up” while the girl serving your coffee is patted on the back for “being a working woman”

    • @Chad Daring

      Im curious what effect the at-home coddling of girls has on this as well.

      Our society has been coddling girls for a full generation. The whole “Reviving Ophelia” movement sought to redress perceived inequalities between girls and boys in school, so they threw all the ballast to the other side of the boat, and whooops a bunch of boys fell out. Girl Power is so robust the girls themselves can’t even handle it. We now have the “sex as empowerment” scheme, girl on girl bullying like never before, every girl born after 1985 believing that she is a “unique and special person destined for great things.”

  • Do you know what “median” means?

    Do you realize how bullshit “median” is when talking about how much people are getting paid?

    One million dollar a year executive (Bill Gates) can swing the average heavily. Take one bill gates and 19 $8/hr McDonalds employees and you’d get an average of 65k/yr

  • bsg

    median is not the same thing as average (mean)

    median lines up all data points and pulls out the middle point

    so take a mcdonald’s employee at $8/hour, his manager for $16/hour and bill gates, and the median would be the manager.

    but again, the numbers are simply aggregate incomes. they do not account for number of hours worked. more men work full time and overtime than women, and that accounts for more than half of the supposed income gap.

  • boru

    “Do you realize how bullshit “median” is when talking about how much people are getting paid?

    One million dollar a year executive (Bill Gates) can swing the average heavily. Take one bill gates and 19 $8/hr McDonalds employees and you’d get an average of 65k/yr”

    So you don’t know what median means.

  • As Workshy Joe says *men at the top* still make more. This is a trend of the lower and middle classes; the people with power aren’t affected very much, so nothing will change.

  • GudEnuf wrote:

    Do you know what “median” means?

    Yes.

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

    But you still insist on sloppy ambiguous phrasing such as “men earn more”?

  • I’m still waiting for a female commenter to say something like this:

    “Yes. You’re right Susan. That’s true. Professional women and working-class men will have a hard time finding suitable long term partners and current demographic trends are making this worse all the time.”

    I think I might have to wait a while for that to happen 😉

  • Höllenhund

    If you can’t find that, you’re much, much less likely to marry.

    Maybe I’m just too malicious, Ms. Walsh, but the vibe I’m often getting from nominally anti-feminist, quasi-conservative women like yourself is

    “due to feminist policies, society no longer trains young men to be dutiful, well-earning providers + protectors, so we should do something to remedy this because otherwise we won’t get the the boyfriends and husbands we want and deserve”

    instead of

    “we should help men thrive in our society because they are our fellow human beings whom we care about, who deserve respect, fairness and opportunities just like everybody else”.

    It seems to me your concerns are entirely…self-serving. You only care about the condition of men at all because you want to encourage them to effectively fulfill the roles you want from them.

    • @Hollenhund
      Yes, you are too malicious. Please give that some more thought. And I’d appreciate your losing the shaming language: nominally, quasi, etc.

      Here’s what you need to understand: I am in the persuasion business. I am selling a vision. What Would Jesus Do? is not an effective sales strategy. I hope that I regularly represent the principle that all human beings deserve respect, fairness and opportunities. However, none of those things come to us magically. Respect must be earned. Fairness is often lacking throughout society, and we are required to stand up and shout when we see injustice – even then we will differ in terms of what we believe is fair. Opportunities are a function of timing, luck, hard work and natural talent.

      I am appealing to women with an argument that offers an incentive to overturn feminism – to vote against it, to deny funding to it, to say bad things about it at dinner parties. “Be good” will not catch the ear of my audience. They’ve most of them heard it every week from ministers, priests and rabbis.

      Appealing to other concerns strikes me as more likely to provoke real thought.

      1. Personal fulfillment – if you don’t care about what’s happening to men, there won’t be any for you to marry. This is analagous to – if you don’t care about the planet, it won’t be here for your descendants. If you don’t fund breast cancer research, you will regret it when you are the 1 in 7 who gets it. Etc.

      2. Society’s welfare – This includes the economy, the institution of marriage, the family. All are at risk if our men do not thrive. I’ve implied that society might even collapse if we continue on this same path.

      For the record, I also tell women that if they slut it up they won’t find men to marry. My goal is to promote understanding between the sexes, in hopes of bridging the gap between your precious male 80% and the corresponding female 80%. Yeah, yeah, I know. You’ve told me many times I’m pissing in the wind. I guess I’ll keep at it until the wind shifts and sends the piss right back into my face.

  • Anonymous

    Oh no… this article really hits home. I am a 26 year old recently admitted lawyer and although getting guys is actually pretty easy, finding quality ones that will stick around is unbearably difficult lately. Guys get weird when they find out…most are very surprised.
    It seems that guys are either a mismatch (ie not intellectually stimulating for me) or assholes who aren’t looking for a relationship. And I am not looking for a lawyer or doctor! I’n fact, the past two guys i dated worked in entry level sales (earning about 50k) and I was willing to make it work but each one became too intimidated and insecure to make things work.

    I tell you all this because I am reading your insight and it is right on the money,
    But what is the solution? What is someone like me to do?

  • Höllenhund

    One of my fellow commenters explained why nothing will be done to remedy this situation:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/23/kay%E2%80%99s-man-child-revisited/#comment-92075

  • Anonymous

    This is not a “male stagnation” (streuth). It’s an artificial pedestalizing of women, whose contributions to the economy are largely perfunctory and by no means justify their exorbitant salaries (hence why they flee to the public sector where no market pressures exist to bring them back down to Earth). I’ve witnessed this first hand (the entire managerial staff and every single teacher at a primary school my friend janitors for is female; they also happen to be handsomely remunerated and massively incompetent).

    It is not possible to “lift” all men into well-paid service jobs to the same degree women stand. Someone has to do the actual work of transporting, loading, programming and cleaning at the end of the day. If women refuse to marry down, that’s really their problem: to further water down the education system, to shift more cash into the fire (from where?) will do nothing other than drive us head forward into a crisis of inflation. The problem is not that men need more “education”, it’s that women need markedly less.

  • Anonymous lady@11.49 am wrote:

    I am not looking for a lawyer or doctor! I’n fact, the past two guys i dated worked in entry level sales (earning about 50k) and I was willing to make it work but each one became too intimidated and insecure to make things work.

    I tell you all this because I am reading your insight and it is right on the money,
    But what is the solution? What is someone like me to do?

    The first thing you can do is to realise that heterosexual men really don’t care about your level of career achievement.

    No man is “intimidated” by your career. It just doesn’t mean anything to them.

  • Anonymous

    I should add that this problem with managerialism has worsened with the degradation of the liberal arts program. The cheap, bland and nigh-useless pablum being passed out like candy at “colleges” across the country has both eclipsed the hard sciences for which college was originally intended and divorced itself from its original purpose: as a class marker, usually taken by WASP elites who were expected to compete internationally as diplomats and literates.

    What is it that college is even training for these days? If women are so triumphant on campus, where are all the women scientists and engineers? If they’re being educated in something else (and God only knows what), how are they making a return on that education? Are they writing history books, making a go at ancient linguistics?

  • Höllenhund

    What is someone like me to do?

    Have you ever considered moving to China? It has an enormous surplus of high-earning, dutiful, hardcore beta males just dying to find a reliable wife.

    • Have you ever considered moving to China? It has an enormous surplus of high-earning, dutiful, hardcore beta males just dying to find a reliable wife.

      An American 26 yo female lawyer and a Chinese farmer with no education and no English. Now there’s a brilliant suggestion!

  • Ty

    I was willing to make it work but each one became too intimidated and insecure to make things work.

    No offense, but it’s probably you. No one wants to be in a relationship with someone who views them as inferior. And you don’t do a very good job of hiding your disappointment.

    Men aren’t typically intimidated by women, regardless of their income. This is a common rationalization, that you’ll notice comes almost exclusively from women trying to explain their lack of success with men, and to fluff themselves in the bargain.

  • Jonny

    I am a 26 year old recently admitted lawyer

    This is one major strike against you. Lawyers have too much negatives. I would certainly hope you’re not argumentative and emotional either. A guy doesn’t need to be actually intimidated after coming home from a long day at work. Don’t do the intellectual junk. He will naturally talk about what interests him, but he won’t gravitate to your stimulus, which he will find boring.

    Best advice. Don’t be afraid to suggest you will sacrifice your career if you have children (not that you might actually do it, which will depend upon circumstance). Are you flexible enough to consider it?

  • Anonymous

    I think this is very compelling informaiton, and I don’t think it is entirely that surprising. However, is there anyway to see th breakdown by generation/age cohort? I am curious how much of the declining wages for men are caused by older men who went into manufacturing jobs and no longer have viable skills for today’s economy, vs younger men struggling to get employment…

  • I am curious how much of the declining wages for men are caused by older men who went into manufacturing jobs and no longer have viable skills for today’s economy, vs younger men struggling to get employment…

    Both.

  • Vagabond

    Ah…the plight of king midas. Everything he did turned to gold, but alas there was no happiness.

    The problem is not that women earn more – but rather so many of them spend their life in the rat race chasing “everything”, instead of introspecting and asking themselves what is it that they want, what is it that makes them happy. It would save them a lot of wasted effort, and lack of regret for choices they make.

    I’ve chosen to live a life of voluntary simplicity, and follow my bliss. So many women I meet want to live a joyful contented lifestyle like mine, but somehow choose to compromise their happiness for materialistic pleasures that really don’t enrich their lives in any way. I’m all for working women, if that is truly their passion – but it seems like they have been systematically brainwashed to seek high paying jobs.

  • Aldonza

    Our economy is still changing rapidly. It continues to move away from manufacturing and towards services. Just looking at the industries poised to explode in the next decade, nursing, assisted care and home health services are all in the top 10. Do those industries favor men? Other industries include software development. Go geeks!

    It used to be that men would get a trade, work on a farm, or otherwise become a laborer. A small percentage would get professional credentials, such as doctor, lawyer, engineer. Today, GI Bill, student loans, and other financial aid means college is within the reach of most people…which brings down the premium previously paid for “college-educated labor”. Union jobs still pay pretty well and almost exclusively favor men. In fact, most of the traditionally male jobs left are largely union. But anti-union sentiments have eroded much of their bargaining power…and therefore lowered salaries. Perhaps the answer is a more pro-labor agenda? Or maybe it’s an overall cultural shift that we all have to face about gender roles, employment and worth?

    I do know that the answer probably isn’t in pointing a finger at the feminists and whining about how they ruined the party.

    • I do know that the answer probably isn’t in pointing a finger at the feminists and whining about how they ruined the party.

      Well then, you must be pleased I didn’t do that.

      Perhaps the answer is a more pro-labor agenda?

      No thanks. The teacher’s union is largely responsible for destroying standards in American education.

      Or maybe it’s an overall cultural shift that we all have to face about gender roles, employment and worth?

      Indeed it is. We need to face the fact that the Women’s Movement produced gender equity a long time ago. It has fulfilled all of Betty Friedan’s dreams. Now it serves primarily to promote a female agenda without regard to balance or fairness in society. Because so few feminist activists reproduce, they do not have the perspective that comes from parenting a son, or in many cases even living with a man. I see no empathy for men among feminists.

      As time passes, modern feminists and the Women’s Movement become more and more estranged. The infighting among feminist factions continues. The sexual promiscuity agenda is losing steam. Tried and true sluts are attempting to reinvent themselves. New ones take their place, marching through the streets of cities all over the U.S., but their numbers are small and they elicit little sympathy from the population.

  • An economy based on services is a bad idea btw

  • Aldonza

    @Workshy Joe

    No man is “intimidated” by your career. It just doesn’t mean anything to them.

    It should. Having a good-earning partner is a safety net almost required by our chaotic economic times. NYTimes: More Men are Marrying Wealthier Women

  • Aldonza

    @Yohami

    An economy based on services is a bad idea btw

    What would you base it on?

  • products, then services

  • Rhen

    Anon 26-year-old lawyer & Workshy Joe:

    Actually, many people ARE intimidated by lawyers, who is our society are viewed as threat/authority figures, kind of like cops would be if cops were free agents rather than state employees.

  • Jonny

    The U.S. can still go back to manufacturing if we stop exporting them through bad free trade policies. U.S. monetary policy and trade deficits are inflationary, but they will help manufacturing compete against the world. At least we should offer tax breaks and lower corporate tax rates to manufacturing companies. Reduce regulations and stop the global warming nonsense.

  • OhioStater

    Hey Susan. It’s not irritating women want to marry higher income men. It’s annoying women don’t think they’re behaving this way. It’s also annoying that women don’t acknowledge the consequences or accept responsibility for changing this state of affairs.

    • @OhioStater

      It’s annoying women don’t think they’re behaving this way. It’s also annoying that women don’t acknowledge the consequences or accept responsibility for changing this state of affairs.

      Women don’t know. Hell, even economists are just noticing, and they can’t explain it. This data was put together by one guy recently. One reason I wrote this post is to heighten awareness, among both women and men.

  • OhioStater

    Hi Aldonza. It doesn’t matter to me if my wife makes more. The issue is women won’t accept a partner that makes less. A woman only feels genuine attraction if the man “chose” her, but a low-income man can’t choose a high income woman.

  • Aldonza

    The U.S. can still go back to manufacturing if we stop exporting them through bad free trade policies.

    That’s a pretty simplistic view of how to impact the trade deficit. That might’ve worked more effectively when the global economy was in it’s nascence, but economies are too intertwined now to just shut off the money pipeline.

  • Aldonza

    @OhioStater

    Hi Aldonza. It doesn’t matter to me if my wife makes more. The issue is women won’t accept a partner that makes less. A woman only feels genuine attraction if the man “chose” her, but a low-income man can’t choose a high income woman.

    That’s not true. Just ask any PUA who is unemployed, sofa-surfs with friends, and still scores majorly. In fact, it’s one of the Game tenets that attraction has nothing to do with how much you make.

    • In fact, it’s one of the Game tenets that attraction has nothing to do with how much you make.

      That’s only true for “getting beautiful women into bed.” It’s not true for long-term mating, which Game does not concern itself with in its original form.

  • a man who makes less sans game = suppressed beta dormat who will either put the girl in a higher pedestal, or will be scared / turned off of even approaching her and will feel “lucky” and “saved” when the girl runs of clock time and needs to settle with someone

    a man who makes less with game = a jerk who contributes nothing to society

    the jerk will get the girl pregnant and the dormat will pay her bills eventually

    nice one.

  • Blogster

    Yohami – just interested, are you an economist? Interested in how you came to your opinion.

  • GudEnuf

    Workshy Joe:

    Go back and read my post. It was pretty clear what I meant by “men earn more”.

    The median male income is still higher than the median female income.

    Men in the middle earn more than women in the middle. That’s what median means.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Actually, many people ARE intimidated by lawyers, who is our society are viewed as threat/authority figures, kind of like cops would be if cops were free agents rather than state employees.

    It seems that there’s a fence between Heaven and Hell, which is cared for in alternate aeons by the two sides. It has fallen into disrepair.

    St. Peter seeks out Lucifer. “Hey Lou, it’s your turn to fix the fence. The Boss says it looks awful. Get it done.”

    “I don’t care how it looks,” says Lucifer. “I’m not doing anything.”

    “You have to,” says St. Peter. “It’s your official obligation. We have a contract to that effect. You’re committed.”

    “I don’t give a fig for any contract,” says Lucifer, “as you should know by now, I don’t care what it says — I’m not going to do anything.”

    “You have to,” insists St. Peter. The law is the law. If you force us to, we’ll have to sue you.”

    “Sue me?” cries Lucifer, breaking into that famous nasty laugh, “Where are YOU gonna get a lawyer? all of them are here in hell!”

  • In case you are wondering, Rivelino got his cover identity busted http://bit.ly/jnubN9

  • Jonny

    That’s a pretty simplistic view of how to impact the trade deficit. That might’ve worked more effectively when the global economy was in it’s nascence, but economies are too intertwined now to just shut off the money pipeline.

    A simplistic rebuttal. Nice. I’m not talking about shutting down trade. I’m talking about doing more manufacturing at home. Shutting down trade will bring about another depression, but that seems to be happening regardless. We should be manufacturing more goods that we use at home, which including using our natural resources like oil and coal, etc.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    It seems to me your concerns are entirely…self-serving. You only care about the condition of men at all because you want to encourage them to effectively fulfill the roles you want from them.

    I think you are missing the point. You cannot fight feminism with “be nice to men because is a nice thing to do” without concrete outcomes the hamsters are free to run in circles as the speed of light. That is how feminism won so much acceptance “if you reject your femininity you will have money and sex like men do” Had you even been to war with only arguments? Or you bring weapons to get a clear goal? Same principle.

    One of my fellow commenters explained why nothing will be done to remedy this situation:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/23/kay%E2%80%99s-man-child-revisited/#comment-92075

    I clicked on the link thinking it will be more BS. But he is totally right. I agree 100% but what Susan is doing is trying to show the glimpse of the future so things don’t need 40 years to get women to wake up to this reality. Sadly like a modern Cassandra maybe no one will hear her…I’m hoping some women do. Miracles do happen…sometimes. Of course the resident feminists are pretty much going la la la la so is a fat chance, but there is a phrase I love that says “Whatever you do in life will be insignificant, but it’s very important that you do it because nobody else will.”, YMMV.

  • GudEnuf

    Clarence:

    GudEnuf didn’t apparently even read her own link.

    If you just look at the introduction it compares median male earnings to median female earnings. What, did you not read it?

    And the median wage will always depend on the dataset used to calculate it

    Yep, that’s how science works. If the conclusions you draw do not depend on the data you find, you’re doing it wrong.

  • Matt

    You could all do what I plan on doing (if you are young that is). I am 19, a male, highly intelligent, ambitious, tall and good looking to boot.

    My plan is to work my ass off in college, get some internships, have a decent amount of promiscuous sex with good looking, easy to fuck women (thank you American college hook-up scene, thank you) and then move to Germany to pursue a career in engineering for solar energy.

    I get to fuck a high number of attractive women in the U.S. and then enjoy a loyal wife in Germany as I laugh while reading the papers about the U.S.’s stagnation in commerce and deterioration of the family.

    I recently checked Roosh’s blog to see how he rated the German women and I have to say, I am relieved. http://www.rooshv.com/adjusting-a-girls-rating-based-on-her-nationality
    “German. Add 0.5 points. Submissive girls who aim to please and value strong men. This is how American girls should have turned out.”

    You know, I never imagined, planning on finding a way the hell out of the U.S. until I realized that my gender was being marginalized here. For one, hasn’t anyone noticed that engineering (a career area dominated by men) has barely any jobs while insurance (a career area filled with women) is booming?

  • Aldonza wrote:

    That’s not true. Just ask any PUA who is unemployed, sofa-surfs with friends, and still scores majorly. In fact, it’s one of the Game tenets that attraction has nothing to do with how much you make.

    In my single days, I slept with some women who made more money than me, but how many of them would want anything long-term with a man in a lower socio-economic bracket?

    Men who aren’t looking for anything long-term wouldn’t care about that, but guys who would like a steady girlfriend will just find life much easier if they only approach women who aren’t viscerally repelled by their job title.

    I once went out with a girl who had quite a high-powered government job and she just wanted to fix me in the career department. Next!

    The bottom line is that due to hypergamy, women will still want men of higher status (not just good Game or good looks) for anything long term.

  • Here are some suggestions for any women who feel they might be affected by these bleak demographic changes.

    1. If you just want to settle down with a man-of-greater-status and have his babies then please just own up to that.

    2. The only men who actually care about your job title, education or net worth are guys like Clint Webb.

    3. Doctoral dissertations don’t inspire boners.

  • Clarence

    GudEnuf:

    “Science”? Oh my, I’m afraid you really don’t know much about how this figure is calculated. Perhaps you meant “Math” ?

    That’s a clue. I’ll be back later for more. And I urge you to fully read and understand the Wikipedia article.

  • SayWhaat

    but how many of them would want anything long-term with a man in a lower socio-economic bracket?

    Ah, you hit the key here. It’s not a matter of income, but of class. As per Susan’s example of the lawyer + professor couple, women will have no problem marrying a man who pulls in less income than she does, as long as he is her intellectual and/or socioeconomic equal.

  • women will have no problem marrying a man who pulls in less income than she does, as long as he is her intellectual and/or socioeconomic equal.

    well, duh?

    and that assuming he makes moolah, and that he is as driven / ambitious as she is or – preferably – more

    which is just a paraphrasing of what the guys are saying about these charts

  • JM

    Miracles do happen…sometimes.

    I wouldn’t count on a miracle on a societal scale. Even Jesus fed only 5,000 at a time.

    (Disclaimer: I am not Christian.)

  • every girl born after 1985 believing that she is a “unique and special person destined for great things.

    “destined” as entitled to / deserving of? or “destiny” as the result of hard work and character?

    • “destined” as entitled to / deserving of? or “destiny” as the result of hard work and character?

      “destined” as something or someone should deliver them on a silver platter because she is just so naturally fabulous. Actually, kidding here. Society tells every young girl this. Parents can and do fight it. I have fought hard to make sure my daughter did not adopt this attitude, and we made her very invested in pleasing us by reflecting our values. I know other parents who have done the same thing. But not enough.

  • Brendan

    I fully expect that we will see this trend continue and that feminists will continue to simply encourage “a shift in gender roles”: i.e., that men become the “new women” –> subordinate, less accomplished and educated, economically dependent, and evaluated on the basis of pleasing the woman, and nothing else. A great future for men, really, but I do think it’s what feminists want.

    • @Brendan
      Yes, I’ve heard feminists suggesting that men eagerly sign up for the jobs that they are no longer willing to do. Refusing to acknowledge bio differences helps them deny the reality of what kinds of work men enjoy doing. One woman on NPR suggested that men are needed in preschools. But there’s not a long line of males trying to qualify in early education. And of course, there’s no acknowledgement of the dangerous jobs that women cannot do. Not too many women trying to get into oil rig drilling or mining.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Yohami:

    I’m just making the distinction between a man who has a lower income but is still attractive on the hypergamy scale and a man who has a lower income due to his lower social standing. The previous assertion was that a man who has a lower income won’t be attractive, period, which is not the case.

  • namae nanka

    “For one, hasn’t anyone noticed that engineering (a career area dominated by men) has barely any jobs while insurance (a career area filled with women) is booming?”

    Interesting.

  • SayWhaat,

    Maybe its crazy, but in men, self esteem, swagger, confidence and a lot of other attractive traits are linked to the men´s position on the men´s ladder. This means when a man is a loser, feels like a loser and tries even less.

    Men have this “let the best man win”, which also means when you are the loser one, you dont claim a piece of the cake, you let the winners, the alpha dudes take it.

    The exception are the badboys / jerks, the males that for whatever reason, dont feel like playing by a code and want the rewards without putting the effort nor “earning” the prizes. The badboys can display all the attractive traits with nothing to back that behavior = void attractiveness. You can complain about such men all you want and you´ll be right.

    Game = an attempt to teach betas to act and feel beyond their real ladder value. Very anti-nature, if you ask men.

    So, in a society that pushes men down, money wise or labor wise or whatever, all the good men will go down and behave in a way that matches their reality: losers, betadom, depression, not trying, etc. and they will think they are doing the right thing while they are at it.

    So in such society, how do you expect to find low-income men (losers) that display attractive traits and behave like they belong to your class?

    Chances are they will feel you are above of them, and the instinct is to let the women that are out of your reach, go. And when you deal with them, you wont feel any spark: you wont see them as men.

    Then you might meet a bad boy and yada yada.

    This stuff is simple. Men have to come back. The rules have to be fair for everyone, so good men can be men.

  • namae nanka

    “This is exactly the attitude feminists are trying to fix.”

    Ah the fixing. How does that go along with their “it’s about choices for women”?

    “Actually, college admissions are admitting less-qualified male applicants over more-qualified female applicants”

    Have you had a look at how qualification criteria has changed? Or the noise over the STEM issue?

    “What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options? ”

    They will have an inkling of how these women feel:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/06/women.discriminationatwork

  • namae nanka

    cmon even a feminist can’t argue that women are that damn good(look at scholarships):

    http://www.academia.org/title-ix-conquers-science/

    considering the fact that they preach(or used to?) the equality of sexes.

  • namae nanka

    anyway the wages thing is kinda old news, vox has many good posts regarding it:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/11/workforce-and-wages.html

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I though for years that the feminist premise: women are unhappy with traditional gender roles and the world will be a better place for both men and women without them.
    Now 40 years later are feminists happy?
    NO! I had seen war diaries written by men happier than most of the humorless, ranting feminists that have power over media and the law, have.
    Are men happy?
    No it looks like the men that supported the movement were thinking about the promise of getting laid easier without courtship, but they were more than okay with the rest of their “gender roles”, so now that getting laid is even harder and that this easy laid is reserved to a privileged men only plus all the obstacles on their education and perspective of raising higher on their social ranks thanks to feminism things are looking grim for them.
    Is the western world a better place?
    Nope the promise that women needs for better and stronger = hipergamy could be fulfilled by themselves acting like men was empty, women are more likely to be selfish and self serving and break their promise because they didn’t felt like honoring them anymore, again 40 years later the results show that like communism, feminism only brings equality and a better world on paper, hence time for a Feminist Perestroika.

  • Michael of Charlotte

    I’m surprised by these results. After becoming aware of Warren Farrell’s work, I knew there wasn’t widespread discrimination against women with regard to pay. However, my own master’s degree got me no where (Sociology) as it is now a female dominated profession. I’ve only now become successful working in an engineering field.

    Gotta be honest, thanks to Matt’s link, Brazil and Germany are now starting to look real good right now.

  • jess

    Steph,
    Well everyone strives for happiness and satisfaction within their own context.
    If you live in a starving country a mouldy potato is a wonderful gift.
    .
    if you live in a western country we take presents back to the store cos because they have the wrong brand badge on them.
    .
    Are feminists happier than 40 years ago? well of course! Surely nobody would argue women should lose the vote or not be able to stand for election.
    .
    But does that mean there are no issues left to protest or debate about? Hell no!!
    There is plenty.
    .
    Frankly, after reading some post responses here and listening to a few media slip ups recently the feminist movement has plenty on its plate in the western world let alone in the 3rd world.

  • Jess,

    But does that mean there are no issues left to protest or debate about? Hell no!!
    There is plenty.

    Sure, there is plenty of stuff to complain and protest against and there will ever be. But what are the PROBLEMS that need solving first?

    Feminism was / is about enabling women as a person? if so it succeeded. Bravo. Its time to really bring equality, it shouldnt be about gender but about people. Feminism keeps the gender wars open, but who are you fighting? what problem are you SOLVING? whos the enemy right now?

  • Rum

    Someone correct me if this is out-of-date but last I checked female students were doing “better” only in relation to the males who had as a group lost proficiency. Girls/women were not performing better than earlier cohorts of their sisters. Consonant with this, look up the history of attempts to improve the performance of boys in ways that could not impair girls progress (like more yard time for boys). The feminist educational gulag masters have labelled these attempts “divisive”.
    This is all, imho, an extreme form of hypergamy in action. By putting up ever harsher filters for the guys, fewer will get thru and become worthy, thus reducing the likelihood that any woman might end up having her womb invaded by the sperm of less worthy men.
    The evidence keeps accumulating that gina tingles are more valued than the survival of civilized life.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Are feminists happier than 40 years ago? well of course! Surely nobody would argue women should lose the vote or not be able to stand for election.

    No one is arguing that here, can you please read before typing. Also all this blogs of women that can vote and stand for election complaining about not having men to marry really don’t show the picture of the happy empowered women that needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

    Frankly, after reading some post responses here and listening to a few media slip ups recently the feminist movement has plenty on its plate in the western world let alone in the 3rd world.

    By your won admission women on the third world are more than capable of being happy without feminism, so you want them to become the type of woman that will return a present if it has the wrong brand on it?
    What will that accomplish if I might know?

  • OffTheCuff

    One woman on NPR suggested that men are needed in preschools. But there’s not a long line of males trying to qualify in early education.

    I think my earliest male teacher was in 4th and 5th grade. Until then, it was 100% female. Which is a shame, since they were excellent teachers. Today, I don’t think you’ll find a single male in an elementary school around here, let alone a preschool. Preschools are outright hostile to fathers, I couldn’t imagine actually trying to *work* there.

    No sane guy would go into early childhood education these days unless he likes being sued.

  • jess

    Steph,
    You are asking me why we should support the promotion of female rights in the 3rd world? Are you joking? Ask the average 3rd world woman and ask if she would like a 1st world standard of living, a vote, protection from spousal abuse and the right to own land, stand for election and an education.
    .
    If she says no, you win, if she says yes please, I hope you would accept that you may be mistaken.
    .
    My point was people can put up with awful injustices and penury if that what they have always been used to. For us to sit here in our air conditioned homes and human rights protections to say “ah, bless their primitive ways- how I envy their simple life” is revolting.
    .
    You wouldnt want their life any more than I would. Somebody had to fight for your right to vote Steph- that person would have been a feminist. I think women of all nations should have the right to vote, free association, all the usual human rights stuff. Privileged peoples like you and i can apply pressure to achieve this.
    .
    And why not- after all somebody did it for you and I?

  • Blues

    Well, feminist groups did take a good chuck from Obama’s stimulus plan that was originally aimed at the troubled construction and manufacturing industries (a mostly male dominated field) and diverted it to unaffected female dominated professions under no better reason than “go feminism!”.

  • jess

    Yohami,
    Its not so much about enemies Yohmai- its about issues and fairness.
    There is some obvious stuff like islamic stoning of women and basic human rights violations of women abroad- but i suspect you are talking about home issues.
    .
    And there are plenty- but rather than me blather on here- why not read through some mainstream feminist blogs. Not the trendy ones that do gossip and sex but the 100’s of others out there. I am not gonna provide links- you can google away just as well as me.
    .
    A couple of issues that spring to mind in the uk are:
    .
    1. Education- many women find peer pressure puts them off maths, physics and engineering. The figures for these a levels in mixed schools are many times lower than all girls schools leading to some suggesting all schools should be single sex. This is of interest to feminists and is own the whole a good natured debate.
    2. SexAssualt- London has had a big rise in serious rape attacks and feminsts beleive the sexualistion of the media and mysogistic attitudes is partially repsonsible. You can imagine how happy we are to learn Playboy is opening again London.
    .
    So yeah, there are issues still ‘live’ even on our own doorstep.

  • namae nanka

    “If she says no, you win, if she says yes please, I hope you would accept that you may be mistaken.”

    but there’s no free lunch.

    http://www.aei.org/article/103674

    “You are asking me why we should support the promotion of female rights in the 3rd world? Are you joking? Ask the average 3rd world woman and ask if she would like a 1st world standard of living, a vote, protection from spousal abuse and the right to own land, stand for election and an education.”

    Women’s rights didn’t get you all those things. White women’s burden sheesh! realize that your men gave that to you. Yes, even the vote, and about a decade or two later than when they got it. You have no reason to play elder sister to 3rd world women than to satisfy your own vanity, and the stupidity and mendacity that you have been fed for all your life.

  • namae nanka

    “There is some obvious stuff like islamic stoning of women”

    and men. You are hopeless.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    You are asking me why we should support the promotion of female rights in the 3rd world? Are you joking? Ask the average 3rd world woman and ask if she would like a 1st world standard of living, a vote, protection from spousal abuse and the right to own land, stand for election and an education.

    Jess are you high? I was born and raised on the third world, I’m not privileged whatsoever and no there is not need to fight for those because men are not trying to take those rights away. The standard of living is bad for both males and females of the working class in our countries and good for the males and females of the upper class, like it has been through history. The problem we have with cheating is unrelated to education or income, a man will cheat because society supports his right to be happy sticking his dick in any willing woman and women can sent abusive men to jail.

    You seen to be under the false impression that feminism is the only way women can have constitutional freedoms, and men will want to take those freedoms back for the lolz, did you know that many countries gave the right to vote to women before the USA?
    Also read this list of many women owning property and earning income before any feminist movement. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/25/its-time-to-acknowledge-notable-women-in-american-history/

    Also Jess modern feminism only fight for the right to slut it up, abort and divorce at will with no social consequences, but this not laws.
    What right is there left for a woman to be constitutionally achievable? Really tell me what law exactly forbid a woman to do anything?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    For one, hasn’t anyone noticed that engineering (a career area dominated by men) has barely any jobs while insurance (a career area filled with women) is booming?

    Mmm any links to any article talking about this? This is just personal curiosity not related to this topic.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “The “Great Male Stagnation” is an enormous threat to our way of life. Relationships and marriage will suffer if we do not remedy it. No society can thrive if its men fail. Obviously.”

    Susan, i could propose to you when you’re like this! do you see this folks? civilization comes first, second and third. your petty nonsense lives come 20th. this is why the current way needs to be reconsidered. not “oppression” but civilization. most of you have grown up in comfort and won’t see what’s it like to have it collapse until it happens.

    • @tito

      Susan, i could propose to you when you’re like this!

      Ha, as opposed to when I am shit testing! I’m afraid you’ll have to take the bad with the good.

  • Nell

    Today’s Maureen Dowd column about famous men cheating is semi-relevant. She seems most angry about and bewildered by men who are “marrying up and dating down”–with “up” and “down” determined by career status in most cases. I’d be interested to hear people here tear apart her theories about why they do it 🙂

    @ Workshy Joe: I’m not entirely convinced that men don’t care even a little bit about a woman’s career status when thinking about a LTR. What I’ve heard from guys in real life (I’m a college student at a “prestigious” school, so skewed sample) is that you want to go for someone similarly educated who will fit in with your friends and colleagues, etc. My theory is that the mistake women make is thinking of it as something that causes pure attraction (like looks, so more = better) rather than as a compatibility issue (like a shared desire to travel or something). What do you think?

  • Octavia
  • The Real Vince

    Poor men, how do we get by here in the United States, the richest country in the history of the world, a place where even the poor are relatively well off.

    http://www.globalrichlist.com/

    The two major things people have truly legitimate complaints about is a lack of a universal health-care system and (in many districts) a failing education system. Otherwise, boohoo, you “only” make 30 thousand dollars a year.

    Women who want more — more, more, more — are stuck-up narcissists who will never have enough. The pill inexorably changed the dynamics of mating. This talk about how society has gained up against men sounds like a lot of whining.

    A large service sector is a symptom of an advanced economy; a post-industrial economy. Yes, it generally means the rich get richer, but shipping manufacturing jobs overseas also means the world’s poorest get richer. Utilitarianism for the win.

    Guess I need to put things into perspective: whirlwind romances in rich countries versus more people having enough to eat. If global capitalism is inevitable, we might as well cheer its better qualities.

  • Abbot

    feminist movement has plenty on its plate in the western world let alone in the 3rd world.
    .
    For some odd reason, the so-called “movement” in interpreted as a bunch of sign carrying screeching self entitled spoiled brat sluts on whine walks, in the western world and especially in the 3rd world. Nice going. A group of you should go take one of those walks in a 3rd world country. Go ahead. Dare ya

  • Jess

    To nanka,
    .
    Putting aside your hopeless insults and possible trolldom, the sources I have seen suggest that whilst stoning of both sexes exist there are no prizes for guessing which gender gets it the most, and by a large margin.
    .
    Amnesty international have some figures if you are interested.

  • Jess,

    During the stonings, do women also throw stones? or just men? – honest question, I have no clue. But I get the feeling the women in such cultures are participant / collaborative / moms raise their girls to be like that and not rebel (fucked up if you ask me)

    Anyway, Im in the third world myself. I wonder whats this about women not owning properties not voting not working? wtf really?

  • Rum

    Re: Land “ownership”. Land must be physically defended to “own” it. Land cannot be hidden or carried around in a purse.
    Giving the chore of land protection solely to the daughter in the olde days = family loses land. End of story.
    In the anglosphere, all women got the vote within just a few years after all men got it. For the past in general, voting rights derived from land ownership which derived from land defense.

  • Jess

    Abbot,
    I don’t think a female protest march on any issue in the 3rd world would do a huge amount of good unless there was a media response elsewhere. In any case in many countries they would be beaten half to death.
    .
    As to the slut walk in the USA- not my cup of tea and in my view not likely to do anything for their cause. I am completely with SW on this one.

  • Education- many women find peer pressure puts them off maths, physics and engineering.

    Are you sure its not that they suck at it? or that they are not interested? there are very, very few women in many areas that are dominated by men, and when theres a woman everyone treats her like a little princess and has it way easier than the regular male – my experience.

    SexAssualt- London has had a big rise in serious rape attacks and feminsts beleive the sexualistion of the media and mysogistic attitudes is partially repsonsible. You can imagine how happy we are to learn Playboy is opening again London.

    Playboy has no effect on rape, sorry. How much of the increase of the serious rape attacks are due to lowering the standars to whats considered rape? or are you saying there are more criminals = guys that jump on inocent women and rape them because they “hate women” or something?

    Im always curious about this notion that the sexualized woman promotes “rape”
    How about the sexualized man? he´s on the advertising as well.

  • “Our society has been coddling girls for a full generation. The whole “Reviving Ophelia” movement sought to redress perceived inequalities between girls and boys in school, so they threw all the ballast to the other side of the boat, and whooops a bunch of boys fell out. Girl Power is so robust the girls themselves can’t even handle it. We now have the “sex as empowerment” scheme, girl on girl bullying like never before, every girl born after 1985 believing that she is a “unique and special person destined for great things.””
    .
    There’s occasional hand-wringing on this very blog about the dearth of female comments (if not female readers). The debate in fact sounds exactly like the “Reviving Ophelia” argument – that despite equal numbers, rambunctious boys in class shout down girls waiting and raising their hands. Thus the boys make themselves overrepresented in the discussion and must be silenced.
    .
    Camille Paglia (no doubt a shouter) mocked this outlook as ridiculously petty and prim. I noticed this myself in school – as you can imagine from my online writing, I was never one to leave my opinion on the table, and smart girls in school would get resentful of me for driving my points home in class. I didn’t have any sympathy – the world does not have to reorient itself to any particular communication style to keep feelings from being hurt, and it didn’t have to orient itself towards me either, the teachers would have been totally justified toning down the theater-in-the-round discussion style that favored my academic personality. It had limited impact in any case – that I was a dominant voice in classroom discussion helped me in the future in some ways, and hurt me in others.

  • Jess,

    In any case in many countries they would be beaten half to death.

    I guess you´re saying islamic countries? or which countries are you talking about were women are less than persons?

  • Jess

    Rum,
    In a country where laws are policed land stealing should be something from 100s of years ago. According to you if a 60 yo man cannot defend his land against a 14 yo intruder he should meekly give up his home.
    .
    In some countries you can only leave land to men and in others women are not allowed to purchase land.
    .
    So the history isn’t the issue- it’s the current laws that are in some countries.
    .
    As regards voting, do you think globally women should be able to vote or not?
    .
    Oh I wonder if Pankhurst would agree with you that the female vote was a given.

  • Octavia

    “Have we had enough feminism yet?”

    To take the question seriously, the response might depend on what each person considers to be feminism. Also, the amount of privilege a person has could affect his/her view of feminism. Perhaps there’s a correlation between someone’s status in society and the impact the forms of feminism would have on him/her if the goals are achieved.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Okay Jess here is an article that shows that most of the “poor third country women that you worry so much” have the right to vote: http://www.wisegeek.com/in-which-countries-are-women-not-allowed-to-vote.htm

    There are six locations around the world where women are not allowed to vote. In two of these nations, no one is allowed to vote, because the country does not currently have an electoral system.

    Here is about owning property:

    For example, if a man dies leaving about Rs. One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, for the children (i.e one son and one daughter) the son inherits One Hundred Thousand rupees and the daughter only Fifty Thousand rupees. Out of the one hundred thousand which the son inherits, as his duty towards his family, he may have to spend on them almost the entire amount or say about eighty thousand and thus he has a small percentage of inheritance, say about twenty thousand, left for himself. On the other hand, the daughter, who inherits fifty thousand is not bound to spend a single penny on anybody. She can keep the entire amount for herself.

    http://islam-faq.blogspot.com/2009/06/hy-is-womans-share-of-inherited-wealth.html

    I will also advice to talk and join some real Muslim women that I’m sure are around UK, so you stop seeing them as victims that need to be rescued by “white empowered feminists” and you can see that many of them are educated and happy and that agree with many of the precepts their religion preaches.

  • collegeboy

    @Susan

    Thank you so much for paying attention to my comments.

    There is allot of corruption in government, but the influence is coming from the the richest 1% (in the private sector).

    It really feels like nobody cares about even listening to people who are telling us what is wrong, with our government and country (they don’t want to understand about how this will affect them, why should I care, if others don’t care).

    If men protest, it like your un-american and a potential terrorist (CIA is profiling people who protest).

    I really hope feminists and women care about eliminating corruption and putting our country back in the right direction (this isn’t about small or big government this is about good government).

    Because I cannot afford to care, I need to worry about my economic future (I want to get laid, lol).

    I have a degree and I’m preparing for a totally different type of work, that pays well and is completely recession proof, its like starting all over, just for financial security (in fact recessions are good, for business). I already understand where we are headed and I’m preparing for a prosperous future.

    One of the things that I do that is good way to lose friends is joke about benefiting from others misfortune, its dark comedy, because its funny and its ruthless (but not unethical). But allot are making a good living off of other peoples misfortune and they don’t even know it. Where’s my compassion? Where’s yours?

    Bottom line: People pay me to fix their troubles. More troubles = more money. Who’s going to pay me to fix my troubles? Is love free? Is sex free? Is healthcare affordable? Is rent free? How about the plumber?

    If others are individualists, then I have to follow their lead, if I want to survive (and most of all get laid, lol).

    Women and feminists are going to have to fix our country. You don’t need muscle and guns, you need brains. Remember what they said about the holocaust and Anna Frank, good people said nothing.

    Want to know more(Reliable Sources):
    Money Talks: Profits Before Patient Safety (PBS)
    The Corporation (2003)

    Dark Comedy Documentaries (Reliable sources):
    Capitalism: A love story (2009) [Funny as hell, I like Condo Vultures]
    Sicko (2007)
    Bowling for Columbine (2002)
    fahrenheit 911 (2004) [Less relevant today]
    [The citibank plutocracy pdf]

    More extreme (unreliable sources sometimes)
    Alex Jones on youtube – http://www.prisonplanet.com/

    One last black comedy:
    More free sex as incarcerations rates skyrocket. Thanks Bill Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

    This is the last time I’ll say anything because I can’t afford to care, anymore. My opinions are not up for discussion. If you care then do something, about it. I’m on mute from now on.

  • i think i’ve said this before on another post but in the UK both men & women as groups were granted the vote in 1918, (women over 30 at first, then in 1928 over 18, for what should be obvious reasons). Before that, as Rum pointed it out, the right to vote was had by a tiny percentage of the population & was much more to do with wealth & class than sex. 90% of the men who died in world war one didn’t have the vote.

  • Jess

    Yohami,
    Of the sources I read stoning was only done by men. But if it turns out that it was a mixed gender participant murder what difference would that make? Its still wrong isn’t it?
    .
    As to which countries suppress local protests it’s not limited to Islamic countries at all. Please google away- you can get that info yourself.
    .
    Education- you only read half my post. In single sex schools girls DO select physics and engineering. In mixed schools they don’t (possibly/probably) due to male peer pressure. I forgot to mention that in all male schools a similar, though not as prounced, effect is found for the humanities and arts.

    • @Jess

      Education- you only read half my post. In single sex schools girls DO select physics and engineering. In mixed schools they don’t (possibly/probably) due to male peer pressure. I forgot to mention that in all male schools a similar, though not as prounced, effect is found for the humanities and arts.

      At various times each of my kids attended single-sex schools. My son K-6, and my daughter for high school. I would say that the students selected/preferred courses of study in exactly the same way they did in coed schools. In my daughter’s class, only a handful of girls selected hard science (they all went to MIT, though, which was awesome). The difference that single sex education makes is that each sex is more comfortable behaving in its biologically natural way. Boys are not told to sit still – they’re given two extra periods to run around outside. Girls aren’t afraid to raise their hands for fear of being wrong. Drama class is less self-conscious for everyone.

      Single sex education changes in-class behavior, not gender preferences.

  • Abbot

    You wouldnt want their life any more than I would.
    .
    Nonsense. More and more, Western men are embracing “their life” as the focus is on large safe extended families. The word “feminism” is never even uttered and a man can choose among thousands, all with just about the same attitude, demeanor and expectations. The warm tropical weather serves to round out this stellar feminist-free paradise.
    .
    feminsts beleive the sexualistion of the media and mysogistic attitudes is partially repsonsible.
    .
    Oh no, it could not be that women in London have lost all control over men by providing them, their self proclaimed oppressors. with abundant casual sexual satisfaction. Feminists, by virtue of their demeanor, will never get what they want from men. Men will NOT respond positively to feminists or to sluts. Men take their commitment marching orders from disciplined patient sober pussy. Only.
    .
    realize that your men gave that to you.
    .
    and if feminists play nice, men might give them some more. And no, tantrum walks are not nice.

  • Jess

    Yohami,
    Sex attack- I meant the ones where taxi drivers had raped young girls, the ones where girls where ambushed on the streets etc. There is a campaign about safety on home journey after nights out where girls are very vulnerable. The stats on this particular type of rape are terrible.
    .
    There are some academics that do link playboy and/or porn to rape. I know there are some academics that say it does otherwise or does nothing at all. I’m not sure myself about the issue, but it’s certainly stimulated some debate here.
    .
    Susan, would you happy if your local macdonalds turned into a playboy bar? Happy if your daughter worked in one?
    .
    I’m not having a go at sex workers or playboy bunnies- just stimulating debate.

  • Clearly the equalization of men and women in the workplace demographics is going

    1. If men are not going to have an economic bulwark that gives them a hypergamous advantage, they are going to have to learn game so they can be tactically dominant. I’m not talking PUA, I’m talking the Athol/Yohami “be a man and be good at it” type of game. This is not really “learning” as much as re-learning the male gender roles that were the unquestioned norm until the 60’s.
    .
    2. Women can’t be de-programmed from hypergamy, but they can be deprogrammed from be spoiled and demanding everything on their checklist, and they can also ease off on the intense demand for a guy with “conventional” social status (this means toning down the intrasexual competition and “look at me!!”).
    .
    I believe these to be personal choices as much as immutable traits, but curing them involves something akin to spinster shaming…from a young age girls would have to hear “don’t act like that, guys don’t want to marry that kind of attitude.” I doubt most young women today are comfortable raising their daughters that way, the ironic thing being that the very reason they will HAVE daughters is if they learn to do this themselves so they can get husbands.

  • Jess

    On the justification on why feminism still needs to exist #1
    .
    Abbott- “Men take their commitment marching orders from disciplined patient sober pussy. Only.” (isn’t he a peach?)
    .
    “realize that your men gave that (votes) to you and if feminists play nice, men might give them some more.”. (why thank you kind sir, thanks ever so)
    .
    I have said it before, ladies please make an orderly queue, this ones a keeper. No pushing at the back there!
    .
    Can you see why I thought he might be jezabel plant? He makes such a strong case for feminism. Susan, have you checked his ISP thingy?

  • Jess,

    if it turns out that it was a mixed gender participant murder what difference would that make? Its still wrong isn’t it?

    It would still be wrong, but it wouldnt be “violence against women” if the women are doing it. Again, this is just me wondering how involved are these women in their own defense and if they want things to be like that or not.

    As to which countries suppress local protests it’s not limited to Islamic countries at all.

    No, this wasnt about countries supressing “protests” but countries stoning women, specifically, if they raised their voice. In a country that supresses all protests, includen men protests, we would have to work to free the population, not just “free the women”

    So, which countries silence women specifically when they protest? you mentioned third world. Where is this happening?

    In single sex schools girls DO select physics and engineering. In mixed schools they don’t (possibly/probably) due to male peer pressure.

    You first said male pressure was the cause and now its a maybe? which one? Seriously, I studied engineering for a while and been running companies for years. I dont see this happening but Im interested on doing something about it IF this is happening. So is it happening, or not?

    Sex attack- I meant the ones where taxi drivers had raped young girls, the ones where girls where ambushed on the streets etc.

    Thats REALLY fucked up and criminal. Whats the relationship between these attacks and PlayBoy?

    There are some academics that do link playboy and/or porn to rape. I know there are some academics that say it does otherwise or does nothing at all.

    So you dont have your own ideas about it? these academics are not here to refute when I say rape has nothing to do with PlayBoy. Too bad.

    would you happy if your local macdonalds turned into a playboy bar? Happy if your daughter worked in one?

    How about if macdonalds turned into a gay bar? a male stripper bar? a lesbian bar? a tattoo house? a cannabis cafe? a Starbucks? damn! the horror! 😛

  • Rum

    Jess

    A frail 60 year old man would normally have had allies in the form of other warriors/clans he had fought beside while in his prime.
    A hopelessly non-warrior woman? Not so much.
    Go ahead and tell us that families of old should have allowed (or forced) their fertile young women into getting slaughtered in fighting for which they were very ill suited. Families that did would go extinct in a heart beat, to be replaced on the land by families that were not insane.

  • Abbot

    This is about abortion, but its really about the beginning of a trend where men call women out on whatever behavior is deemed unacceptable. Yeah, arrest him and a martyr he will be. Go Greg!
    .
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/abortion-billboard-lands-mexico-man-court-girlfriend/story?id=13783668

  • david foster

    “Females are also more predominant in services and males in manufacturing: plumbers, car mechanics, carpenters, construction workers, electricians, and firefighters, for example are still 95%+ male.”

    Huh? Plumbers, mechanics, electricians, etc ARE in services, except for the small number of them that work for manufacturing businesses. Both parts of his sentence are true, but the second one is hardly an example of the point he is making in the first one.

  • Mike C

    @ Nell,
    .
    Today’s Maureen Dowd column about famous men cheating is semi-relevant. She seems most angry about and bewildered by men who are “marrying up and dating down”–with “up” and “down” determined by career status in most cases. I’d be interested to hear people here tear apart her theories about why they do it
    .
    Read this:
    .
    http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/ladder-theory-for-men/
    .
    I’m not entirely convinced that men don’t care even a little bit about a woman’s career status when thinking about a LTR. What I’ve heard from guys in real life (I’m a college student at a “prestigious” school, so skewed sample) is that you want to go for someone similarly educated who will fit in with your friends and colleagues, etc. My theory is that the mistake women make is thinking of it as something that causes pure attraction (like looks, so more = better) rather than as a compatibility issue (like a shared desire to travel or something). What do you think?
    .
    Yes, exactly. Career status and socioeconomic status are a compatibility issue, NOT an attraction trigger. In other words, if attraction is there it may make the difference between Ladder 1 and Ladder 2 per Badger’s post. When men say they “don’t care about status” what they are really saying is it doesn’t affect attraction.

  • Rum

    M Dowd has spent the last 30 years wailing about how guys make choices that mystify her. That must be because she is so smart. She won a Pulitzer so that means she is so very wise and insightful that if she cannot understand anything about guys then no one can, not even guys. It must be wonderful to be so smart!!!

  • Mike C

    Regarding “feminism” and if we have had enough, to tell you the truth, I really have no idea what feminism is currently. It seems to encompass a variety of people who actually don’t have much in common philosophically.
    .
    Most “isms”…communism, libertarianism, fascism have some core philosophy. With feminism, Jenna Jameson can be a feminist and so can Andrea Dworkin. How does that make any sense?
    .
    I think the primary objectives…right to vote, equal access to career and education, were accomplished long ago, and now it has become a beast in search of “issues” to feed itself and justify its existance which is why a common sense comment sparks marches. In some sense, some of the extreme parts almost seem like a caricature. Honestly, I think Susan B. Anthony would probably roll over in her grave with some of today’s feminists.

  • SayWhaat

    Badger,

    Consider the implications of this statement:

    curing them involves something akin to spinster shaming…from a young age girls would have to hear “don’t act like that, guys don’t want to marry that kind of attitude.”

    and this statement:

    that despite equal numbers, rambunctious boys in class shout down girls waiting and raising their hands.

    Why are girls waiting for their turn to speak? Because we have been taught to do so. We have been taught to passively wait our turn to speak before others because this is proper. This is the feminine communication style. This is feminine behavior.

    Men and women have different communication styles – fact. So by saying that the world does not have to reorient itself towards certain communication styles (a point which I kind of agree with, by the way – I’ve never had a problem speaking up or being the dominant voice in an academic discussion), you are saying that girls in school should learn to be more rambunctious and assertive when trying to speak. However, this would be going against what is decidedly appealing to men, because by being loud and rambunctious, these girls would be behaving decidedly unfeminine. And according to you (and many of the men here), no guy wants to marry that attitude.

    So what do we do? I want to say that women should be assertive in their career lives and more…*ahem*…feminine for their husbands, but the problem is that these behaviors are established in school, where academic and social goals intersect. Girls want to be assertive and make their opinons heard, but they also want a boyfriend. What you seem to be saying is that girls shouldn’t be afraid to be dominant voices in the classroom, but at the same time, men don’t find that attitude appealing, so these girls are basically screwed for any shot of a relationship anyway. Do you see the catch-22?

    This is what women have to grow up with. We have the ambition and drive for a successful career, but we also want families. Unlike men, we have to make a choice between the two. This is what feminism originally aimed to resolve. And personally, while I think it has been successful in certain fields, it most certainly hasn’t in others. If you want equalization in the workplace, the solution isn’t to scale back the advancement of women in favor of men, it’s to offer the same incentives that women get to step off the Mommy track in the workplace to ALL parents: mandatory paid parental leave for both Mom and Dad, and no penalization for either parent in promotions.

    Sweden is already doing this.

  • SayWhaat

    This is what feminism originally aimed to resolve.

    Er, what feminism aims* to resolve today. (The relevant branches, in any case.)

  • collegeboy

    Hey men,

    feminists are not your problem, they want a world that is fair, for more people. Bad women are your problem. Remember this United we stand, Divided we fall. You need to put some of your differences aside with feminists and focus on solving the root causes of the problems we face as a people. Like healthcare, economy, wars, and especially corruption it is everywhere, etc.

    We are broke, because of a plutocracy (government works for rich), not women’s success.

  • SayWhaat,

    Being assertive is different than having an “attitude”. The attitude men complain about is usually about being spoiled ilogical and demanding, its not about speaking your mind, its about imposing and “being a bitch”.

    Men also complain that women dont communicate and act like everyone should read their minds. Ask men around, you´ll find men actually like when women are clear and speak their minds about issues.

    Do you see any man here complaining that women talk? anyone saying a woman who talks her mind is unattractive? the opposite, really.

    Ah, but the “attitude” is something different. Entitlement is a bitch.

    When you say this:

    Men and women have different communication styles – fact.

    Do you mean men and women have different biological communication intelligences? or you mean that both genders have different culturally imposed communications? I find both to be true, but wondering about what you mean.

    If you want equalization in the workplace, the solution isn’t to scale back the advancement of women in favor of men, it’s to offer the same incentives that women get to step off the Mommy track in the workplace to ALL parents: mandatory paid parental leave for both Mom and Dad, and no penalization for either parent in promotions.

    Thing is, this is not realistic. The corporations, the ones employing people, are not an endless pool of money. People do have to choose what they want with their lives, no one can “have it all” because time and resources are limited and everyone has to carry with the repercussions of their choices. You cant spend your life raising children AND compete with someone who´s using that same time to play the clarinete. When the live gig comes, the clarinete player will kick your ass.

    By forcing corporations to pay for these decisions they lose money. Where is that money going to come? nobody pays me when my employees dont work.

  • In other words my company is not a freaking kindergarten. I offer jobs for people who want a career and want to make money and get really good at it. If everyone (men and women) just get pregnant and decide get off and I still have to pay them, I go broke.

  • Abbot

    In any case in many countries they would be beaten half to death.
    ,
    Nonsense. A slut…walk event in many countries would only cause feminists to be despised for upsetting the tranquil and normal human way of life, rather than just mocked as in the West

  • Collegeboy

    feminists are not your problem, they want a world that is fair, for more people.

    If that was the aim, we could all jump in the bandwagon.

    Feminism wants a world that is fair to women and keeps portraiting men as the enemy. And it happens to have enough power and influence to be a problem. The anti-mysoginy implementation turned into misandry, and they “dont realize it”.

    Too busy finding new stuff to complain about to take care of the new messes and injustices they are creating.

  • SayWhaat

    If everyone (men and women) just get pregnant and decide get off and I still have to pay them, I go broke.

    Google and Pixar are just two examples of companies that are making this work by fusing the workplace into a 24/7 living center. (Google also offers a child care center and back-up child care just 5 minutes from their headquarters.) I don’t think anyone is saying that these companies are on the brink of bankruptcy for their offered parental benefits.

  • Abbot

    mandatory paid parental leave
    .
    The ultimate feminists fantasy – get inside the male-female dynamic on the home front via the social engineering of the workplace. How about this – women leave the workforce, raise men’s wages as there will less labor supply and that additional income can support a stay at home wife and mother. That is, stop subsidizing a womans desire to be a mother and have a career and making entire families suffer all in the name of the dismantling-the-patriarchy fantasy.

  • SayWhaat

    Do you mean men and women have different biological communication intelligences? or you mean that both genders have different culturally imposed communications? I find both to be true, but wondering about what you mean.

    Both. Men are more taciturn than women when it comes to certain things like purely social interaction, but they’re taught to compete when there is a goal in mind (debating a point in class, for instance).

  • SayWhaat

    By the way, this is a great lecture from Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg on why more men than women reach the top of their professions (and what women can do to aim just as high).

  • SayWhaat
    • @SayWhaat

      Did you notice that Sheryl Sandberg says at one point that her daughter is two, and at another that her daughter is three? IMO, that negates her entire speech. She is not spending much time parenting.

  • SayWhaat

    stop subsidizing a womans desire to be a mother and have a career and making entire families suffer

    Lol. I can’t wait for you to marry a stay-at-home Tiger Mother. She will castrate you.

  • collegeboy

    think more positive guys. Free health care = more Free sex.

  • SayWhaat,

    Google and Pixar are just two examples of companies that are making this work by fusing the workplace into a 24/7 living center. (Google also offers a child care center and back-up child care just 5 minutes from their headquarters.) I don’t think anyone is saying that these companies are on the brink of bankruptcy for their offered parental benefits.

    Facepalm. And Diddy has his own jet and Madonna bought an entire isle. How does this relate to a social implementation where people gets fair deals and the economy can thrive?

    Fortune 500 companies have more money than I do. Are you saying every company should follow Google/Pixar? if I wanted to, where do I get the money to do so?

  • collegeboy

    Women are very afraid of STD’s (more than unintended pregnancies). White women with better access to health care, are more open to intercourse. That’s where I’m getting my statement.

    Free health care = more Free sex.

    But the plutocracy, isn’t so bad when it comes to “just” sex. Its everything else that will be missing.

  • collegeboy

    @YOHAMI

    I know. Feminists are idealists not realists.

    Allot of attractive women are ruthless and brutal. I actually had some no bull shit conversations with a couple of women (told me about other women) and one very attractive woman. I know what they do and how they think about who they chose for sex and what they do to their boyfriends/husbands, that’s why I want love, and will avoid those type of women. (you think I want love, instead of sexual variety, nooo way, I want both, but I must settle for love, if I can find it)

    Having children is masochistic whether it be men or women. Especially under corruption.

  • collegeboy,

    Yeah. In my experience the hotter the woman the more rotten she is inside. Thats SO sad. Women usually use and manipulate men. The hotter the woman, the more normal she thinks that is, the more she gets away with it. The more the endless carousel of men orbiting around her asking to be used. Sad stuff.

    Good luck finding love (nothing sarcastic about it). You dont have to settle for love OR sexual variety though, there are plenty of variants for that game.

    I think having children is a delight – when you want them. And usually women want them more, so I guess its not “masochist” for them but a biological assertion.

  • collegeboy

    @YOHAMI

    That’s what just killed my motivation, just after graduating from college with honors, published author,etc. (I’m seeking a meaning and a strategy in life)

    It is very hard to find a very sexually attractive woman, that won’t cause you harm.

    So I know that I will just have to settle, for something else (intelligence maybe). Its an unobtainable goal for me, at least.

  • collegeboy

    @collegeboy: Its an unobtainable goal for me, at least.

    I meant too risky, not unobtainable. I don’t want to be a masochists, Its like slowing and painfully being killed. I just not up for that kind of risk (I have seen some pretty humiliating stuff that government does to fathers). Basically, I want very little risk, of that kind of situation. So yes government, influenced by feminism is causing harm, because they lack fairness.

  • Höllenhund

    It should. Having a good-earning partner is a safety net almost required by our chaotic economic times.

    This is based on the assumption that the good-earning woman will divert some of her income to her partner just because he’s her partner. There are zero guarantees for this. This is anything but a safety net.

  • Höllenhund

    You cannot fight feminism with “be nice to men because is a nice thing to do” without concrete outcomes the hamsters are free to run in circles as the speed of light.

    In other words, women find it rather difficult to muster up any sympathy for men.

  • Höllenhund

    And I’d appreciate your losing the shaming language: nominally, quasi, etc.

    Heh, I used those words for a reason. You decided to oppose feminism because you concluded that roughly 10% of its consequences are harmful to (mainly) women. I’m sure you have no problem with 90% of feminism’s accomplishments. Hence calling you an anti-feminist would be partially inaccurate. You also espouse some conservative views (the Sexual Revolution should never have happened, sluttishness is bad for everyone etc.) even though you never call yourself a conservative, do you?

    I am appealing to women with an argument that offers an incentive to overturn feminism – to vote against it, to deny funding to it, to say bad things about it at dinner parties. “Be good” will not catch the ear of my audience. They’ve most of them heard it every week from ministers, priests and rabbis.

    No, they never have. And I never said you should adopt their religious arguments. My question was this: why don’t you and other women like you ever put forth the following argument?

    “The currently declining condition of American men is largely the result of deliberate feminist policies. Men are being systematically marginalized and unjustly victimized by the feminist establishment through anti-male economic policies and laws. We find this unacceptable because American men are our fellow citizens who don’t deserve such discrimination and injustice.”

    I never hear a single woman say this. I certainly never hear priests or rabbis ever say anything like this. The anti-feminist female argument I hear instead is “let’s treat men better so that they will give us what we want from them”. It seems men don’t even exist as fully equal human beings in many female minds, only as accessories in life (dutiful providers, protectors, lovers, sex partners). As if men only have any value in society as long as they do stuff for – and give stuff to – women.

    Personal fulfillment – if you don’t care about what’s happening to men, there won’t be any for you to marry. This is analagous to – if you don’t care about the planet, it won’t be here for your descendants. If you don’t fund breast cancer research, you will regret it when you are the 1 in 7 who gets it. Etc.

    The funny thing is that many men simply don’t think in such selfish ways. Many men have supported feminists throughout history because they genuinely cared about women’s lot and believed that giving them equal rights will be a good idea in itself. Not all feminist men thought “yeah great, we will turn all women into empowered sluts so that we can pump and dump them without all that courting and other shit”.

    • @Hollenhund

      You decided to oppose feminism because you concluded that roughly 10% of its consequences are harmful to (mainly) women. I’m sure you have no problem with 90% of feminism’s accomplishments.

      I am on record as supporting gender equity. Put me in the Camille Paglia camp. I have, over the years, been at odds with feminism on many issues, both because I believe they seek more than equity vis a vis males, and because I consider some of their positions unethical. I have written numerous times to criticize feminists’ treatment of males, from early childhood onward.

      “The currently declining condition of American men is largely the result of deliberate feminist policies. Men are being systematically marginalized and unjustly victimized by the feminist establishment through anti-male economic policies and laws. We find this unacceptable because American men are our fellow citizens who don’t deserve such discrimination and injustice.

      For starters:
      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/04/09/relationshipstrategies/sign-me-up-for-male-studies/
      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/02/08/hookinguprealities/i-hate-math-especially-on-college-campuses/
      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/04/14/hookinguprealities/duke-gets-it-wrong-again-invites-injustice/

      In writing this blog, I have become particularly familiar with the sex-positive branch, which happens to be the only real active and viable constituency, as far as I can tell. So it makes sense to do battle there, and it fits with the mission of my blog.

      You are ignorant of my position on a large number of other issues that relate to men, because I haven’t written about them. Nor will I, as I am not a MRA blogger. I think it’s pretty audacious to call out a blogger for what they don’t say, according to your preferred script. Your voice is not my voice, your priorities are not my priorities, your values are not my values. Your description of women as morally inferior to men is unwelcome here.

  • Rae

    The US economy is in a huge hole, and that is a serious problem. (I left the US for Australia, and am probably not coming back. One of the things that really alarmed me about my last visit home was the sheer number of people sleeping in subway stations.) However, I really don’t see why it’s helpful to frame it as though men and women are two separate teams, and men lose whenever women win. (And to head off objections, I don’t really care if some feminist framed it that way first. Even if they did, why compound their errors?)

    Why should you care? Because you want to marry a man who earns at least as much as you do, if not more.

    I don’t, actually. But I want to live in a society where everybody is making enough money to have a decent quality of life. I don’t want to be poor, and I also don’t want to be rich in a country full of poor people who resent me.

    I believe that feminism supports things that are good for everybody in the end. For example, making sure everybody has access to reproductive health care is a piece of basic social infrastructure. Ditto maternity and paternity leave. I am deeply horrified to see the US destroying its basic social infrastructure.

    I have heard stories about strange creatures called “feminists”–beautiful rich white women who eat yogurt, do yoga, use their sex appeal to extort money and drinks from men, believe themselves to be precious princesses, and drink the blood of puppies as a refreshing aperitif–but I have never actually seen any of these so-called “feminists” except maybe on TV commercials, so I am not really convinced they exist.

  • Höllenhund

    However, I really don’t see why it’s helpful to frame it as though men and women are two separate teams, and men lose whenever women win.

    It’s helpful for the simple reason that Western laws and norms treat men and women as two separate teams with wholly different entitlements, economic interests, rights, obligations and goals. Women are propped up economically, men aren’t. Women have all the reproductive and parental rights, men none. Rape is persecuted, cuckoldry (its female equivalent) goes unpunished and is in fact encouraged. The Pill exists, the male birth control pill doesn’t. The male desire for sexual variety is regulated, female hypergamy isn’t. The list goes on.

    All in all, neither men nor women have any objective reason to consider both genders to be one team with united goals and interests. The simple reason is that due to feminist influence, Western societies decided that male-female relations should be based on power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, as in the old days. We can complain about it if we want, but it’s a reality which isn’t going away soon.

  • Rae

    Rape is persecuted, cuckoldry (its female equivalent) goes unpunished and is in fact encouraged.

    Seriously, what the fuck?! The male equivalent of raping a woman is… raping a man. The female equivalent of cheating on a man is… cheating on a woman. Both genders can be raped, and both genders can be cheated on. And while having a cheating partner does suck, it is really not comparable to being physically assaulted.

    Damn. I was having nice thoughts about Dylan Moran and his sexy voice, and then I stupidly clicked back over to this thread.

  • chris

    @Höllenhund

    “The currently declining condition of American men is largely the result of deliberate feminist policies. Men are being systematically marginalized and unjustly victimized by the feminist establishment through anti-male economic policies and laws. We find this unacceptable because American men are our fellow citizens who don’t deserve such discrimination and injustice.”

    I never hear a single woman say this.

    People are inherently selfish. If you want to persuade others you should show them how your way will benefit them more then your oppenants way. That is simply called being practical.

    @Rae

    Actually, from a evolutionary biological/psychological perspective, cuckoldry of men is the equivalent of the rape of a women. Both entail the procurement of the other’s reproductive resources against their wishes and to their detriment.

    see Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (pp 136–179). Chicago, Aldine.

    see Buss, D. M., R. J. Larsen, D. Westen and J. Semmelroth (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science 3:251–255.

    or indeed anything in the evolutionary biology field related to paternal investment theory or anything in the evolutionary psychological field related to jealousy. Significant sex differences are observed as would be expected from evolutionary theory.

    Furthermore, if your a women, your inability to understand the severity of the emotional reaction to cuckoldry by men, and hence perhaps it’s equivalence in men’s minds, could most likely be the result of a feminised brain structure.

    see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911001413

    Sex differences are real, and equality does not necessarily equal equity.

    Real justice would entail taking into consideration what we now know about human behavioral biology and the implications that this would have for society and individuals.

  • Höllenhund

    Seriously, what the fuck?! The male equivalent of raping a woman is… raping a man.

    Not really. From an evolutionary point of view, male-on-female rape is the unreciprocated use of female reproductive capacity by forcefully circumventing female sexual choice. In other words, a rapist forces a woman to assume a maternal role while giving nothing in return – this has been the usual purpose of rape before contraception existed. When a woman wants to do the same to a man i.e. make him assume a paternal role against his will for her benefit, she resorts to cuckoldry, not rape.

    Male-on-male rape is completely different. It’s normally practiced as means to exercise domination over a voluntarily or involuntarily submissive man in an all-male hierarchy, or to use a man as a sexual outlet when no women are available (prison rape is an obvious example for both).

  • Höllenhund

    People are inherently selfish.

    No. Women are inherently selfish – or in other words, they are, on average, more selfish than men. This is also easily explained by evo psych.

    If you want to persuade others you should show them how your way will benefit them more then your oppenants way. That is simply called being practical.

    How do you explain the behavior of white men who supported the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement out of moral considerations?

    • How do you explain the behavior of white men who supported the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement out of moral considerations?

      Abraham Lincoln was not one of those men. He cared about, and appealed to others to care about, preventing the dissolution of the Union.

  • @SayWhaat: Yes, I agree with you about class. That’s a good point.

    The classic scenario there is a woman financially assisting her partner through medical school or law school only for him dump her once he’s qualified and making good money.

    See folks, I’m not “pro-man” or “pro-woman”. I’m “pro-reality” and “pro-truth”.

  • Anonymous

    The figures for these a levels in mixed schools are many times lower than all girls schools leading to some suggesting all schools should be single sex.

    Oh how typical of someone like “Jess” to use second-hand statistics without even bothering to clarify. Girls in single sex schools don’t just do better at “physics”, they do better at everything. As do boys. But you won’t find a feminist within earshot who’ll endorse single sex education.

  • chris

    No. Women are inherently selfish – or in other words, they are, on average, more selfish than men. This is also easily explained by evo psych.

    Do you have any scientific study/research which backs up that claim?

    How do you explain the behavior of white men who supported the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement out of moral considerations?

    Abolition: Moral posturing and the subsequent status that would go along with that. If not that, then a group indentification that exceeded the group identification of other white men at the time that resulted in it seeming in their interests to advocate abolition, aka Universalism or Humanism.

    Civil rights: Advocates of communism with the civil rights movement as a means to destroy the white male capitalist power structure. see Antonio Gramsci and his thoughts of cultural hegemony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci#Hegemony

    Mind you though I am neither an American nor a Historian, so my answer to this question above is purely speculative opinion.

    Ultimately, I believe morality to be the product of evolution.
    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

    The ultimate cause of evolution is self-interest. So, it would follow that since morality is the product evolution, then the ultimate cause of it would be self-interest.

    Thus, if you wish to persuade someone, if not relying on the explicit rhetoric of their pre-existing moral framework/ideology, then demonstrate how the positions you advocate benefit them and the positions advocated by your opposition harm them, as the moral positions people hold are the result of self-interest.

  • chris

    that should be

    as ultimately, the moral positions people hold are the result of self-interest.

  • Abbot

    Ditto maternity and paternity leave.
    .
    Bull. Shit. Feminists support so-called “paternity leave” NOT because they give a crap about men or are responding to the 1% of men whining about not getting some spoiled brat entitlement. They support it because they feel it increases the chances of men changing their “socially constructed” non-desire to pull more weight at home. They support it because it gets men to work less thus possibly leading to more “equal earnings” for women. If it truly benefited men or it was desired by them, then men would be the ones howling about it and not women. But here we are. Articles written about this are heavily feminist influenced.

  • Abbot

    you won’t find a feminist within earshot who’ll endorse single sex education.
    .
    Out of fear that segregation will lead to lower quality education for girls. Just like separate dorms will lead to less stimulating sex education for women in college. Better to get some unproven marginal benefit from mixing with boys and just put up with the consequences of doing so. Feminists are such mental giants.

  • chris

    Mind you of course, my position on the best way to persuade someone could be influenced by the way in which I perceive the world, and on scores of Machiavellianism, I tend to score higher then most. Thus, that could affect it.

    Nonetheless, I believe my argument to be logically and scientifically sound.

    I just offer this acknowledgement/qualification of my own potential biases as means of providing the most information for people to determine whether or not they should pursue my position of how to persuade.

    • @chris
      Welcome to HUS, I appreciate your insightful comments. Stick around.

  • Wanderer

    How do you explain the behavior of white men who supported the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement out of moral considerations?

    There may have been a few of them, but not very many. For the most part, whites who supported abolitionism did so out of economic self-interest (slavery was inimical to free labor, as the Northerners saw it, and Jim Crow was bad for business). Not every man who couched his support for “progressive” causes in high-minded rhetoric was necessarily being honest about his ulterior motivations.

    In any case, though, even if we were to accept that men are virtuous and selfless and women are venal and selfish (evobio explains it, as it explains everything, after all), it’s a reality we simply have to accept, and condemning Susan for her selfish behavior is going to accomplish absolutely nothing. It isn’t as if women are sentient beings like men, after all–they simply aren’t as highly evolved. Asking a woman to think of anything beyond her self-interest is as futile as asking a cat not to chase mice. Therefore, rather than trying to reason with animals, we should simply take advantage of their pre-programmed instincts–by utilizing cats as vermin exterminators, and by utilizing women like Susan as useful pawns in the war against feminism. So what if she’s “selfish?” Nobody condemns a cat for mindlessly obeying its instincts so long as they live in a mouse-free home. By the same token, what’s the point of condemning Susan for mindlessly obeying her selfless instincts so long as it aids in the struggle?

    If women really are stupid, miserable creatures who deserve no rights, as you and many MRAs believe (a proposition for which there may be some evidence–I am, actually, not trying to be as confrontational as I might seem to be), they also deserve no responsibility for their actions, and we really have no business asking them to live up to any moral standard, of selflessness or anything else.

    • @Wanderer

      It isn’t as if women are sentient beings like men, after all–they simply aren’t as highly evolved. Asking a woman to think of anything beyond her self-interest is as futile as asking a cat not to chase mice. Therefore, rather than trying to reason with animals, we should simply take advantage of their pre-programmed instincts–by utilizing cats as vermin exterminators, and by utilizing women like Susan as useful pawns in the war against feminism

      I’d like to think this is satire, but I fear you are in earnest. Please know that I care about males even though they include people with attitudes such as yours.

      Please leave my “home” and go back to the Spearhead now.

  • Wanderer

    Oops, “selfless instincts” should be “selfish instincts,” above. How I wish guests could edit their comments :/

  • Höllenhund

    An American 26 yo female lawyer and a Chinese farmer with no education and no English. Now there’s a brilliant suggestion!

    Did you notice the phrase “high-earning”? I used it for a reason. Both Indian and Chinese cities are full of hardcore protector-provider betas with good jobs yet unable to find wives due to the massive gender imbalance. I’m not being sarcastic. American betas are routinely advised to move to countries where the local SMP suits them better. It’s just common sense. It logically follows that American women looking for high-earning, stable husbands should consider moving to countries where, unlike in the USA, such men are in great abundance.

    • American betas are routinely advised to move to countries where the local SMP suits them better.

      Not by me. I think it’s an extreme and unnecessary strategy for all but a few men. And only a few men have done it. The idea of an American woman moving to Beijing, with a far lower quality of life (extreme pollution, lack of modern plumbing), setting up house and looking for a Chinese boyfriend is laughable, and you know it.

  • Lavazza

    Höllenhund: “In other words, women find it rather difficult to muster up any sympathy for men.”

    Feminism: The radical notion that only women are people.

  • Höllenhund

    Indeed.

  • Jess

    Say what,
    You made some great posts- thank you. I always envy people who can capture arguments so well.
    .
    Mike c- what is feminism?
    I have always seen it myself as trying to overturn injustices against women but in a very humane context. I have never seen it as a male bashing exercise.
    .
    As to why Jameson and dworkin are both feminists, it’s because no 2 people have the same opinions. Prime ministers Blair and brown were both labour leaders but differed bitterly on key policies. Same for any religion or political movement.
    .

  • Jess

    Susan re sandberg,
    Ouch, cheap shot don’t you think? I can think of a few devoted mothers who momentarily got their children’s age wrong. Hell I have been gotten my own age wrong on occasion cos time flies so quickly (I was mistakenly 29 for years- ahem)

  • Jess

    Susan re education,
    For the uk at least the ratios of girls choosing sciences in single sex girls is dramatically higher than in mixed schools. That’s despite media and cultural pressures.
    .
    It may not have happened for your children but that doesn’t overturn the hard data does it?

    • @Jess
      Links please from reputable sources.

  • Tom

    There are places on earth where women do not have the same rights as men,
    where women are subservient.Where women must walk 3 paces behind their man. Changing that male attitude, in other parts of the world, is really what the feminist movement is all about. It is not a new movement, it has been evolving for a long time.
    It took the civil rights movement to give black people equal rights under the law, they so justly deserved. Without civil unrest, their movemnt would never have taken flight, or at least it would have taken a lot longer.
    It was less than 100 years ago that women got the right to vote (19th Amendment)
    About 60 years ago they stopped arresting women on beaches for exposing too much skin.(a joke by todays standards)
    It took Title 9 to give girls the same rights as boys athletically, in schools.
    It took a law to be passed to give women equal pay for equal work.
    I am not surprised at all there is a movement by women to equalize women as a social class, letting them know they are free to act as they choose, without the worry or disdain from men still living in the 19th century.
    I know by locker room attitudes, many men still see women as inferior. I am not just talking physically, but in most all aspects.
    Nope not surprised at all. Most social classes treated unfairly will eventually revolt.

  • Tom

    @ Byron
    I’d not seen these stats before Susan, thanks so much for posting. Women in the 20′s – 30′s now out-earn their male contemporaries & the education gap has been widening for decades, as was recently reported:

    _________________________
    Could it be women have raised the standards? Dont blame males if women are out working men in college and thus getting the better jobs.

  • Susan…shouldn’t we say that men who were willing to put their lives at very serious risk because of their belief in the Union…or for that matter, their belief in State’s Rights…were also motivated by moral considerations?

    • @david foster
      Yes, of course! I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I was just responding to the particular moral consideration that Hollenhund highlighted – going to war being the right thing to do for equality.

  • Tom

    @ Hollenhund

    Western societies decided that male-female relations should be based on power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, as in the old days.
    ________________________-
    The old days involved women staying home, raising kids, doing laundry, going to the market, cooking food, and just laying there and hoping he`d cum soon so she could go to sleep. Is that what you call cooperation? ..Women today have poven that they have other aspirations than the menial. Has it changed society, absolutely it has. But now the horse is out of the barn, and I am not sure if it is ever willgo back, or if it even should.

  • Tom:

    The point is, as i mention in the post, that men are in a worse place educationally now than women were before the 1970’s, which was then thought deserving of radical action to correct the 60-40 imbalance on campus, which was achieved by the beginning of the 1980s. Every year since then the numbers of women in higher education have increased & men have decreased. Now that the positions are exactly reversed, no-one – least of all feminists – have put forward any plans to fix that imbalance. There is no outcry, no concern for young men & boys futures at all, which clearly demonstrates a profoundly contemptuous & misandric society.

  • Mel

    Girl Power is so robust the girls themselves can’t even handle it.

    My niece, who is 10, has remarked on the same thing. She’s smart enough to recognize that it’s just a lot of vacuous flattery.

    I think that an unintended consequence of this trend is to make smart girls question what it is that’s wrong with them that they should need so much special attention and support. My niece has asked me a few questions to this effect because she sees that it’s only girls who get this treatment. The boys can fail and be corrected, and move on, but girls have to be told that they’re ‘perfect’ and are never wrong.

  • Tom

    @David Foster
    Susan…shouldn’t we say that men who were willing to put their lives at very serious risk because of their belief in the Union…or for that matter, their belief in State’s Rights…were also motivated by moral considerations?

    __________________________-
    The civil war was about states rights and keeping the union.. However do not EVER doubt that the state rights being argued about was the right to have slaves.
    If you read the declorations of Secessions of various states, the right to keep slaves was the main reason.. it was often stated early in the document…

    http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
    The first fifty or so words in Georgia`s document
    “””The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

    Mississippi`s scond paragraph
    Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

    texas

    She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

    It is in EVERY southern states document of Srcession

  • Tom

    @ Byron
    Every year since then the numbers of women in higher education have increased & men have decreased. Now that the positions are exactly reversed, no-one – least of all feminists – have put forward any plans to fix that imbalance. There is no outcry, no concern for young men & boys futures at all, which clearly demonstrates a profoundly contemptuous & misandric society.
    __________________
    It is not womens fault they are out performing men. Obviously women are now more driven because they know to get the jobs, they MUST out perform men. The imbalance is the fault of men, not thee ambition of women. Like I said, women have raised the bar, men have to put down the Playstation and get back to business….

  • jess

    susan re education,
    .
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52814117/112/SINGLE-SEX-SCHOOLS
    .
    http://www.singlesexschools.org/
    .
    there 100’s of sources, the 2nd i choose cos its the usa

    • @Jess
      That link is no good – it’s sponsored by the single sex ed folks. As I said, I have nothing against it – I sent my kids to single sex schools. But the evidence needs to come from a neutral source.

  • Aldonza

    @Stephenie Rowling

    Now 40 years later are feminists happy?

    I’m pretty darn happy. I wouldn’t want to go back 40 years, 30, 20, or even 10 years.

    Are you happy? And by “you”, I mean *you*. The personal you.

    • @Stephenie, @Aldonza

      Now 40 years later are feminists happy?

      I’m pretty darn happy. I wouldn’t want to go back 40 years, 30, 20, or even 10 years.

      Aldonza, you’re proving the point. The work of feminism has been completed. You’re happy, I’m happy, women have incredible opportunities. When do we stop giving them special privileges and affirmative action, or reconsider an elementary school culture that penalizes active, healthy boys? If you ask Jessica Valenti if she’s happy, she will say “Of course not! The evil patriarchy still controls the agenda!”

  • You’re demonstrating my point: if the same arguments you make were used back in 1970 but reversed, i.e

    ‘Dont blame males if men are out working women in college and thus getting the better jobs..’,

    ‘It is not mens fault they are out performing women’

    the feminists would have had a shitty fit. Now the inequality is exactly reversed there is no public outcry trying to redress the balance, to weed out discrimination & examine the teaching methods of the schools that are making boys drop out. If feminism were literally about equality then that would be its first priority. As it is, there is not only a deafening silence upon the matter but anger & outrage whenever the subject is raised.

    http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_258.asp

  • jess

    sorry susan
    .
    i dont know why my link did that

  • Aldonza

    1. Education- many women find peer pressure puts them off maths, physics and engineering. The figures for these a levels in mixed schools are many times lower than all girls schools leading to some suggesting all schools should be single sex. This is of interest to feminists and is own the whole a good natured debate.

    This one is simple. It’s been blasted all over this thread about how men aren’t impressed by career credentials. Fact is, women choose their educational path at the same time they’re learning about what appeals to men. It doesn’t take a National Honor Society inductee to figure out that working on her abs and hair will get her further with guys than studying for the Math AP exam. In fact, at that age, most guys *are* intimidated by girls with hard science skills.

  • Höllenhund

    For starters:

    Yes, I remember those posts. Consider your conclusions:

    “We can’t have healthy relationships if men are not thriving.”
    “The pool of educated, marriageable men is shrinking, and there is no solution in sight. If marriage and motherhood are your goal anytime in the next ten years, then now is not too soon to consider and pursue a strategy for experiencing healthy relationships.”

    Don’t you think they prove my point, namely that your arguments are gynocentric even when you make them specifically about men? I’m not making an accusation, but I cannot help but notice that I have never heard of any man making a similar argument about women either these days or in the past. Have you ever heard a man say something like this?:

    “We need to help women thrive because otherwise we cannot get the sort of relationships from them that we want. Who would want to be surrounded by miserable, vindictive, unpleasant women?”
    “My fellow men, the pool of marriageable women fit to become good wives and caring mothers is rapidly shrinking, we need to something to remedy that. After all, these are the sort of women we consider marrying, don’t we?”

    It’s reasonable to suspect most women would go apeshit or at least recoil in disgust if she heard something like that.

    Nor will I, as I am not a MRA blogger. I think it’s pretty audacious to call out a blogger for what they don’t say, according to your preferred script.

    You’re concerned about the condition of men and you tell your female readers that something should be done about that. That’s pretty close to being an MRA. What I find intriguing is that you don’t specifically say that the well-being of men has value in itself.

    Your description of women as morally inferior to men

    ?

    Abraham Lincoln was not one of those men.

    Where did I say otherwise?

    The idea of an American woman moving to Beijing, with a far lower quality of life (extreme pollution, lack of modern plumbing), setting up house and looking for a Chinese boyfriend is laughable, and you know it.

    No, I don’t know it. I’m serious. You complain that American men are becoming economically marginalized, which hurts the relationship prospects of American women. I mentioned that India and China has an enormous surplus of high-earning professional single men who won’t find wives at home no matter what they do. Plus both are booming economies. Do the math.

    And lack of modern plumbing in Beijing? Seriously? ROFL

    • @Hollenhund

      “We need to help women thrive because otherwise we cannot get the sort of relationships from them that we want. Who would want to be surrounded by miserable, vindictive, unpleasant women?”

      Isn’t this exactly what the vast majority of men did during the Women’s Movement? In fact, they went further: “And if we go along with feminism we get to help them explore their sexuality. Free Love for everyone, groovy!”

      You’re concerned about the condition of men and you tell your female readers that something should be done about that. That’s pretty close to being an MRA. What I find intriguing is that you don’t specifically say that the well-being of men has value in itself.

      I am not an MRA, please don’t call me that! I am concerned about the condition of men because I love several men, I want them to thrive and be happy. I extrapolate that into a general concern for mankind and society. I also worry about what will happen to women if our men stagnate, and the idea of a future where men are not needed frightens me. It’s a dystopian vision. It should not be necessary for me to write posts stating explicitly that the well-being of women, men, children, animals, the planet, the economy, the church, etc. has value in some abstract way. I believe that men and women are each happier when they’re together, and I’m trying to bridge that gap.

      And lack of modern plumbing in Beijing? Seriously? ROFL

      My son lived in Beijing for six months. Aside from the luxury hotels, toilets are generally a hole in the floor in the shower stall. When you take a shower, the water runs down into the shit until it bubbles up around your feet. I don’t think my son took a crap sitting down more than a couple of times when he was there.

  • Höllenhund

    Obviously women are now more driven because they know to get the jobs, they MUST out perform men. The imbalance is the fault of men, not thee ambition of women.

    Affirmative action for women, female-friendly educational reforms and the systematic marginalization of boys in schools apparently had nothing to do with all this.

    Feminists are funny this way. If women are at an advantage in anything, it’s due to their innate superiority. If men are at an advantage in anything, it’s due to anti-woman discrimination.

  • Aldonza

    @Byron

    The point is, as i mention in the post, that men are in a worse place educationally now than women were before the 1970′s, which was then thought deserving of radical action to correct the 60-40 imbalance on campus, which was achieved by the beginning of the 1980s.

    It only took roughly 100 years to correct the educational situation for women. Be patient.

  • Höllenhund

    The old days involved women staying home, raising kids, doing laundry, going to the market, cooking food, and just laying there and hoping he`d cum soon so she could go to sleep. Is that what you call cooperation?

    Yes, it is. Disregarding the usual feminist BS about all women being sexually frustrated and female orgasms being unheard of before 1965, it literally is. In the traditional Western household, the husband and wife concentrated on roles they were the best at in order to create a stable family for their children, instead of jockeying for a better position of power within the relationship and competing for the same jobs. That’s called cooperation. Duh.

  • Höllenhund

    It only took roughly 100 years to correct the educational situation for women.

    Is this some sort of joke?

  • Höllenhund

    Could it be women have raised the standards?

    You mean the average intellectual performance of American college students has risen in the past 50 years? LOL

  • Tom..”The old days involved women staying home, raising kids, doing laundry, going to the market, cooking food, and just laying there and hoping he`d cum soon so she could go to sleep”

    In the Olden Days, the home was usually a center of economic activity in which husband and wife *co-operated*, whether that economic activity was farming or spinning-weaving. The archtype of the 1950s cannot be accurately projected back in history.

  • Tom

    @ Byron
    You’re demonstrating my point: if the same arguments you make were used back in 1970 but reversed, i.e

    ‘Dont blame males if men are out working women in college and thus getting the better jobs..’,

    ‘It is not mens fault they are out performing women’

    the feminists would have had a shitty fit. Now the inequality is exactly reversed there is no public outcry trying to redress the balance, to weed out discrimination & examine the teaching methods of the schools that are making boys drop out. If feminism were literally about equality then that would be its first priority. As it is, there is not only a deafening silence upon the matter but anger & outrage whenever the subject is raised.

    _____________________
    No Byron it is not the same at all…..Back 40years ago men had ALWAYS been in power, had always had the advantages, it had NEVER been a level playing field. The only thing that has changed is women attitudes. They got tired of being told they were second class , homemakers etc. Now days, it is sheer determination that has thrust women ahead of men in the work marketplace. If women now have the advantage it is because they earned it. No standards were lowered to get women involved in education and careers. It was their attitude that changed (as a result of feminism) and many men resent women who are aggressive and determinded, and sexually free I might add (for relationships) Seems to me women have learned to compete while men are losing the desire to compete against them.

  • Tom…also…You are correct, of course, about the centrality of slavery to the Confederacy. This does not change the point that most of the men fighting, on both sides, believed they were sacrificing themselves for a cause that *they* believed was worthy. They certainly weren’t doing it for the pay.

  • Tom

    David,
    Propaganda was alive and well back then too. The men from the confederate states were told they were fighting for states rights, not actually defending slavery.99% of them never owned a slave.
    The men from the north were told they were fighting to preserve the union. They did not have it in their mind they were fighting to free the slaves. Our government is great at at half truths and total fabrication.

  • Aldonza,

    if you check that link i included:
    http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_258.asp
    you’ll see the 60/40 inequality of 1970 was pretty much corrected by 1980, a period of only 10 years. And it was corrected because the public at large thought it an urgent enough injustice to warrant corrective action.

    In the 30 years since then the inequality has literally reversed, til now it is 60/40 women to men. There is no reason for anyone to accept the one inequality & not the other, & no sense in just waiting to watch that gap keep on increasing for another 30 years.

    Patience is not what is required in this situation, though that is all feminists ever urge.

    Feminism is not now, nor has it ever been about equality.

  • Tom

    In the Olden Days, the home was usually a center of economic activity in which husband and wife *co-operated*, whether that economic activity was farming or spinning-weaving. The archtype of the 1950s cannot be accurately projected back in history.

    _________________________—
    If you are talking WAY back in almost primitive days of the 1700`s and 1800`s, men and women HAD to cooperate. Travel and communication were almost non existant back then. Then it made no sense for two people to work, life was completely different, even the work was different. Work back then was mainly labor intensive, more suited to a mans strength…..Jump to the 1900`s when communication and travel were made common place, the job market changed, families changes and roles began to change. Men no longer had to hunt for food, manually run a plow behind a plow horse. Jobs became easier and more plentiful. Rolls changed out of necessity. Once womn became more socialised in the work place, they were never again going to be complacent in their old submissive rolls.

  • Tom

    Hollenlund
    Could it be women have raised the standards?

    You mean the average intellectual performance of American college students has risen in the past 50 years? LOL

    ________________________—
    They have raised th standard above men, is what any rational thinking person would have gathered from my comment. If women are below where the standard of where men WHERE, what dos that say about men now?

  • Aldonza

    @Byron

    you’ll see the 60/40 inequality of 1970 was pretty much corrected by 1980, a period of only 10 years. And it was corrected because the public at large thought it an urgent enough injustice to warrant corrective action.

    The correction that happened between 1970 and 1980 was the product of way more than just the single decade of change. You’re just looking at the tail end of a change in education stemming back to the beginning of organized post-secondary schooling going back hundreds of years. Women have been fighting for access to educational opportunities since way before 1970. It was only the 1970s when we began to see real changes in educational access for women.

    The problem of more men than women in higher education is just being noticed now. You don’t change something that has origins in a hundred different micro-variables overnight.

  • Tom…again, you are largely correct about the specifics (although if you read Civil War letters and memoirs, you will find a significant % of Union troops DID believe they were fighting to end slavery) but this is irrelevant to the point that large numbers of men have been willing to endure great sacrifice for causes they believed greater than themselves.

    “OUR government is great at at half truths and total fabrication” (emphasis added)….as opposed to what other government? Imperial Japan? Hohenzollern Germany? Czarist Russia? Great Britain? The European Union? Do you honestly think OUR government is uniquely guilty of nefariousness? Do you agree with Michelle Obama that America is a “just plain mean country”?

  • Aldonza

    @david foster

    The archtype of the 1950s cannot be accurately projected back in history.

    Heck, the archetype of the 1950s can’t even be projected to the 1950s, except for a fairly narrow segment of society in the US.

    I highly recommend this book: The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. It was quite illuminating.

  • The problem of more men than women in higher education is just being noticed now.

    And yet it’s been a problem for over 25 years. With all we have learnt the past hundred years, why is that?

    You don’t change something that has origins in a hundred different micro-variables overnight.

    No, instead we do nothing.

  • jess

    “The idea of an American woman moving to Beijing, with a far lower quality of life (extreme pollution, lack of modern plumbing), setting up house and looking for a Chinese boyfriend is laughable, and you know it.”- Susan
    .
    Absolutely- and they wouldn’t like their tiny little willies either would they Susan?
    .
    .
    .
    IJOC

    • Absolutely- and they wouldn’t like their tiny little willies either would they Susan?

      Rude.

  • michel

    What’s also amusing is that while the stereotype about women being attracted to subjects like English and literature, of having a flair for letters, so to speak still abounds, the quality of both journalism and literature itself has absolutely plummeted since women began large-scale entry into tertiary education (many of today’s women punctuate worse, conjugate sloppier and argue with less objectivity than their peers in the relatively recent past). I refer here to both B. R. Myers’ polemic on modern lit and Udolpho.com’s review of his work — both make the convincing case that, and here I won’t mince words, women are ruining both journalism and the English language through its rapid decay into meaningless vitriol, emotional bubbling and myopic blogging.

    I again must ask: if our women are now more educated than ever, where are the results? Where are the great women writers, scientists and artists?

  • michel

    I have, over the years, been at odds with feminism on many issues

    Where? Which issues? Your quote was extremely vague, and your links even more so: you support a “male studies” class; well, that’s dandy, but is apposite vitriol really what any of us need? You’re still pushing femme boosterism as concerns college (your position is apparently that not enough men are going to even it out, ignoring the massive problems such an approach would inherit), you foster casual sex with an eye towards maximizing a girl’s sexual pleasure (at the unconsidered expense of the men in question), you don’t seem to have any position whatsoever on how to bring back a sane marriage into the First World…

    Exactly how have you been critical of “sex-positive feminism”? In what way? Your whole blog is about “hook ups”, or vague “long term relationships” (I can tell you’re itching to say this), right?

    People are “calling [you] out for what [you] don’t say” because you supposedly profess interest in the cause of humanity rather than just women, and you make lofty pronouncements about what your intentions are in writing this blog. No one would be in the least surprised if you flat-out stated you’re a relationship blogger interested in getting women husbands, or even that you’re only bothered about tricks for making young women feel sexually satisfied. None of that is new, we can take it on the nose, it’s just whatever. But why pretend you’re something you’re not?

    • @michel
      You are my guest here. If you’re rude I’ll ask you to pick up your marbles and go home.

      I have, over the years, been at odds with feminism on many issues

      Where? Which issues? Your quote was extremely vague, and your links even more so…You’re still pushing femme boosterism as concerns college (your position is apparently that not enough men are going to even it out, ignoring the massive problems such an approach would inherit), you foster casual sex with an eye towards maximizing a girl’s sexual pleasure (at the unconsidered expense of the men in question), you don’t seem to have any position whatsoever on how to bring back a sane marriage into the First World…

      According to my records, your first comment ever here was left yesterday. How long have you been reading my site michel? Because your ignorance, combined with your aggression, makes you a fool. I have written nearly 500 posts and accumulated 40,000 comments here. Read them and speak intelligently or shut up.

      No one would be in the least surprised if you flat-out stated you’re a relationship blogger interested in getting women husbands, or even that you’re only bothered about tricks for making young women feel sexually satisfied.

      I don’t even write about marriage per se. I simply acknowledge that it’s the goal of 95% of young women.

      Bothered about tricks, what? You are a blathering idiot. You owe me an apology or get lost.

  • Tom

    David
    “OUR government is great at at half truths and total fabrication” (emphasis added)….as opposed to what other government? Imperial Japan? Hohenzollern Germany? Czarist Russia? Great Britain? The European Union? Do you honestly think OUR government is uniquely guilty of nefariousness? Do you agree with Michelle Obama that America is a “just plain mean country”?

    __________________________
    No. Our govenment is just as guilty of lying to its people as those you listed. We lied to go to war in more than one case, as did Nazi Germany under Hitler. We have now preempted attacks unprovoked, and lied to our people as to what the reasons were.We are guilty of falseflags also.

  • Aldonza…”Heck, the archetype of the 1950s can’t even be projected to the 1950s, except for a fairly narrow segment of society in the US”…Indeed–actually, that’s why I referred to “the archetype of the 1950s” rather than just “the 1950s.”

    Also, I suspect the meme that women prior to the modern era were “just laying there and hoping he`d cum soon so she could go to sleep” could use some challenging and some research. Undoubtedly, the absence of reliable contraception, coupled with the serious dangers of pregnancy prior to modern medicine, could frequently act as inhibitors to sexual enjoyment–but the biochemistry of humans hasn’t changed, and I bet that back in the Olden Days there were a fair number of women enjoying sex on a regular basis.

  • Wanderer

    I’d like to think this is satire, but I fear you are in earnest.

    My apologies if I offended you. This is essentially what many MRAs do believe, however, and if I recall correctly, it is essentially what Hollenhund believes. I am using those as my starting assumptions in order to argue against the points he seems to be making–i.e if women really are stupid and less evolved, condemning them for acting only in mercenary self-interest, as Hollenhund seems to be doing, is pointless because they can’t be held “responsible” for anything–the only thing they’re capable of is following their instincts, which means condemning them for it is less efficacious than exploiting those instincts for the interests of men.

    For what it’s worth, I’m not sure whether I believe all that, but the experiences I’ve had–and I’m sure many of the men here can sympathize, at least somewhat–have, unhappily, made me unable to condemn it outright.

  • namae nanka

    “Women have been fighting for access to educational opportunities since way before 1970. It was only the 1970s when we began to see real changes in educational access for women.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0724/p08s01-comv.html

    ” if our women are now more educated than ever, where are the results?”

    Look at the doctor shortage.

    “Where are the great women writers, scientists and artists?”

    Twilight!! you sexist!! and now they have to work too, so it’s harder.

    “Obviously women are now more driven because they know to get the jobs, they MUST out perform men. The imbalance is the fault of men, not thee ambition of women. Like I said, women have raised the bar, men have to put down the Playstation and get back to business….”

    Men have had enough of jumping through loops for women who don’t deserve it.
    They might have raised the bar for men, but by standing on men’s achievements and calling it progress. The stupidity is overwhelming.

  • namae nanka

    as vox has written about how the lower class women(about 30%) had to work before the good ole’ feminism broke the barriers??,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do5zrdTb-yI

    the end result is a deluded group of women thinking they are better off than the women before them.

    a perusal of Betty Friedan’s history would be enlightening as well.

  • namae nanka

    “Are feminists happier than 40 years ago? well of course! Surely nobody would argue women should lose the vote or not be able to stand for election.”

    I would argue even the former. Not the majority, but quite a few feminists aren’t happy the way things have gone. One of the reasons is the inane blathering like this:

    “Putting aside your hopeless insults and possible trolldom, the sources I have seen suggest that whilst stoning of both sexes exist there are no prizes for guessing which gender gets it the most, and by a large margin.
    .
    Amnesty international have some figures if you are interested.”

    Which gender gets it the most? How about which gender stands out when you compare individual brilliance? Feminism these days sounds much like the rantings of frustrated women who since can’t match men individually, want women to “win” in the collective.
    Maths gap, wage gap, glass ceilings – awesome examples of feminist academia.
    Add spurious feminist studies, the great contributions to the field of psychology and we have so much to clap for.

  • Anon,

    although i take your & hollenhund’s point that women generally seem to focus on helping men only when it can be shown to benefit themselves personally, i have to say, I’ve been reading this blog for some time now & have read Susan Walsh criticize feminism – especially sex-positive feminism – many times, plus you seem to have misunderstood her stance on hook-up culture. (Please reread her blog description.)

    i’m a man & an antifeminist & still feel this site is the best dialogue between male & female concerns I’ve yet found, I think you could be finding targets an awful lot worthier..
    🙂

  • Tom

    david
    Undoubtedly, the absence of reliable contraception, coupled with the serious dangers of pregnancy prior to modern medicine, could frequently act as inhibitors to sexual enjoyment–but the biochemistry of humans hasn’t changed, and I bet that back in the Olden Days there were a fair number of women enjoying sex on a regular basis.
    ________________
    I agree. I am quite sure there were women who enjoyed sex. However I am also quit sure most mens attitude was to get on..get off.( Many still think that way…lol) Remember, “only bad girls actually like sex” was the norm of the day back then. I think many men have feminism all wrong.. Many men see feminism as surpassing men and holding men back. In reality the majority think it is just about becoming equal. However to become equal, undoubtedly some mens toes and mens “advantages” will be stepped on in the proceess.
    Title 9 comes to mind.Title 9 insures girls and boys have equal rights to the amount of sports played and the facilities are equal at any given school. My fellow fathers who had boys, screamed bloody murder when “equality” set in. Why? Because some of the advantages boys enjoyed were cut to make room for girls sports. I guess they didnt like boys badmitten being cut so girls could play fastpitch softball. I agree, in some cases boys were hurt in the process, but not as badly as the girls being denied access to sports for over 100 years. That old myth that girls are demure and boys are active has been put to rest.. ( the excuse why boys had sports and girls did not) LOL Step into the batters box against my daughter who pitched fastpitch in college and I`ll show you demure…

  • namae nanka

    “It is not womens fault they are out performing men.”

    Indeed, it’s their ingenuity. What most men don’t ask is, why?

    “Obviously women are now more driven because they know to get the jobs, they MUST out perform men.”

    And hence the addition of the writing section on SAT was explained. The rest of the test being utterly discriminatory against the fair sex.

  • namae nanka

    “Title 9 insures girls and boys have equal rights to the amount of sports played and the facilities are equal at any given school. ”

    Colleges. And the law was about education.

    http://savingsports.blogspot.com/2011/02/college-sports-council-urges-high.html

    “That old myth that girls are demure and boys are active has been put to rest.. Step into the batters box against my daughter who pitched fastpitch in college and I`ll show you demure…”

    ….

  • namae nanka

    “My fellow fathers who had boys, screamed bloody murder when “equality” set in. Why? Because some of the advantages boys enjoyed were cut to make room for girls sports.”

    http://savingsports.blogspot.com/search?q=odds

    how about mix the sports for genders?

  • namae nanka

    “for genders”

    whoops, I mean sexes.

  • Tom

    Nanka,
    You just dont get it do you?
    How many Einstein`s, Henry david Thoreau`s, Thomas Edisons would there have been had women had the same outlet to education and creative thinking men have always enjoyed?

  • michel

    The advantage of having a dog for company lies in the fact that it is possible to make him happy; he demands such simple things, his ego is so limited. Possibly, in a previous era, women found themselves in a comparable situation–similar to that of domestic animals. Undoubtedly there used to be a form of demotic happiness, connected to the functioning of the whole, which we are no longer able to understand; there was undoubtedly the pleasure of constituting a functional organism, one that was adequate, conceived with the purpose of accomplishing a discrete series of tasks–and these tasks, through repetition, constituted a discrete series of days. All that has disappeared, along with the series of tasks; we no longer really have any specific objective; the joys of humans remain unknowable to us, inversely, we cannot be torn apart by their sorrows. Our nights are no longer shaken by terror or by ecstasy. We live, however; we go through life, without joy and without mystery; time seems brief to us.

  • namae nanka

    “How many Einstein`s, Henry david Thoreau`s, Thomas Edisons would there have been had women had the same outlet to education and creative thinking men have always enjoyed?”

    lmao you are clueless, just clueless.
    Feminism and its dichotomy of gender and sex, which then means that ‘women’ should get “equal” opportunities, but goes on to lavish it on ‘females’ and after 30 years of inane chattering and stupid proclamations of how “women will rule the world one day” finds out that the women who managed to succeed are actually more like *gasp* men!!

    Thus it’s not women who are the problem, it’s the patriarchy embedded in the institutions themselves. Which then means that such institutions must themselves change…
    Stupidity or ingenuity? You decide.

    Meanwhile the useful idiots chant ” equality” “equality” while everything comes tumbling down. Oh well..

  • michel

    How many Einstein`s, Henry david Thoreau`s, Thomas Edisons would there have been had women had the same outlet to education and creative thinking men have always enjoyed?

    Most male inventors in history had little if any educational advantage over women (remember that compulsory education only started in Massachusetts in the late 1880s). Edison famously had a total of three months schooling in his entire life; Stephenson, none (he was the second son of an illiterate coal-miner) and Einstein was spotty at best. Conversely, female aristocrats and merchants’ daughters were often extremely well-read: Maria Theresa comes to mind, as does Rosa Luxemburg, Hedwig Dransfeld, etc.

    This trend of painting the past as one where women were stubbornly denied education is both myopic and incorrect. Moreover, men of far more meager means have amounted to incredible scientific advances; what is woman’s excuse?

  • namae nanka

    “How many Einstein`s”

    He wasn’t in academia when he published his groundbreaking paper…

    “The journal Annalen der Physik published five papers by an academically unaffiliated patent clerk named Albert Einstein”

    That’s why dude, you and the like are clueless.

  • namae nanka

    “This trend of painting the past as one where women were stubbornly denied education is both myopic and incorrect. ”

    as it the stereotype that all women had to overcome overwhelming patriarchal oppression to shine.
    Examples like Curie’s husband being instrumental in getting her her first nobel, or Noether’s father,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

    The point is much more about women lagging behind men in any new field/endeavor. Consider video games, not merely the fan base but programming and the like. Voices are already being raised at how it lacks female base, “we need moar equality” “down with sexism and big boobs”. Maybe it would become female dominated in the next decade, or female-centric genres will become the majority. Was patriarchal oppression the cause here, or is the reality that the matriarchal oppression of boys who just wanted to play one more game defines it?

    The problem is the cries of “discrimination” followed by disingenuous studies and finally government legislation to stamp out any such “discrimination”.
    Those who now consider the propaganda of church as harmful, somehow believe that their children shouldn’t/wouldn’t rebel against the brainwashing that they receive from schooling and against their own clueless parents?
    Just like putting down women can’t work when men are fathers of daughters, this cycle will also go around when reality hits home.

  • Tom

    Most male inventors in history had little if any educational advantage over women (remember that compulsory education only started in Massachusetts in the late 1880s). Edison famously had a total of three months schooling in his entire life; Stephenson, none (he was the second son of an illiterate coal-miner) and Einstein was spotty at best. Conversely, female aristocrats and merchants’ daughters were often extremely well-read: Maria Theresa comes to mind, as does Rosa Luxemburg, Hedwig Dransfeld, etc.

    This trend of painting the past as one where women were stubbornly denied education is both myopic and incorrect. Moreover, men of far more meager means have amounted to incredible scientific advances; what is woman’s excuse?

    _________________________
    Mike and Nanka,
    I bet einstein and the like were not being told their total worth was to become a parent and raise children either…Many people are products of their environment. How many brilliant slaves were there that never got the oppertunity to shine? What you guys dont get is women have been treated as second class people for alonggg time. Denied oppertunity at evey turn.

  • Tom

    lmao you are clueless, just clueless.
    Feminism and its dichotomy of gender and sex, which then means that ‘women’ should get “equal” opportunities, but goes on to lavish it on ‘females’ and after 30 years of inane chattering and stupid proclamations of how “women will rule the world one day” finds out that the women who managed to succeed are actually more like *gasp* men!!

    _____________________
    IM clueless?……Just look at our own economy, the state of the world, all the wars. All run by men. Not normal men, ego maniac alpha men. Power hungry, ruthless men….Hell my daughter could do a better job….At least she is not a sheeple, willing to believe all the BS our govenment spews.

  • Tom

    Nane,
    Im not saying title 9 is perfect, however it does ensure men will not have total say over women and the sports they love

    http://savingsports.blogspot.com/search?q=odds

  • michel

    I bet einstein and the like were not being told their total worth was to become a parent and raise children either…Many people are products of their environment. How many brilliant slaves were there that never got the oppertunity to shine? What you guys dont get is women have been treated as second class people for alonggg time. Denied oppertunity at evey turn.

    You didn’t answer my question. No one expected Lincoln would become president (or even pass the Bar for the matter), no one expected Stephenson to do anything other than farm turnips or work in a colliery. The door has always swung both ways, and yet these men didn’t let weak excuses like “peer pressure” prevent them from achieving their goals. If women can’t break through the same obstacles, is there really so much potential being squandered there in the first place? Are we really missing anything?

  • Tom
  • SayWhaat

    @ Susan:

    Did you notice that Sheryl Sandberg says at one point that her daughter is two, and at another that her daughter is three? IMO, that negates her entire speech. She is not spending much time parenting.

    My own parents forget whether I’m 21 or 22 sometimes. And yet they are frustratingly determined to be omnipresent in my life. Hover-tiger parents are the worst.

  • namae nanka

    “I bet einstein and the like were not being told their total worth was to become a parent and raise children either…”

    or they were deemed worthless for such cause given their pathetic incomes and social status?

    “Many people are products of their environment.”

    I think we all are.

    “What you guys dont get is women have been treated as second class people for alonggg time.”

    Have you heard of women being castrated to serve as slaves?

    “Denied oppertunity at evey turn.”

    I can agree that in cases such as Mozart’s sister, today’s environment would have made a difference in her outcome. What I fail to understand is how can we believe that it wouldn’t have changed her brother’s destiny as well?

    Women can only get opportunities when men create it for them. Women can do anything that men do when a men show them how to.
    What I fail to understand it how then women can turn around and instead of thanking their men believe in the lies of women who are more probably driven by vengeance and personal vendetta?
    Actually, I do. And the reasons aren’t pretty.

    Another period of female enlightenment in history-
    http://www.chinavoc.com/history/tang/women.htm

    “This is the women`s response to the above bias report”

    No, call it the feminist lesbian response. Equating feminists with women is the main reason why they are in such a quandary.

  • Tom

    Mike,
    You didn’t answer my question. No one expected Lincoln would become president (or even pass the Bar for the matter), no one expected Stephenson to do anything other than farm turnips or work in a colliery. The door has always swung both ways, and yet these men didn’t let weak excuses like “peer pressure” prevent them from achieving their goals. If women can’t break through the same obstacles, is there really so much potential being squandered there in the first place? Are we really missing anything?

    ___________________________-
    That would be like saying my daughter could never throw a no hitter on a mans team. Lincoln was at least allowed to try and thru perseverance he made it. Women were not allowed to even vote! or smoke, or drink or hold office.. If you are not allowed to do something it makes it THAT much tougher.
    Damn, how come we never had a black president in the1920`s ? by your logic, the black people just didnt try hard enough.. Just incredible…….

  • Mike C

    FWIW, I was watching the profile show on Facebook on CNBC, and Sandberg is considered an absolute rockstar in terms of operational profiency. She was brought in because the company was just a mess of chaos. She is very impressive based on what I saw for the few minutes they were talking to her.
    .
    It remains to be seen whether she can be a top elite high-powered executive and simultaneously a successful mother. Won’t find that one out for 15-20 years.
    .
    I could be wrong, but I don’t believe women can “have it all”. Something has to give, and if you maximize success in one area, something else falls through the cracks. I’m finding that out myself personally as I am juggling many balls, and it has negatively impacted a few parts of my life.
    .
    Susan, by all accounts, it sounds like you raised two kids to be good, solid adults. Do you think that would have been just as possible if you had stayed on the elite consulting fast track and tried to get to the top of the ladder there?

  • Tom

    nankaWomen can only get opportunities when men create it for them. Women can do anything that men do when a men show them how to.
    What I fail to understand it how then women can turn around and instead of thanking their men believe in the lies of women who are more probably driven by vengeance and personal vendetta?
    Actually, I do. And the reasons aren’t pretty.

    _________________________
    OMG! I am a man and even I cant believe you just wrote this. What country are you from? Iran? Iraq? Does your woman (if you have one) walk 3paces behind you?
    Talk about chauvinistic. DUDE women were oppressed by MEN for eons.

  • namae nanka

    “Women were not allowed to even vote!”

    now every 4 years they can fully enjoy their masochistic tendencies.

    “or smoke”

    well a quick google search found me this:

    http://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/when-women-werent-allowed-to-smoke-in-public/

    and then smoking became hip and women outsmok..outshone the lowly males.
    Just like drinking became hip for women and women outnumbered men in hospital visits.

    Yay?

  • namae nanka
  • Stephenie Rowling

    In other words, women find it rather difficult to muster up any sympathy for men.

    In other words masses need concrete goals and needs unfulfilled before being able to understand the abstracts and noble ideals. Even the French Revolution was supported by the masses because people were starving.

    The funny thing is that many men simply don’t think in such selfish ways. Many men have supported feminists throughout history because they genuinely cared about women’s lot and believed that giving them equal rights will be a good idea in itself.

    Don’t fool yourself many men admitted that the reason they marched for feminists rights was to get laid the reason they are not supporting feminism anymore is because they are not getting laid like they promised, the father rights are secondary or ignored by the ones that don’t plan on ever becoming fathers, heck look at our good friend Brendan quitting blogging to take care of himself understanding that men will never join together against punani and how everyone in the manosphere agrees with him, the noble ideals are secondary to the suppl