All the Single Ladies

October 11, 2011

This past July, Kate Bolick, the gorgeous journalist you see on the cover of this month’s Atlantic, dined at my home along with five young women I’ve been close to for years. She is 39, and she has never been married. She has written a very interesting article about her experience, and the various factors that have influenced how and when Americans marry (or don’t). Kate has done something we’ll be seeing a lot more of in the coming years – she’s talking about the reality of single life for many women. There’s an element of choice, but also an acknowledgement that men are lagging behind women in education and career advancement. She rightly identifies the Women’s Movement as the prime influence in the deterioration of the SMP. Rather than bitching or blaming men, she’s living her life in a very positive and productive way.

Kate found HUS via plain old Google search. We spoke initially for an hour or two by phone. A few weeks later I received an email inquiring whether she might attend one of the “focus groups” I’ve been holding for the last three years with young women. I was floored. “Um, yes, sure, I guess so, let me see who’s in town.” I didn’t really believe it would happen, and I was somewhat surprised when she rang the doorbell promptly at 6:30 as planned the next Monday evening.

Kate is petite, a natural beauty. The night she came to dinner, she was in jeans with minimal makeup and her hair in a messy bun. Immediately the girls grew wide-eyed upon seeing her. They followed me into the kitchen. “OMG, she is so cool. I want to be just like her.” I said, “She’s here to pick  your brains on sex, dating and relationships. She isn’t married.” It was as if I could see the thought bubbles above their heads: “Oh sh*t, if she hasn’t found the guy, what are my chances?” To her enormous credit, Kate was completely open, not the least bit defensive. She had a warm and wonderful way about her. You’ll see what I mean when you read her article.

Kate spent 5 hours with us that night. She filled two notebooks and had a tape recorder going the entire time. I figured a mention of Hooking Up Smart was pretty much guaranteed, but I honestly had no idea what would be in the final article. When the Atlantic’s fact-checker called a few weeks ago, her first question was whether my eyes are green. I knew then that HUS was going to get real, bonafide mainstream media coverage. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around it!

I didn’t see the article until a few days ago. I’m extremely pleased to have been a part of the process. I think Kate wrote a brilliant article, objective and fair. While I wasn’t thrilled with every single word (trash dick? Gaaaahhhh!) I tried my best to get across what I think are the most important points about the contemporary SMP. I hope you’re pleased, and that my input accurately reflects the wisdom so many have shared as I’ve written this blog.

All the Single Ladies

If you’ve got a moment, go read it and leave a comment.

FYI, do read the whole thing, but the Hooking Up Smart bit starts around the middle of Page 3.

  • Some Handle

    …the gorgeous journalist…

    Why on earth did you say that?

    • @Some Handle

      …the gorgeous journalist…

      Why on earth did you say that?

      1. Her very high SMV is supremely relevant. This is not some fugly feminist or harpy bitching about there being no good men.

      2. To counter the manosphere cliche that by 39 women have raisins for ovaries, and look like 5 miles of bad road.

  • Some Handle

    Nor the 40-ish journalist who, on our second date, driving down a long country road, gripped the steering wheel and asked, “Are you The One? Are you The One?” (Can you imagine a woman getting away with this kind of behavior?) Like zealous lepidopterists, they swoop down with their butterfly nets, fingers aimed for the thorax, certain that just because they are ready for marriage and children, I must be, too.

    Jesus Christ!

  • Some Handle

    One of Walsh’s pet observations pertains to what she calls the “soft harem,” where high-status men (i.e., the football captain) maintain an “official” girlfriend as well as a rotating roster of neo-concubines

    Susan, I come here because I am a fan, but, come on, you did not notice this…you, for a long time, thought that all men were making out like bandits until a bunch of men came along and set you straight. Only then did you notice things like girls saying “only 40% of guys are dateable”.

    • @Some Handle

      Susan, I come here because I am a fan, but, come on, you did not notice this…you, for a long time, thought that all men were making out like bandits until a bunch of men came along and set you straight. Only then did you notice things like girls saying “only 40% of guys are dateable”.

      Whoa! I never said that was my original observation, nor does Bolick suggest that. I simply discussed it with Bolick as a real phenom in this SMP. Actually, I specified at great length how and where I’ve learned the male perspective, especially the 80/20 concept. She included mention of how important male commenters are here.

      For the record I first wrote about soft harems here in March, 2010, with full attribution to men for the insight, though it was a reader email that inspired the post:

      Scheherazade Goes to College

      Same deal with 80/20:

      Sex and the Pareto Principle

      And I observed the apex fallacy in the UNC article the minute it came out:

      I Hate Math, Especially on College Campuses

      Don’t tell me I’ve had no independent insights or original contributions. I deeply resent your nasty and accusatory tone.

      For the record, Bolick has read pretty much my entire body of work as part of her research.

  • Some Handle

    One of Walsh’s pet observations…

  • Some Handle

    It was your observation.

    • It was your observation.

      From Bolick’s perspective, I shared an observation on my blog. The post makes it abundantly clear that I was not the original source of the concept. I recall her asking me about harems on the phone and we discussed it. It didn’t even come up at the dinner. Good lord, I can’t believe I’m defending myself against accusations of falsification. I’m not going to get into a pissing match with you. If you have a problem, I urge you to leave a comment at the Atlantic, where Bolick can see it and respond if she chooses.

  • Some Handle

    Don’t tell me I’ve had no independent insights…

    I didn’t.

  • Some Handle

    This is not some fugly feminist..

    I never said she was fugly.

  • Wayfinder

    I thought that the end of the article was one of the saddest things I’ve read all year.

    • @Wayfinder

      I thought that the end of the article was one of the saddest things I’ve read all year.

      There is great sadness and poignancy in the article. Bolick was on the Today show this morning, and they played this as a “Single Life is Wonderful!” story. She is positive about single life, and grateful for the people in her life. She is at the top of her field in NYC. But she is not pretending to prefer being single. I gave her so much credit when she asked the women if seeing her freaked them out. And when they admitted as much, she was receptive and interested in learning why. She didn’t take anything personally. This is the first article of this kind I’ve ever seen with zero female defensiveness.

  • Wayfinder

    pet, adj.

    2.a. Specially cherished; for which one has a particular fondness or weakness; favourite; (also) particular.

  • Some Handle

    Susan, I understand that you did not tell her to write that. But, the fact that she did is not good. Again, I am a fan of this site. But her article was tough to get through.

  • Some Handle

    pet, adj.

    2.a. Specially cherished; for which one has a particular fondness or weakness; favourite; (also) particular.

    Can you look up the definition of White Knight for me?

    • @Some Handle
      I cannot answer for Kate Bolick’s choice of language. She read the post and asked me about it. We also discussed the fact that most of Karen Owen’s conquests at Duke were men in LTRs with other women. She is highlighting alpha asshat behavior. I spent 8 hours talking with her, and I do not intend to be deposed by you. Again, please direct your challenges to her at The Atlantic.

      For my part, I’m delighted that the apex fallacy got into the article. As far as I know, it’s a first in the MSM. Even academics researching hookup culture have missed it to date. I discussed that more than any other single concept.

  • John G.

    I dunno, it was kinda disjointed. I don’t feel anything. It’s become all so cliche.

    • @John G.

      I dunno, it was kinda disjointed. I don’t feel anything. It’s become all so cliche.

      I don’t think she wrote the article to make you feel something. She analyzed the SMP in order to figure out how she got where she is today. She takes responsibility for her choices, and she doesn’t engage in self-pity.

  • Some Handle

    The post makes it abundantly clear that I was not the original source of the concept.

    Susan, I am not blaming you. I added that bit to emphasize what happens in articles like these.

  • Wayfinder

    @Some Handle

    I can’t read your post, the sun glinting off my armor was was too bright.

  • Höllenhund

    5-page-long article but not a single mention of female hypergamy, the main force driving the whole phenomenon in the first place. How predictable.

    • 5-page-long article but not a single mention of female hypergamy, the main force driving the whole phenomenon in the first place. How predictable.

      Isn’t the apex fallacy explained by female hypergamy? She talks about women who are 6s aiming for the hottest guys. Is that not female hypergamy? Or are you arguing about vocabulary like Some Handle? You’re disappointed she didn’t say “women are hypergamous.” I wouldn’t either, what an ugly sounding phrase.

  • Someguy

    Congrats!

  • Some Handle

    She is highlighting alpha asshat behavior.

    Unsurprising.

    I discussed that more than any other single concept.

    And good for you. Really.

    Susan, I highlight these things here because this is where the battle is happening.

    Also, I am familiar with how The Atlantic responds when certain people start saying some really honest things (i.e. any reference made about Steve Sailer).

    I come here because you have shown a willingness to think logically (however depressing it may be at times) about things are really happening in the real world…with input from both girls and guys.

    And, from that input, your focus has changed over the course of the blog. And, again, this is a good thing.

    • @Some Handle

      I come here because you have shown a willingness to think logically (however depressing it may be at times) about things are really happening in the real world…with input from both girls and guys.

      And, from that input, your focus has changed over the course of the blog. And, again, this is a good thing.

      Thank you. You know, before I started the blog I wrote a manuscript for a self-help book. A literary agent liked it but decried my lack of a “platform.” Nearly three years later I’m amazed at how crappy that piece of writing is. So uninformed! So yes, I am very aware of how my perspective has shifted.

  • Some Handle

    Everywhere I turn, I see couples upending existing norms and power structures, whether it’s women choosing to be with much younger men, or men choosing to be with women more financially successful than they are (or both at once). My friend M., a successful filmmaker, fell in love with her dog walker, a man 12 years her junior; they stayed together for three years, and are best friends today.

    Yes, everywhere she looks: Brooklyn Heights, Chelsea, Cape Cod.

    Just the other day I met a man in Des Moines, a performance artist, who married a financially successful, older woman from North Dakota who is at the top of her field as a Fashion Magazine editor.

  • deti

    @ Susan:

    The article has a nice mention of you, this blog and your group. But aside from that, it seems to me just more Kay Hymowitz/Sandra Tsing Loh redux.   I read this as more of the same combination of wailing and gnashing of teeth with the “I have a fulfilling single life” tripe that really offers nothing in the way of solutions.    Bolick’s article is a mishmash of evolutionary history lesson, Bolick’s lonely heart dating history,  “where are all the good men” and “it’s all about me, I’ll never find a man” and then devolves into hamster spinning with “In the end, it’s all about me.  I’m single, don’t really wanna be, but I have a great life.”   Once again, the men she dates are mere supporting players, cast to say their lines on cue and exit when she tells them.   

    Bolick comes close to getting to the heart of the matter when writing about your focus group, their wealth of sexual experience, her marveling at that extensive experience at their tender ages.  She parenthetically notes she had nothing like that experience as a newly minted college graduate.   She seems to wonder aloud why the focus group women even want husbands.  Then Bolick averts her eyes because, I think, she does not want to hear their answers.   

    My other complaint is that these articles never tell us anything of much usefulness in the SMP and they almost always proceed from utterly false and demonstrably false premises.   They explcate the issue.   They talk incessantly about the problem from women’s perspectives.   She even comes up with a few incorrect causes.  Bolick repeats the canard and shibboleth that men don’t want to commit.  This is not correct.  Men want to commit.  Women just don’t want those men to commit to them.  And in the same sentence, she commits apex fallacy in saying that in societies where women outnumber men, men become promiscuous and don’t commit.   No.  SOME men become promiscuous, but only those high status men who CAN become promiscuous.   The rest — about 80% — are left with nothing, a fact which appears to have been conclusively established at this blog.  It’s really getting tiresome constantly having to correct these utterly erroneous conclusions women always trot out when this issue is raised.   

    In these pieces (and Bolick’s piece is no exception), rarely if ever is anything offered in the way of useful or sound advice or solutions for women.   The article comes off to my eyes as simply one more in an endless parade of kaffeeklaatsches in which Bolick invites women gather to complain and bemoan their plights.  There is no thoughtfulness about why they are where they are.  There is no introspection, no effort even to consider doing something different, something that might work.    Perhaps solutions could be offered such as no sex without commitment.  Or, if you want to have sex without commitment, then accept the likely consequences that many men will disqualify you and you might have problems getting pregnant later.   Or, escalating sexual commitment concomitantly with the man’s commitment.   Or maybe you ladies are looking at and attracted to the wrong kinds of guys who tingle you but do little else for you.  Perhaps you need to change what you’re looking for.  

    I’m reminded of a scene in Bull Durham where Crash (Kevin Costner) is coaching Nuke (Tim Robbins) on how to handle the press when he makes it to the majors.   Crash gives him lame one-offs like “I’m just happy to be here” and “hope I can help out the club”.   Nuke complains that it’s boring and it makes him look boring.   Crash retorts “Of course it’s boring.  That’s the point.”   

    Sometimes an LTR is boring.  Sometimes marriage is humdrum and routine and mundane.   Sometimes that’s the point.   Sometimes I’m boring.  Sometimes my wife bores me.  But you stay together even when it’s boring because of the good tradeoffs.      But too many women want excitement, adventure, and tingles all the time.  They want Mr. Big.    And they think that if they can’t get that all the time, it’s not working and it’s time to move on to something and someone else. 

      Writers like Bolick could offer something to women.   But instead, what we get is more “Oh well, guess this is just the way it is.  Some more tea?”

    • @Deti

      It’s really getting tiresome constantly having to correct these utterly erroneous conclusions women always trot out when this issue is raised.

      To be fair, she really did her homework. She spoke with Stephanie Coontz, Helen Fisher and other highly respected academics and researchers. You can’t blame Bolick for erroneous conclusions when there is not one single scholar talking about the apex fallacy, or even qualifying information about behavior with certain sex ratios. Indeed, the manosphere, which is the source of this concept, has never offered real proof either. I spent 40 hours last year combing through CDC and other stats to get at the truth of who is having sex. Studies published since then seem to indicate that in fact, the apex fallacy applies equally to both sexes when it comes to promiscuity. It’s just that men value promiscuity (their own) more than women do.

      In these pieces (and Bolick’s piece is no exception), rarely if ever is anything offered in the way of useful or sound advice or solutions for women.

      I agree with this. It’s obvious Bolick doesn’t have the solution. Nor did she choose to highlight my main message to women, which is to shape a strategy to get you to your life’s goals. It’s clear she didn’t ever do that – she talks about having arrived at each step “by default.” I also think this was very difficult for her – the idea that women might want to know how to avoid winding up like her. She loved it that the girls looked up to her, and was careful to indicate their clearly expressed preference to marry. But she was in no place or hurry to counsel them on how to do that. And while they nodded in answer to her questions, they were freaked out, and have discussed it privately with me since then.

  • deti

    @  Susan:  

    “Her very high SMV is supremely relevant. This is not some fugly feminist or harpy bitching about there being no good men.”

    I don’t agree she has a high SMV but it’s higher than most women her age.  Her SMV is relevant only that I think it might illustrate where some of your focus group might be in 15-20 years.   I suspect your focus group and the women who communicate with you are acutely aware of that.

     

  • wudang

    She is very hot. Kate, I have a couple of suggestions for you. Read Michelle langleys book on womens infidelity. It is a way better explanation of why women fall out of love with their husbands, why they cheat and how they behave than the explanations mainstream media gives. If you havent already gone into it, read through the blogs of the manosphere. It is filled with stuff to write about. Third, athol kays advice is, as you can see in the comment section of his blog, wildly successful at making relationships work. An article that delves into his advice would be a great read and help promote relationship advice that actually work as oposed ti make things worse for people. Fourth, there is a clear shift in the relationship advice given to women now by dating coaches. The pua blogger theprivateman has researched advice dating coaches give to women and found it has shifted strongly from the never settle eat pray love type advice and the.dont take no shit from a man meme ti something strongly resembling the advice given by the manosphere. These are some of the dating coaches though, not relationship columnists and dating columnists in magazines. Most importantly I would look into karezza and read the book cupids poisoned arrow by marnia Robinson. Karezza is fairly similar to what the oneida community practiced. It is a form of meditative sex were one avoids convensional “peak” orgasms and instead experiences a combination of preorgasmic bliss and the so called valey orgasm also called the internal orgasm/the.tantric orgasm/the yin orgasm. it is said in ancient texts from.various.cultures that this type of sex makes love and sexual attraction last indefinitely as oposed to conventional sex which.makes attraction die of after a few years. At the karezza forum at reuniting.info there are hundreds and hundreds of couples that have found this to be true for them. I have yet to see a single.couple who practice karezza say it does not work as it is claimed to. That is not to say no one who practices karezza breaks up, one can still be incompatible, but what always.is the case is that the couples maintain.high.and constant sexual attraction and a very strong feeling of pairbonding love that they find is highly different than the romantic love if the first few years and resembles the pairbonding love couples.usually feel after a few years but is so much stronger than normal and so coupled with strong sexual attraction that it is equaly satisfying as romantic love. The key reason couples break up is in my opinion not that they are.incompatible or that they loose attraction because of behavior but that loss of attraction is preprogrammed into us and this in turn leads us to not tolerate what we dislike and to behave worse. Karezza corrects this.and provides the emotions and sexual attraction that make people tolerate the behavior they dislike and behave better themselves. This can be backed up in three ways. One is that entirely seperate cultures.have this type of sex built into their mystical meditative traditions and claim the same benefit. The second is the the reuniting.info forum is filled with people who experience these benefits and can attest to them working. Thirdly, since Alice stockham invented/reinvented karezza it has been practiced by people in the west for a 150 years or so and the experience.of.these people.can.be found in books about karezza such as stockhams books and Stanley bass books. In addition ti this marnia Robinson has come up with a plausible scientific theory for why karezza works and relates it to doapmine levels. What I suggest you do is read one of Diana Richardsons tantra.books.first. She explains best how this type if sex is performed.and how it feels. Then read cupids poisoned arrow for the scientific theory. I also have a post at fastseduction.com under the name of wudang that explains karezza more in depth. You probably have to sign up to the forum to read the post as it is in the arcives somewhere. Oh, I forgot, an article about womens shit testing/fitness testing of men would be great too:)

  • I think Miss Bolick represented you, and by proxy, us, very well.  Once again, the Atlantic is a very, very elitist journal, and just to have your blog and the ideas that percolate around this blog enter this arena show that there is  openness to other ideas besides their own orthodoxy.  Unfortunately, I don’t think you opened her eyes all that much.  She’s a pretty privileged woman, and privilege clutches its ideological underpinnings pretty tightly.

    So, there is plenty of feminist orthodoxy in Miss Bolick’s article- men are weird, lazy, and untractable, their concerns are not important, and they are not really necessary anyway.  Most of the article that followed the HuS material seemed to be a celebration of impending idiosyncratic catladyhood, with the added comfort that she wouldn’t be alone.

    What I found disturbing about her anthropological smorgasbord of reflections on societies and their differing mating strategies was a lack of understanding that a society’s mating strategies are pretty central to their success and failure in the rugby match of the modern world.  After all, it wasn’t the Musuo people of Southern China who  gave her the use of her handsome mid-century apartment in Chelsea, or bequeathed her a charming Brooklyn aerie ; or put her up at a rambling Cape Cod summer house; or allowed a weekend at a place on Shelter Island to balloon into two weeks.  Here you have four stories that didn’t get told.  Neither  Deanan and her daughters, nor my wife and myself, will ever find ourselves in such well-tailored surroundings.

    My intuition is that there was masculine energy that went into the creation of each one of those places, and an unspoken agreement based on an outdated mating strategy that produced the comfort by which each of these women has reaped the benefit.

  • Ted

    Oh wow!  Wilkinsburg is on the same side of Pittsburgh as I am, but much closer to the city.  It is known as one of the worst areas around town for crime and poverty. I’m not surprised by what the author found there.

    I thought this was a good article.  I’m disappointed that it went in the direction of open marriages and poly lifestyle though.  If we continue with things as they are, men will have very little to no involvement in their own children’s upbringing.  I certainly don’t speak for all men, but it seems to me that being part of your children’s life is how you pass own you values.  Of course, that is assuming there are any values left to pass on.

  • Wayfinder

    From the article:

    I remember experiencing that same panicked exhaustion around the time I turned 36, at which point I’d been in the dating game for longer than that alarmed 22-year-old had, and I wanted out. (Is there an expiration date on the fun, running-around period of being single captured so well by movies and television?)

    Yeah. It’s called being mature enough for a real relationship. Aping the apex females doesn’t even work for the apex females all of the time (how many Hollywood stars are going to die alone?)

    I’m starting to suspect that some young women became so afraid of giving up their “freedom” that they never practiced being responsible for something. This lead to a gulf between them and the “good” young men, who are much more likely to have gotten a message about responsibility, duty, and the like.

    I swear, the two sexes are alien cultures who just think they speak the same language.

  • sandy

    I’m not sure she has high SMV. As pictured on the cover, I’ll give her 6.5 at best (she has a very unpleasant facial expression).

  • AnonymousDog

    I have to second MuleChewingBriars’s comments.

    Something which jumped out at me was the author’s relating how she ended an LTR at age 28 after a long string of boyfriends and relationships going back to her freshman year in high school while seemingly unaware that many people don’t have dating histories which are in any way comparable to hers. Yet she extrapolates from her own experiences to those of women generally.

    • Something which jumped out at me was the author’s relating how she ended an LTR at age 28

      This was my favorite part of the article. It was very honest, and it was pretty clear to me that she considers that a huge mistake that changed her life for the worse. At the very least, she worries that it was. She also confesses the utter idiocy of breaking up with a great man (an Atlantic editor no less!) because there was “something missing.” She’s touching there on what feminism did to women. The script we absorbed, fed to us by our newly liberated mothers. What’s different about Kate Bolick is that most women her age who are single not by choice are still eliminating men who don’t give off “sparks” or deliver the whole package on the first date. She is smart and introspective, and she understands how her views were shaped, and where she made mistakes.

  • Jonny

    The men she dated… “high-powered magazine editor”, “prominent academic”, “novelist”, “writer”, …. BAD CHOICES.

    “her second child, 15-year-old Ronicka, was pregnant” … “I had done everything I could to make sure she didn’t end up like me, and now this,” she told me….  TWICE DIVORCED.

    The article is so talky. It is clearly a woman’s conversation. I wished it would get to the point. Lots of details, but very little introspection.

    Being that women are outnumbering guys, I thought that there would be many women candidates when I was seriously looking for a wife. However, the women are not available. Quality women are just as hard to find as good men. So how can we seriously consider women’s blight as the supply has worsened?

    • The men she dated… “high-powered magazine editor”, “prominent academic”, “novelist”, “writer”, …. BAD CHOICES.

      Oh, I don’t know. The high powered magazine editor sounds like a great guy, and he didn’t dump her. Novelists are a risky bunch, but for every John Updike or Philip Roth there’s a Tom Wolfe. Kate herself is at the top of the pyramid – it’s hardly a surprise that she’d meet and date men there too.

  • wudang

    In the article it says that were women are in the minority stable loving.relationships follow. But the degree to which this is the case rests on womens economic situation and the culutral norms and control.of womens sexual.behavior in those places. Were women do not nead men financially and there is not strong shaming of divorce women are serially monogamous. This is the case amongst the mosu and all other cultures that sets the conditions for women to be entirely sexually free. This article paints a picture of the men as creating a promiscuos disaster when they can get what they want while women are the noble loving creatures that creates life long loving families. that is an insane amount of bullshit. While it is true that men choose this sexual option when they can, which only alphas ever will be able to, once men are married with children they stay. Statistics show it is the women not the men who leave. So the reality is that it is the men who have what it takes to create stable loving families not the women. Women are notoriously serially monogamous and without external factors or a shit ton if introspection by the woman she will not be able to stay long term while her husband will. So.when.people blame absent fathers for the riots in London that is insane at the same time as it is true. It is true that the father being out of the picture creates.havock but he is gone not through fault of his own but because women through him out. And they through him out not because there was something wrong with him but because women unlike men are not designed for long term monogamy. Michelle langleys work demonstrates this well.

  • Wayfinder

    @Ted

    I thought this was a good article.  I’m disappointed that it went in the direction of open marriages and poly lifestyle though.  If we continue with things as they are, men will have very little to no involvement in their own children’s upbringing.  I certainly don’t speak for all men, but it seems to me that being part of your children’s life is how you pass own you values.  Of course, that is assuming there are any values left to pass on.

    I guess if she wants an alpha, that’s the kind of marriage she’s stuck with.

    @MuleChewingBriars

    Unfortunately, I don’t think you opened her eyes all that much.  She’s a pretty privileged woman, and privilege clutches its ideological underpinnings pretty tightly.

    So, there is plenty of feminist orthodoxy in Miss Bolick’s article- men are weird, lazy, and untractable, their concerns are not important, and they are not really necessary anyway.  Most of the article that followed the HuS material seemed to be a celebration of impending idiosyncratic catladyhood, with the added comfort that she wouldn’t be alone.

    I’m not sure she changed her conscious opinion, but I think the part near the start of the article, where she all but admits that marriage as we know it is dead is pretty telling. I mean, look:

    Coontz still didn’t think that marriage was falling apart, but she came to see that it was undergoing a transformation far more radical than anyone could have predicted, and that our current attitudes and arrangements are without precedent.

    This, while framed in an almost optimistic light, is basically an admission that you’re never going to have a marriage like your mother or grandmother had. Even if it resembles what they had, it’s going to be subjected to completely different pressures and be forced to weather an environment that is no longer constructed to sustain it.

  • Ted

    @ Wayfinder – I’m afraid it isn’t just young women that are putting off responsibility.  And to me, this is a huge part of the problem.  Young men and women are not taking their responsibilities seriously in many cases.  Sure, they may be working and paying a few bills, but they really don’t put much if any thought into how they should be improving their lives.  They don’t show much sense of duty in regards to being a functional member of society.  They show a huge sense of entitlement in all things, not just romantic relationships.

    In short, they are becoming self-centered brats who’s only concern is “what’s in it for me”? You cannot learn to be part of a couple by living alone.  Spending too much time only accountable to yourself makes it very difficult when you marry and become accountable to/for someone else, let alone having children.

  • sandy

    Wayfinder wrote:

    I’m starting to suspect that some young women became so afraid of giving up their “freedom” that they never practiced being responsible for something. This lead to a gulf between them and the “good” young men, who are much more likely to have gotten a message about responsibility, duty, and the like.

    Exactly. It looks like most women think that words “commitment” and “duty” cannot apply to them. They think that men should be bound and commited, but they should always have full freedom to choose (and it doesn’t matter what they promised before).

  • deti

    I doubt Susan wants this post to become a detailed analysis of Kate Bolick’s SMV.  But it bears repeating that to men, Bolick’s SMV is a function almost entirely of her physical appearance and her personality, whatever that may be.   Bolick’s prestigious career, her socioeconomc status, the people she knows and has met, the property she owns, her salary and the size of her bank account have no effect on her SMV.  Absolutely none.  

    I think the young women reading this thread should know that is the way most men view a woman’s SMV, SATC and Carrie Bradshaw notwithstanding.

    • it bears repeating that to men, Bolick’s SMV is a function almost entirely of her physical appearance and her personality

      To be clear, when I said she has high SMV I was referring solely to her physical appearance. She is very attractive and charismatic in person, she exudes great warmth and affability. I know she was astounded that the Atlantic decided to feature her photo. That was an editorial decision obviously based on her looks. They want to get across the point that even beautiful, interesting, smart women are having difficulty finding life partners.

  • Toz

    Reading the article, I just felt profound pity for her. The whole thing was a well-written hamster spin with just a touch of inner reflection. It’s clear from her background that her values brought her to where she was. All parents would be wise to learn from this. The sense of entitlement starts early and there are some terrible consequences.

    Susan, I would have enjoyed an article from you in that publication much more.

  • John G.

    “I don’t think she wrote the article to make you feel something….” Well, a lot of these articles are written with that in mind. They try to convince you of something or change your perspective and make you feel uncomfortable or enlightened or amused or something. She has all the same points that had been made before, all the same anecdotes and observations. I was hoping that by mentioning you, she may have had something to add. She dinna.

  • Wayfinder

    @Ted

    I have noticed quite a few young men who I’d never trust with a job, but they seem never seem to have a shortage of girls fawning over them. The least impressive specimen of humanity I’ve ever run across was an apparently quite successful pickup artist.

  • Jonny

    The citing of these obscure academic studies is obscene. “we are free to pursue what the British sociologist Anthony Giddens termed the “pure relationship,” in which intimacy is sought in and of itself and not solely for reproduction.” AND “In 2006, the sociologists Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian published a paper concluding that unlike singles, married couples spend less time keeping in touch with and visiting their friends and extended family, and are less likely to provide them with emotional and practical support. They call these “greedy marriages.”

    Hmmm. So why bother? Marriage is for reproduction. 89% of marriages have children. Usually, the support (emotional, financial, household) should be coming from the spouse (husband and wife). Isn’t a marriage where no outside person can cause division?

    Clearly, this author doesn’t like traditional marriage, yet pines for it at the same time. Like the forbidden fruit, she wants what she shouldn’t get. The fruit should only be consumed “as is” and not spoiled to her sensibility. Wake up. Marriage isn’t easy. Stop trying to reform it to your liking.

  • Steven

    She’s gorgeous and intelligent. I really don’t understand why she can’t find someone.

  • deti

    @ Susan: 
    “I also think this was very difficult for her – the idea that women might want to know how to avoid winding up like her. She loved it that the girls looked up to her, and was careful to indicate their clearly expressed preference to marry. But she was in no place or hurry to counsel them on how to do that. And while they nodded in answer to her questions, they were freaked out, and have discussed it privately with me since then.”

    I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for those private discussions.  I bet you’ve heard things like this: 

    “I don’t want to end up like her.”  

    “What do I have to do to make sure I’m not 39, never married and childless?”  

    “How did this happen in this society?  There must be hundreds of thousands of Kate Bolicks out there.  Why?”

    • @deti

      I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for those private discussions.

      They did say those things, but they were also conflicted. I’m sure her mother would be extremely proud of her. In many ways, she is the ideal 21st c. female. (Ideal as in feminist ideal.) So the girls thought she was an awesome woman. They still want her to find the guy! One of them said to me that she hopes Kate’s appearances on TV (she’s also going on Colbert) would lead to new, dashing suitors.

      Kate didn’t put it in the article, but she also asked each girl what she would prioritize – career or marriage and family. Every single one said marriage and family. One of the women in a serious relationship is rethinking her decision to go to med school because of what that career choice is likely to mean during her 20s. I think she’ll wind up becoming an NP instead. Personally, I think it’s very difficult for a woman to be high powered in business and be a good parent. Not impossible, but very difficult. Sheryl Sandberg is often referred to as a shining example, but in the talk I saw her give at SWSX she forgot her daughter’s age, calling her 2 at one point and 3 later on. That says it all, really.

  • Ted

    @ Jonny: you said

    “Clearly, this author doesn’t like traditional marriage, yet pines for it at the same time. Like the forbidden fruit, she wants what she shouldn’t get. The fruit should only be consumed “as is” and not spoiled to her sensibility. Wake up. Marriage isn’t easy. Stop trying to reform it to your liking.”

    And this is the real issue I bitch about the most regarding marriage.  If you don’t like it, then don’t get married.  But stop trying to CHANGE marriage so that it suits your tastes.  If you want to have multiple sexual partners but remain in a LTR, fine.  Just don’t call it an “Open marriage”.  There is no such thing.

    Or maybe we should just simply get rid of marriage completely, from a government standpoint anyway.  Leave “marriage” to the secular/religious/spiritual folks.  Get rid of marriage licenses completely and just have couples sing legal documents for things like inheritance, passing of property from spouse to spouse, visitation and power of attorney documents, etc.  Then, only people that actually believe in marriage would get one, and everyone else can live however they want with the same legal protections, but without the label of marriage which carries a lot of meaning for many people.

  • Wayfinder

    @Steven

    I think my sarcasm detector must be broken.

    She spent decades actively rejecting men who actually wanted to commit to her. Some because they were desperate, icky betas, who she compares to butterfly collectors of all things.  She gave up her best shot at a good alpha because “I wasn’t ready to settle down”. I have absolutely no idea why she would still be single. No idea at all.

  • @Steve

    It should be obvious.  She has the soul of an Eastern Seaboard real estate broker.  I thought she was writing for Architectural Digest half the time.

  • For those of us in the Manosphere, articles like this, while frustrating, still serve to bring more attention to the core tenets of our approach to analyzing sexual and emotional dynamics between the sexes. How many Atlantic readers will find Susan’s blog and then dig deeper into the Manosphere?  Probably not a huge number but Atlantic readers represent the elite, the policy makers, the academics, etc.

    There is definitely a major cultural shift going on. Marriage and intimate relationships are broken and we are now attempting to find a solution or possible a completely new relationship arrangement. My research into successful dating coaches indicates that their advice is fundamentally different to mainstream dating advice. The idea that the masculine attracts the feminine and the feminine attracts the masculine is revolutionary despite being such common sense. Yet that statement appears more and more and could get some serious traction if the social expectations of political correctness finally evaporate.

    There are surprising numbers of women who read Manosphere blogs because such women have found mainstream media dating and relationship advice to be an utter failure. Is it any wonder why Athol Kay’s book (www.marriedmansexlife.com) is so popular with readers? Why is it that pick up artistry (PUA) is so popular in the Manosphere?

    I appreciate such articles and they only serve to bring more attention to the Manosphere.

    • @Private Man

      The idea that the masculine attracts the feminine and the feminine attracts the masculine is revolutionary despite being such common sense. Yet that statement appears more and more and could get some serious traction if the social expectations of political correctness finally evaporate.

      Thanks for sharing your POV, that’s how I feel about it. Personally, when I read the article I shouted with glee that she nails her mother’s feminism right at the start. She had never even heard of hypergamy when I mentioned it. Yet she gives it equal weight (even more weight, perhaps) to Helen Fisher’s input. I’m honestly surprised that I succeeded in convincing her, but she is no feminist and she was very receptive to the ideas because they explain what’s wrong in the SMP. From that standpoint I see this as a huge step forward – these are good things to be discussing in the MSM.

  • Anacaona

    I can’t read your post, the sun glinting off my armor was was too bright.

    Heh funny and wonderful Alpha response *kissinthecheek*

    You cannot learn to be part of a couple by living alone.

    Yes as an experiment (and to save money in hotels) when I was waiting for the visa papers to be done after I married I lived alone for around 9 months. Living alone create terrible habits I can imagine an adult that lives alone for a long time getting a harder time adjusting to living with another person than someone that goes from sharing his/her space with many people to one people and slowly fits in it. Hubby lived alone longer and for him was a bit harder as well. This should be also a good advice living alone has become a symbol of maturity and status and I think is a faux maturity step.

    My prediction: Bolick will get married less than four years from now.

    Maybe is me but every time a “fabulous and successful” woman decides to write an article about the single life 70% of it is like a dating profile with more details and examples of how much of a catch she is and a great picture that shows both a more or less pleasant young looking face and a non fat body, in this case. She gets a level of exposure that she wouldn’t have in a dating site and an Alpha from a similar privileged group takes notice. Any executive that had a nerdy geeky past and how might consider advantages marrying will get the news from his social circle. Give her a call start dating she will behave the best she can because she knows she is being judged as a wife and voila! Wedding bells and motherhood (whether her or a surrogate). I might be wrong but I think I had seen this happening around a dozen times. Wait and see.

    Congratulations Susan!Is really nice that you had touched so many people and I do think the word is getting slowly out, I’m sure some people will like to dig further in this and find the truth our PC modern world is afraid to say out loud. But prepare for the backlash the people that will be drawn to the article will stumble upon the old threads and bring the feminists Thesaurus “Mysoginst, sexist”…again. Oh well I will be loading the intellectual bullets, the war is far from over.

    • @Anacoana

      But prepare for the backlash the people that will be drawn to the article will stumble upon the old threads and bring the feminists Thesaurus “Mysoginst, sexist”…again. Oh well I will be loading the intellectual bullets, the war is far from over.

      It’s funny how many battle metaphors we’ve been using lately. It really is a cultural war, and we have just taken the high ground.

  • Matt M

    I propose a new source of green energy, never to be exhausted: hamster-powered electric generators! Ms. Bolick could power all of NYC by herself.

    The lack of introspection and of questioning why things are the way they are is both staggering and expected at the same time. She readily quotes marriage and out-of-wedlock birth statistics among blacks but fails to even hint at a cause (the rise of the modern welfare state). She goes into gory detail of her almost-husband Allan and the feeling that “something was missing”. We here know what was missing: the guy was the worst sort of blue-pill beta. It seems she goes out of her way to quote ever fringe relationship researcher she can muster and coins some new words in the process (singleism? really?!?) Not once does she talk about the legions of men, all good providers and willing to commit, who can’t draw the attention of women because the polarized lenses of hypergamy. All in all, it was a paean to solipsism, and difficult to stomach.

  • Jonny

    @Susan:  “She loved it that the girls looked up to her, and was careful to indicate their clearly expressed preference to marry. But she was in no place or hurry to counsel them on how to do that. And while they nodded in answer to her questions, they were freaked out, and have discussed it privately with me since then.”

    Do you suspect that Bolick is merely looking for a support group to justify her decisions? She probably knows these young girls are following her path, but she refuses to acknowledge such obvious insights. Just let them fail. She’ll feel good about it. The old wise woman looks back and wonders “why couldn’t I help.” But she was a journalist and couldn’t get involved with the subjects’ lives. That was her responsibility or some other rationalization.

    Sick people can’t be the cure. She is still the patient. She can’t help those girls until she finally marries and she never will.

    Only you, Susan, can give good advice. All young people should ask the still married folks on how to get married and stay married.

  • Congrats +1000 !!

    Reading that article now.

  • Some Handle

    Maybe is me but every time a “fabulous and successful” woman decides to write an article about the single life 70% of it is like a dating profile with more details and examples of how much of a catch she is and a great picture that shows both a more or less pleasant young looking face and a non fat body, in this case. She gets a level of exposure that she wouldn’t have in a dating site and an Alpha from a similar privileged group takes notice.

    +1

    I never kept up with celebrity gossip, but I remember hearing that some chick from “House” (the show with Hugh Laurie) had recently gotten divorced. Well, no sooner did I suddenly see her face on the cover of every magazine at the supermarket.

    I couldn’t help but think that she was husband shopping. No one was better at that than Jennifer Aniston.

  • I dont like Kate´s misandrist despective tone. At all.

    She is reporting a lot of data accurately, but putting all of the blame on men and painting women as saints / victims. How nice.

    If you want a husband, how about if you start by appreciating men, and take your own responsibility when it fits?

    One might hope that in low-sex-ratio societies—where women outnumber men—women would have the social and sexual advantage.

     In other words—capitalist men are pigs.

    the more successful a man is (or thinks he is)

    when a man hits 35 and suddenly, desperately, wants a wife.

    Really? aint that the other way around.

    where marriage-minded women are increasingly confronted with either deadbeats or players.

    frustrated romance among middle-class black women, where the prospect of marrying a black man often seemed more or less hopeless.

     it’s easy to see why women of any race would feel frustrated by their romantic prospects.

    professionally successful, college-educated women were confronted with a shrinking pool of like-minded marriage prospects.

     women are forced to choose between deadbeats and players

    this has either liberated young women from being ashamed of their sexual urges, or forced them into a promiscuity they didn’t ask for. Young men, apparently, couldn’t be happier.

    Aphex fallacy. Women forced into promiscuity? by whom.

    Do you think they have ‘trash dick’?

    Fuck you?

    Most of them said that though they’d had a lot of sex, none of it was particularly sensual or exciting.

    For centuries, women’s sexuality was repressed by a patriarchal marriage system

    And… male sexuality was liberated?

    now what could be an era of heady carnal delights is stifled by a new form of male entitlement

    … describe your desired era of heady carnal delights.

    Most striking to me was the innocence of these young women.

    Right. I cant bring myself to read the whole thing, there´s no point.

    I like the parts where she quotes you, Susan.

    • @Yohami
      To be fair, I’m the one that said trash dick. I didn’t say it like that though – I told the girls I’d seen the phrase online (I had used it here as well) and asked if they had ever heard it. We were digging into that old favorite, male promiscuity. Anyway, I fought that with the fact-checker and lost. She just added that I’d heard the phrase on the internet.

      FWIW, some men do have trash dick. Trash dick results from a high partner count, especially with partners who also have a high partner count. By the way, have you heard that gonorrhea in the UK is just about incurable now? It’s resistant to all known forms of treatment, and it greatly increases susceptibility to other STDs.

      A harsh morality is going to clamp down on society when the number of trash dicks and vag’s gets too high.

  • dragnet

    I think this piece is going to generate a lot of talk—it’s going to be regarded as comprehensive, stimulating and groundbreaking.

    But for those of us in the manosphere, it’s mostly old hat…and an example of the many of the usual ex-post rationalization, solipsism, and half-baked arguments that characterize a lot of the feminized dialogue around these issues.

    Bolick is at her best and most informative when she describes the economic contributions that women have made to their families throughout history. The stay-at-home wife isn’t so much an invention of timeless male oppression as is was a holdover from the Victorian era when women were “kept” as a sign of status. The relic survived as industrial societies began concentrating production away from the home in factories, and men had to spend long hours away from their families, leaving the women to look over things. Before that the home was also the factory, and as such women were expected, and happily did, provide substantial economic value to their families. To the extent that feminism has once again normalized this ancient, one might even say “patriarchal”, paradigm it is to be applauded (although one can argue that advances in technology would’ve eliminated most labor-based gender roles in due time without 2nd wave feminism, but that’s another topic).

    But aside from that there isn’t too much redeeming value in this article. She mentions matrifocal and matriarchal communities as examples to considered—the Mosuo and urban black communities in particular. However she conveniently omits that matrifocal communities have high rates of male violence and very low rates of advancement in technology, medicine, transporation, etc. In other words: they are shitty civilizations. The reason why we have advanced medicine, agriculture, space travel, etc is because patriarchal societies circumscribed the sexual urges of both sexes and then channelled them into creating the excess capacity that makes an advanced civilization possible. Think Camille Paglia and grass huts. There’s plenty of sex in a matriarchy—but not too much else. That’s no way to run a civilization.

    She also writes that men are in dire straits because manufactoring jobs are “gone” and never coming back. Well, yes, but it pays to examine a bit more closely what actually happened. Sure, many of those jobs were eliminated by technology. But for the remainder, what really happened was that the business class and free-market conservatives got together and shipped the manufacturing jobs overseas where the men would work for cheaper. Foreign working class men were economically empowered at the expense of the American working class. These jobs didn’t “disappear” so much as working class American men were sold out for profit.

    And what on earth do we expect all of these idle men with no jobs, no prospects and no future to do? Well, what young men usually do—crime, violence, and other anti-social behavior. No surprise you find that stuff at high-levels in the urban black community as well as in the poorest parts of Appalachia which are also highly matrifocal. And as a side note, yes, there are twice as many black women as black men graduating from college…but only about 15 percent of black women have bachelor degrees, compared to 13 percent of black men so it’s not like a vast sea of black women are educated relative to black men—even though it’s easy to think that based reading articles written in the media mainstream.

    She also doesn’t really address the long-term economic consequences of all this empowered, claviroyant, inner-peaced singlehood that so many women are now experiencing. How will we establish and sustain expensive infrastructure, generous social welfare systems like univeral healthcare and social security, improve education and fund our military if the tax-base is shrinking because women of the higher socioeconomic status and our productive social classes aren’t having children? I can understand if a productive, world class intellect like Marie Curie forgoes reproduction—but an Atlantic writer? An HR rep? A trial lawyer? The vast majority of these single women aren’t going to be able to pay for their own healthcare or take care of themselves as they live increasingly longer lives—but they didn’t produce children to strengthen to the tax base they will inevitably become a net drain on. The Japanese are having this problem right now. I’ll say again, this is no way to run a civilization, and any civilization that can’t solve the basic problem of how to get its most productive men and women to come together and reproduce is a probably not going to be all that long-lived, especially since that problem was already solved by—yep, you guessed it—the evil patriarchy.

    The future is not with women like Bolick, or single-women who have managed to rationalize away their past frivolity and find some semblance of peace with their remaining infertile decades while residing in Dutch quasi-convents. No, the future lies with women who take stock of the errors of women like Bolick and look at the men around them, and become more appreciative of the few guys who are actually willing to take a chance on them. These social and demographic pressures will mean that women will not so foolishly throw away a good man’s love, and that women will come to appreciate these men more. You will see even fewer relationships, but they will be longer-lived, and this because women will be able to look around and see what it’s like to not have male investment, and they’ll be able to see the truth despite the rose-colored tint our pop culture likes to put on the single life. In this scenario, the “players”, “deadbeats” and commitphobes that Bolick repeatedly derides have a vital role to play: making women appreciate those nice, solid, boring guys for the first time since the days of the bad old patriarchy. In time most women won’t look at Bolick and see someone to emulate, rather she will be viewed as a cautionary tale.

    The future lies in a place where men are no longer viewed as disposable, with their needs and desires taken as seriously as those of women. When we stopping judging men according to what they can do for women, and how they can help them fulfill their dreams. And when we are finally honest about a core truth of biology: that while men and women generally like and desire each other and are generally synergistic, our reproductive goals are largely in conflict and giving men the security they need to invest completely in the social contract and the general welfare of all means limiting the sexual freedoms of women in some important ways.

    The future also lies in a vibrant working and middle class with a business class, capital markets and poltical & social elites subject to the rule of law and signficant social and cultural sanctions.

    More to say, but I have 2.30 meeting. Sorry my thoughts are so scattered.

    • Epic comment from dragnet, thanks.

      These social and demographic pressures will mean that women will not so foolishly throw away a good man’s love, and that women will come to appreciate these men more…In time most women won’t look at Bolick and see someone to emulate, rather she will be viewed as a cautionary tale.

      Agreed. I sense a real shift occurring here. She already is viewed as a cautionary tale. My sense is that young women (at least the ones in my dining room) saw her and thought “Yes, but….” They said straight out career will take a back seat to marriage and family. These women (white, upper middle class) have grown up with moms who have run themselves ragged in many cases, taking on too much. Whole families have borne the brunt of this stress. Kate Bolick is halfway between my generation and theirs – and she represents another data point in the spinster memoir trend.

      Interestingly, Kate talked about her own personal life, including the recent relationships that she had high hopes for. I won’t share it here, but the women listened very intently. I could see the wheels spinning (the non-hamster variety) as they evaluated the arc of her relationships, and the particulars of the men Kate had been with.

      I do want to address the feeling some have that Kate was misandrist or deriding men. I understand this feeling, especially since there is some derisive, or at least tactless language used. However, I think it’s far better than every other article I’ve seen of this kind. Kate does a much better job than William Bennet, for example. She doesn’t blame men for not measuring up or call them Peter Pans. Much of what she says about men I have also said. The facts tell a troubling story. We need to address immediately why our young men are not thriving. The 60/40 college ratio is something we should be talking about nonstop. And, by the way, that is going to be the real kicker in declining marriage. A third of college educated women are not going to marry men with degrees. She doesn’t go so far as to suggest this. I would have been great if she had talked about what needs to change in order for the next generation of women to avoid her fate. Instead, she chose to celebrate her single status, which isn’t a surprise – it’s her personal story, after all, and her life is probably less than half over.

  • Ted

    @ Dragnet – Very good post!  I hope things go in the direction you suggest, but my fear is that we will continue down this road to destruction until we are easy pickings for an invasion/take-over/or a simply collapse as seen in the former U.S.S.R. before its all said and done.  Yep, I’m saying that our present course in regards to sex and relationships can very well end in the destruction of the United States as we know it.  Let our economy tank for real, and you’ll see it happen fast.  China already own’s much of the U.S. in debt, and here we are sabotaging the very society that has supported us for our brief but successful run.

    But as I said above, I get the impression that young adults now don’t feel like they need to contribute to or work for our country and the greater good of society.  If we can’t show them what they get out of the deal, they just aren’t interested.

  • Andy

    Any bloke reading this knows why the past it whining female writer is unmarried. It ain’t her choice.

    20mins of my life I will not get back.

  • Hope

    Congratulations Susan! It’s so great that ideas like yours are getting more exposure.

  • deti

    @  Susan:

    “So the girls thought she was an awesome woman. They still want her to find the guy! One of them said to me that she hopes Kate’s appearances on TV (she’s also going on Colbert) would lead to new, dashing suitors.”

    Not likely she’ll find anyone who tickles her hypergamous fancy.  Bolick has reached a professional and personal pinnacle. She’s an accomplished, respected journalist who owns three homes.  In alli likelihood she would find only an infinitesimally tiny percentage of men attractive. 

      “Kate didn’t put it in the article, but she also asked each girl what she would prioritize – career or marriage and family. Every single one said marriage and family.”

    Your focus group’s responses would not have supported the thesis of Bolick’s article.  Not surprising it was excluded.

  • wudang

    I hope as many of you as possible also post in the comment section of the Atlantic. Hammer in hypergamy as much as possible and focus on the other core manosphere messages and provide links to key posts and articles in manosphere websites. It would also be good to mention the manosphere as a phenomenon because that would make.someone curious enough to research it a bit. Mention athols site and book because that is the easiest to swallow.and something people can see is getting good results. A key focus should be that the women cluster arround a tiny percentage and it is this hypergamy that causes most of the phenomenon not men. Another key point us that men at able to handle.monogamy long turn it is the women who have a hard time with it as divorce statistics.show.

  • Ceer

    I’m of two minds about the article.  First, as some of the other commenters noticed, there isn’t a lot of conclusion seeking.  Honest, goal-oriented introspection is a BIG part of what helped create the techniques we now call pua/game.  Without it, I’m sure that women will continue to be left wondering why  society hasn’t given them a loving family, when they have their great careers and take-charge personalities.  The flip side, is I’ve observed women being very resistant to change in many cases, especially if they are on the receiving end of information that may threaten their perceived SMV.  Men can be like this too, sometimes, but as the primary approacher, he experiences much more acute pain when his actions don’t reflect reality.  This disconnect is what’s catching up with women.  Unfortunately, these women in particular are taking a hit for not playing by the rules defined by men.

  • Random Angeleno

    It’s easy to attack Bolick’s article.

    But heck, did you disappointed fellas really expect MSM rags like The Atlantic to keel over and espouse manosphere memes just like that? Seriously? For me, just that an article like this that discusses things like the Pareto Principle as applied to the college SMP is out there, that is huge progress. Rome wasn’t built in a day; we didn’t come to this pass in a day and we won’t reverse feminism in a day either.

    But … the cat is scrambling out of the bag and into the spinster’s home!

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    I was having fun reading it, up to the “singlism” part.

    “Singlism?” Really? Should I brace myself for even more politically-correct rules about what I can and can’t say, just because it’ll hurt someone’s feelings? Victimology is too pleasant a racket, it looks like. That guy can shove it.

    Anyway, I tried to read on, but the hamster-driven fantasies about how wonderful it would be when males are relegated to inferior status just drove me crazy. I didn’t see one mention of unfair divorce rulings, anti-father child custody enforcement, or the man-hatred commonly promoted in K-12 schools and universities. It’s good that HUS got some mention, but writing sympathetically about men would have gotten her thrown out of the magazine on her ear, I figure.

    That being said, she should come here and maybe leave a comment or two.

  • wudang

    The std thing is.interesting. If everything continues and we go towards open relationships and endless streaks of promiscuity wouldnt that necesarily come to a natural stop in such a large society because the spread would be insane. I have read that married swingers have more.stds than prostitues. I dont remember the numbers but they were extremely high

  • Anacaona

    For me, just that an article like this that discusses things like the Pareto Principle as applied to the college SMP is out there, that is huge progress.

    Agreed the manosphere sometimes suffers from slow activism fast results syndrome, given that there is no real outcry for MRA’s except for the very open and big internet expecting for the scene to change overnight is very unrealistic. A small step for manosphere and a big step for MRA’s, YMMV.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    I agree that an article like this, for all its flaws, is a step in the right direction.

  • Hellhath

    I liked parts of the article, however I feel like rather than go off on some of the tangents she did it would have been better to ask some critical questions as to the underlying causes to some of her assertions. I believe raising points and not addressing some of the possible causes is poor journalistic form (other than shallow ones). I will
    take small steps toward progress but there is room for a follow-up article.

    Example: Why the seeming disparity between the assertion that being more “empowered” and “making their own way”. So if women are free to choose men regardless of their traditional roles as protectioner/provider how does this fit with the
    assertion the next line that the eligible pool is smaller because less men are
    more successful than them? You would think if you were ignorant of hypergamy
    that you would conclude it should increase not decrease the pool of “good
    men”. It isn’t that we don’t know the answer but I wonder why the obvious contradiction
    so close together.

    How about a discussion of the fact that industrial and factory jobs were replaced with white collar jobs, and eliminated or moved. Remember the promises of moving from the steel mills to the office. Put in your time doing this work and your children can go to
    college and work your way up and out. So what jobs replace those white collar
    jobs? Life coaching? Service ones? Honestly if I had it to do all over again I
    would stay out of this desk job and kept to my first love wrenching bikes.

    My biggest disappointment in the whole article was the whole point near the end concerning what amounts to single mothers raising children. Women cannot impart a sense of healthy masculinity into their boys any more than a Man can teach his daughter how to be truly feminine. You can guide them, you can give them the perspective of your experience but you cannot teach a boy to become a Man. That is not even taking into all the things an unhealthy single mother can do to a child such as
    projection, emotional incest, shaming due to her issues/fears, etc. At best you
    will raise a boy with a feminine frame of masculinity, at worst a traumatized
    and lost child stuck as a boy. I know so many mothers who raised their children
    to be what they thought a good husband should be not what a good man should be.

    • My biggest disappointment in the whole article was the whole point near the end concerning what amounts to single mothers raising children.

      She was obviously of two minds about that herself, as she included a disclaimer on that. It really is one thing to say those women in PA were close, and quite another to suggest that’s a healthy model for raising kids. I’m close with my female friends too, but they didn’t raise my children for me. We need to address how to get men back into the family, not think about families that don’t require men. Admittedly, that’s a very intractable problem.

  • Passer_By

    To be honest, I’m sure she’s nice and smart and all that, but I found it a bit incoherent and hard to read.  It seemed to like 5 pages of hamster wheeling  to avoid addressing the obvious issues of hypergamy and choice addiction that plague her and similarly situated women (and which are probably exacerbated by her career).

  • Jonny

    I reread the article once more. Why is it that women who chose to not marry seek alternatives? If you don’t want a family via a husband and kids, why seek another family? Women seem to want options. This is so convenient for them. The truth is there are limitations to non-family options. You’re really alone if you don’t have your own family. Certainly, a woman can lose her husband and friends, but her children will remain. No woman looks at men and see the same future, but in the end, a women will be in the same situation as single men. Most single men spend lots of time by themselves.

    This article tells me she regrets her choices despite making the right choice for herself. It is the ultimate in self deception. She went so far to one side that maybe she will flip to the next side.

  • wudang

    One thing people tend to forget.when.disucssing matrifocal societies.such.as.the mozu is that while they have brothers in the role of the father and many males living right next to them in the village we will not have anything like that. Because we dont have ten children.but one or two or three, there wont be enough brothers to fill this role and the brother will often live far away. Good luck getting a system were the brothers we do have live with their sisters. Instead we will have the state in the role of the father which wil.mean there will be less male influence on children than in any society we have ever seen.

  • Jennifer

    “Never forget, you are merely an Alpha agent of righteous karma”

    Yep, there’s the PUA gospel for you. And never feel sympathy for a woman who God forbid thought education would help her. That kind of sentiment tempts me to lose sympathy for the “fallen” good guys.

  • “men are lagging behind women in education and career advancement” is that evolution balancing things out? I don’t know, but I agree that the woman’s movement has impacted the female evolution from domestic goddess to corporate “queen.”

  • Some Handle

    But heck, did you disappointed fellas really expect MSM rags like The Atlantic to keel over and espouse manosphere memes just like that? Seriously?

    When our host calls an article “brilliant”, you go into it with high hopes.

    • When our host calls an article “brilliant”, you go into it with high hopes.

      It exceeded my expectations. Perhaps I got a little carried away. I knew from the start what her angle was – her own plight. I hammered home what I thought was most important, and the result was better than I’d hoped.

      I do like the article, though. I think it’s very well written.

  • wudang

    One thing people tend to forget.when.disucssing matrifocal societies such as.the mozu is that while they have brothers in the role of the father and many males living right next to them in the village we will not have anything like that. Because we dont have ten children.but one or two or three, there wont be enough brothers to fill this role and the brother will often live far away. Good luck getting a system were the brothers we do have live with their sisters. Instead we will have the state in the role of the father which wil.mean there will be less male influence on children than in any society we have ever seen.

  • Petruchio

    Did ever Dian so become a grove
    As Kate this chamber with her princely gait?

    Such wind as scatters young men through the world
    To seek their fortunes farther than at home,

    • @Petruchio

      From the comments at the Atlantic. Shakespeare never fails.

      OPHELIA I was the more deceived.

      HAMLET Get thee to a nunnery

      Hamlet Act 3. Scene I

  • deti

    “Trash dick”?   Oy, that’s harsh.

    “A third of college educated women are not going to marry men with degrees.”

    I wonder if many of them will simply not marry at all.  A female friend years ago agonized over whether to marry her longtime BF.  She had a master’s degree; he wanted to be a police officer.  He couldn’t get on the force and instead became a tradesman, telling her he wasn’t going back to college.  She called me (yes, then the ever present emo tampon), distraught that her BF would not return to college.  She essentially told him she wouldn’t marry him if he didn’t have a BA or BS after his name.  She was seriously torn up about the possibility that her man wouldn’t have a degree and she had two.   She had a big problem with it.   Aaaaand, she broke up with him and married somebody else — who had an associate’s degree.

     

    • Aaaaand, she broke up with him and married somebody else — who had an associate’s degree.

      I cracked up at this.

      I think there are several problems with the idea of women marrying men less educated than themselves.

      1. It’s not what women want – which is to marry up.
      2. It’s not what men want, which is to have more status than their women.
      3. There will be plenty of smart men in the trades, but they will not be having the same conversations or priorities as men who work in white collar jobs. Women will consider them too rough around the edges.
      4. Society really isn’t set up for easy mingling between socioeconomic levels. How will these educated women meet these less educated men, even if they are open to the idea?

  • Some Handle

    It exceeded my expectations.

    I am curious: do you find the response here, so far, to be:

     

    • a little surprising
    • a lot surprising
    • not surprising at all

     

    • @Some Handle
      Not surprising at all. The only surprise of the day was your early pushback – that threw me. Otherwise, it’s pretty much what I expected. I knew some guys would see this as good for the manosphere and some would dismiss it. I would like to humbly suggest that if we demand that every article cover everything on the manosphere hit list, we’ll be perpetually discouraged. But then, I’m used to working on the margins, in baby steps.

  • wudang

    My mother once met a young woman who told her something extremelyrelevant to this discusion. She had been planning to have a top career in marketing and not have children at all. But while studying she had a part time job sitting in the rooms of dying elderly ti notify the nurses when.something happened. Out of.curiosity and boredom she startet to make statistics on how people.dealt with death. What she found was three different groups having markedly different reactions. Those who had children although experiencing some anxiety generally resigned with death ok and of course were often visited by their children. Priests and others who had very very strong active religious.lives and did not have children dealt ok as well. Those who had only a faith tha had not lived out actively or were atheists and did not have children had tons of anxiety and often.could.find no peace with death at all and the moment of death itself was filled with anxiety rarely peace as for many of those with children. After this the woman changed priorities and put the career behind having children as a priority. Related to this is the fact that it is no fun.being 70-95 and not having children come.visit or help. that is a substantial and.vulnerable part of life that people give.zero consideration when they think about their priorities in life. if.this can be researched properly and brought to the attention of more people it will act as a very usefull tool in motivating people to have children.

    • @wudang
      What a fascinating story! I wonder if that’s been formally studied.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan,

    Wow, that is one heck of a navel-gazing exercise (well written, if I may say).  She may seem nice and attractive enough, but her article really is mainly a treatise on making herself feel better.

    She starts of with a bright-eyed endorsement of her mother’s feminism, not realizing that the “limitless possibilities” it offered had it’s own downsides, and that it made her feel like “that there would always be men we wanted to marry, we took on faith “.  She then switches to some historical info, trying to piece together some excuse as to why there’s no good men.  Then, a little bit of sympathy for the minority family as the canary in the mine, and then a visit with our blog hostess, only to mostly ignore what she finds there.  And then an elaborate portion trying to find “those who had gone off-script with unconventional arrangements” (with a dig at the neolithic revolution, which moved us away from the garden of eden where everyone shagged everyone).  A little bit of sympathy again for the minority family, who seemed to have found such one wonderful “unconventional arrangement”, while forgetting the words of the mother in question: “I had done everything I could to make sure she didn’t end up like me, and now this”.  And then a paean to alternative old folks homes, ending with the hope of “a room of one’s own”, not realizing she was describing something more akin to a coffin.

    Well, as a cautionary tale, it may work.  Boy, if hypergamy protects STEM men like me from such women, well maybe it isn’t all bad 🙂

     

  • Scipio Africanus

    I knew she was nice looking as soon as she mentioned in the article that she’d had a more or less uninterrupted string of boyfriends from 9th grade to roughly the age of 30.  All the girls I’ve ever known like that were towards the top of the looks hierarchy.

  • Wayfinder

    The thing that concerns me whenever a spinister talks about having children without men is that they sound disturbingly like the highschool girls who get pregnant because they want someone who will always love them. Kids don’t work that way.

    Perhaps a deeper issue is that the picket fence fantasy they’re imagining won’t happen, men or no men. Their marriages, if they happen, won’t look like their mothers’ marriages, for better or worse.

  • wudang

    Deti: a woman I know dated a waiter. After a year he asked her to marry him. She yes, but only if you get an education. And he did. Long term I think mens motivations for education will go up when, after the new smp has cooked for a while so that the education gap is properly felt and digested by the culture.

  • pjay

    I think you touched somebody deeply…her name is Amanda.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/10/11/_marriage_market_theories_are_simply_inadequate_to_explain_the_s.html

    “…that the whole nation looks like New York City’s notoriously brutal dating marketplace, that there’s a meaningful difference between a woman who terminates a long-standing cohabitation and a divorcée, and that Susan Walsh should be treated like an expert in dating when she’s better described as a charlatan whose only credential for giving advice is her shockingly sadistic misogyny (and who likes to diagnose feminists from afar as mentally ill because they question her immoveable belief that dating is really a war between men and women in which each tries to extract what they want from the other with as minimal contribution of love or sex as possible, depending on the gender stereotype).”

     

  • Johnycomelately

    Wait a sec,

    This chick is writing half arsed articles that aren’t even current with modern trends (evo psych, hypergamy, game, sex ratios, socialism, feminism, economics of free trade, fiat banking etc.)  and is getting payed handsomely for it?

    While I  read infinitely superior writers like Roissy, Dalrock, Rollo, Susan and the rest for free?

     

    • @Johnycomelately

      This chick is writing half arsed articles that aren’t even current with modern trends (evo psych, hypergamy, game, sex ratios, socialism, feminism, economics of free trade, fiat banking etc.) and is getting payed handsomely for it?

      I have to say I’m surprised that the Atlantic funded trips all over the place, including California and Amsterdam. I was kinda taken aback they were willing to fly her to Boston! I had no idea there were such big budgets for articles like these.

      While I read infinitely superior writers like Roissy, Dalrock, Rollo, Susan and the rest for free?

      Haha, which of these does not belong with the others?

      Thanks for the vote of confidence, though.

  • wudang

    Scipio: thats why I think the best looking women have substantially higher partner.counts than the more plain ones. The endless.string o boyfriends add up to a high count in itself. Add in that the better looking women are far more likely to cheat and the count goes.up. Add in that they leave relationships earlier and the count goes up. Add in that almost all the good looking girls start to party early, are invited to all the frat parties, go clubbing much more because the attention makes it much more.fun.for them and the count goes up.because being in these settings all the time leads to hookups. Add in that the hotest women between the boyfriends date all the time and because if hookup.culture just a few dates easily leads to sex. In total this adds up to a much higher count for a lot of the most attractive girls. I at least experience that in social groups with lots of people in the 3-5 range people are generally a lot more timid and carefull, they dont party half as much, they loose their virginity later, they have had few boyfriends and the relationships lasts long. The hotties on the other hand find the pairbonding stage too boring.and think it is something wrong with the boyfriend and so dumps him. In the groups.with lots.of hot girls all is reversed.from the less hot.groups. I attribute.my own former belief that partner counts were way higher than they actually are to the fact that I have always been in groups of very attractive people. The super sluts though I think are often in the 5-6.range for some.reason. Maybe because they have some access to alpha and good enough looks to land a good beta despite their number. The lesser looking ones need to keep their numbers down so they can sell purity for lack of looks and they dont really have access to alphas.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan,

    Boy, Amanda Marcotte really doesn’t like you very much.  Kinda rich having her criticize you as “a charlatan whose only credential for giving advice is her shockingly sadistic misogyny”, considering her well attested misandry (i.e. Duke case) and that her dating advice boils down to “more feminism!”  Good thing you hate all those young women you want to see happy in relationships!

    That you have a such enemies is a sign you’re on the side of the angels 🙂

  • Esau

    Susan, I’m glad that you (and your commenters) are getting wider recognition.  The best thing that’s likely to happen as a result of this article is that more people will take up reading your blog!  and eventually your book (s?).

    Other than referring to you, though, I don’t see very much to admire in the article or the author’s thoughts.  Saying that Bolick represents an advance over Hymowitz may be true; but so is saying that scrimmaging on your own two yard line is better than only being on the one.  Really, my sympathy level fell absolutely to zero reading this tripe:

    marriage-minded women are increasingly confronted with either deadbeats or players.

    Really, the blindness and casual cruelty are just breathtaking.  You say that she’s at least been informed about the wider world.  But note that she frames things like the 80/20 concept only by quoting you, as though she’s not really convinced and wants to keep her distance; while she re-states the vomitous tripe with the authority of her own narrative voice.

    Ah, well; if the journey to sexual enlightenment begins with an MSM article in which at least a few sentences are not outright misandrist, then I guess this is a start.

     

    • @Esau
      I hear you. Thank you for the support anyway. I too cringed at the deadbeats and players thing. Perhaps it can all best be summed up in the text my daughter sent from work when the article went up:

      SMP sucks

  • SayWhaat

    That you have a such enemies is a sign you’re on the side of the angels 🙂

    True that, although if this gets bigger be ready to defend yourself with bazookas. I’ve only mentioned a few manosphere tenets to some friends and was met with heavy pushback (from guys, even)! Heavy stuff.

    That being said, this article is a good step in the right direction. I wish she hadn’t gotten off on that “singlism” stigma thing at the end and would have rather she talked about the implications for society and whatnot. I think it’s interesting that your focus group wasn’t mentioned as prioritizing marriage and family over career. A year ago I was struggling with that same question, and now I can definitively say that I would prioritize marriage and family over any career I may have.

    Anyways, I think Anacaona’s right. This article will get Bolick’s wedding bells ringing in a few years (and I really do hope she finds someone soon). Did you hear that Mormon chick finally got laid? A year after her first article about being a 27yo virgin came out.

    Major props, Susan! I shared the article with a bunch of friends. : )

  • deti

    pjay:   Oy, the Marcotte screed.   Thought we could be done with Marcotte, at least for a bit. Oh well,  here goes.  Quick take:

    Marcotte complains that evo psych is “21st century phrenology”.  Never mind that it explains deep seated desires and behaviors women and men exhibit and have exhibited for thousands of years.

    Then she complains that the SMP analysis or applying economic models to the way men and women connect with each other ignores love, or removes love from the equation. Gee.  How quaint.   Anyway, the flaw in Marcotte’s main premise is that most people never get to the matter of love because they can’t even get the other gender’s members to notice them.   IOW, emotion doesn’t even enter the equation when those in the marketplace are struggling just to connect to each other. 

    You can’t fall in love until there’s attraction.  There can’t be attraction until you know what is attractive, what you find attractive, and until you know what others find attractive in you.   Those attributes  can be assessed and quantified.  Once assessed and quantified, they can be displayed for others to evaluate and quantify.  Men and women evaluate and size each other up all the time. That’s what women do with weight loss, makeup, clothes and hairstyles.  That’s what men do with improving appearance, showing dominance and confidence, becoming good conversationalists, and getting their cocky-funny on. 

    Some of the product looks better than others; some sells better than others; some get more takers than others; some don’t get any takers at all; some need better advertising,  some take their products off the market for retooling and then put them back out there.  

    That, my friends, is a marketplace.

  • Gerard

    I’ve found this site though that article, and find it much more interesting. I’ll be revisiting, I’ve found concepts like the Apex Fallacy and some of the comments here interesting. I’ve been unsuccessful in getting a relationship, and now stumbling on stories like hers and sites like yours in an attempt to understand why. I’m a guy, so not really your target audience, but you make a lot of interesting points.

    As to the article by Kate Bolick: It’s an interesting read, but I have the feeling she’s not entirely honest with herself. There are to many conflicting parts to the story. It did give me some insight: If there are many women like her, who divide the men in the world into “players” and “deadbeats”, then no wonder they end up single.

    I do think wudang points to something interesting. The way we treat our elderly has changed a great deal. In the past marriage and children was the best insurance in old age. Today nursing homes and pensions take care of the basics. The need is a lot less urgent, which coupled with contraceptives has lead to a less committal attitude.

    • @Gerard
      Welcome. You’ll soon notice there’s no shortage of guys around here 🙂 They boast a great deal of wisdom so do revisit and read the comment threads. Join in anytime!

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    More women may be entering and graduating from college, but how many of these women are actually doing something useful? From what I’m hearing, most of them are just running up five- and six-figure debt with no chance of steady employment. Why do you think so many of the “We Are the 99%” crowd are complaining about college debt?

    Women’s so-called “victory” may well be hollow. I’m not saying that the country will return to a beta-friendly SMP — the elites favor women too much — but it does mean that these women will have to reexamine the bill of goods they were sold about how wonderful they are for being women.

    As for the jobless men, the government is busy regulating the crap out of productive employment, because making stuff and extracting resources is “greed,” or something.

    • @CrisisEraDynamo
      Sorry, the spam filter caught you randomly. I’ve whitelisted you to prevent that from happening again.

  • Rum

    I hate to say this, but perhaps Kate has suffered for some time under a severely distorted sense of her true SMV. I know that other women will tell her that she is extremely good looking but no guy on here would give her much over a 6 – and she is as we speak hitting the steep part of the slide into sexual invisibilty. For all I know, she was the real deal some years back. Probably like most women, she never knew anything but desirabilty in male eyes since she hit puberty.  Therefore, she could easily coast on that presumption for some time against the headwinds of her changing reality.

    And her professional success… That can improve a womans value as a marriage partner in the eyes of a particular kind of marriage-minded older man. That sort of thing has some status currency that some guys want. Maybe she meet such a guy.

    But as to sexual attractiveness? Zip. Zero, Nada. That zero added to her faded looks =  not that great a deal for most valuable men.. She needs to offer a guy a lot more than sex appeal at this stage.

    Part of her problem has been that her professional success has put her in the same room with alpha guys who were willing to bang her apparently. But does this make her a 10? No. It just means she got to bang some alphas. But how could she understand the difference? Feminism sure would not explain it.

  • A.

    Marcotte’s comments that the “market theory” leaves out love is like Keats complaining that Newton explaining the rainbow robbed the rainbow of its beauty.  (Except that Keats knew enough to complain only as a joke)

  • Jennifer

    She’s supposed to be only a six? Good God, no wonder women are pissed off at beauty standards.

    What the DEVIL is it with this “BF. ” and similar annoying grammar marks?

  • Jennifer

    Geez, it wasn’t supposed to look like “BF”. Several of the “A’s” in people’s previous posts had infuriatingly confusing dashes over them.

  • wudang

    Gerard I highly recomend reading rollo thomassis blog therationalmale. Also.marriedmansexlife.com, yohami, dalrock. Theprivateman and several.of the others in the manosphere. By all means mention their names in the Atlantic thread as well. They need to read it.

  • El Marqués

    Congratulations Susan. Guess you gained your platform, whatever that meant…

    Or the writer (yes, another one) who announced after six months together that he had to end things because he “couldn’t continue fending off all the sexual offers.” And those are just the honest ones.

    This in the original article made me laugh hard. Brilliant strategy. Claim victim status, works great for women, too…

    They want to get across the point that even beautiful, interesting, smart women are having difficulty finding life partners.

    Yet they always seem to miss the point that it’s men who define whether or not she’s beautiful, interesting or smart. I’m with Sandy here, she’s not even cute (7).

    I agree that the woman’s movement has impacted the female evolution from domestic goddess to corporate “queen.”

    Lol. You mean the devolution from woman to cheap chinese imitation of a man?

  • Jennifer

    Amazing, this woman’s gorgeous and there are still morons who wouldn’t rate her worthy enough.

  • Anacaona

    Related to this is the fact that it is no fun.being 70-95 and not having children come.visit or help. that is a substantial and.vulnerable part of life that people give.zero consideration when they think about their priorities in life. if.this can be researched properly and brought to the attention of more people it will act as a very usefull tool in motivating people to have children.

    I don’t know why but her article and story reminded me of the playboy model that was found dead after a few days in her apartment, she was over 80 and obviously lived a very fun life…to end like that. Many of the jezzies feel sorry for her and blamed the patriarchy for not longer appreciating her after her looks faded.Is so hard to see them not being able to connect that if you don’t cultivate links with the new generation no matter how many peers are friends with you you will end up alone do them dying and getting sick at the same time that you do. The lack of logic is amazing.

    If you are convinced that the best is to live in the now, now is all the world owes to you.

    pjay

    Let me guess Amanda never had been interviewed by The Atlantic in spite that she has been writing a lot longer than Susan?

     

    True that, although if this gets bigger be ready to defend yourself with bazookas. I’ve only mentioned a few manosphere tenets to some friends and was met with heavy pushback (from guys, even)! Heavy stuff.

    Heh I can say I never talk about the manosphere themes with anyone but the hubby and even the hubby has a sanitized PC version of the themes we discuss. We will need a big name endorsing this for the manosphere to be more or less discussed without raging fits…is Madonna endorsing any new philosophy now?

    Anyways, I think Anacaona’s right. This article will get Bolick’s wedding bells ringing in a few years (and I really do hope she finds someone soon).

    Heh I’m starting to think that in the past women were told to enroll in college to get husbands, maybe nowadays they will be told blog to find a husband.

    A year ago I was struggling with that same question, and now I can definitively say that I would prioritize marriage and family over any career I may have.

    I’m very proud of you. I do hope that more women in your generation know that  colleges were created to give you the best human chance to get a degree and economy is designed in a way that most people can and will get a job, but marriage is not longer a given any moment they want to and it comes with a deadline and there are no schools or institutions with a secure course to get a marriage that is functional and last so you better focus in it before is too late if you really want it to happen.

     

  • Rum

    Jennifur

    Apparently you are in the habit of telling men what they should want- and getting away with it.  Apparently you are used to men putting up with yur shite.

    But, then again, you are not from around here.

  • Rum

    Next, some femmy will chime in with stern instructions for men to lust after double chins and abundant, hairy FUPAs.

    It is worse than useless. Men are not influenced in this manner in the same way women are. And the speaker is instantly assumed to be a Fattie.

  • Anonymous

    If you don’t want children, then the single life is fine, have at it.  But if you want children, there is no better structure than a two parent home and marriage with active father influence.  Sorry, but that is truth.

    Women need to understand basic human biology instead of persisting in wishful thinking.  And that is, female fertility is gonna start dropping off a cliff starting about age 32 or so.  Spending your 20s ignoring that fact is quite possibly going to leave you in a jam with no husband and no children.  Another tenant of basic biology is that men will want to find the most fertile woman with whom to pass on his genes.  This means you are in your prime in your 20s.  Seize the opportunity while you can. Work, career, travel, etc. all of that can go on until your 70s/80s/90s.  But you are only fertile and pumped up with estrogen in your early years.  This is your window to marry and reproduce.  The rest can come later.

    Credential yourself in your 20s, get your degrees and begin your career.  Remember you are at your most fertile and beautiful in your 20s.  Find your man then at your most desirable.  I agree with Susan that the women in their early/mid twenties need to begin in earnest to find the father of their children.  Then, have your children when you are very fertile.  Continue to work if you have to or need to during your 30s, but know you can’t have it all.  Then, kick it in high gear career wise around 40-45 when your competence counts and your looks begin to fade.  Your children are older and begin to pull away.  You have another 20-25 years to accomplish alot.   And time to travel, hang with friends, pursue hobbies, etc.

    Don’t fight biology.  It always wins.  I don’t want a bunch of women in their early 20s to make the same mistake Kate made, which was passing on a wonderful guy at the absolutely prime of her reproductive years.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Jennifer

    Lol  I’ve been around here plenty, and elsewhere. Don’t men constantly tell women when their expectations should be reasonable, esp. on the manosphere? I get tired fast of self-entitlement from men and women, and am not in the habit of either giving or receiving shite.

  • Jennifer

    Yes, this woman is SO close to a double-chin and hairiness. Good Lord.

  • Petruchio

    SayWhat,

    “although if this gets bigger be ready to defend yourself with bazookas”

    They’re shit tests, not arguments.

    Never defend.

    Agree and amplify.

    • Petruchio can’t stay away…and I have no idea why he would want to!

  • zed

    Amazing, this woman’s gorgeous and there are still morons who wouldn’t rate her worthy enough.

    Well, if you think she is so gorgeous, then feel free to marry her.

  • Petruchio

    Gerard,

    “In the past marriage and children was the best insurance in old age.”

    Still is.

  • wudang

    In certain respects feminist Norway is way ahead of the us in turning the tide. Marriage laws are far better, a whole bunch of the young male intellectuals have completely left feminism.and started writing articles about male.rights and cultural repression of males. in webforums manosphere truths are widely.regarded as true by a large.portion of the guys and a fairly large portion of the women. Alpha male attraction, shit testing, women having different value and in the sex and marriage market which in Norway has been termed.the princess syndrome etc. Men have rights to paternity leave for a third or so of the total.time the man and woman is given in total. Men are loudly claiming their importance and rights as fathers and women largely agree with them, a lot of women now.volutarily agree to joint custody, it is widely.recognised by.men that the courts are unfair to them, agood amount of.press is given ti this, the former minister of equality, a woman, took the side of men so much.the labour partys womens group had her removed, men argue they are tired of being responsible.for everything in bed and women.need to start doing some more work, men are critical of paying for dates, women are scolded.online.for fooling men with.paternity and lying about being on the pill when not to get pregnant which means a couple of sins previously left in the dark is now shamed, a.recent documentary series made.by a.famous.commedian used evolutionary research to totally trash all the blank slate social.sciences such as sociology, gender studies, criminality, education etc. They came of as total idiots and were totally defeated and the huge national debates that followed. There is almost always.someone with.at least some knowledge about pua in the threads were attraction is discussed.MEn are fighting back with statistics showing female violence against spouses children and their sexual.abuse, it is widely recognized that men are henpecked. Recently a documentary from Sweden showed the crisis centers for women being largely run by extremists with female separatist ideologies and a huge national debate followed. The number of Asian imported.brides is as far as I can see when walking outside getting.very high. Maybe the tide has turned quicker here because we went further than you ever did.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    First off, congrats on the press Susan… I don’t really care for the article too much (although it had some decent moments), but glad to to see you getting the recognition. Well deserved.

    Couple of other observations:

    Amazing, this woman’s gorgeous and there are still morons who wouldn’t rate her worthy enough.

    • I haven’t noticed anyone saying she “isn’t worthy”… yet several women have called her “gorgeous.” Pretty strong language there, and I just can’t see any guy thinking the same. Good for her age? Sure. Acceptable? Yeah. But if we’re talking objectively here, she’s not going to compare to an average 26 year old. That’s just reality.
    • I don’t mean to be a hater, but I don’t see why anyone in their right mind would look for serious relationships in New York.  Cities like Indianapolis, Kansas City, Charlotte, Nashville, etc. have always struck me as a much better bet.
    I don’t really have anything else to say that hasn’t already been said by several other people: The article has Apex Fallacy written all over it, Girls are just as commitment averse as guys (I’d even go farther to say they’re more averse than guys when they’re < 25), and the thought that most guys are either “players” or “deadbeats” is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
  • Hellhath

    We need to address immediately why our young men are not thriving. The 60/40 college ratio is something we should be talking about nonstop. And, by the way, that is going to be the real kicker in declining marriage. A third of college educated women are not going to marry men with degrees.

    While true wages may correspond to degrees, and other opportunities I do not believe it realistically measures value (even SMV/MMV). A man’s value does not correspond to that piece of paper. For a majority of positions available today I do not see a need for a college degree. It is overkill. Even for quite a few technical positions a better or more thought technical trade school might be a better option. For the price tag of a college degree you get an entry level job where the first thing they do is have you forget all the theory you learned in school and learn practical applications. I have read (I will look up the references later) as well as seen just how little a college degree (AS/BS) sometimes mean. It is treated no different than a high school diploma was treated years ago. A minimal requirement used for screening not as a necessity on the job. Call it education inflation if you will. An AS/BS is a quantifier for HR departments who really don’t understand the job requirements in the first place.

    • @Hellhath

      A man’s value does not correspond to that piece of paper.

      I agree, but what about the perception of value? We all take shortcuts when dating to assess a person’s mating value. Today, women will rarely choose a man with less education, but it’s entirely possible that will change dramatically in the next 20 years. Some women will adapt to this, many will not.

  • (r)Evoluzione

    I read the article, and I must say that I did find her work reasonably thoughtful.  I’ll give examples, so I don’t come off as solipsistic as those who accused her of being thoughtless:

     

    • She approaches the evolutionary angle–Sex at Dawn is cited throughout.
    • She covers alternative arrangements like the dutch pseudo-nunnery.
    • She asks thoughtful questions about what it means to be single in a dyadic-pair dominated society.
    • she appears to be a bit contrite, even regretful (subtlly of course) when describing her irrational, inexplicable breakup with Alan, at age 28, the year she became an official Cougar. (heh)
    • Historical examples from the Civil War and post-WWII Japan and Europe.

    Look, it’s clearly  a high quality piece of journalism. Of course it has rationalization hamster footprints all over it, but what do you expect?  Look at who wrote it.

    Those that scream “Thoughtless!” appear to be pursuing their own agenda on this thread.

    Another comment spoke to the whitebread, upper middle class hautiness of the tone of the article, a criticism germane to the publication itself. I found this entirely warranted, but to be fair, it’s the cultural context of this woman’s life, so that’s what she has to write about. Credit her for even visiting the black community in Pennsylvania. She clearly travelled a lot for this article, but despite the travel, it written from a  very East-Coast sensibility.

    Bolick pivots the story strongly off the idea of sex ratios and “dyadic power,” which is the part where Susan and the HUSies (sorry) come in. The demographics of collegiate and post-collegiate professional life all figure in prominently, but here I must remind the readers, as I have done before, that demographics are not uniform throughout the US.  It’s different in the inter-Mountain west. Part of why all the East Coast colleges and cities are overrun with women is that a lot of men–perhaps the most masculine, adventurous  men, seek the wild and untamed places in the West.  The University of Colorado at Boulder is 53% male.  Summit County, Colorado has 185 single men per 100 single women. Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas, all sport similar demographics.  To some degree the hookup culture is a national pandemic, but in my observation, women hold a lot of sexual-economic power in these places, and there seems to be a whole lot more competition from men for the ladies, and a whole lot more wifin’ up going on.  What goes on in the Left & Right coasts isn’t necessarily what’s going in the hinterlands.
    Overall I thought the article, and Susan’s role in it, were well-done, some subtle misandric leanings, no doubt relics of her hyperfeminist upbringing, notwithstanding.
    One of these days, we’ll start to see some real masculininist writings in mainstream publications. Until then, we’ll all have to be content with Roosh, Roissy, Welmer, Badger, and the rest, to represent in the manosphere.

     

     

  • 108spirits

    Kate Bolick wrote a truckload of words and said so very little meaningful things with them. Susan, I think you and your girl group vastly overrated her intelligence and attractiveness. I see hardly any evidence of intelligence through that insufferably long article, and while she may look alright for a 39 years old, she is, well, 39 years old.

    Congrats to Susan for the publicity though.

  • Rum

    Jennifer

    How do you know what a man sees when he looks at a woman? The truth is, you cannot. Period. You are merely presuming to know what men see. You call this woman “gorgeous”.  Do you even care whether or not men see her in the same way or even as bangable? There is no evidence that you do. It looks to me like you would never dream of ASKING a guy about it. Maybe you do not think they deserve to have an opinion. – at least unless you supplied it to them.

    You want to take a chance?  ASK the men here to rate the bangability of this angry faced, middle aged woman with thickening arms.

    I F…ing dare you.

     

    • You want to take a chance? ASK the men here to rate the bangability of this angry faced, middle aged woman with thickening arms.

      Thickening arms? OMG. She is slim and petite. Just stop.

      Look, reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes attractiveness. But it’s not like women haven’t figured out through a lifetime of observation which women men find hot. Most of us cracked that code in middle school. Having been in her presence I would say that Kate Bolick is not “hot.” She is very feminine and demure, soft spoken and warm. I keep saying warm, but she really does radiate a warmth. She seems almost anachronistic – like she could be on Mad Men or something. She is not an entitled narcissist snowflake. Not at all.

      I was the one who said she is gorgeous. My husband thought she was lovely. Others may disagree. But I won’t stand for anyone trashing her looks gratuitously. Heaven forbid she should come here and see that. I won’t be a party to it.

  • I thought *I* was Bob

    I’m 52 and married, so she can’t have me, but she looks pretty good considering she was probably made up before and photoshopped afterward. She might look her best in friendly light and without warpaint. I suspect few see her that way.

    I wonder just how divorced from reality you can get as an apparently wealthy writer with three domiciles and a mondo expense account?

  • Jennifer

    “Well, if you think she is so gorgeous, then feel free to marry her”

    LOL Yeah, I expected that. I hear conflicting reports in the game world all the time, some saying men don’t care that much, others tearing up women who actually try to keep up their appearances, and of course as stupid as the whole “fat and hairy is hot” thing is, I also get sick of self-centered PUA advice to threaten leaving a woman if she doesn’t drop some pounds. Apparently many males are just as self-entitled as the whiny “I want a NICE alpha!” girls.

    “ASK the men here to rate the bangability of this angry faced, middle aged woman with thickening arms”

    Her arms are skinny; you’re insane. I have no damn idea what every individual man sees, but I know the difference between fat, wrinkly, hairy and not.

    “I F…ing dare you”

    Ooh, I’m f*cking intimidated. “Bangability” describes the shallowness of so many online men anyway; I might as well ask a noxious teen girl to be kind in her description of a guy who doesn’t fit her personal standards. The guys here can say what they want; if they’re shallow, it doesn’t surprise me, and nor would another reaction. I’m used to seeing members of the same sex contradict each other even after people have claimed to figure them out. Having different beauty preferences is one thing; calling a well-shaped woman with clear skin and great hair old, or comparing her to a slob who doesn’t take care of herself is another.

     

  • DelFresco

    As a man I do think she’s attractive, but she does look angry. (Not that she’d be interested in me either, just sayin).

    • As a man I do think she’s attractive, but she does look angry.

      Although I think she looks awesome in the pics, they’re not characteristic of her demeanor. On the Today show, she was much more like herself. She is quite gentle and friendly. She looks like the mom that everyone would like to have. Honestly, this woman should reproduce, she is so smart and attractive.

  • Jennifer

    “I see hardly any evidence of intelligence through that insufferably long article, and while she may look alright for a 39 years old, she is, well, 39 years old”

    So that means she automatically has no beauty?

  • Petruchio

    Susan,

    OK, your blog is irresistible. Just don’t get any ideas…

    Jennifer,

    Women who struggle like Kate here maintain unrealistic standards that no one can meet.They do this, and hide the reasoning from themselves, for a reason.

    The optimal mating strategy hard-wired in their brain is to find a stepford boyfriend/husband to adore and support her in exchange for no sex/respect but at  least he gets the entire culture off his back, with an alpha to provide genes for sexy sons on the side in exchange for the sex, affection, and respect she withholds from her boyfriend/husband.

    The key thing is that the first must be so far below her value that he never dreams of leaving her (the entire culture tells him how lucky he is to have her), so he doesn’t have to meet the standards, but the standards still allow her to justify treating him like shit for making her settle for the likes of him.

    The thing little understood is that she wants no commitment from the second. He’s there for the genes then needs to leave. You’ve heard the old saying about why top men hire prostitutes? They don’t pay them for the sex, they pay them to leave after. Likewise the woman will make sure to choose a man shallow/enough above her level to reliably leave. If he starts showing any redeeming qualities,or if she starts developing feelings for him, she’ll tell him he’s too good for her and he’ll be expected to leave.

    You’ll notice who is missing from the whole picture – the good men who have supposedly disappeared. Well, he disappeared for a reason – he’s got a modern civilization to maintain and wouldn’t be very happy with a woman pursuing a mating strategy from the stone age, no matter empowered it makes her feel. She’s empowered alright – like Genghis Khan, leaving a trail of corpses in her wake.

    The only way a good man with many redeeming qualities can win the game is to power through her (recent – there is the chink) cultural programming and dominate her frame*. But he can only do this if he is aware of what is happening, hence the importance of the Ro’s and Susan (?) in getting the word out.

    * – if this sounds bad to you, consider both the alternative that we have and the plight of children caught in the cuckoldry blender.

    Conversely, a man’s standards, at least looks-wise, are easily meetable. I met four (new) women today who would meet them. Youth, though, does play a major role. Given Susan’s recommendation moreso than that picture, I wouldn’t turn her down, but I’d be looking for more than looks to light the spark.

    • The only way a good man with many redeeming qualities can win the game is to power through her (recent – there is the chink) cultural programming and dominate her frame*. But he can only do this if he is aware of what is happening, hence the importance of the Ro’s and Susan (?) in getting the word out.

      +1 on exactly what Game is for. Ro’s? Roissy and Rollo?

  • Jennifer

    Thank you, the last two gents, for your thoughts.

  • Hellhath

    1. It’s not what women want – which is to marry up.
    2. It’s not what men want, which is to have more status than their women.

    I know the desire, but is how we see “value” hard-wired or is it open to interpretation. Is it up to us (individually or collectively) to decide how to meet this need? Who holds the key to the definition of value. Right now we have women and men using historical (and possibly outdated) definitions but is it static or a social construct?  I really don’t know the answer.

    3. There will be plenty of smart men in the trades, but they will not be having the same conversations or priorities as men who work in white collar jobs. Women will consider them too rough around the edges.

    This is true, a men who work in non-white collar jobs may lack some sophistication. But honestly I will tell you this for a fact, I have read poetry among bikers, discussed philosophy in dive bars, played chess in strip clubs. People sometimes lack access to culture or sophistication, sometimes they lack the desire, but everyone has things they are passionate about. Men were built to be a little rough around the edges (personal opinion of course). For every person who thinks one of my brothers is too… well whatever I am glad. Personally I want men to find more of their wildness inside, to get out that passion . The world needs men who have full hearts.

    4. Society really isn’t set up for easy mingling between socioeconomic levels. How will these educated women meet these less educated men, even if they are open to the idea?

    Society is a coward , judgmental and very very brittle. But yet, it is surprising the number of people who are willing to slum it up a little. I think there are many people in the world who need to remember that the other 65-95% exist and are decent people. Some of the most honorable, kind-hearted, loyal men I know in the world are people who are invisible to most of Society. To mingle among the classes is as problematic as the other SMP issues. I will do some thinking about it and see if I can give better answers to that question.

    • @Hellhath
      Thanks for your thoughtful reply re men and education.

      Personally I want men to find more of their wildness inside, to get out that passion . The world needs men who have full hearts.

      Eric Taylor, the football coach in Friday Night Lights, said this to his team before every game: Clear eyes, full hearts, can’t lose.
      It got to me every single time.

      I agree with you. I think a man who is living his passion is demonstrating very high value. In fact, there are plenty of men doing hard work, e.g. military, ranching, that will have enormous appeal to women regardless of education. I believe I’ve read that high testosterone is negatively correlated to IQ, so the most educated men may actually lack something women screen for. I don’t think it’s that women care whether a guy sat in classrooms for four years. I think the real issue is whether a guy is happy and productive by his own measure. I fear that young men opting out of college when they might have gone are less likely to be able to say that. And of course, geography matters. The same guy will look very different in NYC vs. Wyoming.

  • Petruchio

    Susan,

    “Today, women will rarely choose a man with less education, but it’s entirely possible that will change dramatically in the next 20 years. Some women will adapt to this, many will not.

    Heh, my high school students already are.

    Old Wisdom: Boys are such slackers for not going to (4-year) college.

    New: Hmmm, boys are pretty savvy for spotting that bullshit before we did.

    Jennifer,

    “So that means she automatically has no beauty?”

    The most beautiful woman I know is eighty-five (the truest beauty is in the eyes). Doesn’t mean I’d want to marry her.

    Here’s what we’re talking about there.

  • Jennifer

    “Well, he disappeared for a reason – he’s got a modern civilization to maintain and wouldn’t be very happy with a woman pursuing a mating strategy from the stone age, no matter empowered it makes her feel. She’s empowered alright – like Genghis Khan, leaving a trail of corpses in her wake”

    I couldn’t agree more. But the thing is, I thought that Susan and this article implied that she was not in fact one of those women.

    “The only way a good man with many redeeming qualities can win the game is to power through her (recent – there is the chink) cultural programming and dominate her frame*. ”

    Yes, I’ve heard this warning to men over and over, what Bellita described as “damage control; women are damaged and men must control them”, regardless of which level the individual person describing this is focusing on. I’m still of another tradition, one that sees certain people as not worth pursuing period, and that such people are not the overwhelming majority (I could be wrong, more or less, about that last part though). And I see marriage as two people dying for each other, practicing real love and respect. It is possible.

    “Given Susan’s recommendation moreso than that picture, I wouldn’t turn her down, but I’d be looking for more than looks to light the spark”

    You sound perfectly reasonable.

  • Rum

    Jennifer

    So, your kind is looking for guys eager to offer total, lifelong commitment (a house, college for the kids, alimony afterwards) to a sperm-stained, cellulite  bloated skank-whore of a “wife”?

    What part of “NO” do you not understand.

  • Jennifer

    I’m about ONE step away from either gutting the Internet or this damn computer and its REFUSAL to download this effing site properly, and submit my replies WITHOUT freaking grammar typos, or half of it cut off! Anyfreakinghow..

    “The most beautiful woman I know is eighty-five (the truest beauty is in the eyes). Doesn’t mean I’d want to marry her”

    No argument there, and that’s very sweet. I’m the same way, can find someone attractive without being attracted to them personally. Also agree that women’s beauty is mostly controllable, and I found this woman’s beauty very well-controlled.

  • Jennifer

    “So, your kind is looking for guys eager to offer total, lifelong commitment (a house, college for the kids, alimony afterwards) to a sperm-stained, cellulite  bloated skank-whore of a “wife”?”

    Rum, your reading comprehension f*cking sucks. Not even worth a further response.

  • Hellhath

    I agree, but what about the perception of value? We all take shortcuts when dating to assess a person’s mating value. Today, women will rarely choose a man with less education, but it’s entirely possible that will change dramatically in the next 20 years. Some women will adapt to this, many will not.

    Well one of the things that has allow humans to dominate other species is the fact that we have this wonderful part of the brain that forms patterns. We are constantly forming associations and patterns to short-circuit thoughts. In ancient times it served us very well because we did not have to reinterpret every hint of danger. We heard something, matched the pattern and reacted. Those women who are capable of forming new patterns given the evolution will thrive, the rest will suffer the same fate as any species that over-specialized and is facing a shortfall in food. Great competition, emotional starvation, and eventually possibly extinction.

    One hope for adaptation is something that has been mentioned here before. A man who is passionate about something is sexy to a woman. I believe that the education inflation simply can not keep up. It is cost more and more and returning less and less value.  Going to college is the defacto result of high school. There is hardly a consideration of whether it is right path or even sane given the cost and benefit. It is just assumed as a right of passage. That you are not a real adult until you graduate or at the very least experience college.

    Personally I would rather see college be something people do for extremely intense fields (medical/engineering/etc) or alternatively for personal enrichment later in life. Believe me I have worked in white collar jobs most of my adult life. I know first hand how much we assume that working with our brains is somehow better than working with our hands. It has taken me 15 years or working in a field ripe with brain-envy to realize that it isn’t necessarily so. Society just needs to catch up with that realization.

    (As an aside… I was expelled from 3 high schools, GED’d, never attended more than one semester of college, went to 2 year technical school)

  • jameseq

    i was reading the atlantic today, came across the single ladies article. my eyes bugged out of my head when i saw your name and involvement with the piece. so i came over to read your thoughts on the article

    congrats susan!!! 🙂
    a nice write up of you and your work.
    also congrats on getting up the marcotte’s nose, lololol
    great work

  • Sandy

    Jennifer wrote:

    Amazing, this woman’s gorgeous and there are still morons who wouldn’t rate her worthy enough.

    You might think that she is gorgeous, but her SMV is defined by sexually active men and not women. Women and men look at people through different eyes, SMV is related to sexual arousal, hetero women are not aroused by looking at women, so they perceive an image very differently from men. Women might think that she is absolutely gorgeous, but that’s totally irrelevant to her SMV.

  • Esau

    What are the odds that Kate Bolick is reading this very comment thread?

    • What are the odds that Kate Bolick is reading this very comment thread?

      I would say almost nil yesterday, but perhaps very high she will read it at some point. You can be sure she has a google alert set up on the article.

  • Rum

    Our reigning civilization has depended upon numerous beliefs and  assumptions about the true nature of the sexual instincts inherent in young human females – – that happen , imho, to be (all) absolutely wrong.

    The next few years will be interesting.

  • Interest piqued

    Susan, I like many others found your website through The Atlantic article. I’m a 24 year old male who has previously read tidbits of Manosphere writing but had never really jumped into it in a major way. After reading the article, I spent the rest of my day (inbetween doing work) reading various columns on here or ones linked from the comments, and it’s been fairly informative. From my experience in political and philosophical discussion, learning is best accomplished through interaction, and I think what sites like this do is offer a great forum for men and women to better understand each other. With society telling us that men and women are very different, it’s important to not fall back into easy statements like “women, you’ll never understand them” and to instead engage. It can only help.

    Keep up the good work, and I’ll keep reading.

    • @Interest piqued
      Welcome, I’m so glad you found us! You’ll certainly find a lot of political and philosophical discussion here. It’s not always pretty, but nearly always informative. I’ve been blogging three years and I would say I get new insights every single day from the readers. I’m kind of like a book group moderator or something. I provide the material to start the convo, then we hash it out. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

  • Petruchio

    Jennifer,

    “that’s very sweet”

    It ain’t sweet, and neither am I.

    It’s the truth.

    “Ro’s? Roissy and Rollo?”

    Roosh will not be happy…

    • “Ro’s? Roissy and Rollo?”

      Roosh will not be happy…

      Shoot, he’s the one who’s been nice to me. 😉

  • 108spirits

    “The only way a good man with many redeeming qualities can win the game is to power through her (recent – there is the chink) cultural programming and dominate her frame*. ”

    No, he will win by dating a much younger unspoiled and baggage-free version of her.

    “No argument there, and that’s very sweet. I’m the same way, can find someone attractive without being attracted to them personally. Also agree that women’s beauty is mostly controllable, and I found this woman’s beauty very well-controlled.”

    Why don’t you marry her then? What you find attractive is irrelevant to her article, because it is not the kind of attraction that would lead to a relationship or marriage, which is the point of the discussion. She would’ve been a very beautiful 39 year old woman looking exactly the same, had she been a wife & mother for, say, close to two decades to a loving husband and a bunch of kids, i.e: http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/proverb-28-women-can-age-beautifully/  By beautiful, I mean, beautiful (of the feminine kind) to her husband, and that should be the only thing that counts. Plus she’d earn the admiration from everyone else.

    But as it stands, she’s an aging, about to hit the wall hard, 39 year old spinster who’s still in la-la land regarding relationship & marriage and who threw away the perfect man for her at an age (28) when she should’ve got her shit sorted out. In the patriarchal past, women got that sorted out at 10 years younger. This is why I have to question Susan and her girls’ impression of this woman as being intelligent. She may sound intelligent (people with an overpaid liberal arts education tend to) but her actions & choices in life so far have shown the opposite. Remember one of the cornerstones of Game? “Judge a woman by her actions, not her words”.

    Susan’s focus group would benefit a million times more by reading that Solomon Reborn’s blog post I linked to than her overpaid and tedious article.

    • Susan’s focus group would benefit a million times more by reading that Solomon Reborn’s blog post I linked to than her overpaid and tedious article.

      Actually, that’s a great idea. I think I’ll write about it soon.

  • Petruchio

    Susan,

    You must be getting a lot of traffic. I got here just in time.

    Can you take care of that double post for me?

  • Odds

    I’ll be more interested in seeing what she writes over the course of the next year.  Red pill stuff takes a while to percolate.  It’s no surprise that what she posted was, by manosphere standards, watered down (still a blast from the hydrant by MSM standards, and kudos to SW for her part in it).  What will she have to say about men and relationships when she’s 40?  How will she respond to seeing what she’s learned recently as it gets reflected in real-life situations over the next few months?

    • I have actually found myself thinking of the Dutch faux convent since I read the article. WTF. Men are not allowed to spend the night? If only our college dorms still had such rules!

  • Jennifer

    “Why don’t you marry her then?”

    Because I’m not a man. But maybe one of the other guys here who found her attractive would be interested; thank God one man doesn’t stand for all.

    “She would’ve been a very beautiful 39 year old woman looking exactly the same, had she been a wife & mother for, say, close to two decades to a loving husband and a bunch of kids, i.e: http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/proverb-28-women-can-age-beautifully/”

    But since she’s unmarried, she’s not beautiful and a man couldn’t find her sexually attractive? Or are you saying she’s unattractive because of what you perceive to be her attitude?

  • 108spirits

    Read that blog by Solomon Reborn first, Jennifer. The answer to your question is in it.

  • Mike C

    Perhaps unwise of me to chime in on this point, but I’ll step into it.  First, in my opinion, alot of guys have what I call Internet rating syndrome where they consistently rate a woman  at least 2 points lower than what would be the reality if she was standing right in front of them flesh and blood.  She is definitely above average in physical attractiveness.  That said, no way she is gorgeous and again (because I like to make this point) that is just allowing her personality and other attributes to spill over into the raw assessment of her physical beauty.  She is a 6-7 depending on the guy and seeing the body in addition to the face might bump her up or down a point.

    Hearing women comment on female beauty is leading to me a new theory that relates to facial recognition.  Based on everything I’ve learned these last several years, women are no doubt hardwired to instinctively recognize alpha personality type traits that go unnoticed by most men.  Similarly, I am beginning to think men instinctively recognize the facial and body differences from a 39-year old compared to a 23-year old that go unnoticed when women look at the exact same two women.  We pick up the small things that I think most women are oblivious to.

     

    • @Mike C

      Similarly, I am beginning to think men instinctively recognize the facial and body differences from a 39-year old compared to a 23-year old that go unnoticed when women look at the exact same two women.

      I am certain you are right. Most of the attraction science happens below the level of consciousness anyway. It’s a complicated process.

      My feelings about her were quite maternal, I didn’t view her through a mating lens. I have no stake in whether men think she’s hot or not, I just don’t think it’s necessary to say she has thickening arms! She’s not a stick insect, true. This is where the men really do get brutal rating women online.

  • Jennifer

    Read it, and the end was lovely; thanks for confirming. Glad the dirty-mouthed oldster had appreciation for real beauty, and what a revelation. Sad what Solomon 2 became, though; he should have listened to his former wife (someone told me she warned him that his lifestyle would severely harden his heart). And serves the a**hole he was with that night right, the player who found out that his wife was cheating on him. What’d you expect, pal? Staring at the floor morosely, thinking what a raw deal you got with her, when you had about five women on your own list. One of the last commentaters was right: karma’s a bitch.

  • An Unmarried Woman

    Wudang, are you partnered up? If not I know several women who would love to correspond with you. 😉

  • Jennifer

    Funny how we see things. I’d think a woman who’s a 7 would be gorgeous.

  • Jennifer

    Wudang, if things are improving so much, I don’t know why imported brides would be increasing. Please check your use of periods, it can get hard to read.

  • Mike C

    Just watched the segment:

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44864288#.TpUhpt5CqU8

    Interesting.  I find the meme “I am a single lady loving life rocking and rolling” actively choosing kind of interesting.  Listening to the women they interviewed and Kate as well, the whole thing strikes me a bit with the “methinks the lady doth protest too much”.

    There is a very bizarre aspect to this.  You watch that segment and you’d think all these older single women just LOVE their lives, and maybe they do, but then you get the shaming stuff about Peter Pans and not manning up and marrying.  There almost seems a sort of bipolar schizo aspect to all of  this.  Yes, marry us, no don’t, we’re perfectly happy being single.  I suspect the internal cognitive dissonance between the core drive to find a husband and be maternal yet also follow the path of blazing a path in terms of “success” must go to 11 on the mental volume dial.

    • @Mike C
      Agree totally on the schizo segment. I was really surprised. The Today show pitched this as “I love single life” and it’s very, very clear that’s not what she is saying in her article, which has a lot of sadness in it. She really has a sense that she made a major life mistake in dumping Allan. She’s looking for a way to love the life she has left, knowing that her time is running out. She comes right out and says she knows she’s competing with younger, more attractive women.

      Watching her during that interview, I got the sense she’d been pushed into that box. Of course she wanted to be on the Today show! But I don’t think she wanted to be pitched that way. To her credit, she highlights the plight of men in a way that I think is compassionate. Policy makers need to hear that, and she’s got a long record of writing for highly respected media outlets.

  • Anacaona

    As a man I do think she’s attractive, but she does look angry. (Not that she’d be interested in me either, just sayin).

    Well the article was not about celebrating singlehood she does express that she would like to be married she left the exploring singlehood as a plan B that she is considering not a happy option. I stand by my idea that she is husband fishing and she cannot appear a happy singleton for that. She needed to show that she was available and ready to commit and see who takes the bait. Wait and see.

    • @Anacaona

      . She needed to show that she was available and ready to commit and see who takes the bait. Wait and see.

      I agree. She likes intellectual guys. If she stays out of the “11 years younger” pond she could easily attract a very successful male. I’m thinking Wall St., divorced (grab him now before the bonuses dry up). Over the weekend Sir Paul married a 51 year-old woman, when he could have gone with half that age.

  • Mike C

    Funny how we see things. I’d think a woman who’s a 7 would be gorgeous.

    If a 7 is gorgeous, than what adjectives do we set aside exclusively for 9s and 10s?

    I’m of the school of thought that words have fairly precise meanings and it is actually counterproductive to effective communication when we start redefining what they mean

    I hate to get pedantic, but it is necessary:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gorgeous

    Splendid, magnificant.  A gorgeous woman walks down the street and EVERY SINGLE GUY”s head turns.  I think we like to change the use of words like this due to the Lake Wobegon effect.

    • A gorgeous woman walks down the street and EVERY SINGLE GUY”s head turns. I think we like to change the use of words like this due to the Lake Wobegon effect.

      Fair enough. I would just point out, however, that the very same woman may turn a few heads when she’s in a bulky overcoat and no makeup, more heads when she’s running in no makeup, and every head when she’s going out for the evening with smokey eyes and long, bare legs.

  • Sojourner

    Ironically, as I came to the end of reading this, the song Eleanor Rigby started playing in my head.  Namely, the chorus, “Look at all the lonely people”

    That alone made this a sorrowful thing to read.  I mean truly, look at what we have wrought.

    • @Sojourner

      Ironically, as I came to the end of reading this, the song Eleanor Rigby started playing in my head. Namely, the chorus, “Look at all the lonely people”

      That just sent chills up my spine. That’s it exactly.

  • Mike C

    Well the article was not about celebrating singlehood she does express that she would like to be married she left the exploring singlehood as a plan B that she is considering not a happy option. I stand by my idea that she is husband fishing and she cannot appear a happy singleton for that.

    Did you watch the Today segment?  That is NOT at all what she said.  To hear her and the other woman being interviewed marriage is the old paradigm and older, single women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

    • To hear her and the other woman being interviewed marriage is the old paradigm and older, single women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

      Ironic then that she blames her mother for sending her to school in t-shirts of the fish/bicycle variety. She is really a product of feminist dysfunction, although she is exactly what feminists are saying women should want.

  • allie

    I too just watched the segment and I’m a little confused. The women in the segment and Kate have no intention to compromise and yet isn’t that one aspect of being in a relationship in the first place? I just don’t understand how they expect to have their cake and eat it too. (Live the fabulous single lifestyle and have the “perfect” man to boot.)

  • allie

    In the Today segment she wasn’t selling the happy single lifestyle to me. She looked pretty sad. I don’t want to end up like her at all.

  • Anacaona

    Hearing women comment on female beauty is leading to me a new theory that relates to facial recognition.  Based on everything I’ve learned these last several years, women are no doubt hardwired to instinctively recognize alpha personality type traits that go unnoticed by most men.  Similarly, I am beginning to think men instinctively recognize the facial and body differences from a 39-year old compared to a 23-year old that go unnoticed when women look at the exact same two women.  We pick up the small things that I think most women are oblivious to.

    I think you might be right evobio says that whatever leads to more success passing off the genes is a trait that becomes persistent the male strategy of banging every available female only works if the female is fertile, so it makes sense he can tells them apart easier than a woman whose gene survival depend entirely in a different set of skills. That without counting that few female (or male for that matter) lived long after their childbearing years and the few that did gained a status as advisers elders not sexy. It would be fun to see if there is any study with males rating attractiveness without knowing the age of women in a set of pics

    Wudang, are you partnered up? If not I know several women who would love to correspond with you. 😉

    Heh you definitely also need a “lonely hearts” section Susan. It would at least serve as a practice of how to make effective profiles.

  • Anacaona

    Did you watch the Today segment? That is NOT at all what she said. To hear her and the other woman being interviewed marriage is the old paradigm and older, single women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

    I meant the article in the magazine she has the “angry look” in the cover. I need to watch the Today show to see what was that about.

  • Mike C

    In the Today segment she wasn’t selling the happy single lifestyle to me. She looked pretty sad. I don’t want to end up like her at all.

    Well, to me the words being spoken didn’t match up with the vocal tone, body language, and demeanor.  Now the African-American psychologist?therapist? seemed to really believe what she was saying.

    • @Mike C

      Well, to me the words being spoken didn’t match up with the vocal tone, body language, and demeanor.

      I agree. She seemed nervous and ill at ease, but it wasn’t because she was on TV. When I google image’d her I found photos of her hanging out with movie stars.

      bolick

  • Jennifer

    “If a 7 is gorgeous, than what adjectives do we set aside exclusively for 9s and 10s?”

    Nines would be drop-dead or stunning, while tens are considered almost non-existent. Some, however, think there’s little difference between numbers with just one level in-between.

  • Bolick’s chances? Really what quality, A-list Alpha guy would want to marry her (as opposed to sex?) Really?

    Lets see: 1. No real ability to have kids. 2. History of bailing on relationships. 3. Bad boy addiction, Literary edition. 4. Career focused, and her career is both pointless and stupid (she’s not curing cancer, saving patients, she’s writing boring elitist articles for the Atlantic, last relevant in 1965). 5. Any guy who can meet her criteria can … yes wait for it … get YOUNGER. HOTTER. TIGHTER. [Yes that’s crude, that’s the point. Women need to know that they are simply disposable once they age out of their twenties to near-age peers, to Alpha guys.]

    The woman is delusional. And actually harmful because she’s part of the great female-oriented consumer marketing machine hurtling our civilization off the cliff, to fulfill transient sexual needs for bad boys by “empowered” women.

    Guys did not change, neither did women, genetically. Guys are the same genetically as their fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers, whom the female ancestors of women like Bolick willingly married, at younger ages. Guys did not suddenly become ugly, any more than women became unattractive. Women just got raised higher in status, and found most guys unattractive. Duh.

    Bolick is not unattractive. She can find an Alpha to marry her. He’ll just be 65, and with his own kids, who will inherit most of his money.

    • Guys did not change, neither did women, genetically. Guys are the same genetically as their fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers, whom the female ancestors of women like Bolick willingly married, at younger ages. Guys did not suddenly become ugly, any more than women became unattractive. Women just got raised higher in status, and found most guys unattractive. Duh.

      +1 True story.

  • I do agree with Bolick that the nuclear family is dead, dead, dead, but it is killed by … women.

    She pretty much comes out and says, she can’t be happy with a guy who is not Alpha. Its why her relationships failed. She kept searching for Mr. Alpha Goodbar.

    But her clap-happy future of free-floating sex ala Gays in gay marriages (wildly promiscuous btw) is a load of idiocy, something so stupid only a woman could write it. [Men are not as stupid about relationships as women, generally, men have their own stupid field  about which they are delusional, but that is another topic.]

    The future of America, of the West, is not some happy/hippy Alpha land, where women share the bad boys, and beta males slave happily away, sexless and outside society.

    Nope. It’s Federline away! And that’s just generation One. Joe Average cannot become Alpha, but he can become a total D-bag. I believe you wrote about it, Total Douchebag Domination, and it is inevitable. As women chase Alphas, exclusively, beta males adapt by going full douchebag. And no, not only “a few” but nearly ALL women want that. Look at Bolick. She could have had any guy she wanted. [As for Bolick being washed up, she’s OK for sex, but for any commitment? Please even higher beta males would laugh at her.]

    Generation Two, now that’s the feral man-boys. Raised by single moms, abused by a parade of lovers, they’re going to be become the baddest, most feared predators around, because that’s how they compete for women. And they’ll be extremely possessive. Possession enforced by extreme violence, see Dalrymple, Theodore, Life at the Bottom.

    Generation Three, the violence from alpha predators becomes so intense, that men band together under some power-patronage leader. Think Mussolini, Lenin, Franco, Augustus, Charlemagne, Charles Martel. These societies are based on total in-group male domination, military orientation, and brutal punishment for transgressors.

    The West, and America in general, can expect poverty, violence, chaos, technological decline and worse. Kids will fare worst of all. You have no idea how in history beta males have treated Alpha male spawn (hint: not well).

    And no, the young women were not innocent. Since they’ve all had from the article I infer around 25 lovers or so, their ability to form any pair bond is pretty much nil. Good for casual sex, but nothing more. Just like the Duke Lister. Its all she’s good for. Even a higher beta male would not commit — they are just not worth it.

    • @Whiskey
      Stop this:

      something so stupid only a woman could write it.

      Please. It weakens your arguments, which are valid.

      And no, the young women were not innocent. Since they’ve all had from the article I infer around 25 lovers or so, their ability to form any pair bond is pretty much nil. Good for casual sex, but nothing more. Just like the Duke Lister. Its all she’s good for. Even a higher beta male would not commit — they are just not worth it.

      First, she was not describing sexual innocence, obviously. Second, here are the partner counts of the five women present: 2, 4, 13, 7, 25. Or something very close (haven’t checked since July!). The two women in serious relationships are the 4 and the 7. In fact, the 7 has sex like a rabbit, but she’s done it within monogamous relationships. The 25 has had about four flings a year for six years. As many guys here have pointed out, the number itself is fairly meaningless without context. The 2 is the prettiest of the bunch, very self-disciplined. The 4 is also the one thinking about med school, she was a very serious undergraduate student.

      So you are 80% incorrect. I do fear that the most promiscuous woman has impaired ability to bond in relationships. She also has the most troubled family history. I’m very fond of her and I worry about her. Not one of these girls comes close to the Duke Lister (the 13 in her presentation were just the tip of the iceberg, the alpha-est alphas that she banged. I know this because the 2 went to college with her).

      For the record, both boyfriends are totally beta, I know them both. The woman with a count of 13 has a real taste for alphas – rugby players and the like. The 2 has beta orbiters who read this site and really need to implement what guys are talking about here.

  • Wayfinder

    @Jennifer

    “Well, he disappeared for a reason – he’s got a modern civilization to maintain and wouldn’t be very happy with a woman pursuing a mating strategy from the stone age, no matter empowered it makes her feel. She’s empowered alright – like Genghis Khan, leaving a trail of corpses in her wake”

    I couldn’t agree more. But the thing is, I thought that Susan and this article implied that she was not in fact one of those women.

    I don’t know about Susan, but the whole article implies that she is exactly one of those women. She compares marrying an aging beta with a butterfly getting caught in a net for crying out loud!

    A certain segment of the manosphere seems to jump straight to criticizing a women’s looks. I think that they get it from Rossy. I suspect that it also has to do with a reaction to women who shame betas who admit that they don’t find certain women attractive. I view this as the rough equivalent of the women who immediately start casting aspirations on the number of sexual partners a man has had, and whether or not he lives in his mother’s basement. I respect logic, not ad hominem attacks.

    In this case it’s slightly relevant. Her looks, after all, are one of her assets in the sexual marketplace. And she is probably above average in the almost-forty set. Thing is, I passed literally dozens of twenty-something girls today who looked much better by virtue of their youth, and a significant number of them will probably be at least as good-looking as Kate when they turn forty. And they don’t have her baggage or her rapidly declining fertility.

    • @Wayfnder

      She compares marrying an aging beta with a butterfly getting caught in a net for crying out loud!

      If a man driving down a country road gripped the steering wheel till his knuckles turned white and started shouting in an agitated tone “Are you the One? Are you the One?” I’d take my chances and roll out with the car moving. Seriously, she’s lucky her body wasn’t found in the woods months later.

  • El Marqués

    There is a very bizarre aspect to this.  You watch that segment and you’d think all these older single women just LOVE their lives, and maybe they do, but then you get the shaming stuff about Peter Pans and not manning up and marrying.  There almost seems a sort of bipolar schizo aspect to all of  this.

    Mike C, there is a psychological aspect to this, I agree, but my guess would be pathological narcissism. It’s so rampant in current generations of women and men, that it will disappear from the next edition of the DSM ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) . I’m not kidding.

    If you don’t know about her already, Dr. Tara’s blog is a worthy read for any young man or woman and a good way to learn about the red flags of narcissism and other mental disorders.

  • Jennifer

    Great points, wayfinder. I confess, I didn’t read the article; I went by Susan’s comments.

    Sojourner, ain’t that the truth 🙁

  • 108spirits

    Wayfinder, the fellas only brought up her looks because Susan’s emphasis on how “gorgeous” she is. It’s very relevant here, because young women look to the older ones like Kate and somehow believe that their attractiveness and sexual power can last until that age and beyond. No it doesn’t. Kate could well have been gorgeous when she was younger (and thus wielding a huge amount of power over men), but she is not that now. She might for some reason look highly attractive in women’s eyes, but men wouldn’t rate her that high. Mike C’s theory has some legs here, I think. Men can detect subtle fertility cues on women that women can’t, and likewise, women can detect subtle alpha characteristics on men that men can’t see.

  • Lavazza

    I guess she is richer than most of us guys here and she definitively is in the top 5 % for her age, so for any single man over 45 here she would be worth a go for a childless LTR, since we would only have to pay our part, or less. But I am not sure thats what she wants, i.e. older guy who is not earning more and who is not interested in having (more) children, unless its with a much, much younger woman.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Anacaona

    “Did you watch the Today segment? That is NOT at all what she said. To hear her and the other woman being interviewed marriage is the old paradigm and older, single women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

    That whole segment was a bizarre defense of “the new paradigms” and how all these women were “choosing” to be single.  At the end, they threw in a lukewarm “some people will still choose marriage” (God forbid), but it does lend credence to the idea that the Atlantic article was a way to rationalize the choices that led to her current situation.  I also liked the George Clooney reference…apex fallacy yet again…

    I liked the music at the beginning… “I’m every woman!”.  Well, at the rate things are going, it may be the case…

    • I liked the music at the beginning… “I’m every woman!”. Well, at the rate things are going, it may be the case…

      How tacky was that? And that purple graffiti on the white screen! That looked like something from a middle school play.

  • David X.

    Nice job Susan! Have you been contacted by the NYT yet? 😛

    But, it’s good to have this issue raised by the popular media. But, that’s not very meaningful unless young women being wanting to change their behaviour. I read an article a few days ago that talked about how HS students are not buying snacks from the new and healthier vending machines.

    If you can’t even convince people to do well for their own health then how you can convince them hook-up with guys they’re obviously attracted to (in the short-term)?

     

     

     

  • Isabel

    Ha. Did some of the guys here expect her to verbally excoriate herself just to please their sensibilities? It was a good article imo; a tad too lengthy and waffly in places but still decent. If I had read the comments before her piece, I would have probably thought she was a hairy misandrist goblin who snacks on betas for breakfast. Meh. Stop overreacting. She’s done more than most and no amount of vitri