Feminism’s End Game

January 17, 2012

Feminism doesn’t have many moves left on the board. Having achieved gender equity long ago, the ultimate goal is the full realization of female supremacy in society. The strategy has not been wholly ineffective. Half our population is now tainted with the original sin of maleness. Men are presumed guilty of inappropriate aggression and nefarious motives in all corners of society, including education, professional life, social interactions with women, and popular culture. We judge healthy male instincts such as competition and desire as moral failings. 

Meanwhile, the championing of female priorities in all areas of life has led to the toxic Cosmopolitan cocktail of twin evils: narcissism and hedonism. The consequences of this strategy may be felt throughout society, and are well documented. The state of our Union, and unions (marital, not labor) is cause for concern. From my vantage point, which gazes at society through the lens of relationships, the legacy of feminism is clear:

Source: Le Love

However, there is good news on the horizon. Thanks to Andrew of Rules Revisited for sharing this Google Trends graph with me. It shows the average worldwide traffic for the search term feminism over the last eight years:

 

The death throes of feminism will be an ugly thing to observe. The patient will, from time to time, jerk bolt upright with screeching and gnashing of teeth. Some will attempt to resuscitate her again and again, delaying the inevitable.

With the demise of feminism comes great opportunity. We can usher in a new era of true gender equity, where each sex is honored and respected for its unique talents and strengths.  A society that chooses to celebrate the differences between the sexes rather than invalidate them. 

Women have been getting steadily unhappier since 1970. Males are in crisis. Supremacist feminism has been an unmitigated disaster. Resist it. Work for real gender equity in your relationships and your environment. Let’s relegate female supremacy to the ash heap of history, where it belongs. 

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • GudEnuf

    A single google trends graph isn’t much evidence. Are there other signs that feminism is on the decline?

    Although it’s kind of funny that you published this right after I burned my feminist card.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/forum/feminism-marriage-economics-culture/i-dont-want-to-be-a-feminist-anymore/#p1523

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

      @GudEnuf

      A single google trends graph isn’t much evidence.

      Really? I thought it packed a powerful punch. It concretely demonstrates that fewer people are interested in learning or reading about feminism. How could that not be a death knell?

      Although it’s kind of funny that you published this right after I burned my feminist card.

      I’ve been meaning to get over to the forum and read that thread. I was aware you felt that way. However, I must confess this post was inspired by Andrew’s email this morning suggesting I might want to look at the graph.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    In my educated white-collar life, what I’ve noticed as the legacy of feminism is the split-personality anxiety young women. They’ve been told to be large and in charge, but at the same time being all “strong and independent” is exhausting, yet they are so conditioned to be controlling and not give up any of “themselves.” They WANT to defer to a man on some things, but they’ve also been taught men are boorish and incompetent and won’t make the right decisions, so they feel they can’t give up their control.

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

      @Badger

      You nailed it there. The success of Game proves that women don’t want feminized men. They not only appreciate sex differences, they demand them. Same with men – these most masculinized, aggressive women are the ones writing spinster memoirs. IMO, Kate Bolick is a casualty of this mindset, which she acknowledges was handed down straight from her feminist mom.

      Men here express the desire for femininity in a woman more than anything else.

      The sexes will continue to have difficulty meeting in the middle until we can honestly speak about how we differ, and why that’s neither good nor bad, it just IS.

  • GudEnuf

    However, I must confess this post was inspired by Andrew’s email this morning suggesting I might want to look at the graph.

    Lol, you mean your blog DOESN’T revolve around me?

  • http://www.therulesrevisited.blogspot.com Andrew

    Susan, can you explain the shoes picture?

    I curious to see what other people might speculate as the reasons for the decline in google searches.

    The list of countries with the most hits for “feminism” was also interesting: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=feminism
    (unsurprisingly, western countries top the list – though I was surprised to see the Phillipines up there – Bellita?)

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

      @Andrew

      Susan, can you explain the shoes picture?

      To me they represent the shoes of two people still being careful with each other. They’re having sex, but there is uncertainty. Contemporary culture, heavily influenced by feminism, provides few incentives for romantic attachment. We expect and pursue physical intimacy before emotional intimacy. Attachment is a high stakes game.

  • Jonny

    Feminism is over (I agree), but the law is still on the books. Cultural and legal feminism lives on.

  • Anacaona

    I happen to agree with Jonny the feminists name is dying out but the part that was absorbed by mainstream will take decades to erradicate,YMMV.

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

      @Jonny, @Anacaona

      I happen to agree with Jonny the feminists name is dying out but the part that was absorbed by mainstream will take decades to erradicate,YMMV

      It’s generational, so it will definitely take 2-4 decades to kill off for good. Already, feminism is something for middle-aged or even elderly women. There are a few young, high profile radfems, but they’re given a voice by women of my generation (and older) in the mainstream press. On campuses, it’s middle aged women’s studies scholars who set the tone. Yes, they have acolytes, but the philosophy resonates for just a small minority of women, and they tend to skew towards alternative genders and lifestyles. Because few of those women will have children, their ability to indoctrinate future generations is extremely limited. When I was growing up, feminism was discussed at the family dinner table and our mothers attended “assertiveness training” classes. Feminism was relevant then, regardless of one’s viewpoint. Today it is a fringe movement.

      Women can and should play a role in hastening the death of feminism.

  • Jonny

    There is some recourse to feminism and that is the rise of gay rights. Have you seen the uproar on the tampon commercial? There will be a conflict as men (gay men) start demanding to be treated as women. I don’t know who will blink first, but beware of those who they accuse of bigotry or sexism. The public will be weary.

  • Charm

    Lol. I mentioned this same idea on a forum I frequent and let me tell the feminist came out to play. All I said was:

    “I like the society created my men. Men use logic, reason, morals, and values to create a stable society. If women want to be treated equal then they should join into that stable society as equals and not tear it down simply because men created it.”

    I also pointed out that women wanted control with no accountability or responsibility.

    It took 5 seconds for every woman in the room to feel under personal attack. I found it funny that what I was saying was offending rational women. This was an INTP forum.

    Personally, Id be down for gender equality. I dont see why men would need to rule over women or women over men. I think power should lie in the hands of those responsible enough to have it regardless of gender. Now, this is where things get fuzzy. I think you need to be logical, objective, and able to place the goal at hand before your personal feelings in order to possess any type of power or control. Now more men than women have these traits. As a woman, I naturally have them but I dont know any other women who do.

    Badger is right. I think that a lot of women bought into the “you can take on anything” attitude and put too much on their plates and now they are paying for it. Feminism never told women that every human being has a limit. They think they can work and have children, and a fair portion of women can, but isnt it proven that when most women have children that they become less productive at work? Or they end up leaving after a while? I think women should be considering this and planning for it. There is no shame in staying at home and raising kids. Especially if doing both is wearing you down.

    @Badger

    I will say that from my perspective a lot of men dont know how to be the leader of a relationship anymore. It seems leadership skill stopped being taught to men when feminism rolled around. It seems a lot of men or women dont know the difference between being the leader and being controlling or domineering. I think its funny when I read comments on other websites where men will state something along the lines of “Im a man, I should be deferred to”. Its like saying I should get respect just for being a man. Personally, Id have no problem deferring to a man, BUT and let me say that again BUT you’d have to be worthy of being deferred to. When I think of leader I think of someone who is on top of everything all the time. You’d have to constantly be 3 steps ahead of everyone you’re leading and considering everyone with every step you make.

    Like I said before, Im a gender egalitarian so I want to be an equal in my relationship, but every decision doesnt need to have both parties struggling for power. When it comes to finances its a mutual thing. Period. I want to know where all the money is going and coming from every month. I think both parties should want to be on top of that info. But if it comes down to a date or where to eat dinner, meh, as long as I dont hate the place or have a better idea I could care less.

    Ultimately though Id rather just have a relationship where I was selfless and took care of him and he was selfless and took care of me that way both persons needs got met and no one is sitting on their asses being selfish.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Andrew

    Susan, can you explain the shoes picture?

    Ditto. I’m curious as to what it signifies.

  • pvw

    Hi, Susan, I was thinking about this in the post I put up about the book I mentioned on one of the other threads. I see it as the death knell of a certain type of feminism, the radical feminism of the third wave types and the absolute equality feminists but a rise of the more conservative type of feminism–equality where it matters, but difference where it counts. It seems many women are living it already, those who are quietly living lives where they don’t experience inequality and who like being feminine.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    My problem with feminism today is that it’s become a female adulation movement. Anything and everything that strokes a woman’s ego is spun as a feminist act, yay for the sisterhood no matter who gets hurt.

    And it’s all couched in misandry, any past oppression of women by men is used as an excuse for a woman today to do whatever she wants, whether that’s raping a man (as GudEnuf cited), cuckoldry, affairs, walking out on their marriages, flip-flopping from career to stay-at-home roles on a whim, most of the “feminism” I read around the Internet is a circle-jerking support group for peripatetic whiners.

    Another thing that they’ve never been able to resolve is the apex fallacy, projecting the experience of top men onto all men and thinking it must be great to be a man because the men they look up to have money, prestige and sexual freedom. They’re really jealous of top men, and they use that jealousy as an excuse to trample on anybody they feel like. There’s this Bolickian/Gilbertian obsession with “freedom,” with not being accountable to a partner, “where is the ME in my life??!” I just want to tell them to STFU and get on with their lives. Men do it every day.

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

      @Badger

      flip-flopping from career to stay-at-home roles on a whim

      Have you observed this personally? I know it’s a favorite theme in some online circles, but I personally have never known anyone who made this choice on a whim. I certainly didn’t. My generation was raised to achieve outside the home. For us, the decision to stay home feels like a major fail. I commiserated with many of my SAH peers who were mortified at the prospect of attending a college or graduate school reunion, and who felt defensive and sheepish among all the accomplished career women at events like Back to School Night.

      On the flip side, I have known many career women who felt overwhelmed and totally stressed out with all their responsibilities, including more active roles in the home than their husbands have. They tend to feel defensive too, and generally revert to an air of superiority when in the company of SAHMs. However, many women who work full time outside the home have no choice – their income is half or more of the family’s. They might happily flip flop into part-time work, or a career break, but the family P&L can’t take the hit.

      I can honestly say I have never known a single woman whose income was needed and who refused to work.

      I’m not going to take anyone’s word on this. It’s third hand anecdotal evidence at best, in direct contradiction with my own observations.

      There’s this Bolickian/Gilbertian obsession with “freedom,” with not being accountable to a partner, “where is the ME in my life??!”

      OK, I think it’s a bit extreme to equate Kate Bolick to Elizabeth Gilbert. The former hasn’t harmed anyone but possibly herself.

  • pvw

    And as such, absolute equality and radicalism does not resonate-men and women are different; equality of opportunity does not mean social engineering for equality of results…

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “a rise of the more conservative type of feminism–equality where it matters, but difference where it counts.”

    You do realize, this sounds like you just want to change the rules at the drop of a hat to whichever paradigm benefits the woman at the moment. This intellectual inconsistency drives men up a wall and is one of the things that is causing feminism to simply run out of gas. It’s like the BCS system, they keep tweaking it to deal with corner cases and no nobody can figure out how it really works anymore.

    We already have what you’re proposing – women who want big-time careers, but still want to be wined and dined.

  • Jonny

    @Charm “Personally, Id have no problem deferring to a man, BUT and let me say that again BUT you’d have to be worthy of being deferred to. When I think of leader I think of someone who is on top of everything all the time. You’d have to constantly be 3 steps ahead of everyone you’re leading and considering everyone with every step you make.”

    This is a leader of a business or organization, but not of a relationship. While I respect your idea of a man who earns the respect of a women to be the head of a household, you have to acknowledge his unique abilities. Besides, a leader that you describe is one if a taskmaster that will drive everyone crazy.

    I’m sure that my out of control former wife would love for me to have constant fights over who will do the dishes, wash the clothes, or mop the floor. Or where we should eat or what events to attend. Yawn.

    The house doesn’t so much need a leader, but everyone to agree to a plan to get things done. Do I constantly need to tell my wife to take out the garbage? No, she does it herself. Do I need to tell her to mop the floor? No, she does it herself. She doesn’t tell me to mow the lawn. I hire someone to it twice a month. She doesn’t tell me to clean the bathrooms. I agree to do it.

    You sound like the meticulous controlling type. Try to relax a bit.

  • FeralEmployee

    Sorry, but as a mathematical engineer, the use of that Google Trend picture just won’t do. Here are my objections:

    – It’s clearly quickly copied, GT offers no parameters to inspect the graphic, which leads me to;
    – Timescales: the last 8 years is too short a timescale too judge upon. Sure the trend is dying out, but not to 0. Instead it is stagnating.
    – Relating that to the Zeitgeist, this might imply a new feminism wave in development. Nothing is ever static, we’ve had previous waves, and face it: people like the drama. I’m sure that if you look at the past, you’d have feminism stagnating, only to boom again. Repeat cycle.
    – Today’s society is one of: fuck the facts, believe in the emotion. With money flows, corporations aren’t going to give in if it means they’ll sell less material goods (shoes anybody?). They have every incentive to let emotion reign.
    – MRA’s need to step up raise their voice (as in, spread the info into public and openly confront and expose unfair policy). Sure, they’ll get called wimps and male scum, but in the end the opposition can only use ‘ad hominems’.
    – The future… clouded it is, hmmrr.

  • FeralEmployee

    And yikes, forget to spell check, sorry about that.

  • pvw

    Badger:

    “a rise of the more conservative type of feminism–equality where it matters, but difference where it counts.”

    You do realize, this sounds like you just want to change the rules at the drop of a hat to whichever paradigm benefits the woman at the moment. This intellectual inconsistency drives men up a wall and is one of the things that is causing feminism to simply run out of gas. It’s like the BCS system, they keep tweaking it to deal with corner cases and no nobody can figure out how it really works anymore.

    We already have what you’re proposing – women who want big-time careers, but still want to be wined and dined.

    My reply:

    But this type of feminism has already been in existence; it is not new, what I’m saying is that it has already been happening–cultural/difference feminism, a more quiet form, not as radical. This form seems to be the type that has already been gaining more and more prominence in that many women are already living it in their every day lives. Perhaps that will become the public trend as absolute equality and radicalism dies out?

  • sestamibi

    The whole notion of “equality” is a chimera. Either one group rules, or the other does. I agree that we should “relegate female supremacy to the ash heap of history, where it belongs”, but in its place patriarchy must be restored. If we don’t do this, society will literally disappear.

    By the way, I’m curious as to why there is a seasonal pattern to the search volume for “feminism”. Why would that vary over the year?

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

      @sestamibi

      The whole notion of “equality” is a chimera. Either one group rules, or the other does. I agree that we should “relegate female supremacy to the ash heap of history, where it belongs”, but in its place patriarchy must be restored. If we don’t do this, society will literally disappear.

      For the record, I believe in gender equity, which does not presume equality per se. With the word equal, the emphasis is on sameness. The same status, rights and opportunities. This does not allow for consideration of sex differences. Women and men do not want the same opportunities, nor do they always excel at the same opportunities. In some cases, e.g. Title IX, providing the same opportunities can be inefficient at best. I believe in a meritocracy, so status should be derived within that context.

      Equity refers to the quality of being fair and impartial, which is a very different concept. We will need to figure out what’s fair to women, and what’s fair to men. This will not be easy, but many individuals do this successfully in their own relationships and family lives. It makes sense for society to function this same way.

      If the patriarchy is restored, it should occur naturally, reflecting the preferences and abilities of each sex. I do not believe that is going to happen, and there will be no wholesale “takeover” of society by men. Negotiation re gender roles is the only way forward.

  • pvw

    Oh and Susan, in the book I mentioned my colleague is editing, which I posted on the forum, gets at the very issues being raised here–the tensions among these different types of feminisms as you noted:

    “With the demise of feminism comes great opportunity. We can usher in a new era of true gender equity, where each sex is honored and respected for its unique talents and strengths. A society that chooses to celebrate the differences between the sexes rather than invalidate them.”

    So I see it as a demise of absolute equality and the demise of radicalism, but a rise of cultural/difference.

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

      @PVW

      So I see it as a demise of absolute equality and the demise of radicalism, but a rise of cultural/difference.

      In retrospect, it seems that gains for women came at the expense of men. It was a zero sum game. Some of that was unavoidable under second wave feminism, but we might have avoided a great deal of dysfunction, not to mention real, personal pain, if feminists had not pursued a “winner take all” strategy. Instead, we have an incredibly polarized society, with great resentment and distrust between the sexes. That’s already clear in this thread. Kicking the pendulum all the way to the other side won’t work, we need to find equilibrium. And it needs to be an equilibrium that validates sex differences.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan -> Badger

    a rise of the more conservative type of feminism–equality where it matters, but difference where it counts

    We already have what you’re proposing – women who want big-time careers, but still want to be wined and dined.

    Right, that can be read in many ways. One of them being:

    equality where it [benefits women], but difference [ where it benefits women]

    Which is a nasty setup / a nest for many unfair double-standards of the wrong kind . A better reading / setup is:

    Social rights equity, socioeconomical competition under an a-gendered meritocracy, and an education system that promotes gender differentiation / allows each gender and individual person to play at their unique strengths.

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

      @Yohami

      Social rights equity, socioeconomical competition under an a-gendered meritocracy, and an education system that promotes gender differentiation / allows each gender and individual person to play at their unique strengths.

      Brilliantly put. This is exactly what we should be striving toward.

  • pvw

    Yohami:

    Social rights equity, socioeconomical competition under an a-gendered meritocracy, and an education system that promotes gender differentiation / allows each gender and individual person to play at their unique strengths.

    My reply:

    This is what I meant…

  • mark

    Well, that’s all fine and well—feminism dying and all, but a great deal of damage was done by them. Women now need to prepare themselves for 50 years of brutal payback.

  • Chris_in_CA

    “Social rights equity, socioeconomical competition under an a-gendered meritocracy, and an education system that promotes gender differentiation / allows each gender and individual person to play at their unique strengths.”

    A very desirable system. Sad to say, I don’t see it happening any time soon.

    As was said above, even if the social side of feminism is dying (which it is, and about which I’m thrilled), legal feminism is entrenched. It will NOT let go without a bitter, protracted battle.

    @Charm
    “It seems leadership skill stopped being taught to men when feminism rolled around.”

    You are correct. I was never taught to lead; rather, I was taught to follow others, particularly women.

    (I’m an INTJ anyway – we don’t like to lead, and only do it if leaders mess up.)

    I’m still teaching myself how to lead in life (including my own). Thank goodness for being autodidactic. Mind you, I mean lead in MY OWN life. Trying to lead a woman? Without a ton of practice in game (and even then) you’re risking “leading” the wrong woman and ending up with a lawsuit. See earlier comment about entrenched legal feminism.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    P(thread becoming a shitshow): 1.

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

      @Badger

      Your credibility wrt probabilities and statistics = tingle for brainy HUS women.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @Mark

    What needs to happen is for all of the so-called “rights” women have “won” in the last 150 years to be abolished—including the “right” to vote.

    You remind me of a quote, Mark: “Choose your enemies wisely, for you will become like them.” Do you really want women to be as oppressed as you feel?

    That’s pretty much what happened to 2nd wave feminists too, you know. You can read Susan’s post above to see where it got them.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    One way to call out feminism on its bullshit is to stop letting them get away with the gender equity spiel under the feminist rubric.

    Indeed, gender equity is, as someone on another board (I believe it was Badger) pointed out, a hallmark of HUMANISM, which predates and supersedes feminism on the philosophical food chain by a couple of generations. The push for treating all people equally under the law is a HUMANISTIC element that feminism co-opted. So when you try to bust on a feminist and they dismiss feminism as being merely about gender equity, call them out and make them acknowledge that it’s humanism. A noble goal, but hardly unique to feminism. Especially when you get all that . . . other stuff with it.

    Then point out that once you take away the quest for gender equity, then feminism essentially becomes a gynocentric political philosophy whose only purpose is to push exclusively for additional female rights and privileges beyond basic gender equity.

    And I think that it’s telling that there is nary a word of this discussion where it would do the most good: in the progressive blogosphere, where feminism lurks in its most concentrated form. What if Daily Kos and its subsidiary entities suddenly had an influx of Manosphere bloggers asking sincere and highly inconvenient questions about feminism? A lot of those guys are just asking to take the Red Pill, but don’t feel as if they have permission to ask those questions because of the shrill nature of the response.

    Some might see this as beating your head against the wall, trying to have a rational discussion about feminism with feminists in their own backyard. But the very public nature of the debate, and how each side comports itself, might go leaps and bounds to undermine the political hold that feminism enjoys over progressive issues.

    Consider: can you be a good progressive and not be a feminist?

    The natural assumption of this answer is “of course not”. Feminism is the firmly entrenched bedrock of liberal thought, after all. Conventional thinking says you just can’t not want electric cars, marriage rights for all, socialized medicine and rigorous enforcement of environmental regulations and NOT naturally want to enact the full feminist agenda . . . right?

    Only . . . it isn’t only conservative men who become victims of hypergamy. Liberals and progressive men get their asses handed to them in divorce, too. Make a reasonable and consistent argument contra-feminism in those parts and see how long it takes for the Red Pill to take seed. Right now when you run a search for Manosphere on Kos you get nada, and not much more over at Huffpo. Some of the greatest allies against feminism lie close to its flinty bosom.

    Just sayin’.

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

      @Ian Ironwood

      The push for treating all people equally under the law is a HUMANISTIC element that feminism co-opted…feminism essentially becomes a gynocentric political philosophy whose only purpose is to push exclusively for additional female rights and privileges beyond basic gender equity.

      Feminism co-opting humanism is probably its most important achievement then, because it opened the floodgates for plenty of more extreme changes to the social contract.

      What if Daily Kos and its subsidiary entities suddenly had an influx of Manosphere bloggers asking sincere and highly inconvenient questions about feminism? A lot of those guys are just asking to take the Red Pill, but don’t feel as if they have permission to ask those questions because of the shrill nature of the response.

      I have seen more of this lately. One problem is that the tone gets extremely confrontational, and it’s not just the feminists. Tempers flare, and it often only takes a male commenter or two before you have guys like Mark saying, “Enjoy the brutal payback, ladies, you deserve it.” Or worse, “you bitches shouldn’t be allowed to vote.” I don’t honestly see how one could markedly improve the spirit of debate online.

      Some of the greatest allies against feminism lie close to its flinty bosom.

      Great line!

      This is especially true in academia. The treatment of Larry Summers is a case in point. Richard Brodhead, President of Duke, bent over in two seconds for the Women’s Studies profs when they formed the Duke 88 to condemn the lacrosse players for rape. Much of the female supremacy we see today in elementary education came straight from the work of academic types like Carol Gilligan.

  • Herb

    You nailed it there. The success of Game proves that women don’t want feminized men. They not only appreciate sex differences, they demand them.

    A prime example is the number of complaints that the male passengers on the Costa Concordia pushed women aside for the lifeboats. My first thought was “welcome to equality” but it also provides why I think you’re wrong that feminism is dying.

    Most women who embrace it are embracing feminism a la carte. The chivalry of opening doors is an insult. The chivalry of “women and children first” is the sign of a man.

    I remember a woman I took out once who told me that just because she was a feminist and demanded equality didn’t mean she didn’t expect men to treat her like a princess. As long as society endorses that why would most young women pass it up?

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

      @Herb

      I remember a woman I took out once who told me that just because she was a feminist and demanded equality didn’t mean she didn’t expect men to treat her like a princess. As long as society endorses that why would most young women pass it up?

      Unfortunately, I think this describes most women, though many would not to so foolish as to disclose this on a date. This is the result of those twin evils I referred to: narcissism and hedonism.

  • mark

    Susan wrote:

    “With the demise of feminism comes great opportunity. We can usher in a new era of true gender equity, where each sex is honored and respected for its unique talents and strengths. A society that chooses to celebrate the differences between the sexes rather than invalidate them.”

    “True gender equity” = Feminism.

    To say otherwise is like modern day communists when they say that the communism of 1917 Russia and into the 1930s where many millions were killed to establish “equity” wasn’t REALLY communism.

    Susan, with this ‘demise of feminism’ that you see, does that mean that we can abolish all anti-discrimination laws?

    Susan, will this “new era of true gender equity” come naturally or will we need to keep all of the anti-discrimination laws in place to enforce it, and back it up with civil lawsuits??

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

      Susan, with this ‘demise of feminism’ that you see, does that mean that we can abolish all anti-discrimination laws?

      I’m not sure what you mean. Are you referring to laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, race, etc? Why would we want to abolish those? Why should we need to discriminate?

  • mark

    @Joe, who wrote:

    Do you really want women to be as oppressed as you feel?”

    Answer: Yes.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    Nah, I still say true gender equity is a humanistic, not feministic, ideal.

    But this was interesting:

    “Most women who embrace it are embracing feminism a la carte. The chivalry of opening doors is an insult. The chivalry of “women and children first” is the sign of a man.”

    No argument, of course, but it does point up the absolute necessity of men defining masculinity and its attendant codes of conduct without much feminine and with no feminist input. Feminism did do one very important thing for men: it established the idea that each of the genders has issues and interests of its own which are worthy of pursuit. When they formed feminist ideology in the 1960s, they didn’t ask for or include male insights or perspectives in how it was shaped. They successfully re-defined femininity.

    Now we’re at the point where we can think about re-defining masculinity on our own terms, incorporating the most serviceable masculine tropes of the past into a new conception of masculinity fit for post-industrial society. And standing up against the inherent gynocentricity of feminism would be a worthy addition, in my book.

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

      @Ian

      Now we’re at the point where we can think about re-defining masculinity on our own terms, incorporating the most serviceable masculine tropes of the past into a new conception of masculinity fit for post-industrial society. And standing up against the inherent gynocentricity of feminism would be a worthy addition, in my book.

      I agree. This must be done by men for men, with zero female input, and it needs to be done asap, so that its ideals may be taught to boys and young men. That will require cooperation from churches, schools (the government) and other organizations. There is general awareness of a crisis among young males, and that should not be wasted. Parents are likely to be sympathetic if they can be reached. We especially need for fathers to act, providing both the script and the model they want to teach their own sons.

  • Fingenieur

    I would not mind female supremacy. The planet is too full already.

    What I do mind is the failure and self-delusion of emancipation. We did not get twice as many doctors with women in the work-force. Instead we got a heap of part-time docs. We didn’t get women to help us build up the essential infrastructure of society and our future. Instead we got a self-sustaining feminist-industrial complex and 10x performing artists. We didn’t get more humane workplaces. We get way hardening competition to sustain ever-growing governmental and academical safe-havens. We don’t see a heap of growth companies built from the “unused capacity”… No, even though women enterpreneurship, education and whatever gets supported as hell by the public, we see our Googles, Facebooks, Twitters, Apples etc. still built up by men. Then our feminists demand board-seats from prepared tables.

    I could go on… A lot of good things have been achieved too, though. I doubt I’d received such a fine (Finnish) education if we wouldn’t have thousands of super-smart women take these issues seriously. Daycare, decent parental leave, breaking political consensus etc.

    We have second- and third-wave, because there are blind spots and bugs within the ideology. That is why well also have fourth, fifth, sixth… Humans make errors. Humans try again.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    why does there need to be one masculinity and one femininity? why do interactions between genders have to be standardized as opposed to individually negotiated?

    as to the need for feminism, let’s talk when there are 40 female senators and a female president. oh, and when major news outlets don’t run stories criticizing the FLOTUS’s upper arms.

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

      @slim’s tuna provider

      why does there need to be one masculinity and one femininity? why do interactions between genders have to be standardized as opposed to individually negotiated?

      As the writer of the post, I know I haven’t missed something – what are you talking about? Who said that interactions have to be standardized? The point is that without interference from feminists, trying to “reeducate” males on gender roles and appropriate behavior, boys would be free to negotiate their interactions without fear of reprisal. At young ages, that means allowing plenty of healthy competition as boys figure out their role in the hierarchy – more importantly, it means acknowledging that male hierarchies are natural to boys. It means throwing all the “Participant!” trophies in the trash, and being willing to say that Johnny is better at math than anyone else in the class, and it’s not because he’s a bully or aggressive; he’s just really, really good at it. No mainstream elementary school in America will tolerate that today.

      as to the need for feminism, let’s talk when there are 40 female senators and a female president. oh, and when major news outlets don’t run stories criticizing the FLOTUS’s upper arms.

      Funny, I recall all those stories as being admiring of MO’s upper arms. I admire them myself, and was pleased to see them get positive attention.

      Why should we have 40 female senators or even a female president, just because of their sex? We have not had a qualified woman run for President yet – I look forward to the day when I can vote for one in good conscience.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna,

    why does there need to be one masculinity and one femininity?

    Take your pledge to nature.

  • Chris_in_CA

    Oh, oh, the screech-fest is starting! Where’s my popcorn?!

  • Herb

    @slim’s tuna provider: as to the need for feminism, let’s talk when there are 40 female senators and a female president. oh, and when major news outlets don’t run stories criticizing the FLOTUS’s upper arms.

    I’m fine with feminism as long as women quite complaining they aren’t getting 100% of what they want from men after changing the rules.

    The biggest lie of feminism is that the same attitudes they wanted to sweep away as harmful to women didn’t have aspects that benefited women over men.

    Don’t agree? How many articles by men complaining “where did all the good women go” are published in those same media outlets you’re complaining about.

    Don’t agree? Why did Georgia only change their alimony disguised as child support laws in the 90s when a woman sued over it.

    Don’t agree? Why are men being criticized for not standing aside to allow women first seats in lifeboats this past weekend.

    You want that level of equality then you need to accept that level of equality, not just when you see it as a benefit while rejecting it when the opposite is.

    That is the complaint most men have with feminism and that is where more and more good men are going.

    To bring this comment back inline with Susan’s aims (ie, helping women find good marriages), don’t just say to the men you are interested in that you either stand for equality even when it’s not “pro-woman” or that you understand why the roles are different but stand up in front of other women and defend men against on-going double standards against them. To convince a man you won’t ELP divorce, the willingness to stand up to the sisterhood is a strong move.

  • Wudang
  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna,

    as to the need for feminism, let’s talk when there are 40 female senators and a female president.

    Dont forget to add +40 of each race, culture, socio economical background, education background, sexual orientation, plus +40 more of each religion. We probably need a president of each group too since why would one voice rise among the others… Scratch that, we can make them all presidents, regardless of if they want it or not.

    It would be a mess, but a highly humanistic one.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    Herb, I respectfully cannot find a coherent thread in your argument. In particular, yout thesis is this:

    I’m fine with feminism as long as women quite complaining they aren’t getting 100% of what they want from men after changing the rules.

    I don’t comprehend it. “Women complaining”, “feminism”, and “equality” are all different things. You seem to lump them together. Please explain.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    yohami,

    women are half the population. i have never perceived them to be less competent than men in leadership or analytical positions. why should they be woefully underrepresented in the senate?

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

      @slim’s tuna provider

      women are half the population. i have never perceived them to be less competent than men in leadership or analytical positions. why should they be woefully underrepresented in the senate?

      You have never perceived? Have you objectively observed a statistically significant sample? Such nonsense!

      Even if you are correct, and women are highly competent leaders and analysts, they can only get elected to the senate under several conditions:

      1. They desire the job.
      2. They run for office.
      3. They possess qualifications and experience equal or superior to their opponents.
      4. They communicate competence effectively while campaigning, persuading large numbers of people to vote for them.

      Most women do not meet these criteria.

  • Wudang
  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna,

    The real question is, why are they under represented, since they are half of the population?

  • slim’s tuna provider

    because of the incorrect perception that leadership is an intrinsically male quality, and probably because people’s primordial mind responds to broad-shouldered men talking in deep voices.

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

      probably because people’s primordial mind responds to broad-shouldered men talking in deep voices.

      Interesting, slim appears to be on the evo psych bandwagon, and then some. I’ve never seen this hypothesis in any of the literature.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    @slim’s tuna provider

    “why does there need to be one masculinity and one femininity? why do interactions between genders have to be standardized as opposed to individually negotiated?”

    Because feminism broke the old agreement between the genders (actually, birth control and industrialization did, but feminism is how it manifested) without establishing a workable new one. It unilaterally declared that women alone had a right to define and defend their femininity and used perfectly good humanistic ideals to beat every “traditional” example of the masculinity they inherently feared into submission or extinction.

    Two generations of hypergamy, divorce, and Puerarchy have left masculinity gutted, but not destroyed. So we’re re-building it, according to our own designs, and that requires we present enough of an accord within masculinity to give the idea some momentum. “Personally” negotiated standards of gender tend to leave wide gray areas which are almost always an advantage to women, not men.

    If men start accepting what we consider minimum standards of behavior to be respected AS men BY men, then women will naturally follow along eventually.

    “as to the need for feminism, let’s talk when there are 40 female senators and a female president. oh, and when major news outlets don’t run stories criticizing the FLOTUS’s upper arms.”

    How about we talk when all child custody cases are decided equitably, alimony is abolished, child supports are more reasonably decided, and 50% more battlefield deaths and maimings happen to women. Let’s talk when there is gender parity in our prison system, with women serving the same sentences under the same conditions as men for the same crime. Let’s talk when 50% of the worksite deaths and maimings are female. Let’s talk when female child molesters are treated with the same level of institutionalized punishment and cultural contempt as male child molesters.

    You make all that happen, and then come tell me why we need feminism to “protect” women and give them “equality”, but men don’t need anyone sticking up for their issues or pursuing their interests. Then we’ll discuss a handful of prestigious temporary jobs that could be easily filled by women, if they could convince the voters (the majority of whom are women) to vote for them. You go do that.

    We’ll be right here, waiting for you when you get back.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    @slim’s tuna provider:

    “because of the incorrect perception that leadership is an intrinsically male quality, ”

    I think you are mistaking the idea that leadership is an intrinsically male quality really means that leadership is an EXCLUSIVELY male quality. It isn’t. I’ve had plenty of female bosses over the years, we got along fine and they were great managers.

    “and probably because people’s primordial mind responds to broad-shouldered men talking in deep voices.”

    But . . . but . . . but gender is a mere social and cultural construct, isn’t it? That’s the feminist idealology, that our ephemeral cultural and society have far, far more sway over the human condition than the base physiology of sexuality?

    Are you saying that women are incapable of making an informed decision on an issue of major importance without being unduly influenced by their tingly bits?

    Because it sounded an awful lot like that’s what you were saying.

  • Herb

    I don’t comprehend it. “Women complaining”, “feminism”, and “equality” are all different things. You seem to lump them together. Please explain.

    Feminism begins from a premise: society is organized to give privilege to men at the expense of women. Therefore we must achieve equality.

    Having moved in that direction by various means we have seen some interesting results:

    1. Men are less interested in marrying for a variety, especially in marrying those women who most exemplify the feminist ideal. The feminist response is that men are now refusing to grow up and need to man up like their fathers and provide the marriage partners these women want.

    2. Men have decided (in this past weekend’s events) that if women are equal and interchangeable there is no reason to give them preference in lifeboat seats on a sinking ship. The feminist response is that men are no longer chivalrous.

    3. In Georgia, the child support rules were effectively stealth alimony and only changed when a woman was supporting her ex-husband via the child support in the mid-90s, a full generation into efforts at equality.

    When feminism moves apace and equality intrudes, if that equality takes away a privilege women have enjoyed (1&2 above) or forces them to provide the same on to men (3 above) they complain it’s not fair and demand the pre-feminism ways back.

    Women have a choice:

    1. Change rules they think are unfair to them but accept that will change how men will respond to women on the whole because those social rules also provided incentive for certain behaviors.

    2. Acknowledge that they did have benefits as well as limitations under the prior social structure and actually weigh which benefits they are willing to trade off to remove those limitations.

    3. Have men see them as impossible to make happy complainers and more and more see men wash their hands of women on the margin (a variation of #1 but more specific).

    So, I’m fine with feminism as long as women quit complaining they aren’t getting 100% of what they want from men after changing the rules of interaction between the sexes (perhaps my misspelling earlier that made confusing)

  • Ted D

    “women are half the population. i have never perceived them to be less competent than men in leadership or analytical positions. why should they be woefully underrepresented in the senate?”

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it is because the majority of U.S. voters don’t feel the right woman has made a run for the job.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    “Personally” negotiated standards of gender tend to leave wide gray areas which are almost always an advantage to women, not men.
    why? are men so weak?

    as to the other things, most of them are just bad stuff that happens in men’s professions, including violent crime. i am all for having more women in those professions (except violent crime,) but that is also a matter of being pro-feminism.

    as to custody, i agree that this is bad. however, it is also founded in gender stereotypes, and would be helped, not hurt, by further wearing them down.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    Ironwood,

    No, I am saying most people, men and women, are incapable of making an informed decision on an issue of major importance without being unduly influenced by their tingly bits. And yes, I am saying that this is a situation that is the central purpose of civilization to change. Have a long way to go, unfortunately.

    “But . . . but . . . but gender is a mere social and cultural construct, isn’t it? That’s the feminist idealology, that our ephemeral cultural and society have far, far more sway over the human condition than the base physiology of sexuality?”

    I don’t really care who wins that fight, as long as the outcome is not stupid. Not having our most able people in charge b/c of gender is a stupid outcome.

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

      @slim

      Not having our most able people in charge b/c of gender is a stupid outcome.

      What evidence do you have that our most able people are women? How are women better qualified to be in charge? Of what?

  • Jonny

    @slim “why? are men so weak?”

    What is it that you want? Men are as they are. Women make demands. Getting the women to back down may or may not work. Acede or leave are the two options guys have.

    However, most things the guys acede to are completely trivial, but they still are an advantage to women. Thus, its a matter of what battles you want to fight with your girlfriend or wife as if you’re still on speaking terms and getting access to sex.

    Are you still not getting it?

  • pvw

    Susan:

    That’s already clear in this thread. Kicking the pendulum all the way to the other side won’t work, we need to find equilibrium. And it needs to be an equilibrium that validates sex differences.

    My reply:

    Yes, this to me, is what cultural/difference feminism is about….It is a means of finding equilibrium and recognizing/validating differences

  • Tasmin

    “Most women who embrace it are embracing feminism a la carte.”

    Indeed. Feminism is not just a flag-waving movement that dies and gives way to pre-feminism ways or some new “equality”, it is far more invasive, robust, and fragmented. The ideology is easily adapted, bastardized, and repackaged. Like a mutating virus or extremist jihad, as long as there is an environment that fosters growth or even sustains favorable conditions, the beliefs will continue to find their way into the system. And as others have said, our legal system, education system, and cultural disposition are a long way from becoming hostile toward feminism. And I do believe that until the environment is not just uninhabitable but actively hostile – that is, targets and terminates the damaging beliefs of feminism, it will just continue to proliferate in different forms.

    I think the fact that it has gone through harmful iterations in the past means that it is likely to do so again – and not just “end”. The a la carte manifestation demonstrates that even women who don’t admittedly or knowingly align with the beliefs have been indoctrinated to the point of entitlement, something they will not be quick to exchange for the greater good. We need only to look at other protectionist policies to see how they have resulted in environments fueled by a massive sense of entitlement without regard for the corresponding responsibility or the actual cost of providing for, protecting, elevating or otherwise investing in a specific group.

    While I would like to believe feminism is going to the grave, I can’t be so optimistic. The realist/pessimist in me believes that feminism isn’t weakening because women are waking up to the realization that feminism is damaging to men and thus society, but rather it is weakening because the costs are finally coming back full circle to women and they are balking. The beneficiaries are getting the bill for decades of preferential treatment. The “cost” of the freedom, independence, empowerment, etc. is/has been paid by men in many forms, but it has finally surpassed our ability and/or willingness to do so and thus women are increasingly confronted with the bill.

    Women have been told that they are entitled to this freedom, independence, and power but were not told that these things come from somewhere – that what is taken from the system must be reinvested and that there is a corresponding cost and responsibility. Because the power and responsibility is optional, women can opt-in or opt-out, take from men or reject men according to what is best for women at any given point – or even on the whim of their “happiness”, the system has been operating in a deficit.

    So while I think awareness of the (potential or actual) costs to women of their (artificially enhanced) freedom and independence may be on the rise, awareness of the damage to men and society caused by feminism is probably lost in the noise. Unwinding protectionist-entitlement systems, even from the “willing” – those who believe the costs are too high, is more conducive to repackaging than an actual elimination, particularly if the motivation is not attributed to the actual beliefs (feminism) but rather the application or some other systemic failure (e.g. a change in Men’s motivations/behaviors as opposed to why the men’s motivations changed). We can see a lot of this now, with how men’s reaction to the SMP are demonized and how women will gladly accept preferential treatment in the acquisition of status, but will reject men of lesser status – without any regard for how/why those men may have lesser status. Until women stop asking questions like “why aren’t men stepping up?” and ask ones like “what do I really want out of life?” without the fear or backlash from the false programming, feminism will still lurk, waiting for the next wave of the victim culture to emerge.

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

      @Tasmin

      The a la carte manifestation demonstrates that even women who don’t admittedly or knowingly align with the beliefs have been indoctrinated to the point of entitlement, something they will not be quick to exchange for the greater good

      We’re about to witness the entitlement of a whole generation of American women bite them in the ass. Record numbers of female narcissists have sprung up in the last 20 years. NPD used to be 75% male, 25% female. Now it’s 50-50 and still growing. In addition, record numbers of young women have indulged in promiscuous sex, adamant that they not be penalized by a “sexual double standard,” but impotent to dictate this feminist belief to men. As a result, men are getting married later, if at all, and they’re becoming more selective about partnering with women.

      The realist/pessimist in me believes that feminism isn’t weakening because women are waking up to the realization that feminism is damaging to men and thus society, but rather it is weakening because the costs are finally coming back full circle to women and they are balking.

      At this point in time, I think this is correct. Women are miserable, they have been indoctrinated to have it all, and many have done so only to learn it’s a very stressful life. It’s not surprising, at least to me, that women would refer to their own experiences first.

      That will also be the case for the next generation. We know that 1/3 of female college graduates will not have the option to marry similarly educated men of their own age. We are going to see a massive increase in the number of spinsters, and while there will be some women shouting that single life is great, and they never wanted kids anyway, most will be unhappy with their lack of options.

      In short, incentives drive behavior, and women are, I believe, more likely to observe what female strategies work and don’t work than to connect the dots between the lack of fairness to males and the resulting marriage shortage. It will be far easier to blame men, and the apex fallacy will figure prominently in this.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, something happened culturally between your generation and mine. It has become a sign of prestige/badge of honor for a woman to stay home with her kids today. It’s prestigious because it signals that she has her priorities straight and also that they can afford it (i.e., he is making enough money). I remember being in LA in the mid-’90s before Dr. Laura really took off and her message of “Why would you pay someone else to raise your own kids?” was considered hate speech. Now it is a common sentiment in certain communities. 35-40 y/o moms who leave the workforce do not feel the shame that you did.

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

      @Escoffier

      . It has become a sign of prestige/badge of honor for a woman to stay home with her kids today. It’s prestigious because it signals that she has her priorities straight and also that they can afford it (i.e., he is making enough money).

      That makes sense – it fits with weaker levels of feminist indoctrination. Still, what percentage of American women can afford to do this? Are we talking about the 1%?

      In your experience, do women flip-flop from career to home because they are entitled? Again, it sounds like you’re saying it’s more a case of women abandoning the priorities of feminism (career) and focusing on traditional female priorities (family).

  • slim’s tuna provider

    “Are you still not getting it?”
    I am not. You did not make a point, you whined that you tend to lose arguments. I am not sure I want you to be captain of team masculinity. Heh.

  • Charm

    @Jonny

    Im controlling? How did you figure that out? From that one post?

    Well, I disagree. Every person has a standard that they want met. I have natural leadership qualities so why wouldn’t I want that in a mate? Not saying you have to be on top of it all the time, but Ive been in a relationship where I had to do everything. Make every decision about the smallest things. Maybe by leadership I meant decisiveness. If a man isnt decisive he isnt for me. I cant stand indecisiveness in friendships so Im not going to date it.

    Though, I will admit my standards are high. I cant help it. Apparently its the plight of the ENTJ. But I will say that I meet all of my own standards so I dont think its ridiculous to ask someone to meet most of them.

  • jess

    A rebuttal:

    Feminism doesn’t have many moves left on the board.:
    —–No more or less than any other movement

    Having achieved gender equity long ago,
    —– Nope, not true of the west (old boys networks) and it certainly isn’t true for the rest of the world

    The ultimate goal is the full realization of female supremacy in society.
    —– Tosh

    The strategy has not been wholly ineffective.
    —–progress has been made of course, also true of gay and race movements- thats a good thing

    Half our population is now tainted with the original sin of maleness.
    —- its not, and never has been a sin

    Men are presumed guilty of inappropriate aggression and nefarious motives in all corners of society,
    —– not presumed— but held accountable when appropriate

    including education,
    —– we went through this in a previous thread- asking a child not to interrupt a class is not anti-anything, ask any successful all boys school

    professional life
    —— most major ‘professional exposes’ have been male but only because equity hasn’t been reached

    social interactions with women, and popular culture.
    —– yes there are more male ass hats- whats your point?

    We judge healthy male instincts such as competition and desire as moral failings.
    —– only when they directly hurt or oppress another. generally though they are often seen as positive things.

    Meanwhile, the championing of female priorities in all areas of life has led to the toxic Cosmopolitan cocktail of twin evils: narcissism and hedonism.
    —— feminism didn’t invent hedonism and last time I checked it takes 2 to tango. These days plenty of guys are narcissistic too.

    The consequences of this strategy may be felt throughout society
    —– yep better world for my daughters

    , and are well documented. The state of our Union, and unions (marital, not labor) is cause for concern.
    —– every generation had the same concerns

    From my vantage point, which gazes at society through the lens of relationships, the legacy of feminism is clear:
    —– given the problems with all of the above perceptions- it may be as clear as mud. Sorry

  • A90

    Susan –
    you remember you linked to one of Andrew’s articles “Don’t initiate contact”? I assume you agree with it, as do I. The article has gone somewhat ‘famous’ and has been debated on other forums. However a lot of people don’t like it. Girls claim it goes against equality (although having men initiate contact is not exactly to women’s loss IMO) and guys say that they prefer a girl to take charge and that ‘women who play games don’t deserve a good guy’. Honestly, I think a lot of this comes from young men with fewer options with women and girls who are not approached enough. But I mentioned it to a male friend and he also called it “a lot of rubbish” and “one man’s opinion”. I am curious as to how HUS men feel. And if it is in fact totally old-fashioned to have men initiate contact.
    http://therulesrevisited.blogspot.com/2011/09/dont-initiate-contact.html

  • Charm

    @Chris in Ca

    I didnt know you were INTJ, Im ENTJ but I dont care to lead either. I only do it when its necessary, though over the last year Ive noticed myself becoming a lot more introverted. Its more of a split down the middle to tell you the truth. Still have the extroversion short attention span. Lol.

    I too really only care about leading my own life. This is why Im so weary about the idea of men leading women. If you pick the wrong one youll really be screwing yourself over. If shes neurotic and cant get her life together and needs you to do it, you might feel empowered up until she decides to leave you and take everything you have. Why? because shes neurotic and can’t make good life decisions. That was obvious from the start.

    Marrying equal just seems the most logical step to me. Im a whole person so I want a whole person. I dont want none of that “my other half” bullshit. My other half would be a man who is overly emotional, unmotivated, indecisive, and supplicating. Ick. No thank you. Been there done that.

    Oh Chris, I have a question. What types of women do you date if you dont mind me asking? Im talking based on MBTI. I know SFPs are the most populous for women followed by SFJ. Are these the types you date or do you go for NFs or NTs Im just really curious because you mentioned game and women.

  • Jonny

    @Charm

    It is very clear about what you want even if you don’t realize it. The specificity of what you expect from a guy tells me what you’re willing to put up with. Thus I consider it to be controlling.

    “Maybe by leadership I meant decisiveness.” Sure, but you also said this guy must be 3 steps ahead.

    Don’t do what other women do. They have these standards, but quickly back down when the perfect cad comes around. The standards will also prevent you from meeting the “right guy” that just doesn’t measure up.

  • Charm

    Re returning turning to patriarchy: (someone mentioned it above)

    I dont see that happening. I dont know why people keep trying to turn back time. Its gone so wish it fair well. Not saying I like what feminism has created but we wont just revert back. Not 100% anyway. I like certain aspects of what patriarchy created, but I also like being able to have options as a woman. I dont agree with modern day feminism, but Id be damned if Id go back to the way it was before.

  • Chris_in_CA

    @Charm

    Making me reach back into the not-so-pleasant side of my memory, huh? I don’t mind, but I’ll keep it short. Don’t want to skew this thoroughly-entertaining discussion any more than it’s already skewing.

    I only knew the MTBI of two women I’ve dated. One was INFP – had a keen sense of others’ emotions, but very little awareness of her own motivations. I was friendzoned after Date 4 (and no sex).

    The other was ISFP. She was very sharp-witted (got a couple over on me first date!) and had concrete goals. This was the woman I’ve spoken of on HUS in the past; the one I most wanted an LTR with, but who dumped me because her biological clock morphed into a gong.

    Obviously I prefer more intellectual women; both of them did display good intelligence. It was their behavior that tilted things. The INTJ is curious, but pragmatic.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna,

    Right now there are not enough women in politics to make up for 40 seats on the senate, unless the senate forces equal gender representation.

    Then, *why* are not enough women in politics? I could ask the same question regarding to musical bands (not popstars), startups, illustration, computer programming, boxing, you name it.

    Given all the incentives and the favorable bias towards women that is now mainstream, the only explanation I see for that absence is that women dont want it, or at least, they dont want it as BADLY as the men competing for the same slots.

    When the seats are granted they take it, for sure, like they would take the 40 senate seats if these were offered.

    But this stuff should be based on merits and natural competition – meritocracy. I dont see the point on *granting* jobs for people based on their gender. Gender is not going to make them any better at their jobs. Their natural and groomed skills / interests will.

    So I dont see “enough” blacks in politics either, nor chinese, nor latin, nor jews, nor venezuelans born in milan who play the sweet guitar. But is that a problem? are there not enough Y people on Z areas because of discrimination, or because of individual choice?

    Discrimination is good when its based on merits, and bad when its based on anything else.

    Im more worried about the whole political schema and frauds than I am about the lack of *representation*. If anything we need more honest and more capable people up there. Not just different genders / races.

  • Charm

    @Jonny

    Lol. What? Maybe you’ve gone and stereotyped me, but Im not like most women. No, im not some special unicorn but I think I fall into the category of women who arent like that. Im realistic about what I want. I dont want it all. No, not even. Having it “all” would be too stressful anyway. Decisiveness is a trait that I like. Period. Im not giving that up. If mister “right” cant make important decisions then he will become mister next. Its that simple.

    Im am driven and future oriented though. I dont live “in the moment”. Part of my brain is in the moment and part of it is in the future. Always will be. I already have the next 2 years of my life planned out. Not meticulously, but I know where Ill be living, how Ill be earning money, and what Ill be doing after I graduate college. I already know how much my loan payments will be, how much I can save while living abroad, what type of savings/retirement accounts to start etc. Is that too meticulous for you? I call it responsibility. Thats what I meant by 3 steps ahead. If you pack an umbrella youll always be prepared for a rainy day.

    And Im dont think Ill miss out on finding the right person. Even if I meet a person I dont like I might end up liking them. Thats just how I am, so no, you wont see me on a dating website with the gal pals drinking wine nexting a guy for daring to play magic the gathering. Im not an asshole.

  • Charm

    @Chris in Ca

    Lol. Ive dated an ISFP too. He was an unhealthy one though. He was set on his goals that were smack dab in the middle of a sinking ship. Took me almost two years to finally get him to change his major because it was getting him no where. He also had low self esteem, which is so burdensome. I hated that. Though Im glad you met a nice(r) ISFP.

    Im not gonna lie though, I will never date another SP, especially not SFP. That relationship taught me exactly what I do not want. Way too laid back for me. I keep thinking if I could only find an INTP, INTJ or INFJ, Id be okay. Lol.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    How come Hare Krishnas are nowhere in politics, boxing or computer programming. Who´s oppressing them?

  • http://homespunwisdom.wordpress.com/ Jamila

    I don’t think feminism is in it’s death throes, but here in the West most of what feminists wanted has been achieved, therefore there is less of a need to talk about it as much–feminism is now a part of the system.

    I think that developing countries provide a new front for feminists and that in the future the feminist movement will be on the rise in the least developed countries.

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

      @Jamila

      I don’t think feminism is in it’s death throes, but here in the West most of what feminists wanted has been achieved, therefore there is less of a need to talk about it as much–feminism is now a part of the system.

      That’s a good point, I think that is part of it. Radical feminists today are either blatantly supremacist or determined to protect the rights that have already been won. The lack of loyalty among mainstream women will be problematic, though, as men continue to struggle and our institutions fail. Feminism will take a lot of blame, and few will be prepared to defend it in a palatable way.

      I think that developing countries provide a new front for feminists and that in the future the feminist movement will be on the rise in the least developed countries.

      American feminists have made it very clear they have no wish to engage in any altruistic feminism that doesn’t benefit them directly, so those women are on their own. An example of this is American feminists being unwilling to engage on the topic of female genital mutilation, due to the respect they have for “cultural differences.”

  • Herb

    How come Hare Krishnas are nowhere in politics, boxing or computer programming. Who´s oppressing them?

    How come women have their own NBA and golf tour but can compete in the PGA if they make the cut?

    How is that equality?

    Also, why does the state of MA allow women’s only gyms not men’s only gyms (was a huge issue circa 2000)?

    For those who complain about the old boys network, why is breaking that important to equality AND creating women’s only networks (such as a Women’s Bar Association) also important to equality?

    Susan, again to address your original point, when I see women deciding that either there can be no gender exclusive spaces or that men can have them as well as women I’ll believe feminism in terms of actions is on the decline.

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

      Susan, again to address your original point, when I see women deciding that either there can be no gender exclusive spaces or that men can have them as well as women I’ll believe feminism in terms of actions is on the decline.

      Activism happens when people are affected personally. You won’t see women advocating for men’s clubs, or protesting a women’s gym. We are all self-interested creatures.

  • tvmunson

    @ Editor

    “DON’T GET ATTACHED': that’s what Epictetus said. And Zen.

    @ Ian “Jed” Ironwood #32

    Good to see you. You weren’t tearing things up at plankton were you? Caught a ref.

  • Mike C

    Tasmin #62

    Incredibly incisive 30,000 ft level macro comment.

    Regarding your comment and the themes of an ideology mutating, adapting, etc. I can’t help but think of communism and its evolution from the Bolsheviks to Stalinism to Kruschev’s renunciation of Stalin to finally Gorbachev’s glasnost before the whole edifice crumbled. It lasted roughly 70 years while feminism is really only 40-45 years old. Heck, communism still exists in Cuba and North Korea.

    They are quite comparable as both our based on absolutely false starting principles (each according to need, gender is a social construct) and have a ton of hidden costs that eventually show up. I think feminism is quite effective at hiding its costs or misattributing them to something else.

    I really have no idea how this all plays out and what time frame. Ultimately, feminism NEEDs a sizable contingent of blue-pill men, mangina sympathizers like Hugo Schwyzer. For the life of me, I can’t figure out kind of pathetic man wifes up some of these active feminists (I’ll refrain from naming names).

    Anyways, for men the political is personal, and I expect the shrieking to ramp up the next 10 years. Dalrock has had a few posts on this idiot pastor with more of the “man up” schtick:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/if-mark-driscoll-werent-so-foolish-he-would-be-wise/

    Men’s battle against feminism for the most part is simply walking away. The real battle will be amongst women.

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

      Men’s battle against feminism for the most part is simply walking away. The real battle will be amongst women.

      Yes! That’s why I’m exhorting women to take a stand.

  • tvmunson

    Editor

    Narcissism + hedonism + (may I be so bold) materialism= early 21st century America ; you got it said sister.

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

      @Munson

      Excellent addition of materialism there. Absolutely. Another trifecta of doom.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    so basicallly women do not have the merit to be senators? doctors, lawyers — yes, senators — no? angela merkel and maggie thatcher and indira ghandi are what — outliers? the hare krishna argument is flatly ridiculous, there are just too few of them.

    also, in politics, the “merit” argument is a little funny, because at least part of the “merit” is representing the values of the voters. so women are bad at representing the populace, of which they are 51%? how does that even compute?

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

      @Slim

      so women are bad at representing the populace, of which they are 51%? how does that even compute?

      You’re only pointing out that women don’t elect women to public office. How does feminism solve that problem? It doesn’t – the only possible answer is: better candidates.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna,

    so basicallly women do not have the merit to be senators?

    Feel free to address any of my comments – instead of rephrasing like that.

  • Mike C

    Feel free to address any of my comments -instead of rephrasing like that.

    Yohami, are you new here? :)

    Feminists have a core set of operating tactics they adhere to in any discussion. At the very top of the list, is NEVER, EVER directly address someone’s exact point in the exact language they used. Always rephrase it or exaggerate it to something else, and then address that. Fact is, in most forums, this is highly effective. This is essentially what politicians do whenever they are asked a question. It is all about scoring rhetorical points, and not any sort of honest intellectual debate/truth seeking.

  • Mike

    @tuna
    “so women are bad at representing the populace, of which they are 51%? how does that even compute?”

    He never said that. He asked how many were lining up to run for political office.

    You can debate results, but remember that 50% of the electorate is female as well so your beef would be with your own gender for why they’re not voting for the women. I’m sure if they’re platform was sound they’d win.

    Too many Palins/Bachmanns tho. I feel bad for them when they’re on camera.. like a comedian who’s bombing on stage.

  • Mike

    they’re***

    their.

    im tired.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    yohami,

    Gladly.

    Right now there are not enough women in politics to make up for 40 seats on the senate, unless the senate forces equal gender representation.

    //This is part of the problem, not the explanation for it. I agree that women should fight for entry into politics harder, but it does not disprove that there is an inhospitable environment based on gender.

    Then, *why* are not enough women in politics? I could ask the same question regarding to musical bands (not popstars), startups, illustration, computer programming, boxing, you name it.

    //you could. only two of those matter, entrepreneurship and coding. the others are side shows. coding and entrepreneurship are important but not as important as representing the people in government. it makes sense that people in those fields have special qualities that make them different from the general populace, and which may select by gender. it does not make sense that our politicians have such differentiated qualities, because they are supposed to represent the majority. our politicians are supposed to be competent and strong communicators. further they are supposed represent the majority’s values. they’re supposed to be normal people plus leadership, not specialists.

    Given all the incentives and the favorable bias towards women that is now mainstream, the only explanation I see for that absence is that women dont want it, or at least, they dont want it as BADLY as the men competing for the same slots.

    //(1) the fact that we give it to the people that want it the worst is part of the problem. (2) see above for argument about discouragement. also, give any example of favorable bias towards a woman running for office.
    When the seats are granted they take it, for sure, like they would take the 40 senate seats if these were offered.
    //not an argument
    But this stuff should be based on merits and natural competition – meritocracy. I dont see the point on *granting* jobs for people based on their gender. Gender is not going to make them any better at their jobs. Their natural and groomed skills / interests will.

    //politics is not a “natural competition”. it’s not a race or a fight for food. there is nothing “natural” about it — it is entirely the product of reason. it is a very fully theorized, socially engineered, DECISION by the polity reragarding who will set its policy. as such, it is NOT favoritism or affirmative action to advocate that the polity use criteria in this decision that relate to competence and communication only, not a deeper voice, broader shoulders, and primordial concepts of war-chieftaindom.

    So I dont see “enough” blacks in politics either, nor chinese, nor latin, nor jews, nor venezuelans born in milan who play the sweet guitar. But is that a problem? are there not enough Y people on Z areas because of discrimination, or because of individual choice?

    //yes, yes, yes, maybe, no, maybe (it’s complicated.)

    Discrimination is good when its based on merits, and bad when its based on anything else.
    //see above for discussion on “merits” in politics.

    Im more worried about the whole political schema and frauds than I am about the lack of *representation*. If anything we need more honest and more capable people up there. Not just different genders / races.

    //beside the point, different issue.

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

      . I agree that women should fight for entry into politics harder, but it does not disprove that there is an inhospitable environment based on gender.

      Whoa, it’s your job to prove the environment is inhospitable, not our job to disprove your accusation, lol.

      /(1) the fact that we give it to the people that want it the worst is part of the problem. (2) see above for argument about discouragement. also, give any example of favorable bias towards a woman running for office.

      Are you just trolling? GIVE senate seats to people? Why should there be a favorable bias towards a woman running for office? You’re just proving the claim that feminists believe in female supremacy. You want all sorts of special treatment – aside from that fact that that is just unfair, it’s also ineffective. It doesn’t get women elected.

      The truth is, most women don’t want a high powered career in politics, just like most men don’t. You see a lot more female congresswomen and governors – most likely because they can do that job without moving their families to DC or forfeiting family altogether.

  • Jim

    I long since gave up on giving Feminism any respect when it became apparent that Feminists really didn’t care about women’s rights, especially those of women around the world who weren’t white and and living in the West.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali was booted out of Holland with barely a whimper from European feminists.

    Lina Joy was is still in hiding in fear for her life.

    And there are countless other examples of real misogyny and oppression of women yet the only thing feminists can rally themselves nowadays are ‘Slutwalks’ and bashing conservative female politicians. Instead of honestly addressing women’s rights outside the West they would rather wallow in moral and cultural relativism and false equivalencies. They’re like some Shakespearian comic character, drowning ‘in their cups’, in some fetid tavern, issuing belligerent curses and threats to their old enemies, right before falling face first back into the pudding.

    There’s only one way to explain the very selective outrage of Feminists.

    Cowardice.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna,

    politics is not a “natural competition”. it’s not a race or a fight for food. there is nothing “natural” about it — it is entirely the product of reason. it is a very fully theorized, socially engineered, DECISION by the polity reragarding who will set its policy. as such, it is NOT favoritism or affirmative action to advocate that the polity use criteria in this decision that relate to competence and communication only

    That made me spill my coffee.

    Tuna, so WHY are not enough women in politics? I stated its because of lack of interest / drive on women when making their choices / they decide not to pursue it. Whats your take?

  • KK

    A few words about the graph itself. Could the yearly double peak be due to college season? A lull in the summer and a steadily rising trend that ends in the final exams. Less ‘ideologically charged’ terms such as hedonism are stable throughout the year.

    Also, I wouldn’t predict the decline of feminism based on just this graph. I don’t know what algorithms Google uses to measure these trends but the downward slope appears on many other college-related ‘isms’, although feminism might have the most severe one. I do agree that the explicit displays of feminism seem to be becoming rarer, but the feminist mentality itself hasn’t. Young women just don’t feel the need to loudly proclaim that they are feminists because that is already the default state. The culture around us is fundamentally feminist. Similarly I don’t go around making a big number about being a homo sapiens sapiens, that’s a given.

    The goalposts have shifted. If someone explicitly identifies as a feminist in our already feminist world, she’s likely to be a pretty hard-line case with all sorts of genderqueer baggage piled on top.

    Tasmin at #62 is right on the money.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    yohami,

    first of all, i am not terribly concerned with “why”, in the sense that if it’s because women don’t want to be politicians, i don’t think we get to go home and drink beers. this is not like being in rock bands. if a democracy fails to be represented by a reasonably proportional number of women (or ethnic and religious minorities) in its government, i am going to assume that something is wrong in the functioning of the democracy. if such a group is staying away from politics, that is an a priori problem that needs to be fixed. this is because the point of a democracy is that people are represented in its government. in RARE cases, it might not be a problem. some people do conciously abstain from political participation and representation, but it is laughable to claim that 150 million women are like, say, the amish.

    now why? i am guessing. but i suspect that they see that men tend to dominate politics, and therefore stay away. they also see that women in politics tend to be subjected to nasty gender-based attacks (looks, implications that they’re cold mannish bitches, etc.)

  • Odds

    @ Tuna

    “so women are bad at representing the populace, of which they are 51%? how does that even compute?”

    If you’re 51% of the voting public, and have been for decades, and are going to think of people in groups instead of as individuals, you have only your own group to blame for the lack of female politicians (one would think that a virtue of the female gender, but whatever floats your boat).

    Thatcher, Merkel et al were outliers. People with the personal charisma and life background to become that successful are always outliers. But there are more male outliers than female in virtually all categories of intelligence. Look at local politics – women are much more strongly represented on school boards, city councils, and even state legislatures than on the national level. You just don’t have to be such an outlier to get there.

    Say what you will about Obama – he is smarter than the average bear, and far, far more charismatic, ambitious, and self-promoting than even the most seasoned PUAs. He is a distant outlier in those areas, moreso than most men could ever hope to be.

    True at the opposite end of the spectrum, too. The average homeless person is a man (by which I mean if you select a hobo at random, chances are he’s a he). The average mental patient is a man. The average uneducated convict is a man (so’s the average successful mafia don).

    We don’t really get anywhere by focusing on outliers, because the biggest winners and losers will always be male. It’s biology. I think it would be as arrogant to say “men are better than women because all the best accomplishments were by men” as it would be myopic to say “women are oppressed because all the big winners are men.” I can’t claim any credit for the brains of Nikolai Tesla, any more than I am willing to accept being called an oppressor because a crappy law was signed into place by Obama.

    We should instead look at the average. The middle-of-the-road representatives, and everyone within a standard deviation or two of them. Or, perhaps, within a standard deviation of our own self (honestly, the readership here probably over-represents people in the upper half of the intelligence bracket, spelling and capitalization notwithstanding).

    Personally, I haven’t seen any convincing data suggesting either that the average woman is equal to the average man, or that they are different (except in physical strength). Most measures of intelligence have been mucked around with since their inception to either create or eliminate politically inconvenient differences in the average (though attempts to match up outliers have always failed, so one can be quite confident that there are more male outliers), so I simply don’t trust any of that data. What I do know is that the completely average person is unlikely to stand out so much in life that they receive national recognition, including election to office; the average person is unlikely to start a nationally successful business; the average person is unlikely to get a STEM degree and do something useful with it.

    And there are more average women than average men. If a woman is capable, most people (including most men) would see no reason to stop her from holding a position she’s earned. I would argue that feminists are more opposed to seeing capable men in power; they’re the only ones calling for quotas (of course, those go by the wayside when the girls get tingly, but that’s another story).

    But if you’ll let me ramble a bit more, here’s the rub, at least for a guy like me: the average woman does not want the average man, she wants the best she can get (by some measure or another, usually charisma). For some reason (I blame feminism; you’re free to blame whatever you like), the urge to act on the desire is so strong today that it transcends realistic expectations. I’m taller than average (6’1″), smarter than average (I’m an engineer), and in better shape than average, but I certainly don’t have above-average charisma, so that hinders me. I’m never going to be a senator, even though this country would be better off if, say, 10 senate seats were reserved for STEM folks. I might be city council material in a pinch. I’m never going to have hundreds of hot young sex partners, even if I could somehow demonstrate that the world would be a better place for it. Best I can do is spit some game and get a decent hookup, maybe a girlfriend under the right circumstances. This does not make me oppressed in any way, because – getting back to your original point about not having enough female senators – no one, myself included, is entitled to being selected as the best by other people. Not even if we are the best, because they have the God-given right to obstinately refuse to like us (and frankly, I find it far less likely that someone actually is the best at something than that they simply fail to recognize their own flaws; if someone if refusing to accept that I’m the best at something, it’s more likely they’re correct than that I am).

    You can’t produce a scrap of evidence that the country would be a better place with reserved seats for women senators, or women corporate boardmembers. At best, you can produce anecdotes that you’ve known lots of capable women, and anecdotes about people refusing to elect capable women in favor of less-capable men.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna,

    first of all, i am not terribly concerned with “why” [...] if such a group is staying away from politics, that is an a priori problem that needs to be fixed.

    Without knowing “why”, it cant be “fixed”. But I´d like to also hear why do you think its a problem not to have enough women in politics. In other words, what would these women add?

    now why? i am guessing. but i suspect that they see that men tend to dominate politics, and therefore stay away. they also see that women in politics tend to be subjected to nasty gender-based attacks (looks, implications that they’re cold mannish bitches, etc.)

    So there are not enough women in politics because its an unfriendly environment?

  • Odds

    @ Tuna

    One other thought – why must only women be capable of representing women? Would a black senator be incapable of representing the interests of white constituents? Would a Jewish senator be incapable of representing the interests of atheist constituents? Would an air force veteran senator be incapable of representing the interests of civilian constituents?

    The idea that a male senator can’t represent female interests is nonsense. Men gave women the vote. Men passed VAWA. Men gave away presumed male custody of children. Men instituted the draft for men only. Saying that you need female representatives is a ridiculous and sexists as if I were to say that I vote for men exclusively because only a man can represent my interests (in fact, in my area of the country, the last state rep and state senator I voted for were both female, because they best represented my interests).

    Keep on posting, though. I’m having fun letting my bile rise.

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

      @Odds

      I hope tuna keeps posting too, because I’m thoroughly enjoying your commentary, which is so full of common sense I can’t imagine an intelligent retort.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Odds +1

    Mike C, tuna is new here, so I´m giving her a chance. Is she was Jess I would be looking for my GPS.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    Ohami,
    I quote myself from above:

    “if a democracy fails to be represented by a reasonably proportional number of women (or ethnic and religious minorities) in its government, i am going to assume that something is wrong in the functioning of the democracy. if such a group is staying away from politics, that is an a priori problem that needs to be fixed. this is because the point of a democracy is that people are represented in its government.”

    this is a definitional issue. hence my use of “a priori” — as a matter of first principle. “what they would bring” is irrelevant. if your view of democracy is different, i respect that.

    and, to repeat myself again, i do think that women stay out of politics because of low probablity of success resulting from gender bias, and the prevalence of criticism based along gender-specific lines.

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

      and, to repeat myself again, i do think that women stay out of politics because of low probablity of success resulting from gender bias, and the prevalence of criticism based along gender-specific lines.

      This thinking is so circular it’s spiral. Tuna, I hate to say it but you’re making women look incapable of being analytical or sensible here.

      How can gender bias exist in elections when there are more women voters?

      Do you think that men are immune to criticism while campaigning?

      Time to put your big girl pants on and stop demanding special treatment.

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

    Those who are concerned with the underrepresentation of women in Congress, etc, need to also think about what other groups are underrepresented. I would suggest that **non-lawyers** are the most underrepresented group in American politics, and that this is in fact seriously harmful in that the perspectives of a great array of other occupational groups are too often missing from our legislative process.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    odds,
    of course a man can represent a woman. but if women are present in such disproportionately small numbers, it suggests a systemic problem. and while i don’t need someone my color to represent me in particular, i would prefer some people my color to be in the room. trust, but verify, and all that.

  • Jim

    Susan said, “This is especially true in academia. The treatment of Larry Summers is a case in point. Richard Brodhead, President of Duke, bent over in two seconds for the Women’s Studies profs when they formed the Duke 88 to condemn the lacrosse players for rape. Much of the female supremacy we see today in elementary education came straight from the work of academic types like Carol Gilligan.”

    It is especially true of academia but its origins are far older.

    In fact, much of feminist theory, liberation theology, and a host of other left-wing bastard ideologies owe their ideological evolution to the Marxist cultural critiques created and espoused by Adorno, Marcuse, and the rest of the Frankfurt School. I highly recommend Martin Jay’s ‘The Dialectical Imagination’ to understand the relationship between the Frankfurt School’s Marxist Critical Theory and the development of Feminism.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna,

    Yes we have different concepts. You seem to be subscribing to the formal (greek?) definition, and Im subscribing to that it is in the present timess.

    Democracy is not about representation. Democracy is a play of power, full of dominance, agenda, contacts, betrayals, ad hominem attacks, unjustified wars, fear-schemas, self terrorism, misinformation, etc. So, its anything but what the greeks intented it to be.

    If democracy was about putting up a group of people representing different interests of the population, there would be more women there for sure, as well as blacks, chinese, latin, musicians, dancers and what not. But its not. Its, again, a game of power, relying on a media circus and fueled by lobbying. To get there and survive there you need a bitch merciless gene. More men than women want to get in that fight, which is, at the end, a cock fight like we have in the animal kindgom, but this one all adorned and with lots of candy and make up.

    If you check the animal kingdom the overt fights for power are done by males – while the females do the overt / socializing fights. Pretty much like us.

    And like Odds said, all the people up there in politics are outliers. It also happens there are more male outliers than females – and more male losers than female losers, too.

    if a democracy fails to be represented by a reasonably proportional number of women (or ethnic and religious minorities) in its government, i am going to assume that something is wrong in the functioning of the democracy

    Yes, there´s something wrong with it. All of it.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    *– while the females do the [covert]/ socializing fights.

  • Mike C

    this is a definitional issue. hence my use of “a priori” — as a matter of first principle. “what they would bring” is irrelevant. if your view of democracy is different, i respect that.

    and, to repeat myself again, i do think that women stay out of politics because of low probablity of success resulting from gender bias, and the prevalence of criticism based along gender-specific lines.

    Well then….there really isn’t anything to discuss at all now is there. Essentially, you DEFINE what the outcome MUST BE in order to be just or a valid democracy, and then if you don’t get those results then no other explanation is possible other then some sort of systemic gender bias. Essentially, this isn’t logic or based on facts, but a matter of religious faith and it is impossible to argue faith. Actually, that makes a lot of sense because essentially feminism is a religion with its own zealots.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    tuna -> Mike C

    “what they would bring” is irrelevant.

    For the system to work, “what they bring” is the only thing that matters. It doesnt matter whats the sex, gender, race, color, hobbies of that person. What the person brings is what matters.

    Right now all these folks are bringing us doom. The gender of such folks is whats irrelevant.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Tasmin #62 and Odds #92 and #96, well-argued and thoughtful posts. I gave up on feminism years ago because of good and sound arguments such as those that have been presented.

  • Odds

    @Yohami

    Good on you being nice. I had a rough day, and while I’ll remain as civil and respectful as ever, I’m just not feeling like using the kid gloves.

    @ Tuna

    “but if women are present in such disproportionately small numbers, it suggests a systemic problem.”

    Why? You see a result you don’t like, and assume that the “system” is bad. Could it simply be a difference in the number of high-aptitude males and females? Is that a “systemic” problem, or just life? I don’t see that it suggests any problem at all. I get what you think the problem is, that there aren’t “enough” women, but why does this result suggest a problem with some poorly-defined system, and not something else? Or even a problem at all?

    “and while i don’t need someone my color to represent me in particular, i would prefer some people my color to be in the room. trust, but verify, and all that.”

    I have no idea what you mean by that last sentence. I’ve heard the quote, but don’t see why it matters in this context. Your whole statement here has not conveyed any ideas I was able to receive and understand. Can you rephrase?

    Let me tell you something about diversity. The only real, meaningful diversity (the kind that grants actual strength) is a diversity of ideas, freely competing and clashing in a peaceful and civil manner. Skin, sex, physical handicaps – these are not diversity in any meaningful sense. Put ten straight, white, physically able males in a room and give them all different ideas, and that’s diversity. Put ten people in a room with all different races, sexual identities, and body types in a room, but give them all the same ideas, and that’s an echo chamber.

    Even members of the PC-cult claim they want diversity for the richness of experiences. But those experiences come from different ideas.

    The only person I need to represent me is one who shares my ideas.

  • Mike C

    Yohami,

    It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 – 1965)

    One of my favorite lines is “Utopia is NOT an option”.

    That said, right now the system is particularly corrupt. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine are probably rolling in their graves.

    Whether there are 10 female senators or 40 or whatever is just mental jerking off in the corner. The real problem right now is the influence of big money particularly the influence of financiers and the financial sector, and it doesn’t matter whether you got a dick or a pussy between your legs….they’ll buy you off just the same.

    The single worst decision the U.S. Supreme Court has made that probably 99% of people haven’t a clue about is granting corporations “free speech” rights under the First Amendment to essentially spend whatever they can to get their “message” out.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    More on “there are not enough women in X”

    Check this video, it features some passionate people talking about the record / mix / music industry, specifically, discussing why you should care about making an album sound “good” and get a competitive edge

    http://vimeo.com/28596954

    How many girls in the audience? I count two.

    Hum. Maybe the rest of the girls are afraid of these rapists. Or maybe girls are not into music production. How about photography?

    Chase Jarvis is an amazing photographer who also has a motivational video blog. He interviews people from different backgrounds, from finances to arts to whatever, and shares all the wisdom he can. He also has a live audience.

    http://blog.chasejarvis.com/live/

    How many girls he interviews? how many girls in the audience?

    Bummer. But you know, its because those guys are so bitter and violent.

    Then, I spent quite a lot of time learning about music production on a forum called gearslutz.com. Brilliant source of knowledge and thousands of producers and people from all around the world. Over the couple years that I´ve been there, I only ran into a female commenter once. ONCE.

    Then, I run a game company. I code videogames for a living. Every often I post ads looking for talented people, illustrators, coders, etc. How many female CVs do you think I get? mmm I must be scaring them! I get a couple for every 100 male CVs or something.

    Etc.

    Either most girls are cowards, or they have a different set of interests, in mass. I think the latter is more feasible.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Another music producer, again sharing his wisdom, he has a weekly show and interviews people. 50 episodes so far. Count the number of women interviewed:

    http://pensadosplace.tv/

    Zero.

    But it has to be because Dave Pensado is a mysoginistic pig right? Not because women dont go for audio / engineering / production.

    Ok how about movies? name your top 10 female directors?

    I could go on but I wont.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    You have never perceived? Have you objectively observed a statistically significant sample? Such nonsense!

    //not terribly civil, but ok. i’ve spent my entire life in really selective educational and work environments. during that time i’ve met hundreds of people. i can remember all the ones that really couldn’t cut it — there are a handful. they are equally divided between men and women. this, of course, is backed up by data that women and men at selective academic institutions have similar test scores and grades. maybe that’s not enough for you, but i am merely a wee commenter.

    Even if you are correct, and women are highly competent leaders and analysts, they can only get elected to the senate under several conditions:

    1. They desire the job.
    2. They run for office.
    3. They possess qualifications and experience equal or superior to their opponents.
    4. They communicate competence effectively while campaigning, persuading large numbers of people to vote for them.

    Most women do not meet these criteria.

    //no kidding. neither do most men. so what?

    probably because people’s primordial mind responds to broad-shouldered men talking in deep voices.

    Interesting, slim appears to be on the evo psych bandwagon, and then some. I’ve never seen this hypothesis in any of the literature.

    //if you are aware of literature on the subject, it would advance this discussion greatly. please provide.

    What evidence do you have that our most able people are women? How are women better qualified to be in charge? Of what?

    //i never claimed that women were more able. i merely claimed they were equally able (hence should be equally represented in a functioning democracy). i take this view because i study and work with the most able people in our country, and half of them are women. if i had a dime for every time a woman handed me my intellectual ass on a silver platter, i’d be sipping scotch in vail right now.

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

      if i had a dime for every time a woman handed me my intellectual ass on a silver platter, i’d be sipping scotch in vail right now.

      Is Tuna a male?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    my mistake, Pensado did interview ONE woman, a director of some academy

    http://www.pensadosplace.tv/2011/09/13/episode-9-maureen-droney/

  • Jim

    Mike C said, “The single worst decision the U.S. Supreme Court has made that probably 99% of people haven’t a clue about is granting corporations “free speech” rights under the First Amendment to essentially spend whatever they can to get their “message” out.”

    Don’t forget that the Citizens United decision also applied to the unions, an equally virulent and corruption influence.

  • http://fuckyou.com lola

    Reading this “discussion” on “feminism” is like getting mud thrown on you by a man with broken legs and dementia. At first you’re mad and then you wonder if you should just let it go because the person is disabled and appears to be incredibly confused.

  • GudEnuf

    “It means throwing all the “Participant!” trophies in the trash, and being willing to say that Johnny is better at math than anyone else in the class, and it’s not because he’s a bully or aggressive; he’s just really, really good at it. No mainstream elementary school in America will tolerate that today.”

    I am seriously questioning whether a smart young child should even go to school at all. Has anyone tried homeschooling?

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

      @GudEnuf

      I know Stingray homeschools – not sure if there are any other HUS regulars who do.

  • namae nanka

    Copy pasting what I posted on Spearhead(related to the recent “Women and Children first brouhaha).

    “Feminism is about equality, not superiority”

    This was feminist equality in 1912:

    Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife’s property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income taxes–$185–and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless the wife pays or the laws are changed.

    http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2011/01/sends-husband-to-jail-to-aid-suffrage.html

    “what’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine” and if you deny it, you relegate women to property status.

    Some more feminist equality here(taken from the Legal Subjection of Men, 1908):

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/mark-driscolls-feminist-foolishness-posing-as-christian-wisdom/#comment-28478

  • namae nanka

    “as to the need for feminism, let’s talk when there are 40 female senators and a female president. ”

    when half of the senators talk about men’s issues and rights then we can talk about bringing back feminism. (assuming that it is consigned to the dustbin of history rather than the stark reality of its lunacy facing us each day)

    “oh, and when major news outlets don’t run stories criticizing the FLOTUS’s upper arms.”

    yeah cause that’s such an important issues for feminism. I think well-built women were essential to dismantling the patriarchy?

  • namae nanka

    “so women are bad at representing the populace, of which they are 51%? how does that even compute?”

    if there were no stupid women’s sports, you’d realize this fact quite easily?

  • Kaikou

    Goodbye femnazis! Ugh. They are still ruining lives though. Because of them my future husband feels uncomfortable around me. And I’ll probably die alone. Here’s to the next generation that will still have a chance.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @lola

    Reading this “discussion” on “feminism” is like getting mud thrown on you by a man with broken legs and dementia.

    So, you see the men here as incapacitated and demented? The vision you invoked is of men slithering in the mud.

    But you “love men.” Right? It’s your very description of them that men are railing against.

    Sorry, but to continue your metaphor, I can guarantee you that many of them here see the ax that chopped off their legs in the hands of self-proclaimed feminists everywhere.

  • Rum

    What we call modern “feminism” has a main-spring driving it; one located deep in the hind-brain. That mainspring is the visceral hatred of the idea of having sex, particularly fertile sex, with a male deemed unworthy. (Which will normally be most of them). It is a feeling not unrelated to the hatred of even the notion of being raped. The apparent yearning for increased financial and social independence for women is little more than code for, “I should never have to sleep with an ordinary man just because I need support.” If women came to believe achieving all that led in most cases to not getting an alpha or even a beta to ever commit to them – well, that might be a start. But far too many women would choose sluttery over being a dis-satisfied housfrau even if they could see it all clearly in advance.
    Think for a minute how most of their animal fore-sisters go about it.
    Honestly prefering “nice” or even “safe” in a male sex partner is a paper thing layer of recent, mostly culturally implanted preference.

  • Rum

    paper THIN layer on top of powerful hind brain impulses.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Rum,

    the visceral hatred of the idea of having sex, particularly fertile sex, with a male deemed unworthy. (Which will normally be most of them). It is a feeling not unrelated to the hatred of even the notion of being raped. The apparent yearning for increased financial and social independence for women is little more than code for, “I should never have to sleep with an ordinary man just because I need support.”

    Thats how I see it too.

  • Jackie

    Can someone clearly define what “feminism” is?

    The dictionary says it is “the doctrine advocating social, political and all other rights for women equivalent to men.” But the practice seems so nebulous and narcissistic in the extreme. How does a woman saying “I choose my choice!” make you anything other than self-centered? How can all choices be “valid”? Is anything a woman does “a feminist act”?

    I am asking this honestly. I believe in equal rights for women, but the self-proclaimed “feminists” I have known have been nasty in the extreme to me for my choices. (I guess I couldn’t “choose my choice” if it disagreed with their ideology.)

    Thanks for considering. I would really like to know the answer. :)

  • purplesneakers

    So what is true gender equity in a relationship? Should that even be goal, when most women want men to be more dominant, and men want women to be more deferential, generally speaking?

    No, even though women enterpreneurship, education and whatever gets supported as hell by the public, we see our Googles, Facebooks, Twitters, Apples etc. still built up by men. Then our feminists demand board-seats from prepared tables.

    Men tend to be bigger risk-takers than women. Hence more men are entrepreneurs than are women. But even among men, the technocrati are a very tiny minority of men. The kind of genius and skill required to create something like facebook or apple is very rare, and it’s usually found only among the highest IQ people, of which a large majority are (beta) men.

    I don’t understand the criticism of women who leave the workforce to be stay at home moms and raise the kids. I think pretty much everyone would agree that women are the more nurturing sex, right? And this fits traditional gender roles where the woman fills her feminine role as mother and caretaker?

    Also, I would find it very risky (and stupid) to purposely either not pursue higher education, or to aim for a lower-income job than what I *could* get because then there won’t be as much of an opportunity cost if I leave the work force. I would basically be counting on finding a man who is willing to support me, and committing myself to a lifetime of being a stay at home mom or engaging in only work that would be paying me less than what I could have otherwise earned, which is awful in case of divorce.

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

      @purplesneakers

      So what is true gender equity in a relationship? Should that even be goal, when most women want men to be more dominant, and men want women to be more deferential, generally speaking?

      That’s a really interesting question. For me, gender equity in my marriage means that we both inhabit the roles that feel natural. Although I am strong and independent, my husband takes a leadership role. There are times when I disagree and fight back, but he usually has the final say on important matters. That may vary – I’ve usually had more input where the children are concerned, for example. When it comes to finances, he always is the ultimate decision maker.

  • purplesneakers

    How can gender bias exist in elections when there are more women voters?

    I think tuna is a troll, but I don’t think this is so far out of left field, actually.

    Women hate other women. Simple as that.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Your credibility wrt probabilities and statistics = tingle for brainy HUS women.”

    Maybe the next number I post will just be my phone number.

  • OffTheCuff

    Still, what percentage of American women can afford to do this [prestige from staying at home full time, because hubby is "rich"]? Are we talking about the 1%?

    Everyone can afford it, if they would only spend less than they earn, and plan their lives as such. It’s just that very few are *willing* to do so. Yeah, it sucks not going on fancy vacations every year, and actually saving cash in a bank account, rather than using credit, to buy things. But my grandparents, and parents, and I can do it.

    Mrs. C has been SAHM for the last 10 years*, and we have 3 kids, and I am far from rich. I live in an expensive state, but not city. I am hardly a 1%-er. (You’re the one with the big-money zip code ;))

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

      @OTC

      Everyone can afford it, if they would only spend less than they earn, and plan their lives as such. It’s just that very few are *willing* to do so. Yeah, it sucks not going on fancy vacations every year, and actually saving cash in a bank account, rather than using credit, to buy things. But my grandparents, and parents, and I can do it.

      That is highly admirable, and so unusual in our consumerist culture. You and Mrs. C have my respect for living with that kind of discipline. My husband and I travel less, eat out less, go to fewer ticketed events, etc. than most of our friends. Honestly, I just don’t feel the need. I’d rather sit around a fire at home with dear friends or family than go see some expensive show. But that’s partly a function of age, I think.

  • jack

    I hope I live long enough to see the day when women, in general, find things to love and admire in men who are not their sons and fathers.

    I’ve seen little of it in my lifetime. This Nice Guy has had little of his goodwill reciprocated from American women

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

      @Jack

      I hope I live long enough to see the day when women, in general, find things to love and admire in men who are not their sons and fathers.

      You know, I always wonder how these radfems relate to their male relatives. I can’t imagine. But your goal is a noble one. I agree with the earlier commenter who said that men need to redefine masculinity for the post-feminist era. It’s the natural response to the male crisis – I predict a whole industry springing up around it. In fact, the blog The Art of Manliness has really struck a chord with its nostalgic view of masculinity. Men are hungry for that.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Is Tuna a male?”

    Are Tom, Tuna, polyamorous desi, munson and abbot all posting from some 24-hour sambuca bar with complimentary wifi service?

  • Sox

    I think Tuna just expected us to accept politics being an unfriendly environment for women as fact.

    It might be true, I can’t say I’d be totally surprised, but that doesn’t really account for the huge difference in representation.

  • Odds

    @ Purplesneakers

    “I think pretty much everyone would agree that women are the more nurturing sex, right?”

    I’d have put them on that pedestal five years ago, sure. But as I’ve hit my mid-twenties, I’ve known a lot more single mothers; I’ve seen how girls treat the guys they see as unworthy. Now I’m not so sure.

    As for the last paragraph, about getting educated enough to work, and the choice to work or stay home, your reasoning is sound. The problem is choice – choice for women, not for men. I don’t begrudge any woman hedging her bets and preparing for every possible contingency. I would do the same (though with women, they have to be careful they don’t narrow the pool of available men they consider “worthy” beyond their ability to actually snag one). Where you see justified resentment from men is that we don’t have that choice. You have the luxury of facing social approval either for working, or not. Househubbies don’t get that. Moreover, part of what is cheapening college degrees is how many women are getting them and not using them; that’s also making it harder for men who will be more likely to use them to obtain them. Colleges are largely state-subsidized, so that choice is, on a macro level, hurting society.

    To reiterate, I don’t begrudge you taking the rational course. Get while the gettin’s good. And it is frankly a bit hypocritical of me to resent that you have the choice and men don’t on one hand, then say the choice hurts society on the other – I try to focus more on the no-win situation it represents, not on how any individual uses it.

    Fun game to play: tell any woman alive, friend or stranger, that your boyfriend or husband is in charge. Watch her reaction. You get a point for every shade of red or blue she turns.

    @ Rum

    Exactly right. Not sure who first wrote it, but women hate hate hate betas on a visceral level, even if they understand their usefulness on a rational (or even emotional) level. Feminism is a giant shit test.

    @ Jackie

    Other than a giant shit test? Feminism is poorly-defined by design. That’s why you can criticize feminists for saying something and, no matter how vile it is, the nearest feminist will declare, “That’s not real feminism,” and consider the discussion settled. Never mind that no feminist has ever publicly condemned whoever you speak of for their misandry or lies. The few they do are token witch-burnings, mostly of male or conservative feminists.

    If I had to define it, I would say it is the ultimate perfection of the art of nagging. Men and women have flaws endemic to their natures, but one of the foremost flaws in female nature is this: they love to complain more than they love solving problems. One of the flaws endemic to male nature is this: they cannot understand that facet of female nature without guidance, so they will obstinately continue to solve women’s problems despite the continued complaining.

    Civilization harnesses this difference to solve problems. Cavewoman complains that she is cold – man masters fire. Now cavewoman complains that the cave is dusty. Man domesticates sheep and invents weaving. Cavewoman is hungry and tired of meat. Man invents agriculture.

    Feminism harnesses this energy the same way, only when they run out of real problems, they use made-up ones instead – or, better yet, create their own. Raise a generation of betas and omegas, then complain there are no good men left; have three kids by two different alpha thugs, then complain that it’s hard to be a single mom; major in theater, then complain that men make more money. The biggest difference being that when man masters fire, man benefits as much as woman. When man forces other men to pay taxes to support thugspawn, man loses, children lose, civilization scoots a tiny bit closer to collapse, and woman replaces long-term happiness with short-term tingles.

    Feminism also kills the goose that lays the golden egg. I have long since learned that since women complain whether you solve their problems or not, the best solution is to smile and nod at the comforting sound of a familiar complaint, then go about my day normally. I’m no alpha, but I’d make a decent beta provider – and no feminist is ever going to benefit from that beyond the extent of my tax dollars.

  • Esau

    I think there are a lot of murky, difficult and unanswered questions about what the post-feminist culture/society may look like, that the enlightened folk here might find both practical and acceptable; I’ll elaborate on this problem further when I get a longer chance.

    First, though, I’d like to state personally that I will consider the ravages of feminism’s last 30 years to be reversed when it is _not_ taught, as part of polite society, that men are basically bad people, maleness a single-sided original sin. In the interests of both environmental recycling and minor self-promotion, it’s worth linking to this earlier comment of mine, which was somewhat OT then but is right on topic here:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/12/19/hookinguprealities/hookup-culture-rightly-laid-at-feminisms-feet/#comment-83685

    Money quotes: Thus, the betapocalypse: several generations, now, of men being raised to internalize the idea that we are essentially bad, and so their first task becomes to apologize for their maleness and anything connected with it.

    since some time around 1980 in the US poisonous feminism, through its hold on respectable, polite public discourse, became the toxic mother to at least two generations of men

    This is a point very much worth keeping at the front of your mind, as an example of very real, but reversible, damage wrought by latter-day feminism. Of course, I’m hardly original with this idea; another recent example was this comment by the Badger in his den:

    http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/haley-on-titanic-and-alpha-and-beta/#comment-4996

    Quote: “And (this is an absolutely critical point) I don’t think people can underestimate or grok the degree to which an entire generation of men has been brainwashed from youth to be utterly un-masculine.”

    Strangest of all, perhaps, is this congruence from an unlikely source, just today:

    Sub-quote: “while many misogynistic MRAs hurt (a truly extraordinary number of MRAs had abusive second-wave feminist mothers),”

    which appeared on an MRA-bashing thread here

    http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/memo-to-the-mens-rights-movement/#comment-26905

    The main sense is otherwise, but I thought this little clause still deserves an honorable mention all on its own.

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

      @Esau

      Thank you for driving that point home. I fear that I’m guilty of some of that with my own son, though I’ve tried to make up for lost time since taking the red pill myself.

      Feminism is truly insidious in its having achieved the sense that it is morally right, and that dissenters are people of poor character. For those of us who grew up in its clutches, there were changes to be happy about (as a woman), but also the sense that the world was changing in some ways that didn’t feel right. Dinner table conversations became contentious, couples started swapping partners, and the divorce rate skyrocketed. It was uncharted territory, and historians will sort it out in the decades to come.

      By the way, my father was delighted that the Women’s Movement would make it possible for me to “set the world on its ear.” (Didn’t happen, sorry Dad!) No one understood then what all the unintended consequences would be. I daresay some of those 60s era feminists would be rather horrified at the state of feminism today. The inmates took over the asylum a long time ago.

  • djb

    Feminism is about maximizing female autonomy. This blog is about relationships. I don’t believe SW would challenge the basic aspects of female autonomy won by feminists. Women can divorce, choose to give birth or not, even choose not to be a mother after birth, all without the input of a man. She can also seek government support in any of these decisions via Child Support, alimony (to the extent it still exists), and AFDC and a myriad other government programs or institutions. At the same time many women were fighting for such reproductive autonomy, several pioneering men were fighting for the right to separate sex from reproduction . Witness the rise of porn, “Playboy,” “Hustler,” etc. I gained a new respect for these men after watching “The U.S. v. Larry Flint.” But these competing visions of autonomy posed a problem. After all, sex without commitment is a kind of autonomy, but if most men seek this kind of autonomy, then where is female choice? If men only want sex, then does a woman who wants a relationship have a choice? Over thousands of years, human culture has developed pair-bond systems that solved this problem. In short, both men and women agreed to limit autonomy. The man agrees to invest in a relationship in exchange for sexual access. On the other hand, women incent male investment by limiting autonomy. Feminism is ultimately irrelevant, it is but the latest marital boom-bust cycle in human history. The Romans went through it. Until the exchange is reset at a level acceptable to both men and women, then the problem of feminism has not been solved. I see no desire among most women to reset the exchange, thus there is no solution in the foreseeable future. Patriarchy, which not only represented oppression, but a system of reciprocal obligations, must return. But not in my lifetime.

  • http://www.4stargazer.wordpress.com Anacaona

    @Ofthecut
    That could be your contribution to gender issues in a blog. I was also raised very frugally because my mother wanted four kids but in this culture is hard to make people understand that. So it would be good if we could have more info on how to reframe our expenses so children wouldn’t cost as much as a lamborghini according to some calculations. Just a suggestion as usual YMMV.

  • Jackie

    @ Odds (# 154)

    Hi Odds,

    Thanks so much for your well-written response to my question about feminism. :) I do appreciate a good turn of phrase, and “the ultimate perfection of the art of nagging” is one for sure.

    You sound like an incredibly intelligent and well-spoken man. I hope you find a really great girl who appreciates you. (And with no nagging! :) )
    Jackie

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Obligatory Solomon II classic on alpha males co-opting feminism to push down beta males. Watch him work the whiteknighting to his advantage!

    http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/proverb-3-the-bright-side-of-feminism/

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “That is highly admirable, and so unusual in our consumerist culture. You and Mrs. C have my respect for living with that kind of discipline. My husband and I travel less, eat out less, go to fewer ticketed events, etc. than most of our friends. Honestly, I just don’t feel the need. I’d rather sit around a fire at home with dear friends or family than go see some expensive show. But that’s partly a function of age, I think.”

    Another reason to have an active sex life – you get your couple’s entertainment for free!

  • VJ

    Me, I just want to know why it’s got a near bi-nomial distribution by year, replicated over several years, and essentially showing many of the same features. A visit to the site cited did not help here either. But ‘crash & burn’ this a’int, it’s a settling into a slow ‘stasis’ of near irrelevance perhaps, but it’s pretty un-dramtic overall. Do the same for ‘intellectual’ or ‘reading’ or ‘classics’ or perhaps even ‘reading Latin Classics for intellectual growth’. That died about the turn of the century. No, the Last one! Cheers, ‘VJ’

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

      @VJ

      But ‘crash & burn’ this a’int, it’s a settling into a slow ‘stasis’ of near irrelevance perhaps, but it’s pretty un-dramtic overall.

      Agreed. It’s the lack of relevance that makes it impossible to recruit new followers. Most women just don’t feel the need to promote female supremacy – the movement has become a haven for extremists. Someone recently posed as a radfem on a membership only forum, and what they found there was incredible – women suggesting that the males in the species be eradicated – a “final solution.”

      This has had the effect of alienating many women who would have called themselves feminists two decades ago but not now. Overall, the size of the feminist army is shrinking rapidly, and the Google traffic reflects that. They will become as much an anachronism at the Latin scholars.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I agree with the earlier commenter who said that men need to redefine masculinity for the post-feminist era. It’s the natural response to the male crisis – I predict a whole industry springing up around it. In fact, the blog The Art of Manliness has really struck a chord with its nostalgic view of masculinity. Men are hungry for that.”

    The first thing men need to do is stop caring so much what women think about their masculinity, and stop letting women define masculinity with all of this man-up nonsense. Masculinity has to be felt intrinsically and between men, not simply as a sequela of female approval of a man’s way of being.

    Let’s just say that sigmas already have a huge head start in this, because we aren’t really caught up in other people’s judgments, and are going to clean up in the coming generation.

    Odds,

    “I have long since learned that since women complain whether you solve their problems or not, the best solution is to smile and nod at the comforting sound of a familiar complaint, then go about my day normally.”

    Indeed – the no-win situation means you can do whatever you want!

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/01/winning-no-win-game.html

  • Jackie

    @ Susan Walsh (#160)

    Hey Susan!

    Have you ever heard of the author Taylor Caldwell? I ask because she predicted these same results nearly 50 years ago in her writing. My dad and I were discussing her memoir _On Growing Up Tough_ where she trashes feminism with pungent British wit. (The chapter is “On Women’s Lib” I believe.)

    The interesting thing is, this book was written in the 1970s, before any of the long-reaching changes had unfurled. (That would be right in the middle of the ERA Amendment, I think? Please correct me if I’m wrong.) She predicted the rise in promiscuity, the difficulty women would have in getting married and how a steady stream of value-less sex would affect the men.

    In her view, feminism wanted women to become pseudo-men (I think that was her phrase) and they shouldn’t complain when men became “the soft creatures of the house” in response. She said “women’s lib” would only bring women more work, would enact a kind of cultural Marxism, and the subsequent degradation of the home. She also extolled an appreciation of masculinity (“Pioneering in Kentucky”) in another chapter.

    She was a prolific fiction writer with an incredible life story. Her family emigrated to America, at 15 her dad pulled her out of school to put her to work in a factory. She went to school at night after laboring with machines all day, and *then*, long after midnight, was when she worked on her writing. I think you would find her memoir most interesting. Sorry for digressing! :)

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

      @Jackie

      Taylor Caldwell! A blast from the past! I recall reading her fiction when I was in my late teens and early 20s. I’ll pick up her memoir – that sounds like something I’d enjoy. Is she still alive? I’d love to hear her views on how it all turned out.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    In the spirit of advice to the typical HUS readership, the Badger weaves out of his den to speak his mind (because he does so very rarely).

    1. Find the good in men. Make it a habit, actually, to find good qualities in everybody. Be honest – don’t oversell, and be ready to call a bitch a bitch and an asshole an asshole – but lean to the positive. This will hopefully work against the culturally-ingrained tendency to be resentful and rejectionary of the men around you.

    http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/how-to-find-good-men/

    2. Now that you’ve done (1), develop some real habits of empathy for men. It’s a tough world for guys; as this thread itself shows, guys are taught and expected to be everything and more at different times, flipping at the drop of a hat. When a guy brings up a problem or a challenge in his life, don’t let your first reaction be a knee-jerk instinctual concern for your own self-interest ahead of his. An inability to empathize with the opposite sex is nothing less than a personality defect.

    If you’re really committed to the meme that “life is good for boys,” seriously consider an attitude adjustment, because it’s not, and if you think it is, you’re hung up on the poor-mouthing, that “my problems are bigger than your problems, dammit!”

    3. Don’t be argumentative. Just don’t. If you are, change it. (I did and my life has improved tremendously. You should have seen me a decade ago!) Going back to empathy, if you can’t really listen to another person’s point of view without viscerally moving to invalidate their side of the story before they’re even finished talking, consider a mantra for the next time you get into a discussion with a man: “stop thinking and listen.”

    If you’re someone who just HAS to be right, become a cop or a teacher or a high-powered surgeon, someone whose job is to be the boss for better or worse. Don’t become a partner to another human being whose hopes and dreams will slowly wither under the force of your need to always have the last word.

    Probably the best thing you can do to move from ladder 2 to ladder 1 is to be enjoyable and value-added to be around when the situation is NOT sexual – eating breakfast, running errands, being excited to see your partner when you come home from work/get out of class, encouraging and taking pride in your man’s hobbies and interests, the things that really get his motor going. It’s rare, and so it’s no surprise that so many relationships are a race of “how long do I have to listen to her chatter before I can just have sex with her” and “how much do I have to fake being interested in him to keep access to his resources and social proof?”

  • Odds

    @ Badger

    I hadn’t seen that post, but it’s spot-on. That’s awesome – get the word out.

    As for masculinity, I agree that it has to be independent of what women think. That sets it apart from femininity, perhaps – if women were left to define femininity, it would optimistically include short hair and muffin tops, to say nothing of the behavioral aspects. But one of the funny things about that is how it pays off with girls to just be unapologetic about one’s masculinity in today’s world.

    It’s the little things that really let you know you’re doing it right. No girl I’ve known has come right out and said, “You’re so masculine, Odds!” But I’ve heard things like, “We just assumed you’d be good at billiards/poker/barbecuing.” Not that I actually am good at every manly skill (don’t have the coordination for billiards), but that they’re just assuming it is satisfying.

    @ Jackie

    Appreciate the compliment. I’ll keep it in mind while I try to get one plate spinning this week.

    @ Esau

    I see a postfeminist world going one of two ways: Either the “all is forgiven” route of the ultimate mangina victory, or the “Not again bitch” route of the ultimate scorned beta victory. Middle ground feels unlikely to me.

    In the former case, it’s basically riding the carousel and then finding a provider on a societal level – with all the long-term stability and emotional satisfaction that implies (sarcasm carries poorly over text, so I’ll spell it out for certain third parties: “not very much”). Picture a resurgence of feminism thirty years down the line, when the next generation and a half get wind of the “freedoms” their mothers had but are too young to have seen the consequences firsthand. This is probably the more likely scenario.

    In the latter case, I expect women will keep the vote and continue to dominate make-work jobs in HR and bureaucracies everywhere, so they’ll still have a lot of low-level power in politics and the workforce, but that large-scale reforms will eliminate a lot of social power. Think limits on welfare for single moms, the divorce pendulum swinging way back in favor of men (perhaps too far, but even knowing that injustice doesn’t cure injustice can’t make me feel too bad about this), and a kind of tension between men’s demand that women put out early and the need for women to avoid promiscuity that makes the current anxieties seem like a drop in a bucket. Think marriage by 25 at the latest, and possibly legalized prostitution. Basically betas stepping up en masse and refusing to put up with nonsense. This strikes me as unlikely, but possible if enough guys can finally see that supplicating doesn’t work, learn game, and take advantage of things when our standard of living hits a low enough point. In the off-chance feminism is a genetic trait, and not just an exploitation of a genetic flaw like I think it is, this scenario could also come to pass just by outbreeding feminists.

    Neither outcome is balanced, but one is less unwise on men’s part.

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

      if women were left to define femininity, it would optimistically include short hair and muffin tops

      Odds is on such a roll!

      a kind of tension between men’s demand that women put out early and the need for women to avoid promiscuity that makes the current anxieties seem like a drop in a bucket.

      We’re already there – see Badger’s latest post. I’ve written about it too – a clear example of opposing mating strategies where compromise is increasingly unlikely. It’s adversarial – one winner, one loser. There will be cases, of course, where men wait and get the girl anyway, and where women put out and get the guy regardless. But those are highwire moves in this SMP, and it’s going to get worse.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “Contemporary culture, heavily influenced by feminism, provides few incentives for romantic attachment. We expect and pursue physical intimacy before emotional intimacy. Attachment is a high stakes game.”

    This was an interesting point. Just from knowing where you stand on the issues, my guess is you think emotional intimacy should precede the physical? It’s not just women you have to convince of that. There are two sides to everything going on these days.

    Re: Feminism: I assume your indictment is of 2nd and especially (yuck) 3rd wave? Radical mass movements and other “isms” tend to make me immediately suspicious. By any reasonable definition, I’d probably fall into the 1st wave camp anyway. My marriage is relatively egalitarian, though I handle all the finances (professional specialty).

    While it’s true that narcissism is on the rise, and there’s been a corresponding rise in the hookup scene (hedonism by any other name), I’m not sure socio-political developments are solely to blame. I believe Jean Twenge found that celebrity culture and the Internet were as responsible as permissive parenting.

    Re: Women rejecting “feminized” men and preferring “manly” men. This is mostly true, but think there’s a limit to it. As you’ve mentioned before, so-called beta traits are highly valued by women seeking relationships, and are essential for family development.

    However, the whole metrosexual phenomenon was a complete joke. Is it even around anymore? I know it’s still alive in S.F. but those guys aren’t relationship-minded. They just want to sleep around but still throw off the “sensitive” vibe : )

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

      @Megaman

      This was an interesting point. Just from knowing where you stand on the issues, my guess is you think emotional intimacy should precede the physical?

      I believe that it is very, very difficult to begin a relationship without emotional intimacy, and adding physical intimacy makes it even worse. Emotional reticence combined with getting naked, i.e. vulnerable, is the norm today, and it’s highly dysfunctional.

      Re: Feminism: I assume your indictment is of 2nd and especially (yuck) 3rd wave? Radical mass movements and other “isms” tend to make me immediately suspicious. By any reasonable definition, I’d probably fall into the 1st wave camp anyway. My marriage is relatively egalitarian, though I handle all the finances (professional specialty).

      I think there were some good things that came out of the second wave. I personally benefited, and I’ve appreciated the opportunities for women in education and the workplace. For me, that falls under the gender equity objective. My marriage is also fairly egalitarian, and my husband also handles the finances, and has the final say on money matters or expenditures.

      I believe Jean Twenge found that celebrity culture and the Internet were as responsible as permissive parenting.

      No question! However, I would say there’s a strong dose of feminism in culture – take Sex and the City. That show is probably the largest cultural influence in promoting feminism and casual sex that we’ve seen in the last 50 years.

      Women rejecting “feminized” men and preferring “manly” men. This is mostly true, but think there’s a limit to it. As you’ve mentioned before, so-called beta traits are highly valued by women seeking relationships, and are essential for family development.

      To be clear, I don’t consider male beta traits feminine. When I refer to feminized men I am generally speaking about submissiveness, and masculinized women are dominant.

  • Mike C

    testing

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Badger # 150

    Dude-how’d I get included? I’ve been in a self-imposed timeout since our editor upbraided me for going “off topic” (query: Didn’t Harvard use to have a club devoted to “Off Topic Debate”? I remember an article about it, probably in the 70s). I’ve been totally chill. Plus had to look up “sambuca”-I wasn’t sure what sort of aspersion you were casting my way.

    Love your pic BTW-those Horned Frogs be bad devils. Saw them destroy our season live. Their linebackers be for real dog! Patterson is still a pig; good coach, but a pig.

    Your post #166; I agree, but you don’t sound like no Idaho Badger to me. They only come outta’ da’ ground to chew you balls off. Your post is more Dr. Phil by way of Bishop Fulton Sheen. Wait, you’re drawing them out, getting them in range ‘cuz Badgers one limitation is they ain’t real fast; determined but a little slow. You’re letting them get close so you can tear them a new one. Ok I’ll be quiet.

  • GudEnuf

    Susan: “I fear that I’m guilty of some of that with my own son, though I’ve tried to make up for lost time since taking the red pill myself.”

    Ooh ooh tell us more! What did pre-red pill Susan do to her son?

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

      Ooh ooh tell us more! What did pre-red pill Susan do to her son?

      Probably the worst thing I did was hammer home the need to be respectful of women at all times. Over time I’ve come to understand that respect is something that must be earned, not granted on account of gender.

  • purplesneakers

    Odds-

    As for the last paragraph, about getting educated enough to work, and the choice to work or stay home, your reasoning is sound. The problem is choice – choice for women, not for men. I don’t begrudge any woman hedging her bets and preparing for every possible contingency. I would do the same (though with women, they have to be careful they don’t narrow the pool of available men they consider “worthy” beyond their ability to actually snag one). Where you see justified resentment from men is that we don’t have that choice. You have the luxury of facing social approval either for working, or not. Househubbies don’t get that. Moreover, part of what is cheapening college degrees is how many women are getting them and not using them; that’s also making it harder for men who will be more likely to use them to obtain them. Colleges are largely state-subsidized, so that choice is, on a macro level, hurting society.

    Well, as Susan pointed out, feminism has actually made it so that many women who leave the workforce to be SAHM’s do get criticized a lot. And I think a feminist corollary to that is to celebrate SAHD’s just for doing the same thing SAHM’s do (but get feminist-shamed for).

    Though in the mainstream- point taken. But I wonder how many men really want to be the one to stay at home to take care of the kids and cook/clean while their wife works. If they feel embarrassed to be doing that, is it because of internalized social attitudes toward SAHDs or because in doing that, some sort of deep-rooted drive to defend and provide goes haywire? I’m not saying it’s one or the other-I’m really wondering how different men would feel about this.

    As for the cheapening of college degrees- no doubt. But I thought it was not necessarily because of more girls going to college, but because of the nature of the degrees- liberal arts majors, which, outside of top schools, are not much help in securing a job (and these are the ones that women choose disproportionately, compared to STEM fields). What’s cheapening college degrees is that, at least in NYC, a bachelor’s degree is a requirement even just to do filing and make coffee. The degree itself is useful only insofar as it meets a somewhat arbitrary requirement not necessary for the actual duties of the job. And I’m not sure I follow the last part- if college degrees have been cheapened because so many more women (and people in general.. it’s not like men from middle class or working class families used to go to college in huge numbers) are going to college, how does that make it harder for a man to get a degree? Does women going to college necessarily mean that men are being denied admission?

    I think the U.S. needs a big push towards better math and science education, for both boys and girls, starting from an earlier age. Even in India, where at least 30% of seats at engineering colleges are set aside under actual quotas for women and certain castes, there is not nearly so much animosity between the sexes when it comes to issues of educational access.

    Also, iirc, most of the articles over the past ~15 yrs about women leaving the workforce to be stay at home moms probably did focus on the top 10% or so- mostly professional women, lawyers and doctors. Unlike a college degree, I don’t think those degrees (well, not MD’s anyway) have been cheapened yet, so I think people get angrier about that.

    Fun game to play: tell any woman alive, friend or stranger, that your boyfriend or husband is in charge. Watch her reaction. You get a point for every shade of red or blue she turns.

    Haha. Maybe any American woman? My dad’s secretary (Indian woman, raised in India.. married at age 18) said that she believes that men are right about things when women are wrong, generally speaking, using the example of how she thinks my dad will be wrong about something and him coming out to be right in the end with his decision. To be honest, I kind of had an internal reaction of ‘that sounds so wrong,’ but of course I’m not going to argue with my dad’s employee, especially when she’s praising him! (BTW, none of the other women present, all Indian-raised women, found this contestable) This is something I struggle with.. even though I like the idea of being in a relationship where the man is in charge (mostly.), hearing it said out loud by other women is still kind of jarring, and when I discuss it with female friends, it’s rarely in those terms (chick language!). But I think when you move from the general to specific examples, it’s not so hard for women to swallow. For example, I had a first date with a guy and I suggested that he pick the place since he knew the city better, but he wouldn’t pick a place to meet, even when I narrowed it down to two choices! Total turn-off. I think in this case, a lot more women would understand when a woman says ‘and that’s why… you always leave a note I like my man to be in charge.’ I guess, perhaps sadly, it takes an example of male ‘failure to be a man’ to serve as comparison for ‘My man is in charge’ to not be so contestable.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Mike C,

    Freakin’ awesome band.

  • purplesneakers

    However, the whole metrosexual phenomenon was a complete joke. Is it even around anymore? I know it’s still alive in S.F. but those guys aren’t relationship-minded. They just want to sleep around but still throw off the “sensitive” vibe : )

    It’s been co-opted by hipsters!

  • Mike C

    Badger,

    Yup, I love em, my favorite band, seeing the live show was incredible. Give me them, Queensryche playing Operation Mindcrime, and Disturbed playing one all day show, and I’ll give up my kidney.

    I’ve been going back and forth for 2 years whether to get the symbol tatooed on my shoulder (no tats right now). My GF keeps telling me to just do it.

  • pvw

    Susan Walsh January 17, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    @Escoffier

    . It has become a sign of prestige/badge of honor for a woman to stay home with her kids today. It’s prestigious because it signals that she has her priorities straight and also that they can afford it (i.e., he is making enough money).

    That makes sense – it fits with weaker levels of feminist indoctrination. Still, what percentage of American women can afford to do this? Are we talking about the 1%?

    In your experience, do women flip-flop from career to home because they are entitled? Again, it sounds like you’re saying it’s more a case of women abandoning the priorities of feminism (career) and focusing on traditional female priorities (family).

    My reply:

    That was at the heart of a debate over that NYT magazine article–the Opt-Out Revolution–which was the impetus for my colleague’s book and the debates over feminist theory….

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Yup, I love em, my favorite band, seeing the live show was incredible. Give me them, Queensryche playing Operation Mindcrime, and Disturbed playing one all day show, and I’ll give up my kidney.”

    I loved Patch’s abstract-colored guitar back in the day. I was pretty jacked to hear that DT played the entire Master of Puppets album as a show once.

    “My GF keeps telling me to just do it.”

    Isn’t that what she says every night?

    (BOOM!)

  • troppo

    Re: the graph. The highly consistent seasonal variations raise fascinating scientific questions.
    Hypothesis #1: “feminism” queries are proportional to levels of unhappiness (M or F)
    Looks like a surrogate measure for Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), in which depression symptoms are correlated inversely with day-length. With December holiday positive mood over-riding the SAD briefly.
    Living in sunnier climes with day-length varying by about 90 minutes, I have no local experience of SAD.
    A problem with this hypothesis is that clinical SAD is supposed to be uncommon. Maybe just mild gloominess about the weather is sufficient sadness.
    Proposed experiment: plot searches for other terms which match this seasonal variation: e.g. “self-harm” “suicide methods”, and their antitheses: “sunshine” ” beaker full of the warm south” etc.

  • collegeboy

    Men/boys of today are conformists, they deserve what they get.
    I have talked to many, I’m a moderate, and they see my as a radical when I question the current status quo.

    French Quote: Alexis de Tocqueville – “we get the government we deserve”

    People some how forgot about freedom and liberty: “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

    Take a look at New Hampshire’ s motto: “Live Free or Die” same as in the French Revolution: “Vivre Libre ou Mourir”
    That’s true patriotism.

    —I’m actually part french on my mother side – I think I inherited libertarian gene.

  • collegeboy

    @Susan
    “End Game” is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), or as Susan puts its “Don’t get Attached, Don’t get Attached, Don’t get Attached” and if in doubt “Don’t get Attached” . Its the same thing as “Vivre Libre ou Mourir”

    There are some censored documents on Marxism, that explain how government uses a liberal communitarian policy to enslave every one of its citizens. Like I said I’m a moderate. Neither 100% liberal or 100% libertarian or 100% socialist or 100% fascism will give us freedom. True liberty is somewhere in the middle, if you support one of the extremes your supporting your own enslavement. I understood this before I read the censored anti-communitarian league’s documents.
    1. What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
    2. The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking

    I enrage opportunistic women because they think I should bow down to their beauty. I don’t respect any woman, who doesn’t respect me. And I don’t give my loyalty easily, either. So commitment to an opportunistic woman is an ever growing uphill battle.

    Here’s a good vocabulary word for Susan: opportunism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism
    Its what’s wrong with women who can’t get married. They want something for nothing or they looking for a sucker.

  • ExNewYorker

    @Badger,

    “Obligatory Solomon II classic on alpha males co-opting feminism to push down beta males. Watch him work the whiteknighting to his advantage! ”

    I almost spit up my wine when I read that again. I’d forgotten how Solomon II could get to the heart of the matter with his witty sarcasm…I saw several of my favorite cads pull that move off. Heck, I remember being Billy Beta more than once in the pre-red pill days.

    “Indeed – the no-win situation means you can do whatever you want!”

    Yeah, it does :-) There’s quite a bit of freedom therein that I’d hope every man can follow. Your post on your blog (and Vox’s pingback) really is useful for any guy who wants to learn to act on that freedom…

  • http://umslopogaas.wordpress.com Umslopogaas

    @Charm:

    I dont see that happening. I dont know why people keep trying to turn back time. Its gone so wish it fair well. Not saying I like what feminism has created but we wont just revert back. Not 100% anyway. I like certain aspects of what patriarchy created, but I also like being able to have options as a woman. I dont agree with modern day feminism, but Id be damned if Id go back to the way it was before.”

    If you read up on history you will find that “Feminism” is a repeating theme of mankind. It has popped up time and again in myriads of civilizations, always in the late developmental / decadent stage and always preceding the collapse of same (it has never worked, and never will). Proto-feminism transpired several times before (namely in Sparta, Babylon and the Roman Empire).

    In the case of the Roman Empire ~200AD you had women’s emancipation and increasing female power. In consequence you had changing societal mores and changing laws (no fault divorce).

    Fascinatingly, the consequences were remarkably similar to today. Divorce rates soared, marriages rate fells and men started GTOW. In consequence the Roman population shrunk. Roman emperors made public pleas for men to do their duty (and man up lol) and even instituted ‘Bachelor Taxes’, alas all to no avail.

    Thus, with an ever shrinking manpower pool of Romans…in the final stage of empire Roman Emperors increasingly relied on foreign mercenaries / immigration. This worked in the short run but ultimately lead to the sacking and destruction of Rome by barbarian hordes (422AD).

    So technically you are correct. We won’t go back to Patriarchy. What will happen is that the rotten carcass that is the body politic of the West will shrivel, wither, fester and eventually fall apart under the weight of its own corruption.

    And from its ashes a new Patriarchy will rise…as has always happened…throughout history. In the merciless Darwinian struggle of cultures, Matriarchies *always* lose, Patriarchies *always* win.

    In the eloquent words of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (133 AD):

    If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance. Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”

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

      Hey Umslopogaas, your silence was deafening on my divorce post. And I wrote it just for you :)

  • Kathy

    tvmunson “Narcissism + hedonism + (may I be so bold) materialism= early 21st century America ; you got it said sister. ”

    Dead right Tom. And same with most of the Western World. Australia included.. :(

  • lovelost

    @Badger 161

    http://solomonreborn.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/proverb-3-the-bright-side-of-feminism/

    Strategic advice, in fact quite applicable in the professional setting. encourage her(regional manager) to take the risk and enjoy the results as alpha. hmm, interesting I am getting ideas as to how to use this in my professional life.

  • PV

    Hi Susan:

    I discovered your site a few weeks ago and have learned a lot. I’m about your age with a wonderful husband and hadn’t hear much about this third- wave group.
    Back when second wave feminism came about in the 70’s I agreed with a lot of it’s principles like equal pay and opportunity. In my family the boys had their college paid for and the women had to work their own way through school so, yes, I thought equal opportunity was a great idea.

    This third wave is very scary, particularly the sex-positive feminists, so I thank you so much for talking about it. There’s not much in the main stream media. My daughter is going to be going off to college in a year and I feel so much more prepared (and scared).

    Also, as to women not going into politics at higher levels I don’t agree with Purplesneakers that “women hate women, simple as that.” I’m tired of hearing that stereotype; all women do not think the same anymore than all men think alike. I agree with Susan — there are plenty of women at the lower rungs of politics but fewer running at the upper levels. Simple as that.

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

      @PV

      Welcome, I’m so glad you left a comment. There’s a growing number of parents finding HUS, which isn’t particularly surprising, so I hope you’ll stick around! I encourage you to talk to your daughter as much as possible over the next few months about hookup culture, so that she isn’t unsuspecting prey in the fall.

  • OffTheCuff

    )which appeared on an MRA-bashing thread here http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/memo-to-the-mens-rights-movement/#comment-26905

    The worst kind of feminism is the kind like NSWATM, which pretends to actually care about men. I respect the radfems a lot more for being honest. The problem is more people will take the first group seriously, the latter are just kooks.

  • http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/ Stuart Schneiderman

    Great post, Susan.

    To coin an adage: From your blog to God’s ear.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I would venture to say that the majority of men commenting here equate beta with submissiveness.

  • Escoffier

    “Still, what percentage of American women can afford to do this? Are we talking about the 1%? ”
    Not 1%, more like 10%. Just guestimating though.

    “In your experience, do women flip-flop from career to home because they are entitled? Again, it sounds like you’re saying it’s more a case of women abandoning the priorities of feminism (career) and focusing on traditional female priorities (family).”

    Not really, more like they get a career because that’s what they’re “supposed” to do. Plus they have to earn a living between the time the move out of the home and get married, which can be a decade or more. Plus in blue enclaves it takes serious assets to buy a home so it helps to have two earners for as long as possible. Women don’t quit when they get married, they quit (or scale way back) when they have a kid. There are no working moms on my block and none that I know of at our school, at least not in the lower grades.

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

      @Escoffier

      That’s very interesting, and you’re right, it does represent a sea change from 20 years ago. Thanks for that snapshot. Do you think this shift is related to the feminist agenda in any way – is it a backlash?

  • Escoffier

    Politics is an outgrowth of thumos or assertion which is more common in, and more natural to, the male than the female. Hence in any political system that does not enforce strict “gender equality”–i.e., quotas–men will always outnumber women in high office.

    Sorry, feminists, nature bites you on the bottom once again.

  • lovelost

    @Susan 191
    Over time I’ve come to understand that respect is something that must be earned, not granted on account of gender.

    However, mother’s do impart this personality trait in their son. It’s only when the son becomes a man, receive a kick in the ass, that he realizes, that trust and respect both need to be earned. from my own experience this is the fundamental mistake I have always made with women, respected and trusted them by default.

  • http://thesanctuary-spacetraveller.blogspot.com JT

    “With the demise of feminism comes great opportunity. We can usher in a new era of true gender equity, where each sex is honored and respected for its unique talents and strengths. A society that chooses to celebrate the differences between the sexes rather than invalidate them. ”

    Amen to that, Susan.
    Amen.

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

      @Chris

      That Google ngram blew my mind! I’m curious to know why the peak in the late 90s, and why the sharp dropoff in the mention of feminism in books since then.

      Re the second link, I recently found another study that seeks to identify common ground between evo psych and feminism, and it very much breaks down along the same lines.

      Here’s what I don’t get – if feminists acknowledge physical differences between men and women, and our psychology depends on brain activity and processing, including hormonal fluctuations, then how can one claim that psychology is unrelated to physiology? It makes no sense. The holes in feminist theory are being rapidly revealed by geneticists, who increasingly demonstrate that genes influence, or possibly even determine, behavior.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Charm,

    It seems a lot of men or women dont know the difference between being the leader and being controlling or domineering

    Agreed. I just made this same point on another thread here. A leader takes charge of a situation, not people. A leader in a relationship controls the relationship, not his SO. “Controlling” people try to take charge of others.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Megaman,

    Women rejecting “feminized” men and preferring “manly” men. This is mostly true, but think there’s a limit to it. As you’ve mentioned before, so-called beta traits are highly valued by women seeking relationships, and are essential for family development.

    Yea, I think there’s a real danger here, because what you’re basically saying is that relationship and family oriented men are somehow less “manly.” I’m not sure how others feel about this, but in my opinion the ability to successfully lead your family and care for them are extremely fucking manly. Seems far more manly than spending your life sticking it in strange random holes for some short-term thrills.

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

      I’m not sure how others feel about this, but in my opinion the ability to successfully lead your family and care for them are extremely fucking manly. Seems far more manly than spending your life sticking it in strange random holes for some short-term thrills.

      Indeed. It’s like comparing Atticus Finch to Russell Brand. Women who reward the latter are the “lost girls” of this generation – relegated to the P&D pile, or Ladder 2, as Badger would say.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    The move on the part of feminists to include broader gender issues (homosexuality, transgenderism, etc…) is really just another sign of its incipient demise. It reflects the fact that the movement is losing traction among women and must seek out supporters elsewhere. Also, the move is alienating people from the whole feminist platform. How many women are going to go to bat for a man’s right to wear a skirt to work?

  • Someguy

    Jesus,

    Yes, what is more manly that siring children with a good woman in a relationship of respect and devotion and protecting, leading and providing for your family?

    I think the conflation of beta traits with submission and weakness in general is one of the most unfortunate pitfalls of the wider SMP conversation. It is the result of binary thinking, with alpha viewed as solving the problem of a lack of female companionship and beta as creating more of the same problem. In my experience at least, when you have a problem caused by behavior, the solution is rarely to start doing the complete opposite, but to find a middle path between the extremes.

    It’s hard to pick up on nuance when you’re hyperventilating. Some of the beta-haters seem to have the zeal of the new convert, which contains a grain of self-loathing as well.

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

      @someguy

      Some of the beta-haters seem to have the zeal of the new convert, which contains a grain of self-loathing as well.

      There have been several occasions where I said something that on the face of it would seem to benefit men with beta traits, and I got the biggest pushback from men who share those traits. It’s as if they think I’m trying to make them cough the red pill back up. Maybe one needs to go to extremes first, and then find balance, but I often feel like we’re throwing good behaviors out the window with the undesirable submissive ones.

      I agree with others who have said that men need to define masculinity without input from women. I would just say that isn’t going to be possible if the starting point is what makes women engage in short-term mating.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Someguy,

    what is more manly that siring children with a good woman in a relationship of respect and devotion and protecting, leading and providing for your family?

    The woman can also do that without being “manly”, so thats not the definition of manliness, and there are a lot of things manlier. However, taking care of your family can be plenty of manly (plenty of alpha) if done by a man.

    I think the conflation of beta traits with submission and weakness in general is one of the most unfortunate pitfalls of the wider SMP conversation.

    But you´re subscribing to a concept that equals beta with family and nurturing. Which doesnt make sense either, because in nature the beta is sexless and doesnt produce offspring.

    Beta: Putting always other people above of you, living by other people standards, being reactive, submissive, with lack of inner value, overcompensating, never wanting to offend, etc etc etc are “beta” traits. If you have too much of that, you end up in a “beta frame” and the world treats you as such.

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

      Which doesnt make sense either, because in nature the beta is sexless and doesnt produce offspring.

      Beta baboons avoid battling with alpha for sex, but wind up getting a lot of it anyway.

      Not only is the average brutish alpha likely to “go down in a hail of bullets,” Sapolsky explained, but scientists are now finding that even the most successful alphas are often out-reproduced by lower-ranking males who have taken up “alternative strategies” to tribe life. Modern primatology has uncovered surprisingly strong reproductive rates among male baboons who have dropped out of the male-male nonsense altogether. Those “highly affiliated nice guys”–who went largely unstudied during what Sapolsky calls the “idiot, caveman, chest-thumping era of primatology”–spend most of their time hanging out with the females, picking bugs out of each other’s fur, and playing with the kids. And, when the alpha isn’t looking, scuttling off to the bushes with his best girl for what has become known as “sneaky copulation.”

      http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/08/11/346799/index.htm

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Kathy # 183

    First person to call me Tom; thanks. I’m usually referred to a Munson, which has the vaguest tone of hostility.

    I doubt there’s much new in our equation. I hope I’m not being too facile, but nearly all societies have wanted a citizenry made of of constructively engaged consumers. Trouble starts when too many people have too much time on their hands and/or have too man unmet needs. Keep ‘em employed, keep dangling more and more baubles for them to aspire to and obtain, be able to provide both the opportunity to attain them and the objects themselves, and everything is chill. Narcissism, hedonism and materialism filter out of this like moonshine from a backwoods still. Combining all 3 is when men (mostly; not always) turn in their “old” wife for a new model the way they would a car.

    Don’t think much changes as you go to the more socialist model. More emphasis on security as opposed to “reaching for the brass ring” perhaps, maybe a slight muting of the Big 3 but consume consume consume is still the order of the day.

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

      First person to call me Tom; thanks. I’m usually referred to a Munson, which has the vaguest tone of hostility.

      As I recall, you instructed us to call you Munson. What do you prefer? (Note: We do have one Tom, and I don’t think you want to be confused with him. :) )

  • Mike C

    Keep ‘em employed, ****keep dangling more and more baubles for them to aspire to***** and obtain,

    It is very freeing when you realize that you don’t need most of the crap the marketing MACHINE is set up to convince you need. Actually, in my view rampant consumerism is intimately connected to hypergamy and status. It is what drives the desire for the bigger house in the more upscale neighborhood and keeps on the wheel. Cars are built to last 10-15 years, there is no reason to upgrade every 3 years and always have a car payment.

    Which lead to whole 2 income issue. As OTC illustrates you don’t really need it, but it necessitates taking a chainsaw to unnecessary expenditures and clearly delineating between what you really NEED versus what you just want.

    Book recommendation – Your Money or Your Life….this should change the way you think about money, your time, a

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yohami,

    Beta: Putting always other people above of you

    If this is beta, then I’d have to say that some of the manliest men in history are beta. Sacrificing yourself for something or someone other than yourself is practically the definition of a hero. And in literature, the character who puts his own needs above all others is typically referred to as the “anti-hero.”

    Samurai gave their lives in the service of lords, for example. I can’t imagine anybody thinking of them as “unmanly” for it.

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

      @Jesus

      Beta: Putting always other people above of you

      If this is beta, then I’d have to say that some of the manliest men in history are beta

      Like your namesake.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I agree with others who have said that men need to define masculinity without input from women. I would just say that isn’t going to be possible if the starting point is what makes women engage in short-term mating.

    +1,000,000

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @JM
    That wasn’t my particular POV, but if it came across that way, whoops. I don’t really like all the generalized labels that get thrown around. Everyone’s a different mix of personality traits. But I’ve observed in the popular culture and experienced first hand on the ground the view that guys who want relationships and are open to raising children (and I’m one of them) are for lack of a better word substandard? This opinion seems to come from both men and women, strangely. The idea of the perpetual bachelor who engages in sexual conquest is perceived to be the norm, even though it’s not what most men do or want. Though I recall you giving it a try at one point : )

  • deti

    “So what is true gender equity in a relationship? Should that even be goal, when most women want men to be more dominant, and men want women to be more deferential, generally speaking?”

    Married couples have to find their own equilibrium, so to speak. Athol Kay’s Captain/First Officer model is best. The man is the captain, woman is first officer. It’s a very bad fit with the gender roles reversed. Both tend to be grindingly unhappy if wife is captain and husband is first officer.

    In my marriage I always have final say in major decisions, but no major decision is ever made without Mrs. deti’s input. Mrs. deti can be very persuasive when she wants to be. If she has strong beliefs about something, I always consider it and she’s been known to change my mind. If we still disagree, we go with what I decide.

    Mrs. deti has a wide berth to make day to day executive decisions on her own without my input. I determine monthly budgets and she spends freely within them. She must have discretion to make decisions like this to keep things running smoothly. My time is consumed with determining the overall course of the marriage and the family, and earning income. I neither can, nor have any inclination to, micromanage or supervise Mrs. deti’s responsible spending. All I need to know is when we are close to expending the limit at any particular time.

    The secret is to select a responsible, trustworthy first officer with good character and administrative capabilities. The captain must be able to trust in her abilities and that she will not abandon ship or call a mutiny.

    The first officer above all must trust her captain and willingly subordinate herself to his leadership. The captain has to have a steady hand on the ship’s wheel and provide firm leadership. That’s not always easy. Sometimes the captain has to say no and tell the first officer to fall in line.

    The captain need not make 100% correct decisions all the time. But for the first officer to maintain confidence in the captain’s leadership, the decisions he makes must be workable and ones that all can live with even if the outcomes are not optimal.

    Mrs. deti has been a SAHM for 12 years. It hasn’t been easy, and we’ve had to forego a lot of vacations and discretionary income. When our youngest goes to school, she will look for part time work.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Megaman,

    Though I recall you giving it a try at one point : )

    I also tried skinny jeans once, but I don’t want to be defined by it.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Like your namesake.

    Yup, like him. And many others.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @SW
    “I agree with others who have said that men need to define masculinity without input from women. I would just say that isn’t going to be possible if the starting point is what makes women engage in short-term mating.”

    I need an education on this — what’s the starting point?

    Perhaps men who aren’t getting their relationship needs met could do this. But I’m not sure men as a whole will ever agree on what’s truly “masculine”. IMO there’s way too much diversity of behavior and opinion.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Megaman,

    You don’t have to wait for a consensus. You decide for yourself.

  • Jackie

    @MikeC (#210)

    +100000

    I just recommended that book (YMOYL) to Babydoll, a few threads back. It totally changed the way I think about money.

    (Also, well said about cars. I just got rid of my first car– I kept it 10 years! And paid for the second car, cash. :-) )

  • Butterfly Flower

    Not really, more like they get a career because that’s what they’re “supposed” to do. Plus they have to earn a living between the time the move out of the home and get married, which can be a decade or more. Plus in blue enclaves it takes serious assets to buy a home so it helps to have two earners for as long as possible. Women don’t quit when they get married, they quit (or scale way back) when they have a kid. There are no working moms on my block and none that I know of at our school, at least not in the lower grades.

    Does anyone else think the whole “moving out at 18” and push for early financial independence, has led to the modern SMP?

    In Japan, it’s normal for young women to live with their parents until marriage. Their office jobs are primarily for funding luxuries [shoes, handbags, make-up, karaoke] and saving for a wedding – achieving complete independence is not a common pursuit.

    Here’s an essay written by an American Feminist, condemning the Japanese “Office Lady” lifestyle: http://wrt-intertext.syr.edu/vi/forrest.html

    Japanese women getting married young and not aspiring to climb the corporate ladder??? *gasp*

  • Jackie

    @ Jesus Mahoney (#211)

    This is very well said:

    If this is beta, then I’d have to say that some of the manliest men in history are beta. Sacrificing yourself for something or someone other than yourself is practically the definition of a hero

    I was thinking about my parents’ marriage. Most of the people here would deem him a beta, omega or something nerdy. But he would lay down his life for his family and to my mom (and the rest of us), that made him super-titanium alpha. :)

  • collegeboy

    @Jesus

    Beta is about being gullible. Gullibility is not a virtue.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    collegeboy,

    Stick around. There are more definitions of beta around here than there are books crowding my apartment.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Jackie,

    That’s awesome. And, btw, that makes him alpha in my eyes as well. Well, not alpha, since I don’t believe in alphas. But it does make him a man in my eyes.

  • Escoffier

    “That’s very interesting, and you’re right, it does represent a sea change from 20 years ago. Thanks for that snapshot. Do you think this shift is related to the feminist agenda in any way – is it a backlash?”

    I think it is, in part, a backlash. Your generation (and women a little older) in the middle class and above were made to feel guilty and unworthy if they did not have “careers” (not just jobs). Later generations seem to resent that. You can find female-written tracts that argue, in effect, “If feminism is supposed to be about choice, why I can’t I legitimately choose to stay with my kids?”

    Also, don’t discount the Dr. Laura effect. I really have no idea to what extent she was the big player in this, she’s just the one who first resonated with me. But in (say) 1980, you heard not one voice anywhere in the culture saying that day care, etc., was a bad idea unless absolutely necessary. By 2000, that message was easy to find, if not universally accepted. IME, women are staying home with their kids both because they want to and because they think it is the right thing to do. No one in my mother’s generation (and she’s older than you) felt that way in 1980.

    Plus, let’s face it, the careerist utopia turned out not to be so pleasant after all. There are a handful of super go-getter women who absolutely love what they do but they are rare, rarer than the me who love what they do, and they surely are not a majority of employed men. Most work, even easy female office work, just … sucks.

    I think we confuse impressions with substance. 20-something big city career gals seem very happy. And superficially they are. They like their incomes, their freedom, their friends, going to bars and parties, dating, etc. All of this their jobs make possible. They don’t so much love their work per se, they love what it enables.

    Also, they love the sense of possibilty. At 25, the outcome of the race is still unclear. Any one girl might still think herself the exception, the one whose career will catch fire and zoom her up the ranks. By 30 it’s pretty clear if that’s still a realistic possibilty or not. If not, homemaking starts to look a lot better.

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

      @Escoffier

      Your story reminds me of the dinner with Kate Bolick. She asked the young women to state individually whether they would prioritize career or having and caring for a family. All of them said family without hesitation. I was surprised, but it fits with what you’re saying – this generation is not going to feel compelled to go for the big career, and they’re not ashamed to say so. In fact, one of those young women has since abandoned a lifelong dream of becoming an MD to go for an NP instead. She believes it will afford a good salary, much of the same job satisfaction, and a much better lifestyle for her future family.

  • Ted D

    Well, part of the problem here is that many people seem to associate beta with cowardly. In my worst beta days, I would have given my life to protect my family. I have known a few VERY shy/introverted guys that would literally jump on a grenade to save their family. But those same guys would never be labelled an Alpha by any standard I’ve seen. And, I think this is something that women get wrong a lot.

    Just because a guy isn’t pushy, loud, arrogant, and generally “alpha”, doesn’t mean that they cannot protect you, and that they would not take a bullet for you. What it means is, he isn’t going to be the one starting the trouble that got the gun out in the first place. I generally try to avoid conflict when possible, and from time to time even take a submissive stance during an altercation to avoid escalating violence, but that doesn’t mean I am not capable of pummeling someone into a bloody heap if they threaten the people I love. It means I won’t resort to violence until all other avenues have been exhausted. Not because I am afraid, but that I realize no one wins if things get physical. And, if something bad is going to happen, it will happen when things GET physical.

  • Someguy

    Yohami,

    There are so many species in nature with so many variations that the alpha-beta dichotomy cannot possibly cover it all. Among ants and spiders, for example, the dominant sex is female.

    I view the terms for their value of analysis and guidance, but not determination. I don’t see beta as inherently submissive, but the slope does seem to point that way.

    I mean, guys state that “women hate hate hate betas”, which translated really means “some women feel contempt for people that they can manipulate, or that show weaknesses that they themselves possess”. And that may be all well and true, but there are also beautiful women of character who appreciate beta traits (not submissive traits, beta traits), there just isn’t a ton of them and they don’t crave comfort-building betahood 24-7 (who does?).

    I say this a lifelong beta who ended up getting “promoted” to fake player status when I decided that relationships were impossible and just went for the punani. I’m in a situation now with a hot new girl who is very sweet on me, and I realize that my fears of being too beta are making me paranoid and denying her something she really wants — in moderation, of course.

  • mark

    Susan asked: “I’m not sure what you mean. Are you referring to laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, race, etc? Why would we want to abolish those? Why should we need to discriminate?”

    Yes, that is what I’m referring to. One reason we would want to abolish those laws is because they smack of totalitarianism. Another reason is because they deny people the right to freely associate which includes the right to exclude.

    The motives for discriminating will vary from person to person. You might not need to discriminate, but someone else might need to and should have the legal right to do so.
    Susan, do you favor Affirmative Action, too?</b?
    =======================
    Susan also wrote: "Negotiation re gender roles is the only way forward.”

    I don’t know why you think that. Women are not going to negotiate in good faith as long as they know that if they don’t get what they want they can always run to the government and/or file a civil lawsuit. That is one of the reasons women should be completely and permanently disenfranchised.

    =======================
    And this: “Because few of those women will have children, their ability to indoctrinate future generations is extremely limited.

    But they occupy teaching positions at all levels and will continue to indoctrinate future generations unless and until they are removed and legally prohibited from such positions—which they should be.

    ======================
    And also this: “Women can and should play a role in hastening the death of feminism.
    But they won’t because they benefit from it legally more than they are harmed by it.
    ============
    Susan wrote: “Social rights equity, socioeconomical competition under an a-gendered meritocracy, and an education system that promotes gender differentiation / allows each gender and individual person to play at their unique strengths.

    Gosh, I don’t know what planet you’re living on.
    This new society you mention just above will be overseen and rigorously enforced by the government, too—right? It will have to be! Other wise you won’t get your social equity/equality here just like you don’t get it anywhere else in the world unless you have an oppressive government.

    What are you going to do when the outcome isn’t what you like? You’ll demand more quotas, more business/contractor set asides, more Affirmative Action, and encourage more civil lawsuits—that’s what!

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    I’d say the deeper problem is that men are defining alpha/beta in terms of what will win the most women. People conceive of “beta” as anything that turns women off, or even, anything that doesn’t get them into bed quickly. And of course, anything that turns women on and gets them into bed is thought of as “alpha.”

    The problem with this (one of the many), is that by defining alpha/beta (and, indirectly, masculinity) in terms of what women like means letting women own the frame. In other words, in this view, women are the barometer for what is masculine.

    The entire way of thinking seems weak and mediocre and too “other” centered.

  • Jackie

    @Jesus Mahoney (#228)

    Thanks! :-) I don’t think my dad is there stereotypical “alpha” at all. He is such a sweet and gentle man! Like the dad in Little Women, who was a pastor if I recall correctly.

    But he is unquestionably the best father I could have asked for: He is absolutely devoted to his family, took care of my mom through her illness until her death, would lay down his life for his children, writes me an old-fashioned snail-mail letter every week and inspires me to be a true lady. *sniff* Love you, Dad. :)

  • collegeboy

    @Susan
    Susan: There have been several occasions where I said something that on the face of it would seem to benefit men with beta traits, and I got the biggest pushback from men who share those traits. … Maybe one needs to go to extremes first, and then find balance,…
    -I reached the same conclusion. that’s why I give up. people need to learn by experience.

    I think its the boiling frog phenomena (throw a frog in boiling water, it survives vs heat the water slowly it dies) .

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Jackie,

    That’s the problem with stereotypes. For what it’s worth, “alpha” is really just an indicator of social status. Nobody here, from Ted to Yohami, is alpha. We’re all beta in the strictest sense. Despite what society as a whole may think, I esteem men like your father much higher than guys who can make gobs of money and bed women easily.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    Sacrificing yourself for something or someone other than yourself is practically the definition of a hero. And in literature, the character who puts his own needs above all others is typically referred to as the “anti-hero.”

    Its manly when its done for ideals, honor, principles, abstract stuff. Putting the ideals above of the man. The ideals come with a ladder, and some men fill the upper steps on these ladders. When men, soldiers, samurais die for their generals, its for the “general”, they respect the rank and what it represents, its not for the “person”, but in name of justice, order, moral, doing whats right, etc. All of that is plenty of manly.

    Putting a specific PERSON above of you ceases to be manly.

    The soldiers / samurais also sacrifice their generals and presidents if they discover their superiors are betraying the code. The code is whats important. Not the person.

  • Herb

    Activism happens when people are affected personally. You won’t see women advocating for men’s clubs, or protesting a women’s gym. We are all self-interested creatures.

    I don’t care if they don’t advocating for men’s clubs or protest a women’s gym.

    But I want them to stop suing when men create men’s only spaces or forcing their way into them to the point of destroying them. I’m sure it’s not your favorite site, but the Spearhead has a classic example. When I see other women telling the women who do stuff like that to knock it off, grow up, and start their own class then I’ll believe feminism is on the decline.

    I once heard feminism defined as the belief that somewhere, someplace is a man enjoying himself without a woman there to ruin it and women need to put a stop to it.

  • deti

    A post-feminist world will probably look a little like Odds’ latter scenario. Mark’s vision of women receiving brutal payback is in some respects already here; more “payback” than “brutal”.

    I suspect women en masse will have a lot less social power as the costs of feminism become more and more unsustainable. Welfare to single moms has been unsustainable for decades already and welfare assistance has already been somewhat limited. Of course, the greatest evidence of this is:

    1. statistical: the average age for first marriages is creeping upward for both sexes and has been for years now. The declining birth rate in the West meaning fewer taxpayers to foot the bills coming due.
    2. cultural: the “where are all the good men” meme we continue hearing.
    3. anecdotal: the Kate Bolicks of the world who are coming up on 40, not married and probably won’t marry, and certainly won’t have children.

    To a large extent women are already feeling the “payback” Mark talks about. That “payback” is a larger percentage of men refusing to marry or delaying marriage due to a dearth of marriageable women and avoidance of the divorce meat grinder.

    Women want to be married to attractive men. Men and women both are realizing feminism created the unattractive men that populate our society.

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

      @deti

      Great summary of the post-feminist world, and I agree, we’re already living it.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan,

    Beta baboons avoid battling with alpha for sex, but wind up getting a lot of it anyway.

    That reminds me of that story of the alphas leaving for war and the females breeding with the betas. It also reminds me of dogsquat story.

    I dont see the contradiction though. Females fuck the best option they can get from whats available.

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

      . Females fuck the best option they can get from whats available.

      Alpha is available, but the female baboons enjoy the companionship of the betas, pick bugs out of each other’s fur, and wind up having sex. I don’t see any “settling” there.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yohami,

    So then risking your life to save someone else isn’t manly? It’s just about rank?

  • collegeboy

    @ mark

    The solution is to have balance. None of what you mentioned is completely wrong. All contribute to freedom to some extent. We must avoid Extremism, on any side. Extremism has become the norm, and there isn’t much of a middle position.

  • http://umslopogaas.wordpress.com Umslopogaas

    @Susan Walsh:

    Hey Umslopogaas, your silence was deafening on my divorce post. And I wrote it just for you

    Heh, juuuust for me? Wow, my dear Susan I didn’t know you regarded me in such high esteem. :P

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Someguy,

    There are so many species in nature with so many variations that the alpha-beta dichotomy cannot possibly cover it all. Among ants and spiders, for example, the dominant sex is female.

    I agree, some species doesnt even have genders. This is not intended to be one-fits all. When I do it, its more of an applicable thing.

    I view the terms for their value of analysis and guidance, but not determination. I don’t see beta as inherently submissive, but the slope does seem to point that way.

    Its just a word. Without submissiveness I dont see “beta”. But when I use it I mean something else than Roissy or Athol Kay or whatever. Then of course I think my approach is more accurate and replicable.

    So. Being paranoid about never being submissive results in not being able to make deals, it becomes “my way or nothing”, and relationships (even casual ones) have compromise and middle grounds.

    Women hate unworthy men when those men have interest on them and try to ease their way into pussy or relationships via pedestalization, doing favors, conceding, lacking backbone, overpaying, overcompensating, etc.

    Anything that says “Im not enough for you, but if I add all of this money or attention and favors and I play by whatever your rules are and let you make me your bitch, would you take me? would you appreciate me, at least just a bit” So that. That is beta. In our human world that guy might score some pussy and have children, but its not going to do him any good, by MY standards. The guy himself might bee “happy” without knowing he´s being used and who knows what else.

    Showing emotion to your girlfriend isnt beta, telling her you love isnt beta, providing isnt beta. But, feeling you´re so lucky you got her because how unworthy you are, and feeling insecure you can even keep such a quality girl around you, and wanting to bring the moon and the starts so she would never leave you, and expressing all of that, is big fucking beta. And has really nothing to do with love or nurturing.

  • collegeboy

    Umslopogaas´s last [type] ..Finally: Wimminz Agree To End Women’s Suffrage

    Case in point. Extremism is everywhere.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yohami,

    What you’re describing is very different from putting someone else’s needs above one’s own. What you’re describing is the way men with low self esteem will pay through the nose in order to get their most basic needs met. That’s pathetic and unmanly. But it has nothing to do with self-sacrifice.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    Nobody here, from Ted to Yohami, is alpha.

    I dont know about Ted, but Im as alpha as it gets.

    We’re all beta in the strictest sense.

    Who´s we?

  • Wudang

    “Women have been told that they are entitled to this freedom, independence, and power but were not told that these things come from somewhere – that what is taken from the system must be reinvested and that there is a corresponding cost and responsibility.”

    IMO women are on average genetically less able to see that kind of connection. They need to be thought it when they grow up.

    Rollo:

    I think the queer thing will always be limited. Firstly, there aren`t that many lesbians. There are even less lesbians that prefer the butch role. Although most lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women about half or so prefer to play the feminine role in relationships and those wouldn`t really want relationships with straight women. Secondly, in just one generation there will be far less lesbians (and gays) because they have so much less children than straight people.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    So then risking your life to save someone else isn’t manly? It’s just about rank?

    Women can also risk their life to save someone else without being “manly”.

    A man can risk his life to save someone else while being a total pussy, too.

    When you introduce honor, doing the right thing, self sacrifice in terms of the greater good, putting the ego behind, adhering to the rules (God, the good, whatever), and facing adversity in a frontal, focused, emotionally contained, self detached way, it is “manly”.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yohami,

    Unless you’re the president of Argentina or running an international company or the most popular or respected or wealthy musician in the Western World, you’re beta. From what you wrote in your New Year’s post, you’re hunkering down in front of a computer trying to save up money for expensive music equipment. That’s respectable. But it’s not alpha.

    Just keeping it real.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    What you’re describing is the way men with low self esteem will pay through the nose in order to get their most basic needs met. That’s pathetic and unmanly. But it has nothing to do with self-sacrifice.

    Yep, I never said self-sacrifice was unmanly.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    A man can risk his life to save someone else while being a total pussy, too.

    False.

  • Wudang

    In Japan, it’s normal for young women to live with their parents until marriage. Their office jobs are primarily for funding luxuries [shoes, handbags, make-up, karaoke] and saving for a wedding – achieving complete independence is not a common pursuit.

    Hmmmmm, not sure if marrying a woman who has lived years with no expenses for living, food and possibly phone + som other stuff but who has been able to use all her income on FUN things and a wedding is a good idea.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yohami,

    Yep, I never said self-sacrifice was unmanly.

    You said that putting someone else’s needs above your own (i.e. self sacrifice) was beta. I was guessing that you considered “beta” behavior unmanly. It’s confusing trying to keep track of all the definitions.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    Unless you’re the president of Argentina or running an international company or the most popular or respected or wealthy musician in the Western World, you’re beta.

    Define “beta” ?

    It sounds like you are equating socio-economical ranks with alpha-beta personal / behavioral traits. These are not the same. And I do run an international company but thats besides the point. I already had the company when I was in beta chump phase.

    From what you wrote in your New Year’s post, you’re hunkering down in front of a computer trying to save up money for expensive music equipment. That’s respectable. But it’s not alpha.

    Define “alpha” ?

    If pursuing your self-defined goals with total dedication and belief isnt alpha in your book, what is?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    You said that putting someone else’s needs above your own (i.e. self sacrifice) was beta. I was guessing that you considered “beta” behavior unmanly. It’s confusing trying to keep track of all the definitions.

    It gets easier if you dont rephrase them. I said putting PEOPLE above of yourself.

    PEOPLE > YOU.

    Not what the people represent, not their needs, but their individual persons, above of your own individual person. That is ONE trait. Among other traits. Sum too many of these beta traits and your overall personality falls into “beta”

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    (Gasping for breath) I go to sleep and when I return, the comments have gone wild! That’s great!

    A few things:

    “I agree with others who have said that men need to define masculinity without input from women. I would just say that isn’t going to be possible if the starting point is what makes women engage in short-term mating.”

    Well, yes and no. Don’t forget that a man’s primary motivator (besides simple self-preservation) is sex. Not relationships, not family, not lofty goals and aspirations, but getting his freak on and his oil changed. I think one of the major problems with feminist ideology is that they a) conveniently forget this when it doesn’t serve their purposes and b) loudly castigate to the point of criminalization the male sexual impulse that has, for all practical purposes, created civilization as we know it.

    That’s why Game is so important to the Manosphere. It’s the one thing we can all agree on: we like sex, we’d like more, and we’d like it to be good. They pretty much issue that with your XY chromosome. Now, what you do with that impulse is up to you, but the vast majority of men spend their adult lives directly or indirectly in pursuit of sex as naturally as eating or breathing.

    That’s important. Feminists lured young men into support by promoting easy access to sex as part of the 1960s-era feminism, drunk on birth control pills and mini-skirts. But when feminism took an uglier turn in the 1970s, and went far more anti-male than pro-woman, the tail dried up and the first great wave of hypergamy began. Since then the American (and Western) sexual landscape has been hit with cataclysmic change, as we all know.

    But those early years tainted men’s perceptions, and fed the betacization of masculinity, which in turn fed rampant hypergamy. When the ability and understanding to even approach women one-on-one in a social context is destroyed, and text-messaged NSA booty-calls are just easier to work with, then yes, learning how to get your wick wet becomes VITAL information for dudes. The reason Game is so popular is because it is so needed.

    That’s why Athol Kay’s work is so profoundly important to the Manosphere. Athol and others of note have extended the Game metaphor into LTRs, and (gasp, choke) it’s working. Not a little bit. A lot.

    You see, going from short-term mating to long-term mating has been a problem for the men of my generation. We’re really good at picking up chicks, actually. But living with them? All of the “successful” cultural models presented for how to successfully run an LTR have been seriously flawed — see how fathers and fatherhood is portrayed in MSM. Divorce, single motherhood and hypergamy have made learning from our venerable ancestors pointless, if even possible. So without instruction most muddle-along in Betatude until they hear “I love you, but I’m not in love with you,” and start the divorce process.

    But Athol Kay’s MMSL puts the highly-successful Game strategies into context of a LTR, with an emphasis on strong male hand, good communication skills, and lots of hot sweaty monkey sex. Essential Manosphere reading. This is incredibly important right now, because those few Gen-X marriages that did survive hypergamy and infidelity and poor economic conditions are doing so either because of the native talent of the individuals involved or because they just don’t have the cash for a divorce.

    The Red Pill could change all that. When a husband is commanding, decisive, and sets out to utterly seduce his wife every morning, worrying more about her demonstrable attraction to him than her stated list of grievances, that really flies in the face of feminism as an intellectual concept. When you get good, intelligent, highly-educated women who are no strangers to feminist ideology in all of its manifestations reluctantly admitting that, yeah, they like it when hubby gets all studly, throws them over the bed and ravages them without first discussing his feelings and getting signed permission to engage in coitus in advance — that’s a serious danger to feminism.

    I’m being dead serious, here. The feminist hold on cultural power in this country is based entirely on the premise that women are being subjugated under an artificially-imposed, male-dominated ideology that runs counter to a woman’s natural inclinations. When smart women start talking about how they enjoy ceding their power to their husbands for the sake of a successful marriage — and then start talking about how freakin’ happy they are with the result — it won’t matter how many tired tropes the feminists try to employ to shame them back into an unwanted sisterhood.

    The fact is that American women are desperately unhappy: if they don’t have a man, they’re usually unhappy about it. If they do have a man, they’re usually unhappy with him. Despite the “gains” of feminism, allowing women to financially support themselves and compete with men in the economic field, all of these new freedoms and riches haven’t yielded the smart, successful, well-rounded family-and-career feminist powerhouses that the 60s crowd envisioned. Instead it’s yielded two generations of broken families, unrealistic — and unrealized — expectations, and an irresistible resentment with “inequality” that has promised them happiness and delivered only stress and anxiety.

    And now a generation of 30-something ladies who are suddenly realizing they only have six eggs left and not even a date for Saturday night.

    Also, apropos to the discussion, I recommend reading and understanding Athol Kay’s assessment of the Alpha/Beta split in a LTR, and how both are absolutely vital for its success. Too much Alpha, and you’re an asshole she can’t stop screwing. Too much Beta, and you’re a simpering appeaser unworthy of respect. Put them together, learn how to balance them, and learn married Game, and then the magic happens.

    So that’s what Game offers men: the opportunity to get their freak on, single or married. And what it offers women is an escape-clause from the idea that they HAVE to be in charge of everything or they’ll be considered failures. While the short-term mating angle might put some folks off, Married Game could be the “game changer” that puts the last nail in feminism’s coffin.

    Because the one thing that feminist theory and dogma doesn’t give women is . . . happiness.

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

      @Ian Ironwood

      Yay, another MMSL believer! I’m always referring people to Athol for his list of traits, and yet the issue never seems to get resolved here. I’ve been asked to do a post on this, and I think I will. At least then we’ll having a working HUS definition, though people are free to dissent, as always.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yohami,

    I don’t use alpha/beta. But they were originally used to define social status. As of right now, you don’t have much social status, except maybe in your circle of friends.

    I think pursuing your goals with passion and belief is honorable. But there are maniacs and fools who do that, too. That’s not necessarily alpha. Pursuing your goals with passion and belief and succeeding on a grand scale might be alpha. But really, if we’re going to adhere to the original sense of the word, it would depend on the social significance of the goal.

    You’re free to come up with your own definitions for words, but I think it just confuses things.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yohami,

    Obviously it’s not conducive to happiness and well-being to believe that others are better than you. But I’m pretty sure that nobody outside of the game word would call that “beta”. We call that low self-esteem.

    But I still think that sacrificing your needs and desires to help someone else is manly. And very often, if done as a true gift to someone else, and not done with some expectation of return favor, can lead a man to value himself even more.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    I don’t use alpha/beta. But they were originally used to define social status.

    If we were to adhere to that definition, then rich guys would be alpha by default. In our capital system where money is king, any rank can be bought. Buying the rank, which is like buying the seat, grants you some things. It doesnt grant you the personality / behavioral traits though. And I am talking about traits. Not social status or money.

    But the traits *can* get you money. Im certainly making more money than I did before.

    I think pursuing your goals with passion and belief is honorable. But there are maniacs and fools who do that, too. That’s not necessarily alpha.

    In my book thats an alpha trait. If you subtract intelligence, social intelligence, common sense, business skills, realism -> it becomes a fool errand. None of the traits on its own build the big picture. There are alphas without vision. Just like there are rich betas. We´re all collages of many things.

    But really, if we’re going to adhere to the original sense of the word, it would depend on the social significance of the goal.

    In a perfect world those things would be related. Say, successful / high achievers would also be good people. Manlier men on top, pussier men under. The best men win etc. However our world is anything but that, and is more focused around resources and who owns them, capital is king, and the rules are set so the capital remains where the capital is, which leads to many unfit men (and women) filling roles they wouldnt, if they were measured by their capacity and not by their resources. In short, the world is “unfair” if you look at it from an humanistic / meritocracy side. If you look at it from the capital view though, its working as intended.

    So, no, alpha doesnt mean rich, beta doesnt mean poor, high social status doesnt mean alpha, low social status doesnt mean beta, as long as we´re talking about personality and behavior.

    I achieved the personal stuff. Now Im working on making it “real” out there, in the fictious / capital / material world. Without the personal thing solved, though, I wouldnt stand a chance, since everything is rigged to prevent “me”, or more specifically, my socio-economical stratus, to succeed. Starting from me being from a not so wealthy family in the third world.

  • http://umslopogaas.wordpress.com Umslopogaas

    @Collegeboy:

    Case in point. Extremism is everywhere.”

    It always flatters me unimaginably to be called an extremist. However, pray elaborate?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yohami,

    I’m cool with what you’re setting out to achieve. But you’re redefining what alpha and beta means. I don’t have a problem with that (aside from the fact that nobody knows what the hell anybody is talking about anymore when they use the words).

    You’re aware that when other people use the word beta, they don’t mean mediocre or “low-value” or “weak” at all, right?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    Obviously it’s not conducive to happiness and well-being to believe that others are better than you. But I’m pretty sure that nobody outside of the game word would call that “beta”. We call that low self-esteem.

    Agreed, people outside of game dont have words for “alpha/beta” or if they do they mean something else. These words mean something else for everyone. There’s no consensus -> everyone applies them to match what they think they mean, myself included.

    But I still think that sacrificing your needs and desires to help someone else is manly. And very often, if done as a true gift to someone else, and not done with some expectation of return favor, can lead a man to value himself even more.

    Since you´re not expecting anything in return, you´re doing it because of compassion, sympathy, empathy, or principle, all of which are manly. Still, if you´re doing stuff because you WANT, what are you sacrificing?

    Down with words. Every minute they mean something else.

    If you “sacrifice” your writing career in order to get approval from your girlfriend or family or society = beta.

    If you “sacrifice” your writing career in order to help kids that are drowning because of a tsunami, because you feel more urged to help than you feel urged to finish that chapter = alpha.

    The difference being the alpha doesnt act from the approval seeking frame, but from the inner-desires frame.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I agree with what you’re saying. I just wouldn’t use words that most people think mean something else to describe it, when I could just use others that would be more intelligible.

    Strong/Healthy/Mature=Acting out of one’s own deepest purpose/desire/values, etc…

    Weak/Unhealthy/Immature=Acting out of fear or the desire for external validation…

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    You’re aware that when other people use the word beta, they don’t mean mediocre or “low-value” or “weak” at all, right?

    In the context of game, what people usually means is:

    Beta = pussy whipped
    Alpha = pussy whipper

    Enter Athol Kay and he equals all nurturing and good spirited traits with beta and all aggression and narcissism with alpha

    Enter Susan and she equals all honorable and stable things with beta and all psycho evil stuff with alpha

    Enter Roissy and he equals all attraction triggers with alpha, and all attraction turn offs with beta

    Try to mix all of that into a single definition and it doesnt make any sense. They are all talking about different concepts while using the same words. Different interpretations of pussy whipped and pussy whipper, with different rationalizations for each concept.

    In the case of Athol, he´s a nurturing guy and not a pussy whipper, he´s probably also “beta” in the pedestalization sense of the word, so he attempts to bring some narcissism and aggression to please that pussy

    In the case of Susan, pussy whippers are bad for relationship, so she has trouble incorporating any of the already labeled “evil alpha traits”, with the exception of assertiveness and dominance, which are needed for relationships (and incompatible with pedestalization!). I guess she´s still working that out.

    Then the random gamer comes saying “I banged a drunk blond last night Im SO ALPHA” but he´s just talking about how he was able to trigger attraction on one girl.

    Then I enter the picture talking about something different.

    No wonder everyone is confused.

  • Herb

    The Red Pill could change all that. When a husband is commanding, decisive, and sets out to utterly seduce his wife every morning, worrying more about her demonstrable attraction to him than her stated list of grievances, that really flies in the face of feminism as an intellectual concept. When you get good, intelligent, highly-educated women who are no strangers to feminist ideology in all of its manifestations reluctantly admitting that, yeah, they like it when hubby gets all studly, throws them over the bed and ravages them without first discussing his feelings and getting signed permission to engage in coitus in advance — that’s a serious danger to feminism.

    I’ll call that the “happy” danger to feminism.

    The “unhappy” danger is men will look at that level of work to keep a woman happy in an LTR and wonder “why bother”. A common thing I’ve noted in response to the man up articles of the past year have been “why should I, what do I get out of it.”

    Perhaps that is not something younger men wonder about and it’s the province of divorced or older males. Still, I used to worry about getting remarried until I sat down and thought about my marriage and realize all I got was a bill. I didn’t even get better sexual access during marriage. I got less sex and what I did was worse. I read Athol and the biggest thought is “why bother?”. Maybe if I had hopes of having children it might be worth putting up with a woman I have to work harder than I would at my job to keep to have kids, but just to have a woman? With what most modern women bring to the table?

    I can queue up my favorite liberal or feminist rant on You Tube when I have a desire to be nagged.

    Right now I think whether we’re headed for the unhappy or happy ending is up in the air, but I’m leaning towards unhappy. I read all of Lisa Gottlieb’s Marry Him. It’s core message is about lowering expectations and realistic if you want to get married. Never once does it discuss looking at what you bring to the table. I think it’s fairly representative in that respect.

    Call that another legacy of feminism that needs to be addressed for feminism to be dead: women need to ask “why can I offer” as much as “what can I get”.

  • Herb

    A common thing I’ve noted in response to the man up articles of the past year have been “why should I, what do I get out of it.”

    That should be “A common thread I’ve noticed in responses”…

  • collegeboy

    @Umslopogaas
    Ending women’s suffrage, would allow a few men to take over again.

    Inequality would be rampant.
    And freedom for the majority of men/women would not be achieved.

    I now see everything from the point of view of power. Everybody wants it, especially the super rich. Religion is merely a facade for achieving power, ethics have nothing to do with religion.

    I don’t see society as having any true ethical values any more. Times have changed opportunism is rewarded by government.

    this is something someone wrote, complaining about this.
    The communist creed: from each according to this ability, to each according to his need.
    The Capitalist creed: from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

    I’m not saying I side with capitalism or communism or secularism, just that extremism leads to others taking your liberty away, no matter which extremist side you take.

  • jess

    lola and slim,

    great comments, yes it can be frustrating to see such attitudes and rigid non reasoning but keep at it, its always worth making people see other, healthier points of view. it does rub off. Jx

  • jess

    “this generation is not going to feel compelled to go for the big career, and they’re not ashamed to say so”

    good!

    lets rejoice that we now live in a society where people can make individual choices that suit their needs, preferences and desires!

    long may it continue….

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan,

    Alpha is available, but the female baboons enjoy the companionship of the betas, pick bugs out of each other’s fur, and wind up having sex. I don’t see any “settling” there.

    Settling would mating with the available bug-picker because she´s being rejected by the alpha.

    If she fucks with both the bug-picker AND the alpha, we have an infamous “slut” word for that.

    If she refuses to fuck with the alpha hitting on her, because she likes to mate with the bug-picker more, I would call that love. But its also possible that the bug-picker has it big.

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

      @Yohami

      I think you’re giving baboons too much credit :)

      The point is that the baboon behavior upends what animal biologists believed about primate mating. Other primates have other differences. There is no one dictum in nature. The variations are potentially infinite, and using the behavior of one species to explain the behavior of another is invalid.

      The “alpha” male term was coined by Dr. L. David Mech, a wolf biologist who has since recanted the term as unscientific and inaccurate.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU

      He suggests that better terms would be “father male” or “breeding male.” By that standard, a very large number of human males qualify as alpha.

  • Framboise

    YOHAMI,
    The beta definition I have settled with is the one from alphagameplan which says: “Betas are the good-looking guys who aren’t as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy’s friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women.” Etc.
    Below them are delta, omega and gamma (I don’t particularly believe in sigma).
    Perhaps I don’t know get what you’re saying, but it seems you see betas as losers, but they still count for the majority of the male population? How are we supposed to distinguish the 99,99% of men whom are not alphas?
    Sorry if I missed something, have tried my best but not read EVERY post of the comment field.

  • Mike

    @Jess
    “good!

    lets rejoice that we now live in a society where people can make individual choices that suit their needs, preferences and desires!

    long may it continue….”

    Agreed. So tell those dumb f*cktards like Bennett to stop writing books and articles shaming men for not manning up and marrying old career and job focused first women, carousel riders, high body count sluts and toxic ‘all about me’ princess’s.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I missed slim tuna because I was busy debating crushes and fantasies on the other thread.

    She (he?) said,

    This is part of the problem, not the explanation for it. I agree that women should fight for entry into politics harder, but it does not disprove that there is an inhospitable environment based on gender.

    This is a problem for me. Exactly why should more women fight for entry into politics, I mean, unless they want to? Isn’t the goal for women to be free to do what *they* want, and not simply free to do what you think they *should* do? If women don’t want to become politicians, that’s their business.

  • collegeboy

    Alpha’s are intelligent, especially socially intelligent (on top of other physical attributes).

  • Ted D

    For the record, I am not alpha OR beta, I’m freaking me and refuse to be defined!

    Or, depending on who’s definition you are using, I am both. Neither.

    All this labeling is useful for general conversation, but the truth is there are no cut and dry definitions, and even if their were very few people are so easily put into a category.

    It is my nature to be laid back, non-confrontational, thoughtful, logical, and considerate. Mostly all beta traits. However, push me too hard and I and do not only stand my ground, but generally take some back in the process. It takes a lot to piss me off, but if you manage it, expect to deal with anger backed by extreme focus and determination to take back whats mine, and possibly knock a little off your stack just because I had to act.

    I certainly was beta in my marriage, but I truly don’t see myself as a beta person in general. I want to be left alone, to do my own thing, how I want to do it, and as long as I’m left alone I tend to stay quiet and contented. But, treat me unfairly, take what is mine, hurt people I care about, push me too far, and I can bring a level of violence comparable to some of the baddest alpha “bad boys” out there. I don’t like to, because it costs me a lot in energy (both physical and mental), tends to end with someone/everyone being hurt (both physical and mental), and most of the time, the same outcome can be attained without the anger and violence.

    So, where does all this leave me? I have no idea. I don’t feel like I allow people to walk all over me or take advantage of me, but I also don’t walk around showing signs of how awesome I am. I don’t push my ideals on others (blog posting doesn’t count!), but I also stand up for what I believe in. I’ve said before, if I have to act arrogant, brag about my accomplishments, bang lots of random women, and generally act like a social outcast then I have no desire to be Alpha. I know, that sounds like an asshole, not an alpha. But by who’s definition?

    So alpha/beta/gamma/omega – I’m me, take it or leave it.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    In the grand schema, advising guys no female wants to mate with, to go bug-picking ( being friends, doing favors, being available, being her therapist) in order to get sex is bad advice. Why? because the chance of success is slim, and because this particular female who doesnt have tingles for him does have tingles for other males, and is likely to go fuck these males in the name of species survival and happiness, and because bug-picking probably under-utilizes the natural talents of the male and distracts him to fully realize his potential.

    Advising him to grow into one of these males who are tingle worthy is better advice / has more chance of long term success. Then he can do some bug-picking when needed, since bug infections in your partner are a bad thing.

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

      this particular female who doesnt have tingles for him does have tingles for other males, and is likely to go fuck these males in the name of species survival and happiness

      Are you saying that female baboons engage in pity fucking?

  • tvmunson

    @Editor #215

    I never asked to be referred to, or addressed, as Munson. Although looking at my nom d’ blog it isn’t easy to discern my first name, and I’m not sure how Kathy did. My first fiancee was named Kathy; maybe it’s karma. I’ve identified myself previously here; the meticulous have much info actually. I like being addressed as Tom; I assumed your use of my last name reflected your preference to keep things formal, so I starting addressing (and referring to ) you as Editor. Call me anything, just not late to dinner. But Munson in the third person, Tom as addressed ( “TV” too)- I shall humbly submit myself to the preference of the colloquium.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    collegeboy,

    Alpha’s are intelligent, especially socially intelligent (on top of other physical attributes).

    Unless you define alpha as guys with high T, who really don’t have a good deal of social intelligence.

  • collegeboy

    Brave New World – is a funny novel/movie.
    It shows a caste system, where intelligence is defined at birth. Alpha’s have mental programming to justify their superiority. beta, gamma, delta, epsilon’s have mental programming to justify their inferiority.

    But the future seems to look allot more like the novel “1984 by George Orwel” with a caste system superimposed. Free Love of “Brave New World” is unlikely to happen, any time soon for beta’s.

  • http://umslopogaas.wordpress.com Umslopogaas

    @College Boy:

    Ending women’s suffrage, would allow a few men to take over again.

    Inequality would be rampant.
    And freedom for the majority of men/women would not be achieved.

    I now see everything from the point of view of power. Everybody wants it, especially the super rich. Religion is merely a facade for achieving power, ethics have nothing to do with religion.

    I don’t see society as having any true ethical values any more. Times have changed opportunism is rewarded by government.

    this is something someone wrote, complaining about this.
    The communist creed: from each according to this ability, to each according to his need.
    The Capitalist creed: from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

    I’m not saying I side with capitalism or communism or secularism, just that extremism leads to others taking your liberty away, no matter which extremist side you take.

    Eh? LOL? Uhm, Dr. Okun, you should perhaps develop the habit of actually reading articles before commenting them.

    I say this because manifestly you haven’t read my article, just blathered away merrily. *Had* you actually bothered to read it you’d have instantly realised that a.) it’s about a petition signed by girls where *they* voice their desire to end women’s suffrage and b.) it is absolutely tongue-in-cheek.

    I hope to gawd I don’t have to hold your hand and explain to you the concept of ‘tongue-in-cheek’, bubba.

    That said I actually believe that 99.9% of all people (men and women) shouldn’t have the vote. Imo, democracy is a farce, and a bad one at that. It’s a greasy soap opera where sweet talking imbeciles get elected by ignorant, gullible morons. Democracy -> Idiocracy.

    The right to vote should be earned, not just given. And only proven outliers (in a positive) sense should be awarded suffrage. Maybe then we’d have sane polices instead of the rancid, rotten hogwash we have now.

    See? Now *that* is raaaaaaaaaaadical, baby. In other words: extreme.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    He suggests that better terms would be “father male” or “breeding male.” By that standard, a very large number of human males qualify as alpha.

    Doing research on it, then. Cool.

  • Herb

    @Susan: YouTube is blocked at work, but I’ll definitely check that out when I get home.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    My guess is that all that bug picking is baboon game. Bug picking=kino.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, the problem is–and I am not the first to say this–is that the current generation of girls in the middle and upper middle class may not necessarily want a life-long career. But they do want “their 20s.” By which I mean, they want to be sinlge and have lots of fun in their 20s, which of course requries a job, an apartment, all the trappings of adulthood. Except a husband.

    Not all these girls are sluts. But some are. And all of them to one degree or another are lowering their MMV for the sake of 10 years or so of young adult fun. They want that fun decade and then family life, preferably on one income, after that.

    For many it’s been possible. My neighborhood is full of such women. But however common it may be for the UMC, it does not appear to work outside that demographic. And there’s a question as to how sustainable this model is. The question comes do to, Are desirable marriage-minded men going to accept forever that women get to enjoy a “play decade” in which most of the men their age aren’t succeeding at becoming their playmates?

    Manosphere types insist, no, the game is already over. I’m not so sure. However, most young women are totally unaware that the men are already asking themselves the question.

    There are two Kate Bollick types in my immediate vicinity. One turned 40 yesterday and at least has a BF but no ring. The other has not had a BF for as long as I have known her. I don’t think either of these women wanted to end up unmarried and/or alone at 40. But it happened. (They are not fat or ugly, FWIW.)

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

      However, most young women are totally unaware that the men are already asking themselves the question.

      You’re right about that. In fact, most are unaware that this decade of freedom, aka “riding the alpha cock carousel,” makes them even slightly less desirable. For starters, they’re all falling for the apex fallacy. They figure that all the people that had lots of sex with each other will wind up pairing off. To some extent, they’re right – some do. Enough to keep the fantasy alive. But what they don’t realize, ever in some cases, is that the pool of potential men got smaller and smaller while they were having their fun.

  • collegeboy

    Those looks might be deceiving. Intelligence is separate from education. attitude counts allot, those men understand that. so looks is only part of the puzzle. I know people with very little education, who are millionaires. In fact my close friends who are millionaires, don’t have allot of education. And in their family those who got educated with engineering degrees, law degrees are actually relatively poor. One of those men, his ex-wife thinks he is stupid because he lacks education.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Framboise,

    The beta definition I have settled with is the one from alphagameplan which says: “Betas are the good-looking guys who aren’t as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy’s friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women.” Etc.

    Like, the friends of the quarterback. The upper inner circle of the alphas. I like that distinction.

    Below them are delta, omega and gamma (I don’t particularly believe in sigma).
    Perhaps I don’t know get what you’re saying, but it seems you see betas as losers, but they still count for the majority of the male population?

    In VOX´s schema, most of the male population are deltas. Still, most of his beta dudes are somewhat deltas too, since VOX melts all pedestalization in delta… and the friends of the quarterback probably pedestalize women too, since most men, mainstream men, are raised to pedestalize women.

    How are we supposed to distinguish the 99,99% of men whom are not alphas?

    Shades of gray bro. Thats the thing. If we try to make it fewer words, the words are too simplistic, too broad, too imprecise. If we make too many words, we get lost in the rainbows of possible combinations. I like what VOX´s schema describes but I usually forget what is what. I like it better than Roissy´s though.

    There are not many alphas. The whole alpha thing contradicts the present world. You´re not supposed to go there. You´ll be discouraged by shaming, social pressure, the current feminized world, the capital word, the social hierarchies, etc. There are some alpha dudes who have the natural genes or talents or nurturing but they dont know what they are doing. There are even fewer dudes who had it natural and know what they are doing. And fewer who werent raised within the model but got there and know what they are doing.

    How to distinguish. Look for leadership and social skills and assertiveness and good temper and vision and success and responsibility and enjoyment of life. Take out approval seeking, fear avoiding, self abandonment, nihilism, overcompensation.

    Whenever there´s a social group, some dude or girl takes the alpha seat: the one everyone else looks up to, the commander of the party, the one whose all the action spins around of. Thats the seat. However taking the seat doesnt necessarily means the person has all the traits, but some, enough of them, specially the dominance thing, to take that seat and fill the commander role.

    So dominance and self reliance, then high self esteem and enjoyment are the base traits… if you want to distinguish, look for that. Not the most abundant traits around, so they are easy to pick up.

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

      Whenever there´s a social group, some dude or girl takes the alpha seat: the one everyone else looks up to, the commander of the party, the one whose all the action spins around of. Thats the seat. However taking the seat doesnt necessarily means the person has all the traits, but some, enough of them, specially the dominance thing, to take that seat and fill the commander role.

      There are very few (<1%?) who fill this role with ease, and they’re born, not made. If that’s your working definition of alpha, then Game will not get men there. Unless it’s relative – take four guys with Asperger’s and one has to be the AMOG – then that works.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan,

    this particular female who doesnt have tingles for him does have tingles for other males, and is likely to go fuck these males in the name of species survival and happiness

    Are you saying that female baboons engage in pity fucking?

    No, I was talking about humans there.

  • collegeboy

    Umslopogaas quote: So. They are doing their part. But are you doing yours? If you desire the return of sanity, harmony, rationality and sexuality to Planet Earth do Man-kind a favour and launch a feminist into space…today.

    I know your joking, but that kind of mental thought process, is radical. Joking can be Ahole game, but I don’t want to get into that.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan,

    He suggests that better terms would be “father male” or “breeding male.” By that standard, a very large number of human males qualify as alpha.

    I heard he retracted, but so what? its like darwin retracting.

    The alpha male is also the father male and the breeding male -> the competition that gave him the alpha seat also grants the reproduction seat. Making it inverse, like, every male who breeds is an alpha doesnt compute (formal fallacy)

    I dont know much about wolves. How does the courtship work in them? how does this father mates with a female wolf? I know they dont live in large groups like the sea-lions or so many other species, so they dont coexist with “unworthy” males. Are wolves monogamous or do their families include several females like, say, lions? Do they have any sort of wolf on wolf male competition? do they just leave the family and just wander around until they find a loner female? any fighting involved? does the female screen and can reject a prospect, or does she just take whatever male she finds?

    In other words when this guy retracted after using the “alpha” for wolves… it sort of made sense, because wolves dont have the male hierarchy. But the concept he proposed applies for other species, say, the kangaroo, lions, some birds, etc, anywhere there´s male competition to get the female and the female breeds with the winner – and the winner only. So, not all species are like that. I dont know if the wolves have any kind of competition.

    Humans do. Sort of. Even when the females dont have sex with the winner only, but more with the winner of the moment, which can be measured from infinite angles.

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

      @Yohami

      I heard he retracted, but so what? its like darwin retracting.

      Um, no. He explains that he coined the term in 1970, when biologists knew a lot less about animals in the wild. If you watch the video, you’ll see that he says they used to believe wolves competed physically to become the leader of the pack. Since then, they’ve learned that in fact, a wolf gets to be the leader of the pack when his offspring are numerous and healthy. That’s it. Father male.

      It’s more like Einstein retracting, as they drive the final nail into the coffin of E = mc2.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jesus,

    My guess is that all that bug picking is baboon game. Bug picking=kino.

    LOL! baboons ftw.

  • Herb

    Not all these girls are sluts. But some are. And all of them to one degree or another are lowering their MMV for the sake of 10 years or so of young adult fun. They want that fun decade and then family life, preferably on one income, after that.

    I know you said “young adult fun” but of late (past few months) I’m wondering if the part I bolded isn’t really what’s causing a lot of male behavior:

    “I don’t want to get married now, I want to have fun first” is not the thing to say to a man at 22 and then expect him to marry you at 30. Because what you’re saying is “you’re not fun/enjoyable to be with but eventually I’ll do it out of duty/baby desire/whatever”. Not only does it communicate to guys that they are a means not an end but it communicates to men they aren’t really desirable.

    This idea of “fun then marriage” needs to die and I say that as someone who gets what it’s trying to express, but in the end word choices do matter.

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com MuleChewingBriars

    I came across an interesting comment in an article from, of all places, The Weekly Standard. To be sure, it is not the author herself who came up with this but one of Roissy’s correspondents. The truth of this statement is so profound and so axiomatic that I will quote it here once

    “it’s always hard for women to see beyond the personal level.”

    and then edit it slightly and put it into capitals for emphasis:

    IT’S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR WOMEN TO SEE BEYOND THE PERSONAL LEVEL.

    I had firsthand experience of this when I got caught arguing the ordination of women on a website that catered to female clerics. I made the remark that my church [Orthodox] will ordain women somewhere around the heat death of the Universe, and that I could no more take the sacraments from female hands than I could drink dry water or breathe liquid air.

    Every. Single. Woman. on that site took that remark as an attack on herself individually and personally. It wasn’t 10 comments farther along than the abuse comments started: ‘Rev. Janeway had to drop out because she started having flashbacks to when her husband used to beat her.’

    I stopped participating on that site. Another man asked me why and I told him that I wouldn’t be able to argue the women there into agreeing me, I would have to woo them. That is the only way a man can ever hope to change a woman’s beliefs or attitudes.

    Everything, EVERYTHING, is personal to women.

    Women live, move, and have their being in a rich universe of persons and relationships that confuses us. Our universe probably looks arid and empty to them, but it does allow for quick decisions and abstract thinking.

    I think feminism is something of the same sort of beast. One commentor called it “a culture-wide shit test”. Another called it “the perfection of nagging.” I think there is an element, though, of “I want to do that, Daddy. Please, please, please make it so I can do that.”

    And Daddy did.

    Feminism arose in very elite circles, and mostly benefits highly educated, articulate, elite women. It really doesn’t do much damage to powerful men (as Solomon so deftly pointed out), but it anally raped all of Daddy’s employees’ sons,

    but Daddy could have cared less about that.

  • Escoffier

    Herb, that’s the point. 20 years ago, 99% of college graduates–male and female–would have agreed that it’s best to “wait” until marriage until you were at least 25. No one thought this was strange and the men least of all. Certainly they did not feel that it was part of a bum deal for them. Back in those days if anyone wanted to get hitched early it was the girl and the man had to be browbeaten into it. It was more like the old days.

    But 20 years later we see more clearly how it has worked out and men don’t feel the same way, at least not uniformly. Women OTOH have not changed their opinion much from what I can see. Women are going to have to change their expectations.

    The big question I have, or contradiction I see, is that for all the damage that delayed marriage has caused/is causing, it’s still true that earlier marriages are more likely to end in divorce. So if we could push up the average marriage date that might solve one problem but would it just create another?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Escoffier,

    I think one of the problems is that childhood is extended through the college years in our society. We have a weird situation in our society, and I think that a lot of it has to do with the MSM. Kids try to grow up as fast as they can. They all want to be adults. And then the moment they hit 21, they spend the rest of their lives trying to prevent themselves from growing older.

  • purplesneakers

    Also, as to women not going into politics at higher levels I don’t agree with Purplesneakers that “women hate women, simple as that.” I’m tired of hearing that stereotype; all women do not think the same anymore than all men think alike. I agree with Susan — there are plenty of women at the lower rungs of politics but fewer running at the upper levels. Simple as that.

    I wasn’t saying that women hating women is responsible for women not going into higher levels of politics- I agree that not as many women as men are interested. I was using it to counter the assumption that because the majority of voters are women, it’s not possible for voters to be biased against female candidates, especially if they do get to the upper levels of politics (I mean, really, in a thread where you have a few posters suggesting that the female vote be taken away?).

    Not really, more like they get a career because that’s what they’re “supposed” to do. Plus they have to earn a living between the time the move out of the home and get married, which can be a decade or more. Plus in blue enclaves it takes serious assets to buy a home so it helps to have two earners for as long as possible. Women don’t quit when they get married, they quit (or scale way back) when they have a kid. There are no working moms on my block and none that I know of at our school, at least not in the lower grades.

    Feminism didn’t tell me that I was ‘supposed’ to try in school and try to have a well-paying job. My parents, and Asian values, did.

  • Herb

    @Escoffier
    The big question I have, or contradiction I see, is that for all the damage that delayed marriage has caused/is causing, it’s still true that earlier marriages are more likely to end in divorce. So if we could push up the average marriage date that might solve one problem but would it just create another?

    The earlier marriages are more likely to end in divorce is a product of bad grouping in reporting statistical data (I have no comment if such grouping is malice or laziness). We tend to see under 25 grouped as one group meaning 18 and 24 grouped in mass reporting.

    Take a look at this CDC study, specifically figure 19.

    For all races, under 20 marriages fail at 40% or higher in the first decade. 20-24 fail at 29% and post 25 at 24%. While there is an improvement the real improvement is at 20.

    Also, there is a strong correlation between a woman’s partner count and divorce. Does delaying from 25 to 30 make it more or less likely her partner count will go up?

    As SW has pointed out, fertility really starts to drop after 30 and women aren’t being told the truth about that by the larger culture.

    Finally, there is a world of difference in waiting to 25 for college educated people (who is the prime audience here) versus 30. In the first case you’re waiting a period shorter than college between graduation and marriage. In the second case you’re having “fun” a period equal to high school and college combined. Saying you want to experiment and get things together for the first period sounds prudent. Saying it for the second sounds self-centered.

  • Framboise

    @ Yohami,
    I know very well how I would distinguish who is what, the only thing I have a problem with her is that:
    – beta seems to be used somewhat negatively, whereas if we use alphagameplans listing, it’s still the “top” 10% of the male population (if you are of belief that the further up, the better).
    – people are of different opinion regarding what is alpha. And I wonder, if you are alpha in one group, are you automatically a complete alpha? Different countries/societes/cultures values different things. I don’t agree with alphagameplans characteristic, except for the social dominance stuff. The “head of the football team” means nothing to me. I don’t know a single guy I’m interested in, or have been, who plays football (or soccer as it is to you).
    If you’re from a little town somewhere in rural US, you’re the leader of the group in your social circle, you enroll at Harvard Business School, suddenly you see you are not the “alpha” anymore. Or you move from LA to Paris – people don’t worship the shallow lifestyle of the West Coast, men have a different sense of style. Practically noone is alpha in every situation they are in. At the school I’m in, and my old school, the alpha guy was the very rich guy. The knowledge of where he came from made people look up to him, he had the confidence of someone who knew things were going to alright for him in life. He didn’t necessarily have the height, but the cash, the look, the family and the connections. He didn’t have to be loud, he simply set the tone in the classroom anyway. Betas were his group of friends, also well off, but simply just supportive of each other and him and took his advice for most things. They didn’t pedestalize women and they were all pretty successful with girls.

    Btw I’m a girl. Get a little uneasy when someone calls me bro.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    In this context, I’m using alpha/beta as terms to describe those skills and patterns of behavior that provide, excite and entice (alpha) and those that defend, comfort and protect (beta). The concept is not incompatible with the original usage, when you use it in this context. I suppose this derives from the idea that these behaviors lead to social positioning, but at this point they’ve been stretched to cover all aspects of the two attributes. Engleesh, she ees so deeeficult.

    That being said, I contend that the Alpha traits were most important during Tribal Marriage at the subsistence level (the first 90-100,000 years of our existence as a species), while beta traits became more important in the Agricultural Age, when marriage as we know it (usually referred to as “1.0” but actually 2.0) was institutionalized. Beta traits allowed the development of land and permanent residence, providing undreamed -of food and filial security.

    Now we’re in the industrial/post-industrial age, and neither one is sufficient to sustain a new marital contract. Too much Alpha, woman leaves due to lack of security. Too much Beta, and it’s Eat, Pray, Love. The humanistic social contract demands a state of gender equity in theory, yet our evolutionary biology struggles against that on a personal level as a hundred millennia of evolution dictates that social and sexual dominance and submission are factors in an interpersonal relationship.

    In order to satisfy the needs of both, and allow a new contract based on new definitions and post-industrial perspectives on masculinity and femininity, then the Alpha/Beta balance has to be maintained by both parties. Men need to balance their natural assertiveness and competitiveness with their ability to provide a stable physical and emotional environment for a woman. Women need to maintain a balance between their natural desires for physical and emotional fulfillment (alpha) and the practical tasks of sustaining herself at a comparable financial and social level with her mate (beta). Too much Alpha in a woman, and she becomes hypergamous as her rank rises. Too much Beta, and she fails to inspire the kind of protective and leadership qualities in her mate she needs to be happy.

    Only by balancing both of these in both parties can we hope to have a workable social structure this century. It’s going to mean some sacrifices and compromises at an individual and a social level, but if we’re all adults about it, and give the other gender plenty of room to make mistakes without escaping accountability, then we might — just might — find a way out of this desert.

    But that points out the ultimate problem with feminism: there is no room for compromise in feminism. As an ideology it is as rigid and inflexible as any. And that points up the advantage of the Manospehre: it’s about as far from rigid as you could ask for. It’s based on pragmatic concerns, not blind ideology. The binding principal — “we’re dudes” — is vast enough to cover acres of territory, but with clear enough boundaries to establish a measurable tolerance for contesting ideas. Indeed, competition is a hallmark of masculinity, and we’re pretty certain that the good stuff will survive as the weak stuff gets left behind. We distract easily.

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

      @Ian Ironwood

      Another epic comment, and you touched on something I have been thinking about recently. We argue at great length about the many male behaviors, what they mean wrt social dominance and female desire. Yet we discuss women as all being exactly the same. EXACTLY the same. Yes, there’s some indulgent chuckling as women try to assert NAWALT! But it’s clearly insincere from most of the men. Yet it’s ludicrous, of course. Female sexuality is complex and triggered by a wide range of traits. The attraction switch can be flipped by one strong trait, moderate medium traits, or a bunch of weaker traits (Ogi Ogas, 2011). If there’s an alpha/beta spectrum for men, there is certainly one for women, whether you call it that or something else. It reflects personality traits and things like testosterone level (as does the male spectrum). And of course it reflects social conditioning, just like the male one.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    Something to consider is the fact that the alpha/beta terminology, originally from anthropology, was designed to describe the workings of small groups. For the vast majority of our existence we lived in small groups, and actually met only around 300 people in our lives, including family. In that context alpha/beta ala baboons makes a lot of sense.

    But in our urbanized, industrial society, where the “group” extends to 300 million people within driving distance, then its usage to describe individual social rank has to be modified to fit the context. In this sense, using it to describe skill-sets and behaviors attributable to what we consider “Alphas” and “Betas” in a smaller groups, the terms become terribly useful.

    People in our society (the vast majority) aren’t “Alphas”; that doesn’t mean that they are all Betas. Alpha and Beta become qualities, not positions. In this context, Alpha is what gets you laid, Beta is what gets you asked to lunch.

    And that’s why I find Game so fascinating and so important. Game is the premeditated attempt to establish Alpha prerogatives (getting laid) through using successful Alpha-oriented changes in behavior and skill set. It’s the functional equivalent of Men discovering mascara and bra-stuffing. When a dude learns Game, he’s upping his sex rank by “parroting” those Alpha behaviors, but the results of that subterfuge are self-fulfilling: if you act like an Alpha badass convincingly enough for long enough, and people treat you like an Alpha badass, then you’re just naturally going to be that Alpha badass until you screw it up. And the better you are at understanding and employing Game, the higher sex rank you have, and in turn you will attract a higher-ranked girl.

    Of course, it’s real easy to screw up that “parroting”, as most dudes do the first run they take at Game. But it’s implicit to Game that your failures inform your progress, and your Game thus improves. But usually a guy will find some facet of Game he can use to hype his sex rank enough to get laid.

  • Stingray

    GudEnuf,

    We homeschool. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I am not reading the comments on this thread (can’t. It would be bad), but I did skim them and caught Susan’s response to you.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ian,

    The problem that I have with the above is that the goal is just getting laid. Nothing wrong with getting laid, but the amount of time and learning that some men spend learning to get laid is kind of absurd and can really be better spent pursuing more productive goals. Getting laid shouldn’t be your deepest purpose in life. And yet, for the people usually preaching game anyway, it’s what they spend the bulk of their time doing.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Stingray,

    (can’t. It would be bad),

    ?

  • BroHamlet

    Without reading everything that’s been said already, I think the whole Alpha/Beta discussion is pretty simple from a practical viewpoint. To most women, Alpha = exciting and leader in some sense (with emphasis on exciting). Even if you are a leader of one (yourself), you can still be really alpha to a woman. Beta = stable and follows in some sense (read: boring). You’re still a follower if you’re not acting on your own convictions- which is where I’d say a lot of men fall these days, and probably why women find most men boring.

    To men, it’s a whole lot more nuanced than that. That’s why I say that women don’t get to define what Alpha means. Women can say what they like, but that’s all it is: what they like about men, not the true definition. Same goes for men who would like to put a box around what the true definition of femininity is- they are just saying what they like about women.

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

      There is no true definition of alpha and beta. None. You’re searching for the Holy Grail. Everyone has his own working definition. It’s simply a framework that Game uses to explore the power of social dominance. It is entirely focused on short-term mating, or flings, as written by Mystery. Several bloggers have adapted the concept to LTRs, which is why the concept is constantly up for debate.

      Women select males differently for short-term mating (ONS) and long-term mating (LTR). The tingle is a ST phenomenon – that initial flurry of sexual attraction. Sexual desire in LTRs is different – deeper and wider. It dwarfs the tingle.

      If a man just wants to get laid, he can go for pure asshole game. If he wants something more, like falling in love, he’s going to need to display considerable amounts of other traits that signal relationship fitness. We often call them beta traits, but we could also call them LTR traits. A relationship founded on the former, without LTR traits, is a house of cards.

      The point is, it doesn’t matter what terms you want to use. Women will be looking for a variety of traits in a male partner. You can easily find a woman who rewards ST traits and penalizes a man for LT traits, but then by definition you’ve got yourself a ST kind of girl. Or you can go for a woman who seeks a greater array of characteristics from her partner, but she’s likely to want the LTR.

  • Mike

    Getting laid shouldn’t be your deepest purpose in life. But to someone who can’t get laid for years, it becomes a preoccupation to the point of it being a matter of survival.

    If it weren’t so hard to get laid once in a while… men would not be devoting their entire adult life to recouping for time lost and be more productive in entirely different causes.

    Cause and effect.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Mike,

    Agreed. But… if men were taught some inner game early on: confidence, self-esteem, social skills, what makes them tick as men and how to use it to their advantage, etc… then they wouldn’t be going for years with a dry spell.

  • Stingray

    Jesus,

    I made a promise to myself that I would always do my utmost to never be rude or condescending when I post unless I truly thought there was a legitimate reason for it. I have only had to do it once, and I made sure that I tempered it as best I could. I am not sure I could do that on this type of post with some of the feminist showing up.

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

      @Stingray

      I am not sure I could do that on this type of post with some of the feminist showing up.

      I’m so glad you clarified that. I was afraid my post had offended you.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    @Jesus

    “The problem that I have with the above is that the goal is just getting laid. Nothing wrong with getting laid, but the amount of time and learning that some men spend learning to get laid is kind of absurd and can really be better spent pursuing more productive goals. Getting laid shouldn’t be your deepest purpose in life. And yet, for the people usually preaching game anyway, it’s what they spend the bulk of their time doing.”

    “Just” getting laid?

    Firstly, as I said, don’t underestimate the importance of getting laid to dudes. It’s the only reason a goodly number of them even bother to get up in the morning. In terms of masculine motivating factors, it’s always going to be primary. One of my frustrations with feminism is that they completely dismiss the male desire to get laid as some sort of moral deficiency instead of understanding that it’s quite simply how we are built. Sure, not all men are inspired by lust, but it it is easily our biggest motivator, as a gender. Trust me. I’m in marketing. That’s my bread-and-butter.

    But that being said, I’d also like to point out that “getting laid” DOESN’T STOP WHEN YOU FIND THE RIGHT GIRL AND GET MARRIED. Quite the contrary. If you managed to learn just enough Game to bed a woman, and you found one who was willing to marry you, then more than likely we’d be looking at a “starter marriage”. The fact is, Game is a vital part of a LTR if you want it to last, and study and experimentation with Game shouldn’t be hung up after the wedding. That’s kind of my point: Game works whether you are single or married, if you know it well enough.

    And that’s important. Because once a dude stops worrying about his sex life, THEN he can focus on the task at hand and Great Things Happen.

    And lets face it. Some of those guys NEED to study Game that much, just to make them socially acceptable. With a whole generation raised without the benefit of strong male role models, few of us learned any kind of Game growing up except by accident. If they devote that kind of time to it, then chalk it up to being necessary — they are being “more productive”. Because once you master Game, you really do quit worrying about getting laid.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ian,

    Dude, I’m a dude. And yea, sex is important, but it shouldn’t be the fucking focal point of life. Most of what “game” accomplishes can be achieved as a by-product of just living life as the man you’ve always wanted to be. If you’re “goal” is just getting and maintaining pussy, then you’ve turned power over to women. Pussy becomes your holy grail.

  • pvw

    Escoffier:

    Susan, the problem is–and I am not the first to say this–is that the current generation of girls in the middle and upper middle class may not necessarily want a life-long career. But they do want “their 20s.” By which I mean, they want to be sinlge and have lots of fun in their 20s, which of course requries a job, an apartment, all the trappings of adulthood. Except a husband…You mentioned, and not all of these women are sluts…

    Jesus Mahoney
    Escoffier,

    I think one of the problems is that childhood is extended through the college years in our society.

    My reply:

    Yes, it is interesting to think that decades ago young women were encouraged to think about marriage from the time they were in high school as many young women married at around age 20? I remember seeing something somewhere that Seventeen magazine used to have advertisements for trousseaus years ago–I might have even seen one of the old magazines with such advertisements from the early 1960s.

    So when young women of the 22-25 year old age group might meet married-minded young men today, they are thinking “I’m not ready” for that. Beyond that, they know that if they don’t get married, they will still have to support themselves. They want to move to the big city, get the well-paying job, and be in the right social circles to find the boyfriend with the well-paying job to marry.

    And the irony is that because even the non-slutty are presumed to be having “fun” and because they have well-paying jobs, the presumption is that they must be on the carousel and/or they are too career driven for marriage. Plenty of young women like that in the big city. Would they have gotten married earlier? Yes, if the opportunity presented themselves, but those did not and they have to support themselves.

  • Jess

    Escoffer at 291

    Excellent observation. I agree that what you describe is very common and I think it’s really healthy for a girl to enjoy her 20s.

    After all life is there to be enjoyed. I kinda resent being miserable for most of my 20s. (on a personal level,) luckily I had a good career to compensate.

    The kind of guy that wants his girl ‘ pure’ has always been around. I really don’t see that ratio of guys rising though so I doubt women in general need to ‘cater’ for them. I think it’s more a case of that type of guy having to be patient, staying single, lowering their ‘standards’ or simply altering their stance.

  • Mike

    @Jesus

    Agreed.. but now we’re just going round and round in the vicious circle again.

    Who will teach these men early on about inner game?

    Teachers? Parents? Other men?

    We already see the PUA scene is filling the void despite the protestations of the feminists who created the little supplicating masses they now despise. We can’t rely on the supplicants to teach the next gen of men.

    PUA’s are the teachers now. MAXIM is the teacher now. Spike TV and ManSwers are the teacher now. They are crude and crass, but they fill the void.

    And women denigrate these and want men to be more respectful, not as rude, not as crass, tastefull…

    and round and round and round the bowl we go…

  • J

    @SW

    I’m curious to know why the peak in the late 90s, and why the sharp dropoff in the mention of feminism in books since then.

    Because except to the die-hard feminists and the MRA/manosphere types, it’s largely irrelevant? The worthwhile parts of the “battle,” like “equal pay/opportunity,” were won along time ago. Most people IRL had never heard of Jessica Valenti or care if or Jaclyn Friedman is scissoring a transgendered woman or picking up a cisgendered male on Craig’s List. YMMV, but when I try IRL to discuss the issues that generate so much heat on the net, most people don’t seem to interested.

    Probably the worst thing I did was hammer home the need to be respectful of women at all times. Over time I’ve come to understand that respect is something that must be earned, not granted on account of gender.

    Or IMO on account of anything else. I’ve never based my respect of anyone on any personal characteristic like gender, status, career, rank, etc. I taught my kids that it’s all based on character.

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

      Or IMO on account of anything else. I’ve never based my respect of anyone on any personal characteristic like gender, status, career, rank, etc. I taught my kids that it’s all based on character.

      Well done.

  • Just1X

    “I think it’s more a case of that type of guy having to be patient, staying single, lowering their ‘standards’ or simply altering their stance.”

    And that’s fine, it’s just when those women get to 32-40, and the baby rabies has hit and they have realised that the men that slept with them, didn’t want to marry them, they need to stop whining about “where have all the good guys gone”.

    Her market value is dropping (looks, fertility, sweetness and innocense), his is rising (money in bank, career).

    Women have power when young, but it drops away. Apparantly this is unfair – well boo-hoo.

    During their twenties men need to find the alternatives to marriage, some of them are better…if you agree the marriage strike is happening (I hope it is, but YMMV) then you can assume that you ladeez are down to the patient (beta) ones. Which you (still) don’t want. Cry me a river

  • Ted D

    “Because once you master Game, you really do quit worrying about getting laid.”

    Once upon a time that used to be called marriage. And in fact, I was raised with the belief that getting married and settling down was FOR THIS PURPOSE, as if a man wasn’t serious about life UNTIL he got married. I still struggle with this feeling that I shouldn’t have to continually “prove my worth” to my mate once we are together. On some level I object to game because it appears to be all about constantly tweaking your mates attraction triggers to keep her interested, when all along I was under the false belief that her attraction was a given since she agreed to get married.

    I am who I am. I don’t want to be fake to keep a woman’s interests. And that is my struggle with game at this point in time. Am I willing to make these changes for the sole purpose of keeping a woman in my life?

  • J

    Munchy–

    “Narcissism + hedonism + (may I be so bold) materialism= early 21st century America

    Cosigned.

    BTW, I too thought that you wanted to be called “Munson”–not that it stopped me from calling you “Munchy.” I’m just contrary that way. ;-)

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    The “girls having fun in their 20s” scenario doesn’t play out across the board. I grew up in the midwest (Ohio) and moved to the mountain west (Utah). Many of the women I know from my high school (20s now) who didn’t move to the coasts got married.

    Locally, there’s a very small nightlife/bar/club scene. Often the dating scenes are based around church, social circles or local communities. There are more family-oriented activities. Lots of my coworkers have had been married and with kids since their late 20s.

    Overall there’s really not much partying going on except among a small group of the “trendy” girls. They were/are the queen bee types. Many of them also live in big cities, going to graduate/law/business schools or just finished, and basically fit the Bolick style of attractive, high-achieving, partying and having fun in 20s, and waiting until 30s to settle down. It may be too late for them then.

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

      Overall there’s really not much partying going on except among a small group of the “trendy” girls. They were/are the queen bee types. Many of them also live in big cities, going to graduate/law/business schools or just finished, and basically fit the Bolick style of attractive, high-achieving, partying and having fun in 20s, and waiting until 30s to settle down. It may be too late for them then.

      You may recall that when Kate B. asked the young women at dinner how they would feel if they wound up like her, they were tactful but negative. She asked one 23 yo woman why she found it depressing, and she said, “I can’t do this for that long. I hate going to bars, I just want to meet someone and stop all this shit.” This girl is one who did some hooking up in college, and at 23 she’s desperate to step off the carousel.

      I really don’t think women want to bang asshats from 18-30. Or not more than the promiscuous 20%, anyway.

  • Escoffier

    pvw:

    Recently I had occasion to do some research which had me looking through newspapers from the early 1950s. One of the papers I looked at was the old NY Herald Tribune, which went out of business in 1966. But before that it was the “Republican” and “establishment” paper in New York and in the US. Its society coverage was extensive. Just for the hell of it I looked through some of the society pages. The wedding coverage was almost entirely WASPy and upper class. All the girls were getting hitched in their early 20s at the latest. Over 25 was rare. Under 20 was not unheard of, though most of the girls waited to graduate from whatever Seven Sister she happened to attend.

    Jess, guys seem to be rebelling at this arrangement. Not in mass, not yet, but there are signs that it’s happening and may be growing. So all these girls who think they can play until 30 and then land some guy they actually want may be in for a rude awakening. The guys they want may not want them, and the guys they can get may not be the guys they want.

    I keep coming back to these examples I know, and I don’t know them well enough to know what happened with them, but it’s not that uncommon to see lots of attractive (though not qute as attractive as they once were!) unmarried women all over Manhattan. I’m sure if you pressed them they’d put on a brave face and insist they are totally happy with how their lives turned out, but are they really? All of them? Female nature turned on a dime in the last 20 years and suddenly a huge slice of decent-looking, MC or UMC women have decided to stay single forever because they are just happier that way?

    I don’t think so.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    @Jesus

    “Dude, I’m a dude. And yea, sex is important, but it shouldn’t be the fucking focal point of life. Most of what “game” accomplishes can be achieved as a by-product of just living life as the man you’ve always wanted to be. If you’re “goal” is just getting and maintaining pussy, then you’ve turned power over to women. Pussy becomes your holy grail.”

    And for a lot of men, pussy is a holy grail. Nothing wrong with that. If that’s your hobby, well, then I encourage it — I work in porn, for Goddess’ sake! Now whether or not you are taking power or giving up power in that pursuit, that’s an individual matter, and with Game it becomes a lot more level playing field.

    As far as my “goal”, its to be happy, and for me that means a fair amount of sex (or, according to my wife, an extravagant amount of sex). That also means stability, healthy kids, happy wife, and the least amount of drama as possible. Therefore I’ve incorporated my Game into my life, and everyone is much happier.

    @Ted D

    “Once upon a time that used to be called marriage. And in fact, I was raised with the belief that getting married and settling down was FOR THIS PURPOSE, as if a man wasn’t serious about life UNTIL he got married. I still struggle with this feeling that I shouldn’t have to continually “prove my worth” to my mate once we are together. On some level I object to game because it appears to be all about constantly tweaking your mates attraction triggers to keep her interested, when all along I was under the false belief that her attraction was a given since she agreed to get married.”

    That was a long time ago, in a culture far, far away. Marriage no longer implies that commitment to sex and attraction — those are atavisms of Agricultural Marriage. Under Post-Feminist marriage, there are no obligations of sex implied in a marriage, and the possibility of divorce and hypergamy means that NOW it is absolutely vital to Game your wife, if you want to keep her. Old married couples who entered into the union under the old ideals will continue that way on inertia alone, sometimes, but assuming that the same moves that attracted her to you at first are going to keep her interested and loving for the rest of the marriage isn’t your best course of action.

    It’s not about “being fake”. You can’t “fake” the Red Pill. You can learn obfuscation and misdirection as a part of Game, but if you truly master it and own it, you aren’t faking out your wife . . . you’re revealing a side of yourself she’s never seen before. YMMV, of course.

  • Ted D

    Jess – “After all life is there to be enjoyed. ”

    I don’t follow this at all. I tend to think of life as a contest. The goal is to make it to the end and be in a better place than you started. (in a spiritual sense, the goal is to live the best life possible regardless of the consequences, and to stay true to that even when it goes against your desires and/or happiness) I believe you should try to find pleasure and happiness when possible, but that being happy is not the goal.

    And this may be a very basic ideological difference between people. A life spent chasing happiness, to me, is a waste. Happiness is fleeting, as is sadness. What you do with your life, and what you leave behind, is what matters to me. So things like honor, duty, and responsibility are the primary concerns in my life, as is leaving a lasting legacy of some type.

    If I can meet my responsibilities and be happy, it is a bonus. But, being happy is not the goal. And I would continue to meet my responsibilities even if it made me unhappy to do so, because I accepted them and it is my obligation to fulfill them.

  • J

    @Escoffier

    Also, don’t discount the Dr. Laura effect. I really have no idea to what extent she was the big player in this, she’s just the one who first resonated with me. But in (say) 1980, you heard not one voice anywhere in the culture saying that day care, etc., was a bad idea unless absolutely necessary.

    I always thought that what Dr. Laura had to say on this issue was ridiculous and hypocritical. I always think of her as hiding behind a sense of authoritativeness that really didn’t exist. Her doctorate was in something like physical therapy, yet she gave out psychological advice as though she was a psychologist and was never quick to remind listeners that she was not. Her “profesional” opinions were not any more valid than Dear Abby’s. She also made much of her being an Orthodox Jew (She is now a Christian, making this at least her second religous conversion.) and tended to give the impression that her moral opinions were drawn from Jewish canon law. Goggle “grounds for divorce in Orthodox Judaism” and you’ll see that Dr. Laura’s views on that subject differ greatly from the normative Jewish religious view. Finally, it always struck me as just plain silly that America’s biggest proponent of family and SAH mothers worked throughout the childhood of a son she was extraordinarily lucky to have conceived after having her tubal ligation reversed. (And I say this as a former SAH mom!)

  • tvmunson

    @ J #322

    Please call me Munchy. No I never expressed a desire to be known by my last name although as noted my intials don’t spell out my first. Your is one of several variants I’ve had: Munster (after the show); Munchkin (after the movie); The Muns (my law firm name). In law school I was known as “Hollywood” for my penchant of wearign sunglasses year round and also a nod to Thomas “Hollywood” Henderson. I was later demoted to “West Covina”as it was felt my sartorial standards no longer warranted the previous appellation (although if truth be known, in the late 70s West Covina overall was rather more fashonable than Hollywood; people conflate Hollywood with Beverly Hills, Brentwood,Malibu etc.-Hollywood itself was kinda’ not so much in the day-not sure now). I was also known by some as “TV”.

  • Escoffier

    D. Laura as a person is something of a wreck, I agree. But few knew that in (say) 1995. My only point is, her message regarding parents obligations to their kids was, at the time, revolutionary. At least I don’t know anyone else who was saying it, certainly not anyone with such a huge audience.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, I too am skeptical of alpha/beta as used on game sites but I give it more credence than you do. The people who use it tend to misuse it but underneath there is a real phenomenon being described.

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

      @Escoffier

      The people who use it tend to misuse it but underneath there is a real phenomenon being described.

      What am I missing?

  • J

    I think one of the problems is that childhood is extended through the college years in our society. We have a weird situation in our society, and I think that a lot of it has to do with the MSM. Kids try to grow up as fast as they can. They all want to be adults. And then the moment they hit 21, they spend the rest of their lives trying to prevent themselves from growing older.

    Cosigned, except that I think affluence is a tremendous factor in this as well, even more than media. That and the fact that being a college student (and later, a grad student) keeps a kid financially dependent on parents for way too long. That dependency contributes to immaturity as well. In the meantime, kids reach puberty far earlier than they did in earlier times. As a result, adolescence now starts at 12 and ends at 35. And, of course, no one is going to wait till 35 to be sexually active.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan,

    There are very few (<1%?) who fill this role with ease, and they’re born, not made.

    Nope.

    If that’s your working definition of alpha, then Game will not get men there.

    No to both.

    Unless it’s relative – take four guys with Asperger’s and one has to be the AMOG – then that works.

    Yes, its relative = to the group. Each group has a seat for a leader. One person within that group will pick that seat. And be the “alpha” of the group / play the role. Playing the role doesnt mean this person has “every” trait on the list.

    Even whitenerdyvirgin is the “alpha” of a group, or more accurately: he´s sitting on a seat that lets him command. He owns a voice and doesnt compromise. – If I keep saying omegas and alphas are similar, is because they climb similar seats, while betas let everyone else seat before of them.

    If I was a girl looking for white nerdy resentful guys, whitenerdy would be the one to pick. He has the biggest cock in that microsphere. But then I would want to change him into Antonio Banderas.

  • Ted D

    Ian – “It’s not about “being fake”. You can’t “fake” the Red Pill.”

    I agree that you can’t fake the Red Pill. But, if I am not normally the type of person that likes to “lead”, is it not faking if I “take the lead” in my marriage? If I don’t feel particularly confident in some situation, isn’t it faking to pretend and act like I am?

    Ultimately, I don’t get why any woman would even pair up with a guy they weren’t 100% solid with. I don’t get how I can be a great guy today, but two years from now I am not enough to keep her interested. I see the things I did wrong in my marriage, but they weren’t DONE wrong, I was working under the wrong pretense. That if a woman thought I was good enough to marry today, that I would still be good enough to be married to a decade later. But, that doesn’t appear to be the case. I have to be better in 10 years than I am now, and in a way that she finds appealing no less. Making more money didn’t do it for me, and that is a particularly bitter pill since I chose to follow the dollars instead of following what I loved FOR the purpose of doing better for my family.

    I also wanted to say that I enjoy reading your posts. In fact, I added your blog to my Google Reader list.

    Sorry Susan! I still love you, but I need some variety. :P

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    @ Susan

    I think it’s just as important for women to appreciate the alpha/beta spectrum of their own behavior and make changes to advance their sex rank accordingly. I’ve worked most of my life in predominantly-female oriented professions, and I’m amazed at the social hierarchy that is instantly established among women in any social situation as they jockey for alpha position. Unlike men, who usually establish their social position by wealth, personal charisma, and achievement, I noted that the “alpha” women of a group were usually the ones who had the most control over the entire group. For women, building consensus is an “alpha” trait, and the way you establish it is by first building a consensus that you are, indeed, the “alpha” female (although you’d never actually say that, as it would diminish your control over the group).

    But supposing that my earlier “Alpha is what gets you laid” is still valid, then the “alpha” traits that women posses would be those that established and maintained control of the socio-sexual marketplace, with themselves at the top. While it isn’t always the prettiest woman there (beauty is an alpha trait, but not the only one, and the easiest one to mimic), it is usually the woman who is most adept at communication, networking, and social control. Women who are poorly talented or trained in these areas tend to be pushed to the bottom not based on anything they have done or not done, but because of the group perception of their status, as reflected by the Alpha female. Rarely is performance or achievement a basis in this determination; rather, if the consensus is that a particular woman is a threat to the pre-established social order (say, by being prettier or more charismatic than the present Alpha) then the current Alpha will use (to men) an appalling array of weapons to reduce the new females social rank, or eliminate her from the group entirely. Hence rumors, slut-shaming, and other attempts to lower the new girl’s social rank in relation to the group.

    It’s also interesting to note how the tight socio-sexual control established in a group by an Alpha female, (theoretically) keeping the SMV of all women in the group relatively high, is rigorously enforced by the entire group . . . even when the Alpha female violates them. If the flag girl makes out with her boyfriend, she’s a slut; but if the head cheerleader gets crazy with someone else’s boyfriend and gets away with it, she gains status in the group even if that violates the established socio-sexual order she ordained. Nasty.

    There is Girl Game, and plenty of women could use an infusion of alpha or beta in their lives. Hypersexuality should be tempered with beta, hyposexuality should be tempered with alpha, but you’re right, Susan, not all women are the same. That’s why so much of Game is variable — you often have to change up techniques or tactics to fit the situation.

  • tvmunson

    @ Jess # 317 “AFTER ALL LIFE IS THERE TO BE ENJOYED”

    My son turns 23 Friday. When we were doing la mas (sp?), I’d tell my wife “all I want for him is to know that life is to be enjoyed”. We talked about that the other day. And guess what-we did it. That’s not to say he’s never disappointed, down, etc. but he does keep it in perspective ( a lot better than I did). His orientation is always life is to be enjoyed. Jackie Onassis said if you fail as a parent, it doesn’t matter what you are a success at. To those of us who know the rewards of succesful parenting, salud!

  • J

    @Hop

    The “girls having fun in their 20s” scenario doesn’t play out across the board.

    I have a similar view of this. I don’t see much carousel riding where I am. I see college, maybe a Master’s and then marriage at 25 or so.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan,

    There´s no true definition for anything. Black and white, good and evil, pain and pleasure, love and hate, you name it. The moment you name it, you´re wrong. Words are what they are. Concepts are flawed by definition. All of them.

    But my definition serves a purpose, the purpose being, like any other classification, to give some guidance and throw light for me and for other people to see – with their own eyes.

  • http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com Ian Ironwood

    @tvmunson:

    frackin’ A, old man.

    Everyone can pick an individual philosophy that suits them, and for some people a life of duty and obligation is just what they need. But the Ironwoods have always pursued happiness with giddy abandon — and usually found it.

    Within that happiness there are rules and responsibilities, of course. But if Daddy and Mommy aren’t happy, no one is. My responsibilities to my children largely revolve around my duty to give them a happy childhood (my terms, not theirs) and keep them out of jail until they go to college/trade school/clown college. My secondary responsibility is to make sure that they don’t turn out to be a bunch of little shits, and so far, so good. I see my goal, biologically, is to prepare them as much as possible for adult life, and that includes arming them with all of the essential tools of adulthood. For my daughter, that’s going to include one set of tools and for my sons another.

    But you can be darned sure that when the Ironwood kids come of age . . . well, they won’t be stumbling around aimlessly, whining about their lack of direction and complaining bitterly about things they can’t do anything about.

  • J

    @Escoffier

    You are correct that Dr. Laura was among the first to descry day care. OTOH, all the educational/sociological research at the time supported day care as a viable option for kids. Most studies claimed that kids thrived in good day care; some found day care to be neutral. I haven’t followed the current studies as the subject is no longer personally or professionally relevant for me (I suspect that there may now be some studies that show deleterious effects.), but at the time Dr. Laura was not quoting research but merely opining.

    Gotta go.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, I don’t think you’re missing anything, you’re just being a bit inconsistent in how you write about this. At times, you will will acknowledge that women are attracted to what Yohami describes as the “alpha traits.” You’ve made categorizations of beta v. alpha men when it comes to individuals you know. So I think you get it. But then you react, as we all do, against the tendency of some to overuse the categories, read too much into them, and (worst of all) inflate their explanatory power beyond what it can actually bear. And you then will occasionally conclude from that, “It’s a meaningless generalization.”

    No, it’s not. It’s limited but meaninful. It’s useful especially because it cuts against the PC grain. The right response is to reject it but to ascend from it.

    j, Dr. Laura was making a moral argument not a social science argument. Part of what made her revolutionary was her totally unapologetic willingness to talk in moral terms and to use the language of morality.

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

      @Escoffier

      None of the generalizations is meaningless in isolation. What becomes meaningless is stacking up Roissy Alpha (#lays) vs. Yohami Alpha (zen mofo) vs. Athol Alpha (1/2 the solution) vs. Dalrock Alpha (terrible husband). It’s like holding up a card and asking, “What color is this?”

      Turquoise!
      Aqua!
      Blue!
      Green!
      Seafoam!
      Cerulean!
      Cornflower!
      Cobalt!
      Baby blue!
      Swimming pool!

      It is what it is, but we’re arguing endlessly about how much blue and how much green.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan, Jesus, Ian

    Dude, I’m a dude. And yea, sex is important, but it shouldn’t be the fucking focal point of life. Most of what “game” accomplishes can be achieved as a by-product of just living life as the man you’ve always wanted to be. If you’re “goal” is just getting and maintaining pussy, then you’ve turned power over to women. Pussy becomes your holy grail.

    Jesus, I totally agree, there are much better things to do with you life than chase pussy. But Ian is kind of right on a few things- first off, thirst for sex is not a character flaw. We all want it and need it often enough. It’s on Maslow’s hierarchy for a reason. To all the people (mostly women) that say that the average guy is making too big a deal of not getting laid, I call bullshit- try cutting off a girl you are sleeping with for a week or two and watch how cranky and unhinged she gets. Women need it too. I feel like most of that criticism, especially that from women, comes from a place of having their needs met regularly enough. When you’re rich you shouldn’t be criticizing the “gluttonous” dreams of the starving, lol. I am guilty of it too- when you’re getting yours, it’s easy to say “you’re trying too hard”.

    Susan, there are two reasons that most of the PUA stuff is so hell bent on short term screwing: 1- Those guys aren’t getting their basic need for sex met and 2- Those guys are also seeking validation that they can be attractive, so they want to pull of what they see as biggest demonstration of their attractiveness- causing a girl to lose control and go home with them. Most don’t care so much about either of those once number 1 is met. After that point most will move on. There are some notably pathological exceptions to that, but that is exactly what those people are: unhealthy and obsessed.

  • Escoffier

    “I really don’t think women want to bang asshats from 18-30. Or not more than the promiscuous 20%, anyway.”

    Certainly part of them doesn’t want to. But part of them does. And lots of them do it anyway.

    It’s beyond the 20%. There is another large cohort (another 20 or 30%) who hook up less than the incorrigible sluts but who do it. Maybe they bang 5-10 alphas as opposed to 20+. Maybe they get burned out with regret whereas the sluts never do, or if they do, it happens much later.

    I dunno. But it is a core tenet of Roissy’s that a lot more than just 20% of the girls are alpha-ing it up. Those 20% may be the most persistent but another large cohort is also stepping onto the carousel. They just take shorter rides.

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

      @Escoffier

      But it is a core tenet of Roissy’s that a lot more than just 20% of the girls are alpha-ing it up. Those 20% may be the most persistent but another large cohort is also stepping onto the carousel. They just take shorter rides.

      Good God, when did you start taking Roissy to heart? May I ask what evidence Roissy offered for this claim?

      Actually, Fly Fresh and Young broke it out in a way that I think is pretty accurate. 20% are hard core sluts – both girls and guys. They mostly have sex with each other. 60% have some sex, they’re not in the sexual desert. By definition, these are not alpha males. The women are not promiscuous, though they can easily get to 5-10 partners via relationships in twelve years. And 20% of both sexes get nothing.

      At least in college, only 2% of men have had a sexual encounter (oral, anal or vaginal) with 25 partners or more. By Roissy’s reasoning, those 2% are the alphas. 3% of women are that slutty. 43% of college males are virgins. There just aren’t very many alphas to go around. The notion that a large cohort is banging alphas doesn’t hold up – the math just doesn’t work.

  • Stingray

    I’m so glad you clarified that. I was afraid my post had offended you.

    First: No, absolutely not. Any post about the negatives of feminism could NEVER offend me. Second: Please don’t ever worry about offending me. It’s your house, remember? If I am ever offended (never have been, BTW) at something you write it is my problem, not yours (unless, of course, you said something directly to me to the effect of “Stingray is a horrible . . . .” then all bets are off ;) ).

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan,

    None of the generalizations is meaningless in isolation. What becomes meaningless is stacking up Roissy Alpha (#lays) vs. Yohami Alpha (zen mofo) vs. Athol Alpha (1/2 the solution) vs. Dalrock Alpha (terrible husband). It’s like holding up a card and asking, “What color is this?”

    Yeah, the only thing these have in common (including yours) is that alpha gets pussy and beta works for pussy. Then everyone focuses on a different aspect.

    Or from my comments today:

    In the context of game, what people usually means is:

    Beta = pussy whipped
    Alpha = pussy whipper

    Enter Athol Kay and he equals all nurturing and good spirited traits with beta and all aggression and narcissism with alpha

    Enter Susan and she equals all honorable and stable things with beta and all psycho evil stuff with alpha

    Enter Roissy and he equals all attraction triggers with alpha, and all attraction turn offs with beta

    Try to mix all of that into a single definition and it doesnt make any sense. They are all talking about different concepts while using the same words. Different interpretations of pussy whipped and pussy whipper, with different rationalizations for each concept.

    In the case of Athol, he´s a nurturing guy and not a pussy whipper, he´s probably also “beta” in the pedestalization sense of the word, so he attempts to bring some narcissism and aggression to please that pussy

    In the case of Susan, pussy whippers are bad for relationship, so she has trouble incorporating any of the already labeled “evil alpha traits”, with the exception of assertiveness and dominance, which are needed for relationships (and incompatible with pedestalization!). I guess she´s still working that out.

    Then the random gamer comes saying “I banged a drunk blond last night Im SO ALPHA” but he´s just talking about how he was able to trigger attraction on one girl.

    Then I enter the picture talking about something different.

    No wonder everyone is confused.

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

      @Yohami

      In the case of Susan, pussy whippers are bad for relationship, so she has trouble incorporating any of the already labeled “evil alpha traits”, with the exception of assertiveness and dominance, which are needed for relationships (and incompatible with pedestalization!). I guess she´s still working that out.

      Nice try. Never said that assertiveness or dominance were evil. I have said that high levels of dominance and aggression, generally indicating a high testosterone level, are problematic in relationships. Not just romantic relationships, but family, friend and professional relationships as well. This is well documented in the research, as you saw in the post last week when the researchers cited the higher cheating and divorce rates among alpha males (their words).

      So there’s nothing to work out! The advice to women is: High T men are a risky bet. That doesn’t mean women won’t choose them. They just don’t get a AAA rating :)

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “What becomes meaningless is stacking up Roissy Alpha (#lays) vs. Yohami Alpha (zen mofo) vs. Athol Alpha (1/2 the solution) vs. Dalrock Alpha (terrible husband). It’s like holding up a card and asking, “What color is this?””

    LOL. On what basis have you concluded that Dalrock is a terrible husband? Poor moderator of blog comments, perhaps, but I’m not seeing the connection.

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

      On what basis have you concluded that Dalrock is a terrible husband? Poor moderator of blog comments, perhaps, but I’m not seeing the connection.

      OH MY GOD!!!! Boy, am I glad you said this. NO NO NO! Haha, I believe Dalrock is an excellent husband and father. I was referring to his post where he says that alphas make terrible husbands. (Dalrock considers himself a beta.)

      So You Want Alpha?

      Great excerpts:

      Lets start with the glorious pump and dump. All you need to do is be on the lookout for the smoothest seeming guy in the world. Actually, just dress appropriately and he will find you. Don’t worry if he seems like the greatest guy in the world, who knows exactly how you are feeling and you have an amazing instant connection. You might be concerned when this happens thinking, wait a minute, all I want is a pump and dump and this guy seems like the man of my dreams. Not to worry. Your pump and dump is all but assured.

      Marrying an alpha is the pinnacle of alpha chasing success. Instead of being “the other woman”, you could be the one with the satisfaction of knowing he is having exotic affairs while remaining married to you. This could be a point of pride for the whole family, your children included.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Passer_By -> Susan

    I took the “terrible husband” as a gratuitous remark to invalidate Dalrock´s position whatever it is (cue: ad-hominem), with the collateral effect of invalidating her own.

    But there might be more to it. It might be love.

  • ExNewYorker

    “I took the “terrible husband” as a gratuitous remark ”

    I think Susan probably meant: Dalrock’s definition of alpha includes the characteristic of being a terrible husband.

    That interpretation would go along with the fact that Dalrock has a post called “So you want alpha?”, and then describes that they have a lot of bad qualities that make them poor marriage partners…

    At least that was my interpretation of it…

  • Passer_By

    @Exnewyorker

    Ok, that makes more sense. Sorry, Susan.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    ExNewYorker,

    Ah, that makes sense.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Yep if thats the case sorry Susan.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Found it, its funny – and accurate. Pretty much what Doug1 was advertising

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/so-you-want-alpha/

    Also skimmed at his other posts about alpha. He´s arguing against Roissy´s definition mostly.

  • Jonny

    @J

    So much of what you wrote about Dr. Laura is incorrect in Post 331.

    1. Much of what is “ridiculous and hypocritical” is immaterial to the advice. It is true regardless of whether you lived it or not.

    Yet at the same time, her advice on marriage is on the mark although her previous marriages fell apart. There is no hypocrisy on her advice on child raising since she stated that she raised her son herself instead of going to daycare.

    2. She did earn a Doctorate. Does that mean she shouldn’t call herself a Doctor? No. I don’t know of anyone who given up their academic degrees as describing their credentials. There is no fooling of the listener since she constantly tells people how she received her degree. Besides, she is a licensed family counselor (or something similar).

    3. Whether her moral teachings are Jewish or Christians is almost beside the point. There are similarities. Christians do not treat the “Old Testament” as irrelevant. What might sound Jewish is also true of Christianity.

    4. She worked when her child is at school. Goodness, it only takes 3 hours to do her show. She said what has happened on her radio show.

    Dr. Laura is many things. She is sure polarizing, but she does give good advice regardless of whether she follows it, and I don’t expect many people to do so since “doing the right thing” is so obvious and difficult to adhere to. We are all hypocrites in that sense and its sad that children suffer as a result.

  • Kathy

    “First person to call me Tom; thanks.”

    Well, when I saw that pic of you dressed as ZZtop guitar in tow (nice pic btw) and the caption mentioned your name..I thought, Tom.. yeah, nice strong masculine name.

    Suits your vigorous on-line persona. :D

    “Narcissism, hedonism and materialism filter out of this like moonshine from a backwoods still.”

    And it’s when you write such descriptive stuff, like the above that it makes me swoon.

    Now, if you think that I am engaging in a leetle bit of on line flirting, then you would most certainly be correct counsellor.. Lol.

    Fortunately, I am a happily married woman.. and of course I DO live far far away from you…. ;)

  • Catwoman

    Really interesting post, I just wanted to read a clear definition of feminism, I don’t think it should be about women hating women…

  • Rum

    Re: What we can learn about ourselves from watching animals fuck.
    One basic problem is that humans generally do a very poor job of seeing the world (and other animals) the same way that the animals themselves do. We can observe which individuals are getting lucky and make up explanations but they are mostly going to be guess-work. In some species it is clear cut – especially among lions and a few others – what constitutes male desire-ability but normally the important signals are far more subtle and the losers are not killed outright. But regardless of what the females are study-ing about the males in regard to desire-ability triggers it is a pretty hard rule that most males do not make the cut. Thus, the concept of human style monogamous pairing-off runs smack into hypergamous instinct and is virtually unknown in the natural world. Monogamy is so rare, I would argue, because animal mothers can get along without it. They do not need the commitment of any given male. That is the overwhelming background.

  • http://kingofbeta.wordpress.com CaptainBeta

    @Susan

    The link to the minding the campus article was really fascinating, thanks for sharing.

    Not living in the US, I didn’t really think that things had gotten this bad. I’m hoping that more people are starting to become aware of the anti-male sentiments in society…it’s actually ridiculous; if you know what to look for, you’ll see so many overt stabs at men in popular culture. But it’s considered something that’s _just there_. People have started acknowledging that girls have most of the power when it comes to hooking up, but insights about the male situation are lacking from life in the rest of society.

    I’m hoping that we’ll look back in 20 years and see society’s attitudes towards men as just as ridiculous, sexist and old-fashioned as certain old ads do today. I think everyone will be better for it.

  • Rum

    If you are not at work, google “laura schlessinger nude”. She admits it is really her doing it; she just cannot remember why she did it.

  • Framboise

    @ Brohamlet
    I think you’re putting words in JM’s mouth, nobody is saying that sex isn’t a basic need. The point is that if you live and breathe for getting laid, you might first of all not accomplish much in life, secondly your desperation will get noticed by women. Most people – men and women – are horny every day, but if pussy is the first thing on your mind in the morning and the last thing on your mind before sleeping with no break in between, what kind of person is that. Merely a dick with a body attached. For guys like that, it’s not even enough getting laid, they need to advance, change the current woman for a new one. Plan ahead how they can get laid a month from now. If you take care of yourself and your life and you have some sort of direction in your work and interests, then you’ll catch women’s attention. And that’s the best way to go about it.

  • jess

    “Jess: After all life is there to be enjoyed. ”

    “Ted: I don’t follow this at all…..The goal is to make it to the end and be in a better place than you started….. being happy is not the goal.

    And this may be a very basic ideological difference between people….. A life spent chasing happiness, to me, is a waste”
    ———–
    Ted, you make it sound like happiness and good deeds are mutually exclusive! Why would you think this?

    I tend to think that happy people often do good deeds and good deeds often make people happy.

    I really believe people should be aware of their own happiness and fulfilment (entitled princess eh?) but I also think we should pay our taxes, obey the law and make our world a better place.

    My choice of careers has always been about my ethical code and wanting to make things better. I have never followed lucrative career moves- ever. Its my own form of honour perhaps….

  • Lokland

    @ Susan

    That quote from Dalrocks mke me think of the female version of the Old Spice Guy

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Brohamlet,

    The average guy is definitely NOT getting laid enough. I think anybody not getting it an average of 5 times a week is not getting it enough. I still don’t think it should be one’s primary focus, though. And, working on improving yourself in all areas of your life is a good bet for 1. improving your overall life, while 2. making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex.

  • jess

    JM, re 374,

    but with the same girl yes?

    and 5+ sessions per week? (ha! clearly not a married couple!)

    and blimey… where would one find the time for all this self improvement!

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Jess,

    Yea, a few times on the weekend, then twice or thrice during the week. And no, obviously not married. Married people stop liking sex?

  • Höllenhund
  • Lindsay

    Like OzzyMandias, this blog provides an interesting glimpse into life as the other half lives it. I’m not a frequent participator or commenter, but I do pop in occasionally to see what people whose views of the world are a total 180 from mine have to say.

    From my vantage point, as someone with a wide circle of friends and acquaintances in all kinds of worlds, from the art world to the high-stakes business world, I’m seeing the following:

    • Men and women feeling freer to adopt a wider variety of roles, and blurring gender lines.
    • People realizing that they have to take responsibility for communicating and that strong communication is paramount in relationships.
    • Broader acceptance of non-normative gender presentations and orientations, as well as 51% percent of the country supporting gay marriage (and rising).
    • Women of all walks of life embracing openly GLBT entertainers like Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DeRossi.
    • Women, including women with kids, occupying high-level management, director, and VP positions at companies across my city, which is small, Midwestern, and more conservative than either coast. In some professions like marketing, they’re achieving parity with men.
    • More men in the 18-25 age range aspiring to be the secondary income earner, hoping to find a wife who outearns them so they can focus on their creative pursuits or their kids.
    • Over 1 in 5 women saying they don’t want kids, and men and women alike who don’t want kids no longer feel forced into a parenthood role because that’s what was always done.
    • Recent studies showing that when people marry after age 30, and both partners have post-HS educations, their rates of divorce are around 2 percent. Very encouraging news for those who feel everyone’s getting divorced and the institution of marriage is all but ruined.

    There are a wide range of Google search terms people use to find information about these trends. “Equality,” “gender equality,” “marriage rights,” “GLBT rights,” “men’s rights,” “equal rights,” “gender roles are social, not biological,” etc. are just some examples. The third wave of feminism breaks from the second wave in that its ideologies are all over the place. Many feminists are men advocating for custody and alimony rights (I do this too, as I helped my dad – the fitter parent – fight for custody of me as a pre-teen!), right to choose the career you want instead of the career society says you should have, right to marry or not marry whoever you want, and right to have kids or not have kids as you wish.

    People seem to be focused on egalitarianism these days, from my vantage point. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I agree with this. I’m a high-performer, and I myself wouldn’t like it if someone who wasn’t as talented or didn’t work as hard got the same title and salary as I did just because of a quota. Reform needs to start in the American school system by abolishing No Child Left Behind. We also need to bring back classical literature and the liberal arts education in college. Postmodernism is nice, but it doesn’t give you a complete education, and it elevates ideology over ideas. Lynne Cheney has some good thoughts on this.

    While I would be miserable as a housewife or mother, I wish anyone whose heart’s desire lies in that realm the best of luck. I am a manager in the tech industry, and speaking from the heart, I don’t want to manage anyone who doesn’t really want to be working – whether it’s because you want to stay home with the kids, or because you really don’t enjoy a technical career, but felt pushed into it because it’s a stereotypically male profession. Do what you love – you have one life.

  • Lindsay

    The studies showing women are unhappier than ever need to be examined carefully to determine what they’re saying as well. Women attempting to juggle three shifts – the work shift, the child-care shift, and the chores shift – are certainly less happy than anyone with only one or two roles. However, women who only focus on work (the child-free-by-choice), women who focus only on motherhood (SAH moms), and women who have alternate childcare arrangements (grandma, uncle, older sibling, etc.) are as happy as anyone.

    Women’s happiness scores go up when they’re not doing the majority of the housework, too. This would certainly explain why DINKS (double income, no kids) who can afford a maid service are in heaven. Our current culture emphasizes the need to “do it all, all the time.” Even vacationing is sinful, and many Americans brag about how many vacation days they have left over at the end of the year. If people adopted a mindset that was less focused on “total efficiency and being scheduled to the max, all the time, at all costs,” I think greater happiness would follow.

  • Höllenhund

    „It’s generational, so it will definitely take 2-4 decades to kill off for good. Already, feminism is something for middle-aged or even elderly women. There are a few young, high profile radfems, but they’re given a voice by women of my generation (and older) in the mainstream press. On campuses, it’s middle aged women’s studies scholars who set the tone. Yes, they have acolytes, but the philosophy resonates for just a small minority of women, and they tend to skew towards alternative genders and lifestyles.”

    That really doesn’t strike me as realistic. The basic tenets of feminism have indeed been absorbed to the mainstream to such an extent that we don’t even recognize them as feminism. Most people don’t notice it because it’s literally everything, everywhere. Feminism is now the water we drink, the air we breathe. Most young women don’t call themselves feminists for the same reason they don’t call themselves ’air-breathers’. It’s the only thing they have ever known. There’s only an absolutely minuscule group of people advocating TRUE gender equality (read: equal rights and equal responsibilities), and there’s an equally irrelevant group of conservative hardliners calling for a return of BOTH genders to their traditional (read: patriarchal) roles. These people exist on the fringes. Feminism is the law of the land and will remain so in the foreseeable future. The disease has to run its course.

  • Lindsay

    You raise an interesting point, Holl. I am definitely of the “true egalitarianism” mindset, and my particular enemy happens to be unregulated crony capitalism. Because my ideal society marries the best of free-market libertarianism and socialism, it makes people from all sides of the aisle uncomfortable. Dems don’t like me because I believe the federal government should be downsized, and unnecessary departments done away with. I also do not believe we need legislation for women like the Lily Ledbetter Act, and I believe public schools are a disaster and should go on the voucher system with total reform. However, I do believe everyone needs the right to control whether or not they become parents (which would include allowing men to give up the rights/child support to a child they don’t want, like my friend did), and I believe in getting the government out of people’s bedrooms, which means Reps detest me too.

    My grandfather, with a 10th-grade education, sent my mom to college and 4 years of professional school on a blue collar laborer’s income, and jobs for people, but especially men, who haven’t gone to college are all but gone in this country. My husband knows about this change all too well – he was an electronics foreman before his shop closed and the jobs went to China. I went into high tech because it was allegedly safe. Ha! No more. More and more, the tech jobs are going to H-1B visas from Asia. We’re up the creek without a paddle, and aside from educating people, I don’t know what else I can do. Getting the money out of politics and forcing our elected officials to work for us instead of for banks and investment firms would be a start. Not in my lifetime. Oh well, I can dream…

  • Höllenhund

    I think it was Devlin who explained that feminism is a perfect self-perpetuating vehicle: it creates problems for women, and then blames them on men. And women fall for it, of course. So feminism is effectively creating its own costumers.

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    I think it was Devlin who explained that feminism is a perfect self-perpetuating vehicle: it creates problems for women, and then blames them on men.

    Cosign. It’s like the sexual revolution: it made problems for women in the SMP (lowered the value of sex), and then those “asshole men” were blamed for using women for sex. Dumb.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    and then those “asshole men” were blamed for using women for sex.

    While celebrating sluts.

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    While celebrating sluts.

    But…but… they just wanted commitment. They were just trying to win you over, that’s all. :-P

  • https://en.gravatar.com/jimbocollins Megaman

    @JM
    “You don’t have to wait for a consensus. You decide for yourself.”

    I guess I have already. But I won’t be holding my breath for it to catch on…

  • Lindsay

    Well, I do think it depends upon which school of feminism we’re talking about. A lot of feminists are fighting for men’s rights, like custody, alimony, abolishing the mandatory when-you-turn-18 Selective Service registration, and improving working conditions at labor jobs (not to mention, bringing those jobs BACK to America – thank you, NAFTA and all our glorious presidents from the 80s to present!).

    Unfortunately, the “people should have equal opportunities to choose the life that suits their talents and desires best” school of thought is not very interesting. At heart, most people believe this to some degree or another. That’s why, when discussing feminism, we focus on the second-wave radicals like Dworkin and McKinnon, as well as women into new trends like pole-dancing that don’t advance equality (or dialog) for anyone. That stuff makes for better debate. There is an ongoing, vocal debate in society about the “gender is totally biological vs. gender is totally social vs. gender is a mix” concepts, but that one requires more care and more research than I have time for tonight – fascinating as it is. I’m also not sure if that debate belongs under the feminism umbrella or under the biology umbrella – maybe both?

    Over the course of my life, I’ve met people who call themselves anti-feminists, but whose views are actually quite feminist, as per the dictionary definition of the word. (I called myself this at one time – after taking a class on feminism in college that I loathed, but before learning how many different feminist ideologies exist.) I’ve also met people who call themselves feminists, but what they really mean is, “I reserve the right to act as poorly and as selfishly as I choose, and feel I should suffer no consequences, due to my gender.” Women who think their gender entitles them to act grabby or treat partners and friends poorly, or demand luxurious gifts and dinners on every date get my pity and disdain, but I don’t take them seriously in discussions of equality. I also think their personal demands to be spoiled have no place in a serious socio-political discussion. I’m just sad for them that they live in a fantasy world, kinda like the people who bought way too much house a decade ago, and are now facing foreclosure or worse – and I assume reality will catch up to them eventually.

    Studies have shown that each new generation of youth is rated higher on the narcissism and entitlement scales than the previous generations – a trend I blame on ludicrous false advertising, poor parenting, poor educations, and the prevalence of easy credit. Anyone in the current college generation who has an entitlement attitude is in for a rude surprise when they go out into the workforce. I feel horrible for them, but at the same time, I believe that adults (which college students are, legally) have the ability to learn about what life is really like and plan ahead accordingly.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Kathy #363

    Bless you! I write for reaction, as all writers do. When I came up with that metaphor-“like moonshine from a backwoods still”-I wondered if anyone would even notice it. No one appeared to and that’s ok; and then you said that. You’ve given me the only thing I seek-your attention-and the only reward I want-your approbation. It reminded me of James Dickey (“You said something about a still?” William McKinney as “the whorl faced man” in “Deliverance”).

    My ZZ disguise has more behind it. My guitar maker who modified that Strat (it’s even more beautiful in person- I think there should be university guitars everywhere) has made dozens for Billy Gibbons. I’ve talked to him about making a gut belt that will allow me to spin it like Billy did in the video-I think it was for “She’s Got Legs”. BTW it was the bands wives in that-they weren’t going to let any leggy models near their guys. The crowd at the tailgate was clamoring for it-and if it’s not too pricey, I’m gonna’ give to ‘em next fall!

    Flirting; there is nothing wrong with happily married people giving a nod once in a while to a member of the opposite sex. It recognizes we are married, not dead. And this is most especially true when done in a spirit of generosity, not covetousness. I’ll give an example- our closest friends, Lynn and Jeremy. Jeremy and my wife dated before I met her. Lynn and I have not, but I find her extremely attractive. and when we get together, there’s a little flirting that goes on. Now, I find Lynn attractive; I do not know how she finds me but when I engage with her, she is nothing loathe O My Brothers nothing loathe (from the book “A Clockwork Orange”: an archaic, Victorian expression meaning agreeable to). And Jeremy with my Susan. But I love my friends intensely: Lynn is an amazing woman, Jeremy a man such as God meant men to be and I’d cut off my leg before I’d consider a betrayal that would affect either of them to say nothing of my own wife, for whom I’d slit my throat. A wink across the aisle in jest, and then full on appreciation of what ones has, and I have the entire world.

    I have not met your husband and probably never will but will say 3 things about him:1) he has great taste in women;2) he is one lucky bastard and 3) he better damn well know it.

    Here’s winkin’ at ya’.

    BTW love to be called Tom, hate Tommy. Story there; maybe another time.

    BTW II but love counselor above all.

    with appreciation
    Thomas V. Munson, Esq.

  • BroHamlet

    @Framboise

    I think you’re putting words in JM’s mouth, nobody is saying that sex isn’t a basic need.

    I’m not trying to put words in his mouth at all. I’m just addressing what seemed to be the attitude that the average dude, for whom regular sex is part of a normal set of requirements for happiness in a really basic sense (like any other human being), is supposed to effortlessly snap himself into the mindset that Jesus and I seem to share about the priority of women among everything else in your life. What I wrote was just to remind him and other people that it’s rarely that simple for most people, it’s a process, and if you are already out of balance (not getting any), you will probably swing between extremes a little bit once that changes. I have watched friends make the transition from getting none, to getting a lot, and I think it’s actually pretty normal for a dude to swing in the direction of chasing it a lot once he finds he can be effective at it. It’s a lot like sleep deprivation- once you get to sleep you want to sleep until you’re really well rested, then you’ll be fine with 6-8 hours a night. Once a guy’s gotten used to having a better (normal) sex life, he’ll scale it back and focus on other things. Anyways, my point was to illustrate where the “chase” mentality comes from- valid physical need, and that the solution sometimes does result in some excess.

    The point is that if you live and breathe for getting laid, you might first of all not accomplish much in life, secondly your desperation will get noticed by women.

    Yes, I already get the point. Read almost everything I’ve written in the comments on other posts at this blog. I’ve been writing exactly what you just wrote since started reading here, because what you and Jesus are talking about has been my philosophy for a long time. Trust me, we are definitely on the same page regarding this.

    @Jesus

    I agree most dudes aren’t even coming close (but the amount probably varies). All I am saying is that the philosophy we are discussing and the action of making it a reality require a journey for most people, and sometimes, excess is a part of that journey for guys who are on a certain point on the path. Getting laid should never be your primary goal in life, but for a brief while, for guys who have never had the ability to make it happen for themselves before, they might be a little preoccupied with catching up. Personally, I think that’s only natural, and if you’re otherwise mentally healthy it wears off.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    BTW Lynn and my wife have been best friends since childhood.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Kathy

    That’s my real beard. It takes years off me trust me.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Brohamlet,

    I agree with all that. I went to the extreme for a while, too. And I would recommend any guy who feels the need to make up for lost time to go for it (ethically). I just think that it’s unfortunate that some guys become so addicted to the high of picking up girls, that they never come back from the extreme.

  • BroHamlet

    @Jesus

    I just think that it’s unfortunate that some guys become so addicted to the high of picking up girls, that they never come back from the extreme.

    Yup. I think those guys would be in a small minority, though. I have seen the swing to “player” status happen among a few close friends, some who know about the ins and outs of game, and some who couldn’t really tell you what game even means, and none of them cared to maintain it. They all got bored with it. Even some of these hardcore pickup bloggers will probably be coaching little league someday. There are just more fulfilling things in life for men- it’s key that they find those things.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    2 Lindsay #387

    “Bringing those jobs back to America.”

    I know this is not a political site, and I will not belabor this too long. But I most tell you that the discussion here about the SMP and the relationship between the sexes is very much affected by the economic climate. I believe a significant part of the lability you young (everyone who is single and under 40 w/o children- I know, the age is high but youth is a state of mind to some extent, and it extends to under 40 w/o kids) people are experiencing in initiating, forming and maintaining relationships is due to the very dismal job/career prospects for many of you, maybe most. It’s a big topic, bigger than my capacity to address it. But you’ve been interrupted make no mistake; I’ve seen more generations than you have, and I know what this is, even though none of us, my generation, yours, all existing, has ever seen anything like it.

    I’m not going to go on because it’s not information that is particularly useful to you in the premises. It might be helpful to recognize the early 21st century zeitgeist and the stress ( many variables in that term: dysthymia, anxiety, ennui, others) it places on you. Dunno’. The Great Depression inflicted horrendous pain on, largely, intact families, and the institutions-government, church, civic associations of all sorts, communities, families (more extended, closer)-none had been seriously challenged before then in the way we’ve seen in the last 50 years and so were able to provide cohesiveness and structure that simply no longer exists. So you (Xers, Millenials, whatevers) are left to confront this Great Recession and its dreadful and evolving implications largely as anomic individuals, many of you from “broken” homes, many more from unstable ones, and even the lucky ones were not guided as much as pushed from what I’ve seen (no idle distinction that).

    I have nothing to offer you. At least Churchill could offer his citizens the promise that through their “blood, sweat, toil and tears” they would prevail; he knew it in his heart, firmly believed it, although when he spoke those words there was absolutely no reason to.I watched a movie once about the Cold War. Two officers were reminiscing about WWII. One said to the other:”Do you miss that action?” He responds: “I miss the clarity.”

    And that’s close to it. It’s just not clear what we do. And you’re swimming in this. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and that’s true for romance, hooking up, partnering or whatever else you’re doing. Knowing this may not help you, just as not knowing it may not harm you. But it doesn’t make it any less true.

  • Lindsay

    Thank you, tvmunson. My grandparents were Great Depression survivors, and based on what they told me while still alive, it seems like the Depression is back. I’m a later Gen-Xer, so I at least had a chance to earn my way up to a good salary before it all went wrong – and I met my husband at age 23 (LTR-serious by 24), so I was off the market fairly early as well – but I know many 20 and 30somethings are struggling to reach adulthood. Upthread, someone mentioned how many Americans toil in a state of extended adolescence, and I think that’s true too. I finished college on time (a few months before I turned 22), but many of my peers took 5, 6, or 7 years to finish – while others delayed careers further with grad school, traveling abroad, etc. In the job market, I’m now competing with people 10 years my senior, because many of my peers are still floundering around at the entry level or just above it, in their 30s. I suspect many of them won’t be able to even afford marriage until 40, or close to it.

    I recently read that something like 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 women now outearn their husbands. That’s definitely got to change the dating dynamics as well. Even if women are thought to be hypergamous (I’ve never been, so I can’t say what that feels like), they no longer can be – not now, when there’s a 20-25% chance they’ll be the household breadwinner. Nowadays, if even one member of the couple works, you’re called “lucky.” Like you, I don’t have the answers, but I totally agree there’s an overlap between the financial economy and the dating market.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Lindsay

    That “Depression” i e the Great One is not back (at least not yet). This one, ours, will be with us long enough that we may change the nomenclature. What we now call “depressions” used to be called “panics’ i e The Panic of 1873 and The Panic of 1893. Well, they (the “they”) figured out saying “panic” caused people to-drumroll-panic, so a new word was needed. Don’t know when depression came into being but following the Great One even saying the word was verboten so “recession” was used (post WWII). Then that started being problematic because-like panic and depression before it-even saying IT caused “downturns” so downturn was around for while. I think it was the Carter administration’s Mike Blumenthal (Sec of Treasury) that said ” you can call it a banana and it’s still the same thing”. And it is: panic, depression, recession downturn all describe severe retractions in the economy , de-leveraging and deflation albeit they have many different causes. Before Federal Deposit Insurance a “panic” meant a run on the banks for their $ which led to liquidity issues as a one-to-one proposition. We’ve layered it some, ameliorated it some, but liquidity/credit is still the game. When this bastard is over we may never want to hear “recession” again so we’ll need a new one; maybe “banana” although this one has a ways to go before its pealed.

  • OffTheCuff

    and 5+ sessions per week? (ha! clearly not a married couple!)

    Yeah, clearly not married! Us married* folks would never tolerate so little sex.

    * red-pill married folks.

  • Candide

    Feminism running out of moves on the board? That’s like saying women have finally run out of things to complain about and blame on men. Come on Susan, this blog post is poor by your standard.

    Do not slack off, do not underestimate The Enemy!

  • purplesneakers

    And the irony is that because even the non-slutty are presumed to be having “fun” and because they have well-paying jobs, the presumption is that they must be on the carousel and/or they are too career driven for marriage. Plenty of young women like that in the big city. Would they have gotten married earlier? Yes, if the opportunity presented themselves, but those did not and they have to support themselves.

    Yeah, this is something I worry about. Due to lack of forethought when I was in college, I won’t be done with graduate school until the year I turn 27. I’m totally open to meeting someone in the next few years, but I’m aware that my peers, especially the ones around the same age, may not be interested in much more than hooking up, especially with the stress of grad school and “not having enough time” (and I’m afraid this may end up being true of me too). I’m in NYC right now and while my family is here, I’m seriously considering relocating to some place like Chicago for grad school, since the Midwest is more relationship-oriented (my friends also tell me that midwestern men have good game).

    It seems like one of the negatives for men about older women is not just declining fertility/looks, but the assumption that they must have slept around a lot, ‘explored their sexuality,’ whatever else, and become jaded and cynical as a result, during the intervening time. How do I make it clear that this hasn’t been the case for me?

  • Lindsay

    That “Depression” i e the Great One is not back (at least not yet). This one, ours, will be with us long enough that we may change the nomenclature.

    Sure, makes sense. I’m really scared that it’s worse than we think due to how the government counts (or “hides,” or maybe “lies about,” is a better term) unemployment. Nationally, the unemployment rate is thought to be 9% currently, but unfortunately, most economists estimate the real unemployment rate is closer to 20%. The Millennials, or people between 18-25, or whatever the media calls them, are among the hardest hit by this downturn, and if they can’t find work, the rest of their lives are naturally put on hold. Really bites.

    I’m in NYC right now and while my family is here, I’m seriously considering relocating to some place like Chicago for grad school, since the Midwest is more relationship-oriented (my friends also tell me that midwestern men have good game).

    That’s funny because it’s really true. I “settled down,” or was at least “taken” by my 24th birthday, even though my marriage isn’t necessarily what most HUS posters seek. I can’t speak to Game because it doesn’t work on me, but the Midwest is a good place to settle down and raise a family, mainly due to COL. People marry early (early-mid 20s) in many Midwestern cities, so you might not have luck in ALL of them, like mine, but Chicago seems like a great compromise between the late-marrying NYC, and the “get-married-at-HS-graduation” small town I grew up in. We’re off to your city this spring, for the jobs and the social scene you allude to. Like you feel the Midwest is a better fit for you, we believe Queens or Brooklyn will be a great fit for us.

    It seems like one of the negatives for men about older women is not just declining fertility/looks, but the assumption that they must have slept around a lot, ‘explored their sexuality,’ whatever else, and become jaded and cynical as a result, during the intervening time. How do I make it clear that this hasn’t been the case for me?

    Well, I get hit on a lot by guys in their 20s, who don’t realize I’m older than they are, and mistake me for being 22 or something – it’s clearly not a “cougar” thing, as one guy thought I was in high school last year! Of course, I let them know I’m married (I’ll then offer them a drink to be polite, too, if it’s at a bar or coffee house), but one reason I think I get hit on a lot, besides looking young, is that I’m very friendly, relaxed, outgoing, and social. I don’t think telling someone “I’m not jaded, I swear!” is very convincing. You have to act the part. I’ve gone out when I’ve had a bad day (e.g. right after getting laid off – ouch) and everyone has avoided me like the plague. They can tell I’m in no mood to socialize, probably because they read it on my face.

    Once you actually get to the dating stage, I see no reason why being friendly, outgoing, relaxed, open, etc. wouldn’t continue to work. It’s always worked for me, and most of my female (and male) friends with similarly good attitudes have found being positive to be the best strategy. Of course, if the topic of your sexual past comes up, it pays to be honest, like we’ve been discussing upthread. Some people care about numbers and names and deeds and acts, and others don’t want to know one iota about it, so find out what type your guy leans toward. But either way, the best means of proving you’re not jaded and bitter is by not acting jaded and bitter. Same deal with how I can’t act jaded and bitter since recently being laid off. No one wants a jaded, bitter new hire – especially not if they’re paying them around six figures to manage their team! If you want something of value, be it a great relationship or a great job, you have to act the part, and act worthy of it.

    One more thing: If you have good girlfriends you can trust, go shopping with them and get their honest opinions on the clothing you choose. Selecting a wardrobe that complements your build, complexion, and personal style helps a whole, whole lot in being attractive to others. I have a good eye for fashion and design, I love helping people in this way, and from what I’ve seen, it does make a difference. My own personal style is sort of “rock n’ roll tomboy” or, when I’m feeling sassy, “90s cybergoth-lite” but it fits me, and I wear it well and with confidence, and it attracts people to me. On that note, I also don’t think you should worry about your age. Assuming you take care of your skin, are fit and dress well, and avoid tanning (which destroys and ages skin faster than anything), you may be read younger than you think.

  • Kathy

    Ah, Tom…. You’re a good guy.
    Your wife is so lucky to have you!. And you are so lucky to have her too! :D

    Your writing resonates with me.. It really does..

    “Flirting; there is nothing wrong with happily married people giving a nod once in a while to a member of the opposite sex. It recognizes we are married, not dead”

    Ha ha ha ha.. So very true.

    You know, I am no wall flower.. My husband has his hands full with me..

    But… I love him to bits. He is my rock… He really is!

    “That’s my real beard. It takes years off me trust me.'”

    Get outta here!.. Dead set mate?

    I love it!

    God Bless you too.. And your family dear Tom. . :D

  • pvw

    Purplesneakers responding to my observation on presumptions about women with careers in big cities, that they are carousel riders and/or too career focused for marriage: “It seems like one of the negatives for men about older women is not just declining fertility/looks, but the assumption that they must have slept around a lot, ‘explored their sexuality,’ whatever else, and become jaded and cynical as a result, during the intervening time. How do I make it clear that this hasn’t been the case for me?

    Lindsay to Purplesneakers–this advice sounds about right. If you’re not a jaded carousel rider, you won’t appear to be one, and if you present yourself in a fashion that is attractive, you are on your way, and especially if you make time for a social life….

    Oh, and Lindsay, I like seeing your posts, very even-handed and nuanced, especially about feminist theory–I teach women’s history at the college level, and what you are saying is right on point!

  • Ted D

    5 sounds like a good baseline a week. Our worst weeks usually come in around 3-4, but generally we manage to do better.

    And yeah, weekends are for twofers and threefers. ;) (our term for knocking two or three out in one day) And those really bring our weekly numbers up. In fact, we have jokingly gone for a threefer just to bring a slow weekly number up to an acceptable level. ;)

    No, we aren’t married. But, we live together with three children aged 11 to 13.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, re: the 20% business. I don’t know if it’s true or not. I just pointed out what Roissy and other game bloggers believe.

    As for evidence, I am not sure if there is any. But I could point to the following, which is perhaps not evidence but at least suggestive. You have posted statistics that show that today in college age youth, male virgins outnumber female virgins by a not-insiginificant margin. From the older surveys that I have seen, this is the first time in history (that we know of) that has ever happened. That certainly suggests that far more than 20% of the girls are hopping on the carousel. It also suggests that a small % of the guys are reaping nearly all of the benefits.

    So, my own guess is that 20% if the girls may be incorrigible riders–i.e., spend many years, even a decade or more–on the carousel. But another huge cohort–30%? no idea, really–also gets on for a shorter ride. They hop off for whatever reason, not least being they find that they don’t like it.

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

      @Escoffier

      So, my own guess is that 20% if the girls may be incorrigible riders–i.e., spend many years, even a decade or more–on the carousel. But another huge cohort–30%? no idea, really–also gets on for a shorter ride. They hop off for whatever reason, not least being they find that they don’t like it

      I think where we differ is on the question of which guys are having sex. I would agree that another cohort of women has some sex in their 20s. But I don’t believe it’s necessarily with alphas. The carousel is a concept that refers to alpha males only – and women wanting to climb aboard with only the most dominant men.

      Others have pointed out – plenty of people are still marrying, and most of the grooms are betas. Someone is having sex with betas in their 20s.

      I do think a pretty high percentage of women get burned by a cad or two. That’s how that 2% of guys get such high numbers. It’s the bait and switch from dad to cad. FFY has admitted as much.

      Overall, I haven’t seen any evidence that the slutty 20% isn’t mostly servicing each other, while another 60% is having relationships here and there, with occasional sex – overall a small number of partners, mostly beta guys and beta girls.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Yeah, clearly not married! Us married* folks would never tolerate so little sex.

    * red-pill married folks.

    lol. Okay, good to know. You and Ted give me hope then.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    @ Kathy #401
    Back at ya’ with a guy-to-gal knuckle punch, affirming without tearing skin!

  • J

    Jonny–

    My point wasn’t that Dr. Laura doesn’t have the right to call herself doctor or that there are no similarities between Christianity and Judaism. It was that Dr. Laura tends to paint herself with a patina of moral and professional authority that really should not be as closely associated with her as it is. She’s not quite a liar, but you really have to read the “fine print.” In the end, her opinions are really just her opinions. She doesn’t speak from the professional or religious background one might assume for her based on how she has presented herself.

  • J

    If you are not at work, google “laura schlessinger nude”. She admits it is really her doing it; she just cannot remember why she did it.

    IIRC the photo was taken by a lover who was married to someone else at the time–or perhaps Dr. Laura was also married to someone else at the time. Dr. L was pretty wild before she settled down to her current, shrewish judgementalism.

    She was also rather unforgiving of her mother, who died alone and was discovered days later. I’m pretty sure that forgiveness is a virtue in both Catholocism, the faith that Dr. Laura was born into, and Judaism, the faith that she rather publically converted to and then rather publically abandoned after not being enthusiastically embraced by Jews.

  • Escoffier

    Well, we have the field reports of the gamers. Which may be false or self-serving but they do say insist that they are able to bed more than just the incorrigible sluts.

    Also, the “betas” tend to report the following. When they first become aware of the hook-up scene, their first reaction is “Holy shit, that sounds great! I am going to get laid like tile!” And then as they attempt to immerse themselves in it they find that it doesn’t work that way. Not for them. Only a small % of the guys are really benefitting.

    Anecdotal but persisent, this refrain is.

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

      Well, we have the field reports of the gamers. Which may be false or self-serving but they do say insist that they are able to bed more than just the incorrigible sluts.

      Interestingly, there have been a couple of PUAs recently who have confessed otherwise. Maybe I’ll do a post on it. I’ve been reluctant because I know that the sh*t will hit the fan, and all the guys issuing these FRs will swear up and down they banged two SHB10s just yesterday.

      I do agree that most guys trying to learn Game are not going to go from incel to player. But I know it can be helpful at less “ambitious” levels – like trying to get a gf, or lose one’s virginity.

  • Mike

    I just love Google. The pages seem to go on forever.

    http://www.google.ca/search?q=where+are+all+the+good+men

  • Ted D

    Jesus M. – “lol. Okay, good to know. You and Ted give me hope then.:

    This is a simple one man. I lived for YEARS in a sexless marriage. I WILL NOT do it again. I’ve made that perfectly clear from the get go with my SO, and she is good with it.

    But, during our first year together, we hit a rough spot for a few months. I started keeping track on my calendar every time we had sex for one month. At the end, I mentioned what I’d been up to, and of course she wanted to know how we did. When I showed her, she frowned and said “we only got about 3 a week in. That really sucks! How do we fix it?” (Have I said how much I love the way my SO thinks?) So, we made a rule that the TV goes off in our bedroom NO LATER than 11pm. And, if she has an early day tomorrow? Off at 10. In addition, it also increased her awareness of the fact that she was feeling too tired more often than she should, which got her eating better and taking vitamins. Now, I don’t know if any of that was the actual fix, but we are back to 5ish a week. (at the time, we also looked to see what the average is for married couples, and both balked at the results. 2-3 times a week is simply NOT going to cut it.)
    http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/FAQ.html

    We have also decided to make it a goal to convert the room next to our bedroom into our own small living room, and move the TV in there. The damn thing is a HUGE cock block!

  • tvmunson

    @Ted #412 re TV cock block:

    And then you have to c!ean the screen-carefully!

    I’ll overlook the use of my initials in light of the overall levity of the occasion (ref George C. Scott as Scrooge in 1984’s “A Christmas Carol”)

  • http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/ Andrea Muhrrteyn

    From my perspective as a feminist, we got a long way to go; but perhaps I define feminism different than you do.

    From the worlds only current matriarchy: the Mosuo in China, but as detailed in the work of Marijua Gimbutas regarding the Indo-European Bronze Age (The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974), The Language of the Goddess (1989) and The Civilization of the Goddess (1991)) the Neolithic cultures across Europe were Matriarchal in very similar ways to the Mosuo.

    “The [Mosuo] language has no words for “rape” or even for “jealousy.” Suicide is rare and murder unheard of. As relationships avoid entangling economic factors and love, finding and leaving a partner are simple affairs that leave little emotional scarring behind. Watching my own friends and family struggle through difficult marriages and painful divorces, I wonder how we’ve deviated so far from these roots.” — THE NA OF SOUTHWEST CHINA: DEBUNKING THE MYTHS

    ************

    The Mosuo Matriarchy: ‘Men Live Better Where Women Are In Charge’

    How does a matriarchy really work? Argentinian writer Ricardo Coler decided to find out and spent two months with the Mosuo in southern China. “Women have a different way of dominating,” the researcher told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

    SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Coler, you are from Argentina, where macho behavior is not exactly unheard of. What was it like living for two months in the matriarchical society of the Mosuo in China?

    Coler: I wanted to know what happened in a society where women determine how things are done. How do women tick when, from birth onwards, their societal position allows them to decide everything? We men know what a man is, we put that together quickly — but what constitutes a woman? Although, I didn’t get any wiser on that point.

    SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is Mosuo society a paradise for feminists?

    Coler: I had expected to find an inverse patriarchy. But the life of the Mosuo has absolutely nothing to do with that. Women have a different way of dominating. When women rule, it’s part of their work. They like it when everything functions and the family is doing well. Amassing wealth or earning lots of money doesn’t cross their minds. Capital accumulation seems to be a male thing. It’s not for nothing that popular wisdom says that the difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.

    SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is life like for a man in a matriarchy?

    Coler: Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You’re with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother’s house. The woman serves the man and it happens in a society where she leads the way and has control of the money. In a patriarchy, we men work more — and every now and then we do the dishes. In the Mosuo’s pure form of matriarchy, you aren’t allowed to do that. Where a woman’s dominant position is secure, those kinds of archaic gender roles don’t have any meaning.

    SPIEGEL ONLINE: What astonished you the most?

    Coler: That there is no violence in a matriarchal society. I know that quickly slips into idealization — every human society has its problems. But it simply doesn’t make sense to the Mosuo women to solve conflicts with violence. Because they are in charge, nobody fights. They don’t know feelings of guilt or vengeance — it is simply shameful to fight. They are ashamed if they do and it even can threaten their social standing.

    SPIEGEL ONLINE: And when there’s no solution to a problem?

    Coler: Either way, there won’t be an altercation. The women decide what happens. Some of them do it more strictly and others in a friendlier way. They are strong women who give clear orders. When a man hasn’t finished a task he’s been given, he is expected to admit it. He is not scolded or punished, but instead he is treated like a little boy who was not up to the task.

    Read Further: Der Spiegel

    Youtube: The Women’s Kingdom (2006)- a film by Xiaoli Zhou
    Youtube: Mosuo Women – China
    Youtube: The Ladies of the Lake – 43-min Documentary

  • Feminist Ex

    ” Men use logic, reason, morals, and values to create a stable society. ”

    Well, some men do.

    Feminism has achieved all of its goals in western developed nations. Not throughout the rest of the world.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Andrea,

    Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You’re with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother’s house.

    I fail to see the “better” here.

  • tvmunson

    @ J # 407

    Dr. L is disengenuous in that people assume she is either a psychiatrist or psychologist-she is neither. With respect to psychologists, I love to find out exactly how they got their Phd. and then nail them with it in front of a jury. People tend to assue that a Phd. in psychology is something thae same as an MD; a wide curriculum of courses, with specialization later. Not so much.For example, one guy who is an expert here on all sorts of pychological issues actully spent 2 of his 3 years torturing mice. Wrote a paper. Now he gives vent to all sorts of bullshit and I love to ask him things like “What did the mice’s family think of you torturing their baby?”

    Dr. L is some type of physical tehrapist. I don’t disagree with what she says. but she’ leaning on this “Dr.” thing to give her credibility. I’m a “Dr.” too-Juris Doctor. In fact, the first doctorate ever given was in CIVIL LAW at the University of Bologna in the 1500’s. If I came on here and starting referring to myself as Dr. Thomas V. Munson it would be clearly dissembling. So she’s fair game on that. Haven’t seen her nude-how’s she look?

  • Feminist Ex

    “Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You’re with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother’s house. The woman serves the man”

    Sounds like an MRA paradise.

  • Ted D

    Andrea Muhrrteyn – Sure, that all works very well in small societies living in grass huts. But there is NO WAY such a society can function with the scope of any modern country.

    I also bet that the “grass hut” societies run by men are also much less stressful than modern day living in the west. That has little to do with who is leading, and much more to do with the kind of life the “led” people have.

    Feminist Ex – I agree. Globally speaking, equality between the sexes is a long way off. But, in modern western countries, I think its time we put feminism away and move on to fixing the remaining issues we have with ALL people, not just women.

  • Framboise

    @ Ted D
    I don’t know why people have TVs in their bedrooms to begin with. It gives less sex and lower quality of sleep. It’s a modern American phenomenon which doesn’t bring any good – throw the TV out. Keep it in the living room, and over time you will get used to the incredible chore it is to get up from the couch and go to bed. The bedroom should be a place for sex and sleep only.

  • jess

    Lindsey at 387

    quite simply a magnificent post…
    Jx

  • Feminist Ex

    I wonder if in developed nations, women were much less available to men, such as in the middle east, if the men would also be doing what the men there are doing, that is having sex with other males until they get married?

  • Ramble

    A few people have hypothesized about the “seasonality” of the Google Trends graph:

    The searches keep going up during the college semester and peak at the time of Finals.

  • J

    I love to ask him things like “What did the mice’s family think of you torturing their baby?”

    LMAO You slay me, Munchy!

    but she’ leaning on this “Dr.” thing to give her credibility.

    Exactly.

    I’m a “Dr.” too-Juris Doctor. … If I came on here and starting referring to myself as Dr. Thomas V. Munson it would be clearly dissembling

    Right. A friend of mine is a college professor with a PhD in English Literature. When people address her as “Doctor,” she will generally joke that she won’t look into any of their orificies because she’s “not that kind of doctor.”

    Haven’t seen her nude-how’s she look?

    It’s an old picture, but she was a nice looking young woman. Pretty-ish face, nice figure, fit. I tend to judge other women’s looks on whether or not I’d trade face/figure with them. As a young woman, it would be a good deal for many other young women. At her current age, not so much… She’s 65 now. Her face looks very severe, but for 65 her figure still looks quite fit.

  • djb

    Andrea #414,

    “Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You’re with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother’s house. The woman serves the man and it happens in a society where she leads the way and has control of the money. ”

    Isn’t this the kind of behavior Kay Hymowitz and her ilk complain about? If men are transitioning toward this new norm, are we not already becoming a matriarchy? I believe we are. I know you like the idea, but I wonder what most women think about it. 99% of the Chinese are Han. My wife is Chinese and I’ve been to China so I know a little secret about the Mosuo – they’re a dying culture good only for Han men to visit. The young Mosuo women are leaving to move to the cities to – guess what – marry rich Han men. Han China represents the most successful patriarchy in history. While there were certainly wars between the Han and other ethnicities, Han Chinese defeated their enemies from the North and West mostly by “family,” not by “sword.” Female autonomy was severely proscribed, but men also were bound by a code of reciprocal ethics. This just proves that matriarchies are unstable, and over the long sweep of history, patriarchies win by sheer dint of numbers.

  • Feminist Ex

    “Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You’re with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother’s house. The woman serves the man and it happens in a society where she leads the way and has control of the money. ”

    “Isn’t this the kind of behavior Kay Hymowitz and her ilk complain about? ”

    Exactly.

    I’ve travelled through 3rd world rural areas where women are the ones doing all the work and out in the markets selling their wares while the menfolk relax on a hamock smooking a hookah all day. I don’t see how this falls into “matriarchy” or “patriarchy”. Its called LAZY.

  • djb
  • Feminist Ex

    As far as improving one’s looks, one’s personality, one’s charm, one’s approach or approachability, game can help some men. I do think there is a sub-set of men that are just too painfully shy or awkward or emotionally/mentally challenged in some way that cannot really improve all that much. They need more serious, professional help to get over their issues.

    I can’t tell you how many hot looking men I’ve met who’s personalities are just, well, boring. Whenever I engage with them it feels like work because I’m the one that has to carry the conversation. I don’t know why but it seems that women are more socially dynamic than men in general.

    The major PUA gurus are now all in longterm relationships, married or in a baby-daddy position to women who are not all that good-looking.

    Have you seen who mega-guru David DeAngelo (Eben Pagan) recently married?

  • J

    Rum–

    from Wiki:

    In 1998, Schlessinger’s early radio mentor, Bill Ballance, sold nude photos that he had taken of Schlessinger in the mid-1970s to a company specializing in internet porn. The photos were taken while Schlessinger was involved in a brief affair with then-married Bill Ballance.[78][79] Schlessinger sued after the photos were posted on the internet, claiming invasion of privacy and copyright violation. The court ruled that Schlessinger did not own the rights to the photos, and she did not appeal the ruling.[80] She told her radio audience that she was embarrassed, but that the photos were taken when she was going through a divorce and had “no moral authority.”[78][81]

  • Feminist Ex

    J, are you talking about Dr. Laura? The women who goes on at the mouth about how women have to behave like “ladies”?!?!?!?! (and who screeched multiple times the “n” word on live national radio?)

  • djb

    Feminist Ex

    If you read the article, you’ll see that in the case of the Mosuo it is about matriarchy vs. patriarchy. In Han China, the father’s family gets the child in case of death or divorce. The father’s mother can also claim rights to raise her grandchildren over the objection of the biological mother. While this practice is waning, there was a very famous movie about this when I was last in China. Thus, a father (or the father’s family in the case of the odd wayward son) must invest in the child’s welfare, whereas Mosuo men go off to the city and don’t take care of his, or his sister’s, children. By the way, I don’t believe there is “no fault” divorce in Han China, and freedom to choose whether or not to have a child is circumscribed. It has been this way to a certain extent for thousands of years. By the way, I consider anyone who advocates absolute female autonomy to be a “feminist,” because autonomy is a finite resource. For the stability of society and the welfare of children, one sex’s autonomy must be matched by an equal and opposite diminution of the other sex’s autonomy. Because our system does not incent male investment, it is bound to be replaced. I honestly don’t know whether I support this from a moral perspective, but I see it as rationally inevitable.

  • BroHamlet

    @Andrea Muhrrteyn

    Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You’re with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother’s house. The woman serves the man and it happens in a society where she leads the way and has control of the money. In a patriarchy, we men work more — and every now and then we do the dishes. In the Mosuo’s pure form of matriarchy, you aren’t allowed to do that. Where a woman’s dominant position is secure, those kinds of archaic gender roles don’t have any meaning.

    I realize these are not your direct words. But you have to see where this would be a problem in the west. First off, we’re already heading towards this type of an arrangement here, much to the dismay and constant complaints of women en masse. We’ve already watched this happen in the African American community, which is struggling and doesn’t produce anywhere close to a majority of upwardly mobile individuals, but it (I am black, so I do have room to comment on this). Secondly, most women prefer dominant men, as in my first point, and this is culturally reinforced through generations. Thirdly, it doesn’t address women’s instincts toward hypergamy. Most men will not be “with a different woman every night”, because women will still gravitate toward the best men, to the exclusion of most others.

    So maybe, possibly, if we could burn down all the money, goods, and systems that have been created under the patriarchal system, and somehow erase all cultural memory of the past, this could work. But even then, we’d still be going against biology.

    My money’s on biology.

  • Framboise

    @ purplesneakers
    “I’m in NYC right now and while my family is here, I’m seriously considering relocating to some place like Chicago for grad school, since the Midwest is more relationship-oriented (my friends also tell me that midwestern men have good game).”
    Are men in those areas more relationship-oriented than NY men or does it have to do with women as well? I find the contrasts in America very interesting, I’m not American myself, but have quite a bit of friends over there. Those in long-term relationships, or whom are at least of that mindset, are from Atlanta, Chicago and Texas. Those from NY and LA are single (and 30+, one 40+). And those from NY & LA claim these are the only areas of the US worth visiting, with educated people, places to go out and attractive men. (I am not the slightest interested in LA, but would love to go to NY). I assume the main problem with NY is all the single women 30+? Whom are all essentially looking for the same man.

    I don’t think you’re in a horrible position though, you’re only 27. At 30+ and single, I’d see why people would make assumptions. Unless you just came out of a 10 year relationship. Anyway, living in celibacy seems weird, and people will assume you have been up to something in the meantime. Even if it’s not sleeping around, then dating or been in short term relationships. And it has all ended, for a reason, you come with more baggage and less of a ‘fresh’ start. I can see why some men feel that way. My sister is soon to be 27, have been and is very promiscuous, and however great she is, I wouldn’t want to go there as a man.
    I’m curious to know though, when does it get weird to be single? I’m 21, how long can I remain in this state before people start asking questions? Don’t get me wrong, I hope to meet someone, but I think the American view here is very different. The European view of a 27 year old single woman is ‘normal’. Things get stressful at 29 and weird at 30.

  • BroHamlet

    Sentence in the middle of my last comment was supposed to read:

    We’ve already watched this happen in the African American community, which is struggling and doesn’t produce anywhere close to a majority of upwardly mobile individuals, but it is a real-word example of a matriarchy that exists in the west.

  • Feminist Ex

    djb, I’ve travelled in patrilineal regions where men are very macho yet women do all the work. I’ve also travelled in regions that are matrilineal and both men and women work equally and share in responsibilities and priveleges.
    The ideal situation is where each individual decides for her or himself what sort of life s/he wants to lead and understands the trade-offs that have to be made in order to live that life. That’s pretty much how I and everyone I’m close to lives.
    Patriarchy/matriarchy is an old world dichotomy. At least in the western nations it appears we’ve moved beyond that are currently at the stage of the “individual”.
    The best marriages I see are where couples work together as equal partners, sharing responsibilities and priveleges.

  • Feminist Ex

    “Don’t get me wrong, I hope to meet someone, but I think the American view here is very different. The European view of a 27 year old single woman is ‘normal’. Things get stressful at 29 and weird at 30.”

    Framboise, its pretty normal for Americans to be unmarried in their late 20s and early 30s.

  • Feminist Ex

    “We’ve already watched this happen in the African American community, which is struggling and doesn’t produce anywhere close to a majority of upwardly mobile individuals, but it is a real-word example of a matriarchy that exists in the west.”

    Matriarchy implies power. What “power” do single black moms possess in the body politic of USA?

  • Framboise

    @ Feminist Ex
    Do you know what the average age of marriage is? The average age of first-time marriage for women where I’m from is 31 nationwide. I believe it to be lower in the US, but I could be mistaken.
    I don’t think a high age of first-time marriage is good though, I personally hope it will happen around 25.

  • drg
  • Escoffier

    “Maybe I’ll do a post on it.”

    Please do, that would be a good one.

    I think this is a topic where we’ll never really know the truth because how the hell can you find out? So the more anecdotal discussions the better because that’s probably the best we can do.

  • Escoffier

    “Framboise, its pretty normal for Americans to be unmarried in their late 20s and early 30s.”

    True, but people are judging. They don’t SAY they are because that’s considered impolite. Plus it puts people on the defensive. If you really want to make a woman howl in anger, ask a >35 y/o why she’s not and never been married. Be prepared to duck and/or run.

  • Ramble

    Perhaps more interestingly…

    http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=where+are+all+the+good+men
    73,800,000 results

    http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=where+are+all+the+good+women
    4,250,000,000 results

    From this we can extrapolate that it is 57 times worse for men.

  • djb

    @ Feminist Ex

    I agree the terms “patriarchy” and “matriarchy” are loaded and ambiguous. “Mother-in-Law-archy” is probably more accurate. From a strictly anthropological perspective, it is patrilocality that makes a “patriarchy” stable. What makes women accede to such a relationship – the prospect of being a “mother-in-law.” She puts up with lack of autonomy now for more power later. A young, beautiful woman has enormous intrinsic sexual power. She trades her autonomy at the peak of her power for the reward of protection and power later in life, when the temporary power of youth has faded. This system is grounded in a fundamental fact – a woman will much more likely forgo acting on her hypergamous instinct if she knows that the wronged husband’s family will get the children. It also results in two families enforcing the marital compact as the wife’s family also wants to be a part of their grandchildren’s life. It makes societies powerful because couples will have children until they have a boy, thus leading to population growth. My brother had three children and then his wife divorced him. A mother, in our system, controls the amount of contact a father will have with his children. Because familial alienation causes immense psychological and financial pain, and because a man’s vision of the “good life” does not necessarily depend on children (at least this is true to a greater extent than women), men tend to opt out, as my brother eventually did after numerous court battles. In poor, urban areas of the U.S., these legal rights were combined with positive financial incentives for men NOT to invest in children, EVEN AFTER BIRTH. To restore order, men must have a greater legal say in the formation and break-up of families.

  • Mike

    drg 440

    apex fallacy provides the context. majority of women are broken, minority are nawalt. majority of men are decent but invisible and go ghost, minority feast at the trough of slutdom, hamsters spin like crazy.

    i actually find some joy in that Google hit of 4.25 billion. I’m not going to take that number at face value but at least at shows more men are starting to realize something is very wrong and are starting to go down the rabbit hole and see how far it goes.

  • Herb

    @FeministEx:
    Matriarchy implies power. What “power” do single black moms possess in the body politic of USA?

    Have you lived in an improvised community recently. Race isn’t relevant given the fact poor people generally have more in common with the poor of other races than the middle class of their own. Just have you lived in one.

    I spent most of the aughts living in neighborhoods where I was often the only employed male. While you are correct that the women there don’t have much influence in the body politic neither do the men (a huge issue feminists seem to miss) in terms of the functioning of the neighborhood and the family they are hugely matriarchal. The women control division of resources, living arrangements, and generally the money, especially money from legal work.

    In fact, the best evidence I’ve seen of the MRA argument that men who can get sex for free will do nothing to try and gain material wealth and status comes from living in impoverished neighborhoods in Willimantic, Connecticut (mostly Puerto Rician with some Mexican/Central American and white residents), New London, Connecticut (mixed white and black), and Bryan, Texas (mostly black with some Mexican and a smattering of whites).

    Going back to my “what feminists miss” point, feminists seem to think if those women can’t be elected Senator of the US then they are oppressed because they are women without considering a huge host of other factors or if they are considered blaming them on gender. It is almost as though finding one woman who is worse off than one man proves gender inequality.

    That blindness leads to trying to create gender supremacy. I used to think the policies advocated were done to intentionally create that, a “bottom rail on top now, master” revenge. More and more I think it’s just a blindess, a lack of empathy.

    Of course, the outcomes (such as roughly 50,000 men on a given day in jail for failure to pay child support even though women reneg on it at a higher rate than men) are the same so the motivation doesn’t matter much, except for those trying to change things.

  • purplesneakers

    Framboise-

    Are men in those areas more relationship-oriented than NY men or does it have to do with women as well? I find the contrasts in America very interesting, I’m not American myself, but have quite a bit of friends over there. Those in long-term relationships, or whom are at least of that mindset, are from Atlanta, Chicago and Texas. Those from NY and LA are single (and 30+, one 40+). And those from NY & LA claim these are the only areas of the US worth visiting, with educated people, places to go out and attractive men. (I am not the slightest interested in LA, but would love to go to NY). I assume the main problem with NY is all the single women 30+? Whom are all essentially looking for the same man.

    I don’t think you’re in a horrible position though, you’re only 27. At 30+ and single, I’d see why people would make assumptions. Unless you just came out of a 10 year relationship. Anyway, living in celibacy seems weird, and people will assume you have been up to something in the meantime. Even if it’s not sleeping around, then dating or been in short term relationships. And it has all ended, for a reason, you come with more baggage and less of a ‘fresh’ start. I can see why some men feel that way. My sister is soon to be 27, have been and is very promiscuous, and however great she is, I wouldn’t want to go there as a man.
    I’m curious to know though, when does it get weird to be single? I’m 21, how long can I remain in this state before people start asking questions? Don’t get me wrong, I hope to meet someone, but I think the American view here is very different. The European view of a 27 year old single woman is ‘normal’. Things get stressful at 29 and weird at 30.

    I think it’s a cultural difference- the Midwest is more family-focused, and I think that applies to both men and women. Though I think the sex ratio also has something to do with it– there are more straight women than straight men in NYC (and most of the women are very attractive and totally fall into the sex and the city mindset that they should be able to sleep around and find Mr. Big when they turn 40, until which point they look down their noses at marriage and childbearing).

    I’m not 27 yet– won’t be for a few more years! I’m trying to look ahead and plan things, though.

    Someone said that most Americans don’t marry until late 20s/early 30s? I think this is highly dependent on region and urban/rural divides though. I think the average for both sexes is still somewhere in the 20’s.

    Also- I’m Indian-American, which is a group that, if this were studied, I bet would have an earlier age of marriage than the American average. given that I would prefer to date someone with the same ethnic background, ‘the pressure is on’ at an age where marriage is a total non-entity to most of my female friends. (this is also a slight negative of moving to chicago)

    Lindsay- that was a great post. thanks!

  • BroHamlet

    @Feminist Ex

    Matriarchy implies power. What “power” do single black moms possess in the body politic of USA?

    I see where you are going with this, and I will readily admit that they run a matriarchal society within a larger, patriarchal system. Their power is limited within that larger system.

    But within their communities, they are the heads of their households and control spending and the politics of their families (votes). There are also many more young black women entering and achieving higher education. With that comes higher earning power. This puts them in a position of power greater than what most black men hold. And most black women, like other women, are still wondering “where all the good men are”. Basically, it translates to “we can lead ourselves, but we’re not comfortable with this role”. They still hold out for and flock to a few of the best men instead of being with lots of average ones.

    What I am saying, is that what’s being suggested here boils down to something more than just the right circumstances. I don’t think it will work given the cultural history or the biology involved.

  • tvmunson

    @J #424

    I never would ask the “mice” question in a jury trial because the judge would break his gavel off in my ass. What thsi guy did was put a mouse in a maaze and then administer electrical shocks. At first there was a way out, and the mouse figured it out. But gradually the way out became more and more confusing and the little guy just gets continually shocked until he flips out and goes comatose. Nice huh? I just do that to prove to the PhD that I am viscious, am not impressed at all with his credentials, and will study day and night to figure out ways to make him look like an asshole and discredit him personally as well as his profession. No wonder us lawyers are loved so much.

    Re: “Dr.”; I think it is ok to call non-medical Drs. this in the campus setting. In fact it’s usually insisted upon.

    Ref: D. L’s surgery:As Groucho said, one more lift and she’ll have a goatee.

    Or as I said: When she lifts her arm her sphincter opens.

    Re: “Munchy”; I wish I’d had that handle in my youth. I think it would ahve done wonders for my social life. I could have had cards printed up, sort of Palladin-like: HAVE TONGUE WILL TRAVEL

  • Feminist Ex

    “But within their communities, they are the heads of their households and control spending and the politics of their families (votes). There are also many more young black women entering and achieving higher education. With that comes higher earning power. This puts them in a position of power greater than what most black men hold. And most black women, like other women, are still wondering “where all the good men are”. Basically, it translates to “we can lead ourselves, but we’re not comfortable with this role”.”

    BroHamlet, when you say black women are thinking, “we can lead ourselves, but we’re not comfortable with this role” what do you mean?

    See, the problem is either one of semantics or a deeper misunderstanding. Women do not want to be “lead”. When we look for a man who is stable and has his financial act together it doesn’t mean that we want to relinquish all our decision making power to him and have him “lead” us, it means we don’t want to be saddled with a deadbeat or a slacker, which, by the way, there are many of them out there.

    Just as I have my area of expertise in life, I prefer to be partnered to someone who also has his.

    The best marriages, and by extension, families, are where the couples are equal partners sharing in the decisions, responsibilities and priveleges of the relationship.

  • Feminist Ex

    djb, “I agree the terms “patriarchy” and “matriarchy” are loaded and ambiguous. “Mother-in-Law-archy” is probably more accurate. From a strictly anthropological perspective, it is patrilocality that makes a “patriarchy” stable. What makes women accede to such a relationship – the prospect of being a “mother-in-law.” She puts up with lack of autonomy now for more power later. ”

    Kiyon Ki Saas Kabhi Bahu Thi?

    Yes, this is prevelant throughout South Asia where the joint family living under one roof situation is the norm. In the West the role of “powerful mother-in-law” is not coveted. We have our own lives, passions and interests. I’ll be spending my later years traveling and enjoying life rather then needlessly meddling into the personal lives of my adult children and their spouses.

  • Feminist Ex

    “It also results in two families enforcing the marital compact as the wife’s family also wants to be a part of their grandchildren’s life. It makes societies powerful because couples will have children until they have a boy, thus leading to population growth. ”

    You’re describing India. At population 1 billion plus, and its a complete mess.

    Hum Do Hamare Do

  • BroHamlet

    @Feminist Ex

    BroHamlet, when you say black women are thinking, “we can lead ourselves, but we’re not comfortable with this role” what do you mean?

    Black women, like most other women, ideally want a man who’s more accomplished than they are, is dominant in a relationship, and leads his household by taking ultimate responsibility for most (not all) large decisions. This is not to say that he isn’t a guy who takes into account his wife/gf’s expertise in certain areas at all. You seem to be conjuring up the image of a dictator- that’s not what I’m describing. What I’m saying is that like most women of any race in western culture, black women want black men to be leaders in the community and at home, and that is not happening, so they are uncomfortable with the situation.

    My opinion, based on experience, is this. Women do want to be led not in a condescending way, but in being with a man who is often slightly more accomplished in some sense, and one who does respect her gifts, but who she can trust the buck to stop with when a decision is to be made. The truth is that many men are having a much harder time when they start being totally egalitarian, versus dominant in a basic way. I’d bet most of the guys here (and elsewhere) will tell you the same.

  • BroHamlet

    @Feminist Ex

    Damn. Had a comment written that just got blown away. As for black women- most want a man who’s not just as accomplished, but more accomplished than they are and is basically dominant. Black women’s complaints come from the fact that they want black men to be leaders in their communities and at home, and that’s not happening.

    Now, every woman is different in the degree of dominance she prefers, but I’d sum it up like this from my experience: Women do want to be led, not in a condescending way, and not by a guy who doesn’t appreciate their gifts or opinions, but by a guy who they can be sure that the buck stops with when a decision is to be made and responsibility is to be taken for both of their well being, and that of a family. A lot of the problems that men (even married ones) are having with women is precisely because they expect that they can be totally egalitarian in a relationship. A basic level of dominance is required and needs to be shown often enough to keep a woman satisfied. I suspect if you ask the guys here, you will find them telling you the same thing.

  • Feminist Ex

    “My opinion, based on experience, is this. Women do want to be led not in a condescending way, but in being with a man who is often slightly more accomplished in some sense, and one who does respect her gifts, but who she can trust the buck to stop with when a decision is to be made. The truth is that many men are having a much harder time when they start being totally egalitarian, versus dominant in a basic way. I’d bet most of the guys here (and elsewhere) will tell you the same.”

    And my opinion, based on experience being a woman in relationship, can tell you that’s hogwash.

    What we want is a man who is dominant over his own life. That means he is capable, as am I, of taking on adult responsibilities of providing for himself in toto and for a family at least partially, his half. If he’s capable of even more, that’s just peachy. But there are not a whole slew of attractive men out there who are even capable of the first.

    You also seem to be conflating the level of financial income with the level of decision making power in a relationship. Why?

    I’ve been in a relationship where I far outearned my partner and I in no considered that that afforded me more say so in day to day relational decision making.

    A partnership is a partnership.

    “The truth is that many men are having a much harder time when they start being totally egalitarian, versus dominant in a basic way.”

    What they are having a hard time at is getting on top of their game.

    Like I said before, I cannot tell you how many hot looking men I’ve met (and been attracted to), who ended up having almost no personality, due to shyness or whatever other issue. Women want to see men who are passionate about something in life and who can express that passion. Not just pretty doorknobs.

  • BroHamlet

    Ok, I’m officially a jackass. Somehow I posted twice because I thought the first one was gone. You get the point, though.

  • Rum

    The answer to the riddle of why “Doctor” L. Schlessinger peeled her undies completely off for the camera is that she has always been a raving attention whore. At each stage of her career, she did whatever it took to get her fill.
    The ever present problem with women having too much power over men is that societies need physical land on which to practice their preferred arrangements and women on their own cannot defend territory. It is a waste of time even trying. If their men are not inspired to do that effectively some other kind of man will shove their way in and occupy that territory. It is almost automatic in nature. Most of the time, it is over before anyone bothers to record the event. It is only when and where a great, robust, patriarchal civilization has grown up that the process of collapse lasts long enough to generate a mark in History.

  • ray

    Susan Walsh: If the patriarchy is restored, it should occur naturally, reflecting the preferences and abilities of each sex. I do not believe that is going to happen, and there will be no wholesale “takeover” of society by men. Negotiation re gender roles is the only way forward.

    when your feet were held to the fire over at Dalrock’s, you tried this “but aren’t we all for Equality?” jive too

    collectively, western women have proven quite clearly that they are selfish, bullying, vengeful tyrants who will employ whatever lies and coercions are convenient to expand the female-supremacy that exists across-the-board in western nations

    older guys like myself have seen what “Equality” really meant, and Susan’s Special Version of it will be no different in practice

    there will be no “negotiation” with liars, thugs, haters and tyrants

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

      @Charming Ray

      when your feet were held to the fire over at Dalrock’s, you tried this “but aren’t we all for Equality?” jive too

      Quote please, that doesn’t ring a bell. I’m also unfamiliar with Susan’s Special. As for negotiation, you’re not going to have a choice. How do you propose blasting women back to the Stone Age?

  • BroHamlet

    @Feminist Ex

    And my opinion, based on experience being a woman in relationship, can tell you that’s hogwash.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree, then. I’m basing my thoughts on what I have experienced, and what I have seen many other guys experience, on what I have seen and done that works. There’s plenty of validity to what I’m saying as demonstrated in the experiences of other men too. We are probably just debating the semantics of viewing this from a male perspective versus a female perspective.

    You also seem to be conflating the level of financial income with the level of decision making power in a relationship. Why?

    I’ve been in a relationship where I far outearned my partner and I in no considered that that afforded me more say so in day to day relational decision making.

    I said that specifically referring to black women. What I have noticed, is that they do place more emphasis on money and traditional male status markers than women of other races. In that way, african american society lags a bit behind everyone else. We’re still pretty conservative values-wise because we don’t have the wealth or social clout to be more liberal about those roles. What I am perceiving from you, is that you don’t identify with that because you aren’t in the cultural circumstance that most of them are in, which is valid. If you’re not in their position, you probably don’t value the traditional stuff nearly as much. I have no doubt it’s easier for someone with more resources than the average black woman to be less concerned about income. Truth be told, income’s not a huge deal among the black women I meet, but they’re not average, just like I’m not an average black man, we’re both usually closer to the non-black population in important ways. They’re still pretty conservative, though, just less so than the average in our community.

    What they are having a hard time at is getting on top of their game.

    And I totally agree here, with the reminder to you that one of the biggest parts of your game within a relationship is communicating your boundaries to her when she tests them. You can’t be a doormat, and I will tell you that most women want you to be closer to the opposite end of the spectrum- they do want you to be in control more often than not. Hence a big reason why game exists in the first place.

    Women want to see men who are passionate about something in life and who can express that passion. Not just pretty doorknobs.

    Yes, and this is my philosophy too. Obviously it’s a matter of degrees here, and I am telling you that the relationships I have been in and observed require a basic level of the guy being in the driver’s seat. That’s all.

    I think you are making both me and these situations, out to be more black and white than is really the case, but the generalities are still valid.

  • Feminist Ex

    ray, “collectively, western women have proven quite clearly that they are selfish, bullying, vengeful tyrants who will employ whatever lies and coercions are convenient to expand the female-supremacy that exists across-the-board in western nations”

    Ray, that’s western culture in general. Colonialism, imperialism, the transatlantic slave trade, etc. Why would you expect western women to be any different than western men?

    BroHamlet, “I said that specifically referring to black women. What I have noticed, is that they do place more emphasis on money and traditional male status markers than women of other races. In that way, african american society lags a bit behind everyone else. We’re still pretty conservative values-wise because we don’t have the wealth or social clout to be more liberal about those roles. What I am perceiving from you, is that you don’t identify with that because you aren’t in the cultural circumstance that most of them are in, which is valid. ”

    Yes and no. In some ways African Americans are more conservative than the rest and in some ways not. I’ll give an example. Remember when the video of the young girl Amber girl broke? Many black blog commenters were blaming her parentage (or lack thereof) and talking about the loose behaviour of young girls in the community. White feminist blogs tended to flow with, “what’s wrong with kids having oral sex? as long as they practice ‘safe sex’, sex is natural” blah, blah, blah.

    There was a huge disconnect there between the white and black folks on the issue because like you say, many black people just don’t have the buffer that a white girl in her same position might have: family, resources, ability to move to another town/state where her reputation would not be known or ruined, etc. So I agree with you on that. On the other hand with the oow birthrate and baby-mama-drama being what it is in the African American community, nope, they are not “more conservative” in that respect.

    Yes, I’ve heard from men that they have to go “harder in the paint” when dealing with some black women. If that’s what some of my black sisters like then more power to ‘em.

    Personally for me, there’s nothing sexier than a tall, muscular black man who is soft-spoken and sweet as chocolate cream pie. The combination of and contrast between the formidable physique and the soft mannerism is TO DIE FOR.

  • J

    But gradually the way out became more and more confusing and the little guy just gets continually shocked until he flips out and goes comatose. Nice huh?

    Yikes, no.

    I just do that to prove to the PhD that I am viscious, am not impressed at all with his credentials, and will study day and night to figure out ways to make him look like an asshole and discredit him personally as well as his profession. No wonder us lawyers are loved so much.

    It’s your job. All my lawyer friends do the same.

    I think it is ok to call non-medical Drs. this in the campus setting. In fact it’s usually insisted upon.

    This is socially, not on campus.

    Ref: D. L’s surgery:As Groucho said, one more lift and she’ll have a goatee.

    LOL

  • BroHamlet

    There was a huge disconnect there between the white and black folks on the issue because like you say, many black people just don’t have the buffer that a white girl in her same position might have: family, resources, ability to move to another town/state where her reputation would not be known or ruined, etc.

    Yup. You got it. The buffer is the biggest reason.

    On the other hand with the oow birthrate and baby-mama-drama being what it is in the African American community, nope, they are not “more conservative” in that respect.

    I think you’re confusing what this says about them and their circumstances. Again, the buffer you mention is really key. The one thing a lot of those women are not doing is using female birth control as often or having as many abortions. Why? because in they’re less likely to have the money for monthly birth control options of their own. And an abortion? Out of the question.

    Yes, I’ve heard from men that they have to go “harder in the paint” when dealing with some black women. If that’s what some of my black sisters like then more power to ‘em.

    And you’ll hear it from me, too. Black women are more strong willed than others. I love ‘em just the same, though.

    But here’s what you need to understand about my point. A huge part of how any woman treats you is how she perceives you in terms of your dominance and excitement factor. I really feel like I don’t have it all that bad as a black dude in this culture with women in 2012. You know why? Because when women (black or otherwise) look at me, they don’t see “boring” or “weak”. I’m not the norm in the circles I run in just by virtue of my skin color, so right away I don’t get put in a mental box that I have to game my way out of with girls (within reason, and people’s preconceived notions, of course). If a woman sees you as run of the mill, like the way most white women look at most white men, most of the time you will probably have to be extra dominant (read: game her properly, and keep it up) to get her and keep her around, which is a big part of what I mean by “leading”. You might claim to be an different in your relationship, which is fine, but with most women a guy needs to appeal to her basic sense of what is masculine- for most women that is taking charge in some way. Anyways, with regards to perception I would go so far as to say that most white dudes by default are in a situation where they will be typecast thanks to a culture that sees the average white dude with a decent job as a dork. By contrast, I have some kind of face value in being different, and sometimes in the excitement factor of being kind of “taboo” to certain races of girls, but that’s value nonetheless. A double-edged sword no doubt (I’m more “attractive” to the cops, too), but whatever, that’s how it seems to work.

  • Feminist Ex

    “Black women are more strong willed than others.”

    Yeah that was part of my original point. You really think strong willed women want to be “dominated” by their men? The black women I know will knock you out if you come at them with that ish.

    “You might claim to be an different in your relationship, which is fine, but with most women a guy needs to appeal to her basic sense of what is masculine- for most women that is taking charge in some way. ”

    Right. And like I said that “taking charge in some way” means taking charge of HIS OWN LIFE, not of me. Men seem to be really confused on this point.

    “I have some kind of face value in being different, and sometimes in the excitement factor of being kind of “taboo” to certain races of girls”

    My race would be one of those ;)

  • J

    @ Feminist Ex

    J, are you talking about Dr. Laura? The women who goes on at the mouth about how women have to behave like “ladies”?!?!?!?! (and who screeched multiple times the “n” word on live national radio?)

    Yes, the very same.

  • J

    The answer to the riddle of why “Doctor” L. Schlessinger peeled her undies completely off for the camera is that she has always been a raving attention whore. At each stage of her career, she did whatever it took to get her fill.

    LOL. That too.

  • BroHamlet

    @Feminist Ex

    You really think strong willed women want to be “dominated” by their men? The black women I know will knock you out if you come at them with that ish.

    LOL. I’ve seen and heard all of this before, and been there. Sometimes, not all the time, they DO want that, though they won’t say it. How do I know? Because they’ll punish you when you don’t step up and challenge when it’s necessary (and she won’t tell you when it’s necessary).

    Right. And like I said that “taking charge in some way” means taking charge of HIS OWN LIFE, not of me. Men seem to be really confused on this point.

    Ok, I think we’ve said enough here. I will give you that- a man in charge of his life is a man of true value, but what I said above is still true. In modern life, I don’t need to slay her a wooly mammoth to be dominant, and there are much fewer physical situations where this comes into play, and more social situations where dominance is required thanks to more equality between the sexes in a physical sense in the world we live in. BUT, she still needs (and wants) to see flashes of what I am capable of (sometimes in opposing what she says she wants), and she will create situations to see this in action. Dominant doesn’t mean domineering. That’s all I have to say on this.

  • http://facebook tvmunson

    J

    No undies; this might be worth a look.

  • http://www.brainalley.com Pyat Feron

    I am totally agreed with the sentence of you that feminism is only having achieved gender equity long ago, the ultimate goal is the full realization of female supremacy in society.This is not a case that started from yesterday and existing till now.It is existing from the ancient time and taking advantages.I know many things on this matter but now don’t want to express here.

    Have you any post on gender discrimination?I want to read such type of posts.

    Thanks,
    Feron

  • Rum

    Ray
    Cut out the swastika crap. It is juvenile. It is also extremely bad manners. It is a bad idea to ever forget just how important manners really are. Paying close attention to the matter is the only way for people to even talk to one another about certain things without things getting out of hand.

  • Rum

    When Doctor Laura did her porn-attention-whoring-please look at my naughty bits shots, it was like, in the 1980s and before women in the grip of such madness thought it was necessary to shave themselves to look down there like a nine year old. At least she had the “decency” to want the world to see her pussy exactly the way God made it.
    When I was in school, I knew this African American woman. We spent some time together. I never, EVER got used to her extreme sensitivity to things I had never before considered important. I got why she would tell wait-staff that we were to be put on a front table rather than a back table. But there were lots of other issues with her that I could never get my mind around. But I was raised as an Old South Aristocrat; for whom the use of good manners are habitually regarded as a matter of fucking life and death. So I always got the respect-instinct thing right without much trouble.
    She now lives rich in San Francisco and is GodMother to my son.

  • Todd

    I agree with this. In my opinion, the only lasting effect of the feminism movement is to add to the discontent of women.

    In an unrelated note, do you think that the movement also started the concept of Queen Bee Syndrome? Knowing what a Queen Bee is, she satisfies every trait of feminists.

    For me, the best movement that we can start is the tolerance and acceptance movement. The concept is that we respect all people regardless of age, gender, sexual preferences, religious belief and others.

  • Pingback: „Das feministische Endspiel“ « Alles Evolution

  • Mike C

    I’ll bet that Mosua is a bastion of technological innovation as well. My guess is 99% of Western women would take their first crap in the forest minus modern sewage, wipe their asses with tree leaves, and then ask how do I get back to the Patriarchy with all the modern convenience like cell phones so I can text

  • Mike C

    Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You’re with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother’s house.

    And what is the GDP of these people? It is so easy to romanticize and idealize all this nobody fights stuff and disregard the difficulties of day to day living.

    My great-grandmother had something like 10 kids. My grandmother was the oldest girl with a big age gap with the rest. Her job was laundry, and this was before washing machines. My Mom has told me what she told her about the amount of work involved. And it was some beta male with dreams of wealth and amassing capital who invented the washing machine. It was a beta male who came up with the SMS texting technology that most 12-25 year old woman can’t live without. It was beta males who developed the Internet and a beta male who came up with Facebook. So I won’t dispute the “benefits” of a society like the Mosua except realize you are going to have to go back in time 5000 years in terms of daily living.

  • Charm

    @BroHalmet and Feminist Ex

    Re black women being storng willed:

    I want to say its in our blood. Lol. I think some black women take “strong willed” and turn into aggressive WAY too often and it ends in the negative stereotype that exists for black women as a whole. I also think its born out of the fact that black women and even hispanic women arent socialized the same way like other women are. Ive also noticed the difference in how asian women are also “handled” differently if you will. If you went down the list from perceived weakness to perceived strength based solely on race it would look like this:

    (weakest —-> strongest): white women, asian women, hispanic women, black women.

    (Sorry for not including other races)

    Now this is mainly true because of the levels of poverty and high rates of single motherhood in the black and Hispanic communities, one would assume, would produce a more resilient and “stronger” woman, but I find it quite amusing because from my perspective white women don’t seem to see how for lack of a better word, coddled they are. This especially holds true for white feminist.

    Had a conversation today with white guy I work with and he has this white female feminist friend who is complaining about how women like her lack opportunities because men are oppressing them. He kindly pointed out that the reason she doesnt have a job and can’t find one is because she majored in a highly saturated field and isnt special enough to stand out among he other candidates. She told him he was an idiot.

    @BroHelmat

    Re dominance vs egalitarian:

    I dont want to say a egalitarian relationship isn’t possible. Id like one. But when I say egalitarian, I mean that its more often than not equal but when certain issues arise, and decisions have to be made, Id prefer the most qualified person in the relationship to make them. Being 50/50 all the time would be a waste of time a cause a power struggle. For example, if he was better with numbers and understood taxes better than me then by all means he should file them and take complete care of it. Id have no problem with that. But if I was obviously the better choice to make a certain decision and he refused to admit it Id lose respect for him. Thats when men fall into the “Me man. Me do it.” category and Id rather not deal with. Knowing when to bow out is very attractive. No person is competent in everything. I think early Chris (?) mentioned men should controlling the situation, not the person, which is very true.

    Though, I will say that some people choose to be the more submissive one, and allow the other to be dominant one. Which is fine to me. I for one will never be “submissive”, at least not most of the time, but Id be down for it during sex, though I find there has to be trust and love to submit to anyone. I think its about finding the balance that works for you as a couple. For me, dominance is like a muscle, it only needs to be flexed when necessary. Men need to know when to assertive it and when not to. Thats how you gain sexy points. Being “dominant” all the time just makes you look like an asshole thats trying waaaaaaay too hard. Even the strongest lion has his down time.

  • Jackie

    @ Mike C (#473)

    Your comment about your great-grandma reminded me of *my* great grandma. The washing-machine was in full use by then (and I thank God for the man who invented it, texting… not as much ;-) ).

    Anyway, she had a job and was *expected* to surrender her pay to her father. This continued until she got married at the very late age of 27. At which point, she was expected to hand her pay over to her husband. She never got to keep the money she earned, which had to rankle a bit. :(

    So your remark about romanticizing history is SO on-point. My history professor said it is about a million times better to be a “commoner” now than even the highest royalty in the days of yore. Indoor plumbing FTW! :-)

  • Jackie

    @ Mr. Tom V. Munson, Esquire

    I can’t be the only one who would love to have a podcast, column, blog –or even community access TV show– featuring this guy.

    Viva The Man of La Muncha! ;-)

  • Feminist Ex

    Mike C, I see alot of romanticizing, of not only history and foreign cultures here, but of “patriarchy” as well. Scroll up to the top to read my comments to djb regarding his myth about the “powerful mother-in-law” and cultures that will value the peen to the point where they will keep having kids (or aborting female fetuses) until they have a boy, and somehow that “population growth” is supposed to be a “good thing”. India is at 1 billion plus due to that nonsense and in a complete mess.

    I’m from a culture that expects us to live with our mother-in-laws so they can play out the “power in our later years” fantasy and no, many of us are not drinking that kool-aid (poison) anymore.

    I’ve lived in remote areas and going to the bathroom outside ain’t so bad. We clean our asses with soap and water immediately afterward.

  • Feminist Ex

    (weakest —-> strongest): white women, asian women, hispanic women, black women.

    Charm, I always got a kick out of black guys who assumed I was going to be easier to deal with than black women. Boy oh boy.

    With all the complaining about white women that takes place on the net these days, their best bet is to go for black guys because black men still think they are “submissive and sweet” and can’t actually understand why white men are complaining so much.

  • Charm

    @ Feminist Ex

    I think this is also true for asian women. The sterotypes surrounding them are OFTEN true but there are a lot of cases where it isnt true. But I can say, that in comparison and more often than not, there is a lot of truth to the scale I gave.

    Lol, Im sure they get a huge shock from that. I know men almost always get a shock when they talk to me. Most men, from what Ive seen assume that “ladies” dont like erm…how shall I say….vulgarity, which is true, and I do consider myself a woman, but vulgar/inappropriate/dark/humor and honesty is my favorite things in the world. Men can be very open and speak frankly to me. They’re like “Wait, this doesn’t offend you?” and you have me sittin’ there saying “Nope, carry on”. I hate that I get grouped in with what most women are like, but I do like being that enigma once men realize Im not like that.

  • Emily

    >> Most men, from what Ive seen assume that “ladies” dont like erm…how shall I say….vulgarity, which is true, and I do consider myself a woman, but vulgar/inappropriate/dark/humor and honesty is my favorite things in the world. Men can be very open and speak frankly to me. They’re like “Wait, this doesn’t offend you?” and you have me sittin’ there saying “Nope, carry on”.

    Haha I can totally relate to this! But I actually find it kind of sweet when guys worry about offending my “delicate sensibilities”. Even though I have a naughty sense of humour myself, I still appreciate the gesture.

  • Framboise

    @ Escoffier
    “True, but people are judging. They don’t SAY they are because that’s considered impolite. Plus it puts people on the defensive. If you really want to make a woman howl in anger, ask a >35 y/o why she’s not and never been married. Be prepared to duck and/or run.2″

    True! But I think we should be able to ask those questions. I have a female friend of 42 who’s never been married. She is attractive, Asian-American and could easily pass for 28. She never tells men her age – she was actually once told by a man that he wishes she didn’t tell him her age in the end, as it ruined things and that they would have been together otherwise.
    Her demands for a man are extreme – she has dates very attractive and very wealthy men in her life, and as she says “why should I settle for less in a marriage?”. My opinion would be because she’s too old. At that age she should also be looking towards older, divorced men not looking to have children, not a 35 year old that will compromise.
    This hysteria starts pretty early. I am 21, my sister is soon to be 27, single and not looking for anything serious. We were discussing marriage once and I said that ideally I’d want to meet someone for marriage around 25, to get married at 26 or so. She totally freaked, and she was angry at me for saying so. She then continued to haggling me with questions and telling me that is virtually impossible and that I will never succeed. I think these attitudes have become ridiculous. Sure, I see how I have a way to go from being single at 21, but I want more than two children, I don’t want to be on old mum, you have to start at some point?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    (weakest —-> strongest): white women, asian women, hispanic women, black women.

    Charm, I always got a kick out of black guys who assumed I was going to be easier to deal with than black women. Boy oh boy.

    With all the complaining about white women that takes place on the net these days, their best bet is to go for black guys because black men still think they are “submissive and sweet” and can’t actually understand why white men are complaining so much.

    Wow, you have some interesting views on race. Have you met Doug1?

  • Emily

    It’s not just women who want to delay marriage though. I’m 23, and most of my male peers aren’t particularly marriage-minded either. And this isn’t an “80%/20% Alpha/Beta” issue. It’s something that I’ve noticed right across the board. I think it’s more of a generational attitude than anything.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Emily,

    I think that’s right. I think that most people are living out an extended adolescence. “Marriage” to them seems too “adult.” They still want to get in some “living” before they settle down and marry. Of course, this says about about what they consider “living” as well as how they view “marriage.”

  • djb

    @Feminist Ex

    I have moral qualms about the patriarchal systems of China and India, but they have passed the test of time. Ultimately, population prevails. Some form of Mosuo matriarchy may come here, but it will die out just like it did in China, when faced with Han patriarchy. There were also matriarchies in India, but they also died out. Most men are not asking for a complete return to these kinds of systems, just an increase in the amount of power men have to raise and maintain families. Removal of “no-fault” divorce, and the presumption of custody going to the father would probably be sufficient. Until this time, the fundamental family unit will be Mother-Child, not Mother-Father-Child. Most women see these issues as non-negotiable, even if they presume themselves anti-feminist. Thus, men will reduce commitment society-wide. It does not matter what you do as an individual. You may have the money to create your own system. But as a society we return to the mean. And this system is not sustainable in the long run.

  • Escoffier

    Framboise, your friend is almost certainly going to end up a spinster or else married to someone 15 years older.

  • Jackie

    @ Emily (#483) &
    @ Jesus (#484)

    Co-signed on the extended adolescent weirdness. :(

    I think it’s part of bigger, creepier cultural phenomenon. It even shows up in the names of stores (“Forever 21″). Little girls seem to be sexualized MUCH MUCH too young and women are to remain perpetually at drinking age (21). YUCK. :(

  • tvmunson

    @ Jackie # 476

    Belssing on you my child. Alas, I am a poor ignorant old man, one who just got a cell phone, a phone that for some inexplicalbe reason occasionally turns into a camera, which I didn’t want, and I assume is a message from the gods that I have somehow offended them, and thus repair to my home and sacrifice a goat (anyone need any goat meat? it makes great chili). No my dear I am content to blog (is this “blog” when we write? I sense I’m not using that correctly) here for my readers, my dear readers such as you. I mean that with all sincerity. I mean when you get right down to the essence of existence, when you right to the kernel of it, what are we? Perception, right? And perception comes from attention. That is all we have and are in the absolute final analysis-not money, not things, not status, not our physical bodies which after all will return to dust, and before that will change, and if we are attached too much to them that change will feel like a failure. When you read what I write you have given me the most precious thing you have-your attention. Anyone reading this has-you will never get the moments you took to read this back. I am honored. Adn Jackie your approbation, your kind words, are simply the cherry on top of a magnificenly large sundae, made of the milkiest, sugariest, gloriously filling satisfying vanilla ice cream, covered with a generous, overflowing, massive cascade of the most luxurious, warm, thick, rich, deep, sensual chocolate syrup.

    My son tuns 23 today. had we had a girl we were going to name her Jacqlyn. I love the formal name, and also like its diminutive-Jackie when hanging with the girls. It has elegance when it wants it but doesn’t take itself too seriously, all in the saame name.

    Man of La Muncha-love it.
    “The (mine) Impossible Dream”

    To munch, the unmunchable muff
    to sniff, the unsniffable folds,
    To lick , with each last ounce of courage,
    to go, where no tongue ever goes!

    This is my quest
    to get into her hard
    that her ears collapse inwards
    and she swears she sees stars!

    And the world, will be better for this
    that one man, bent with salacious intent
    still tried, with his energy failing
    to munch, from near and afar!

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

      @Munson

      My son tuns 23 today.

      And mine turns 25 today!

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Wow, you have some interesting views on race. Have you met Doug1?

    LOL! I checked Riv’s blog for the first time in awhile the other day, and Doug1 had taken over one of his posts with the most ridiculous crock of racist shit I’ve ever seen. His “sources” were blog posts, probably written by equally racist idiots. The man doesn’t know the meaning of bias.

  • Herb

    Anyway, she had a job and was *expected* to surrender her pay to her father. This continued until she got married at the very late age of 27. At which point, she was expected to hand her pay over to her husband. She never got to keep the money she earned, which had to rankle a bit.

    Is this a factor of sex or time period? The reason I ask is my father started working at 13 (this would be 1951) and was expected to turn his pay over to his father.

  • Wudang

    “he is treated like a little boy who was not up to the task.”

    THIS is all we need to know about the Mosua to know women really don`t want it but in fact would hate it if they could contrast it properly with a different culture. When men are put in the position of a little boy instead of a man any woman looses respect for him, completely.

    I couldn`t find the page know but I read a thread on a PUA/MRA site duscussing the Mosua once. It took those guys just a tiny bit of googling to disprove a bunch of the claims and to find out stuff such as that the Mosu are controlled and pushed arround by a related patriarchal tribe that pracices patriarchal monogamy. Just goes to show the weakness of such societies.

    What feminists also ingore when talking about such societies is that they have sexual market places that looks much like ours. I am 100% certain women past 40 in these societies are totally miserable and pissed that all the good men (most dominant ones) are only sleeping with the younger hotter ones and so they after having been chased are now ingored entirely just like divorced spinsters in the west. THats the problme when you don`t tie the man down young, you end alone as you get older. Also I am 100% certain there are large segments of the males that aren`t getting any and are boiling inside because of that. I actually read another article once about the Mosu that said the men who don`t go on vists to the women at night gets ridiculed for that by the other men. There are no equalist sexual market places were age and beauty and alphaness do not create these types of mechanisms.

    Also the Mosu just supports the MRA/PUA argument that feminism leads to the abolishment of paternal investemnt and childmen and men not giving a fuck which means a modern society goes to hell. A tribe can stepo in and compensate for the lack of a specific father. A modern state can not. If this is the future it will be a ghetto.
    Every time I look into claims about such supposed matriarchal or matrilinear paradises just a tiny bit of closer inspection on the internet shows what is said about them is largely myth and the academic community is highly critical of the claims circulating.

  • Wudang

    Oh, and if women did not want to be lead or wanted to be “dominated” game wouldn`t work because THAT is what it teaches a man to do, not just basic social skills but being playfully dominant over her and leading her. If women did not in fact want that they would not respond to it but in fact even my feminist friends (I know some hardcore feminist activists) respond to it, amongst others from me personally. Its basically all up to you. Also the argument that women just want their equal is such utter bullshit. Men are and always were just fine with someone who was below their own level in terms of status, eduacation, money and dominance but women are Totally adverse to acpeting the man have a total score on all of these that are even just a little bit less than theirs. They can accept to make more money etc. if the man scores higher than them on others so he can compensate but they just can`t accept the total score being less and be happy with it. And it is just so abvious that it is someone above and not equal they respond strongly to. Anyone scoring equally always just gets the meh, ok good enough I guess response. Those above though respond with entusiasm. Men NEVER do that.

  • Wudang

    Actually even Simon de Beauvoir admitted she needed a man she felt exceeded her and could never shake this desire (and so ended up with Sartre) .

  • tvmunson

    @ Olive # 490

    Glad to see doug hasn’t changed. He used to cite legal decisions based on wikipedia articles and Christian Science Monitor stories.

  • Jackie

    @ Herb (#491)

    Hey Herb,

    I will ask my dad and get back to you. I think part of the problem is 13 years old vs 27 years old. And even as a married woman, she got no say because her husband (my great-grandfather) was kind of a jerk.

    BTW, I have no problems with using your pay to support family, even for single people.

    Part of my pay each month goes toward my “dowry” (my husband-to-be), part is sent to my sister who is doing service work in S. Africa, and I am fully prepared to support my dad for whatever he needs. My mentor uses the phrase “In the shelter of each other.” :)

  • tvmunson

    @Cheerful # 496

    Wow! Coincidence. My wife (also Susan) and I were at the hospital this very moment Jan. 20, 1989. She was in labor all day. It was George I’s inauguration; it was also a Friday. Paul arrived at 6:26 (and 30 seconds) weighing 8.56 lbs. I always say my son made sure he skipped the work week and made if for the weekend and didn’t miss “happy hour”- it was certainly the happiest hour of my life. I can feel cutting the umbilical cord like I’m doing it now; when they handed me the scissors and held up the cord, for a second I paused-on one end was my wife and on the other my son. I was grateful that our OB made sure to turn him as he came out so I was the first thing he saw in this life.His eyes were luminous blue, and while crying he also looked at me curiously although I’m not sure his newborn eyes could focus enough to actually see me. I remember going to get my wife a burger in a snowstorm (kitchen was closed at the hospital) and thinking George Bush may be Pesident, but there was no happier man on earth.

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

      @Munson
      I love that story of your son’s birth! I was in labor for two days before they told me I’d have to have a section. What I remember most about that time is sitting in a rocking chair and looking out at Fenway Park. When we brought him home five days later it was 9 degrees out. Great introduction to Boston all around.

  • Wudang

    Another funny thing about the Muso is that they thinkt he men are best at the big decisions. THey think males are better at deceiding stuff such as buying a house, a car or a donkey. THey also think men are better at politics. The thing they actually think women are better at are the day to day householding and small time trade. So, in many ways their view on things aren`t so far away from for example ATHols captain and first officer model with the man in charge of the BIG decisions. Their view on what men and women are respectively best at aren`t too far away from the view held by 1800s patriarchs who viewed men as best for BIg household decisions and politics and women best at smaller day to day householding and caretaking.

  • WarmWoman

    @Escoffier “True, but people are judging. They don’t SAY they are because that’s considered impolite. Plus it puts people on the defensive. If you really want to make a woman howl in anger, ask a >35 y/o why she’s not and never been married. Be prepared to duck and/or run.”

    Instead of a woman being grumpy, the best answer is a cheery “I’m having too much fun being single.” By the word “fun”, I’m not implying casual sex! :) Having fun can mean you are just enjoying your life and taking care of yourself. When you’re happy and fun, men want to be around you.

    Fretting and feeling upset over why you’re not married just does the exact opposite of what you want, IMO. Anyone read the book “Why men marry bitches?” I find that the author’s advice of men not wanting to be pressured into commitment or burdened about marriage early on to be very true.

  • J

    It’s not just women who want to delay marriage though. I’m 23, and most of my male peers aren’t particularly marriage-minded either. And this isn’t an “80%/20% Alpha/Beta” issue. It’s something that I’ve noticed right across the board. I think it’s more of a generational attitude than anything.

    My kids are teens, but, since I was tardy to the party, most of my friends’ kids are in their 20s. What I am noticing is that the girls want to get married by 26-26, but that the boys are in no hurry. A male friend of mine recently tore into his 29 year old, world traveler son about his inability to hold down a job, settle down, etc. It got ugly, but I can’t blame my friend for not wanting to support a grown man who is constantly between jobs.

  • Feminist Ex

    “I have moral qualms about the patriarchal systems of China and India, but they have passed the test of time.”

    India is a mess.

    Turning over the paycheck to the parent unit. Indian men who live with their parents (most of them) do that, even after they get married, then both the son and his wife are expected to turn over their paychecks.

  • WarmWoman

    @feminist ex

    You’re saying that it’s normal for most Indian parents to meddle in their adult children’s lives? I was told by a few Indians that it’s not normal (unless they’re in denial), but some say that my mom’s enmeshed behavior is typical. She doesn’t believe in the American concept of “You’re an adult once you’re 18.” My mom was very unhappy when I wanted to move out of the home, while my American friends were saying “You’re too old. Why aren’t you on your own yet?”

  • Feminist Ex

    Delayed marriage. I didn’t delay. I, like most Indians, set a year by which I expected to be engaged, dated around until then, and then opted for family networks to start looking for me when my 25 b-day rolled around. I was always open to marrying someone I dated, but it didn’t work out that way and luckily we have something to fall back on when it doesn’t. That’s why, if done right, I’ll never buck the concept of arranged marriage as one of several options.

  • Mike C

    What I am noticing is that the girls want to get married by 26-26, but that the boys are in no hurry

    For sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. What is the rather obvious solution?

  • Framboise

    @ WarmWoman
    “Instead of a woman being grumpy, the best answer is a cheery “I’m having too much fun being single.” By the word “fun”, I’m not implying casual sex! :) Having fun can mean you are just enjoying your life and taking care of yourself. When you’re happy and fun, men want to be around you.”

    If she’s so happy and fun and all men want to be around her, why is she still single? To me, these kind of replies fall into the same category as “I’m single and fabulous” or “Men can’t handle how great I am”. Single women over a certain age usually aren’t happier than everybody else, so there is something ‘denial’ about it, IMO. I’m not saying the person is miserable, I just find it strange that they feel the need to “take the edge off” a question like that. It’s not an offense, but a natural question. It sounds very Sex and the City to me – and there was even an episode on it, when Miranda insisted on doing a little comedy routine every time she was asked about her romantic status and people were like ‘whoa, you’re happy, no need to go overboard to convince us’. If you’re never looking to get married, say so, or if you are, “I haven’t met anyone yet”.
    Furthermore, I think the “being single, having fun and taking care of myself” has an expiration date. First of all, you should have fun while in a couple or married, otherwise the view on marriage is wrong. Secondly, I wouldn’t want my life at 35 to be all about using my resources and time on me alone. If that lifestyle persists, I would see a woman to be unfit as a mother. Carrie Bradshaw certainly cared more for her shoes than for children, but then again, they never made her a mother, which I’m happy about. Each to their own, but I think people should own up to it.

  • WarmWoman

    Framboise-

    Yes, but I feel that if you’re miserable when you’re single, you’re going to be miserable when you’re married. Being happy when you’re single doesn’t mean that you have a “Men can’t handle me” attitude. It just means that you’re not going to get depressed about being alone.

    Do you think a woman or a man with a “Please marry me! I’m tired of being single!” attitude is attractive?

    Yes, you’re right that a person can just answer that they haven’t met the right person. I don’t believe in marrying someone or dating just for the sake of not being single. It’s unfair to the other person when they know you’re head over heels in love with them.

  • Framboise

    @ WarmWoman
    Of course everybody needs to be as happy as they can be. And obviously – although I think you know – there is something in between “please marry me!” and “I’m single and fabulous”. Finding a man doesn’t get easier, and it requires a certain lifestyle just to be open to it. Constant traveling, spending all your money on yourself and not saving, partying or hanging out in cocktail bars is not very beneficial. Most good marriages start with meeting someone during studies, at work or through mutual friends, not at a bar. And most men want a woman with a life of her own, her own social network but who needs HIM in her life in some way. And if it is very clear that she associates “fun” with “single” and is at her happiest when she’s alone, I believe they will pick up on that. There has to be room for a man to enter your life, and if you’re planning to become a mum at some point, it has to be clear that you’re the sort of person who can make those sacrifices and that your fortune isn’t mainly hanging in your closet. And I think even if you don’t translate “fun” into “casual sex”, some men might read the response that way. Depending on age obviously but at 30+ or even 35+, most women have some kind of past and if they are single they are either living in celibacy or dating pretty…actively. From the wording “fun”, it will be interpreted as the latter.

  • WarmWoman

    Typo…I meant it’s unfair to the person when they know you’re NOT head over heels in love with them.

    I know I would feel weird if someone is dating or marrying me just for the sake of not being single.

  • Framboise

    I personally think single women 35+ are single for a reason. But post SATC and all that, we’re not supposed to say that out loud. My problem with those girls is that they live under a pretense of “just enjoying single life” and looking down on people whom are seemingly devoted to household chores, while secretly wishing for a husband themselves. There is a natural selection out there – probably a reason why a man hasn’t picked you up yet.

  • WarmWoman

    Framboise-I’m a long way from age 35, but I will agree that I also have a gut feeling that something might be off when I meet single 35-year old women. It’s none of my business anyway.My initial post to Escoffier was talking about women of all ages in general.

    “My problem with those girls is that they live under a pretense of “just enjoying single life” and looking down on people whom are seemingly devoted to household chores, while secretly wishing for a husband themselves. ”

    Hmm, I don’t know anyone like that? I can only speak for myself, but household chores are a priority for me. ;)

    Then again, I’m also weary of what kind of single women I choose to befriend. I try to stay away from ones that are bitter or pessimistic about men. Two of my best girlfriends are happily married.

  • Herb

    @Jackie:

    I will ask my dad and get back to you. I think part of the problem is 13 years old vs 27 years old. And even as a married woman, she got no say because her husband (my great-grandfather) was kind of a jerk.

    To clarify on the age, he did until he left home (and I believe even did so his years at the Naval Academy but my memory is fuzzy on that one).

  • Herb

    MikeC quoting someone: What I am noticing is that the girls want to get married by 26-26, but that the boys are in no hurry

    MikeC For sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. What is the rather obvious solution?

    Restore some sense of value, both personal and social, to marriage for men. This is related to but separate from the ELP divorce fears and “hey, I want to loose half my stuff” fears men have. While those are real when we marry we’re all convinced we’re the exception.

    The difference between when I got married (21 years ago) and now and especially between when my parents got married (46 years ago) and now is there is no perceived social or personal value for men in marriage. While many of the jokes about marriage today (no sex, you have to get rid of all your stuff) existed in both of those earlier periods they were not nearly as strong nor were they the sole view of marriage.

    First and foremost, a confirmed bachelor was seen as immature and unwilling to take on adult responsibilities. I have no proof but I suspect at least between the end of WW2 and the early 70s there was subtle work and promotion discrimination where a married (ie, responsible) man had preferences all things being equal. It’s the flip side of the issue (which was an entire episode of MTM) of men making more than women because they had a family to support. The other side effects of marriage also gained men status with men.

    Finally, consider the portrayal of husbands in modern media, especially sitcoms and commercials. What man really wants to be Ray Ramano in that series?

    More and more we’re showing men an image of marriage which is giving up your identity and freedom for ? As I said, this is related to the ELP phenomena but separate. It also goes back to the advice I’ve offered for young ladies wishing to marry a couple of times here: show him what you bring to the table.

    If you want men to marry show them how they gain by doing so. This works both on a single couple and society wide measure.

  • Escoffier

    There is a woman I know, 42, very pretty, could pass for 30 in dim light and 35 in blinding sunlight, very pleasant to be around, never been married, no BF in the 18 months I’ve known her. I really am curious as to why but our relationship is not such that I can ask. She’s a bit vapid, though not dumb just intellectually lazy, but if Roissy is right that men care above all about beauty, she should have had no problem landing a man. She’s an 8 now easily and must have been a 10 at 25.

  • Feminist Ex

    Can anyone think of any benefits at all for a man from a developed western nation to marry? Marriage is still seen as a strong marker of progress and a rite of adulthood in developing nations, but in the developed world I don’t know that it marks much anymore. The developed nations are going through a transition to another sort of arrangement, I believe, that we will see in full swing a few decades from now. There will be couplings, but unlike anything we know now.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    FemEx,

    an anyone think of any benefits at all for a man from a developed western nation to marry?

    How about because you want a stable environment in which to build and develop a life together, deep intimacy with another human being, and world that’s conducive to the raising of children?

    There will be couplings, but unlike anything we know now.

    Old women with cats? That type of thing?

  • tvmunson

    @ Cheerful # 516

    Lord God 2 days! I feel sorriest for YOUR parents, no slight meant to your husband, and most especially your father. During Susan’s labor I was out in the hall with an older man (probably younger than I am now) , we were sort of walking off the tension. He asked me how my wife was doing and I said good and he appeared genuinely happy for me. He was very measured, but he wasn’t quite able to keep it together when he told me his daughter was in her 20th hour, and his face which had been politely engaging when addressing me now went taut with tension. He was a big dude; I’m 5′ 10″ 200 lbs. and he could’ve eaten an apple off my head and tossed me like I was its core. And I’ll never forget this: his forehead, right at the hairline, was glistening with sweat (the hallway was maybe 70 degrees, probably much cooler). He was scared shitless for his little girl. I didn’t know what to say.

    2 days? I literally, literally cannot imagine that. We induced (note the “we”: I said to Susan this morning “Damn, that was one tough day for us!” and she said “US!!!” and I went “Gotcha!”) at around noon after waiting there since 7. So we had 6 hours roughly. I’m trying to imagine 8 times that-no use; no can do.

    I’m reminded of this when someone makes a remark to the effect that women are frightened of pain. No, they don’t engage much in ritualized forms of inflicting it, “your mother wears Army boots let’s step outside” kind of stuff, but if something they want is on the other side of pain-be it a tan, hairless skin (anywhere) or a baby-they’ll walk through it 10 times straighter than a man will. Ask the nurses how many guys get squeamish when it comes to shots (I’ll raise my hand; I’m like a 4 year old, but with a decent overhand right).

    My son’s in Seattle. He called us last night, his last at 22. I reminded him this was the last good double/double. Your first is 11; then 22; then 33 etc. He’s 23 ; my Susan was 23 when I married her. I now know something of what her father must’ve felt walking his little girl down the aisle at that age.

    And I hope, truly, that the man in the hallway saw his grandchild do the same.

  • Feminist Ex

    “We induced (note the “we”: I said to Susan this morning “Damn, that was one tough day for us!” and she said “US!!!” and I went “Gotcha!”) at around noon after waiting there since 7. So we had 6 hours roughly. I’m trying to imagine 8 times that-no use; no can do.”

    Ever hear today’s men say, “we’re pregnant” or “we’re having a baby”? I think its great that fathers are so much involved with the pregnancy and delivery of their children now. Many homebirths are delivered by the father and of course even now hospitals encourage fathers to be right there in the delivery room participating. Its the most exciting thing in the world for a father.

    “There will be couplings, but unlike anything we know now.”

    “Old women with cats? That type of thing?”

    If many blogs are to be believed, its going in this direction.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LExBZnxXJyo

  • WarmWoman

    “Constant traveling, spending all your money on yourself and not saving, partying or hanging out in cocktail bars is not very beneficial. ”

    That doesn’t fit my definition of self-care and having fun. Taking care of yourself to me means you’re filling your life with productivity, zest and are also contributing the community.

    If some men want to perceive the word “fun” as in having casual sex, let them….but in the end, I’m the one that’s in control of my body and my boundaries. I can’t control what people think. My definition of fun can mean that you’re just laughing and enjoying life.

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Mark,
    I have absolutely no desire to debate Doug. When he was on here ranting about divorce law, I did my own research and came back with good information, and he tore it apart in the name of standing his ground. He looked like an idiot and has since been banned.

    Your posts are going to get deleted in the morning when Susan sees this. She hates when people make inferences about IQ based on race.

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

      Your posts are going to get deleted in the morning when Susan sees this. She hates when people make inferences about IQ based on race.

      Indeed. I hate it when people misbehave while I’m away. Mark is forever banned.

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Also I resent your tone. I quite frequently use my brain around here.

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Once a White woman has crossed the color barrier she has lowered her sexual market value (SMV) immensely, regardless of what she looks like. Also, no self-respecting White man will want a White woman to be his wife and the mother of their children if she has had sexual relations with blacks or other non-whites.

    Wow, if some dude didn’t want to date me because I had sex with a man who wasn’t white, I’d say good friggin’ riddance. Actually if some dude even had these ideas about race, I’d write him off. This is quite frankly offensive.

    And before you make assumptions about me being “defensive,” let it be known that I’ve had sex with one person, and he’s white. I’m not coming from a place of personal offense, I’m just horrified by your blatant racism.

  • Pingback: I Have Unleashed Munson « The Private Man

  • Byron

    Eeesh,

    don’t usually like getting in on the shaming language, but dude, that IS some seriously racist shit right there.

  • pvw

    Hmmm….regarding women who are single at a “certain age,” ie., 35, I think the response of “I’m having fun” is a defense mechanism against what can be a troublesome and intrusive judgmentalism of single women.

    On the one hand, asking can be seen as mild curiosity, ie., one would think that an attractive woman of that age would have been married long before. On the other, it can be seen as something rather contemptuous, meant to cut down and shame.

    Because if she says anything otherwise, ie., “I wish I were married,” or even the harmless “that is just the reality, nothing more, nothing less,” she can be seen as pathetic, “what is wrong with you,” when in reality, it is simply a matter of today’s s smp, people are single at older ages for any number of reasons…demographics being a big one, in my view.

    I wouldn’t even think about wondering why a woman is single at that age. It just wouldn’t occur to me. I would just note it and move along, especially if she is not talking about it or if her attitude about being single is merely that “it just happened that way”.

    My perspective is shaped by knowing women who live in communities where the smp results in a fair number of women fitting that type of demographic, women who are single at around age 35. These are women who were not having so much “fun” that they didn’t want to be bothered with serious relationships and marriage, they wanted them, but it didn’t happen with the men they were dating.

    I wonder whether men experience the same thing, or is it a matter of the same explanation, when used by a man is seen differently? Thus, a man who is single at that same age is seen as having too much fun to settle down, he has time, or is he seen as just waiting to find the “right one,” and that is perfectly fine in the eyes of society…?

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

      @pvw

      Hmmm….regarding women who are single at a “certain age,” ie., 35, I think the response of “I’m having fun” is a defense mechanism against what can be a troublesome and intrusive judgmentalism of single women

      I agree. Assuming that every woman who is single in her 30s rode the “alpha cock carousel” in her 20s is prejudice. As we move forward, the demographics are going to be increasingly hostile to marriage, and more women are going to be in this position. It’s rude to ask any woman why she’s single. We need a Miss Manners response that subtly puts the questioner in their place.

  • pvw

    Susan:

    @pvw

    Hmmm….regarding women who are single at a “certain age,” ie., 35, I think the response of “I’m having fun” is a defense mechanism against what can be a troublesome and intrusive judgmentalism of single women

    I agree. Assuming that every woman who is single in her 30s rode the “alpha cock carousel” in her 20s is prejudice. As we move forward, the demographics are going to be increasingly hostile to marriage, and more women are going to be in this position. It’s rude to ask any woman why she’s single. We need a Miss Manners response that subtly puts the questioner in their place.

    My reply:

    Absolutely, and now that I think of it, the same thing goes for people who are of a “certain age” who don’t have children, especially when they are married.

    I am not in this situation, but I have noticed interactions regarding everyday conversations about this, as part of the “getting to know you” aspect of social interactions.

    The women might be curious or surprised, but they don’t say anything, but I have noticed more of the snide remarks regarding this seems to come from married men who have children.

    A recent example, standing around at a social event, I was chatting with a few people. As we are watching the children running around, one of the guys said to a woman in our group (a woman who doesn’t have children), “hey do you want to take our kids?” She said, “no,” and he responded, “so, you are not a kid person, is that it”?

    I liked her response, she was not defensive. Her reply was that it was not a matter of not being a kid person, but children are attached to their parents and so they are not interested in hanging out with strangers.

    I don’t know this woman’s situation, but I do know women who have dealt with infertility and miscarriages. Yet, boors like this seem to presume that a married woman without children is too selfish to fulfill her biological duties…

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

      “hey do you want to take our kids?” She said, “no,” and he responded, “so, you are not a kid person, is that it”?

      What a jerk. I think Americans have gotten a lot ruder in the past couple of generations. I don’t know if it’s the lack of empathy that accompanies narcissism or what, but people say so many hurtful things. Then when the person gets offended, they say, “Chill, I’m just fuckin’ with ya” as if the victim lacks a sense of humor.

  • Lokland

    @ Susan

    “Assuming that every woman who is single in her 30s rode the “alpha cock carousel” in her 20s is prejudice.”

    So is assuming every uy that hasn’t slept around is a loser.

    From the guys persepctive, its a sign of something wrong with her. Not in like mentally ill or diseased but incapable of finding a mate willing to provide for her (biologically womans main role/goal). Its a sign of poor quality genes.

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

      @Lokland

      So is assuming every uy that hasn’t slept around is a loser.

      Agreed, that’s also prejudice.

      From the guys persepctive, its a sign of something wrong with her. Not in like mentally ill or diseased but incapable of finding a mate willing to provide for her (biologically womans main role/goal). Its a sign of poor quality genes.

      Well, I think you have to take “market conditions” into account. With college enrollments as lopsided as they are in the U.S., we’re going to see more of this. The gender ratio will favor men for generations to come.

  • Feminist Ex

    “From the guys persepctive, its a sign of something wrong with her. Not in like mentally ill or diseased but incapable of finding a mate willing to provide for her (biologically womans main role/goal). Its a sign of poor quality genes.”

    “Well, I think you have to take “market conditions” into account. With college enrollments as lopsided as they are in the U.S., we’re going to see more of this. The gender ratio will favor men for generations to come.”

    If I would have continued on the dating track I was, I would not be married by now and probably not until I’m 40, if ever. That’s why I opted out and for the traditional route of my culture after 10 years of dating with no marriage prospects.

  • WarmWoman

    @Susan

    “Assuming that every woman who is single in her 30s rode the “alpha cock carousel” in her 20s is prejudice.”

    I would be weary of someone that is quick to jump to the conclusion that a single woman in her 30’s must have ridden the carousel. The same thing goes for some people that are woman single for a few years must have slept around. I respect that everyone has their own biases, but my perception is different. Perhaps people’s perceptions are a reflection of their own life, like a man that’s slept around will project his past onto a single woman?

    Coming from an Indian family, I was taught that it’s not wise to have a string of relationships, and that it’s better to stay single until you’re really sure about the person you’re dating. If I did have tons of relationships, I don’t want to be put in a position where I have to explain why they all broke up.

  • WarmWoman

    “I think the response of “I’m having fun” is a defense mechanism against what can be a troublesome and intrusive judgmentalism of single women”

    It’s all about perception. I think it’s just a cutesy answer with a smile. ;)

    On a second date, I told a man that I was looking for a really fun guy when he asked me what I was looking for. Some women like to say that they’re looking for a serious relationship and marriage right away, but I don’t like to reveal that on the 2nd date. He then turned to a serious long-term boyfriend and asked me to marry him, but I declined.

    FemEx-Once I hit my 30’s, I MIGHT go to the arranged marriage route. I’m pretty confident that I can find someone on my own by then, but if my plan doesn’t turn out as I hoped…arranged marriage it is.

  • Feminist Ex

    “Coming from an Indian family, I was taught that it’s not wise to have a string of relationships, and that it’s better to stay single until you’re really sure about the person you’re dating. ”

    So date multiple guys simultaneously until you decide one is a keeper? Indian families are recommending that? LOL.

    “If I did have tons of relationships, I don’t want to be put in a position where I have to explain why they all broke up.”

    Have your aunties arrange someone from another state or country like I did, no explanation needed ;)

  • WarmWoman

    Feminist Ex-

    LOL..what I meant was that I was taught that it’s better to not get into a relationship with someone when you know it won’t end up anywhere. In 2009, I went on a lot of “get to know you” dates with Indian men. But, I knew in my heart that these dates just wouldn’t work out in the long run. So, my white friend said “Why don’t you date white guys?” I did, and then ended up with a man that I thought I would marry. I moved in with him after a year of dating, and saw a different side of his personality that I couldn’t deal with in marriage.

    I just got out of that relationship, so I like to take a hiatus when I’m single. I don’t feel comfortable jumping into something right away.

  • Feminist Ex

    So, my white friend said “Why don’t you date white guys?”

    Seems the default after Indian guys for an Indian woman to date is white guys. I never understood that, especially for Indians in large urban areas where there are a multitude of ethnicities to date as well.

  • WarmWoman

    Yeah, that’s kind of weird. I’ve had both Indian female and male friends also tell me, “Just date white guys. You will be a lot happier.” What about black guys, hispanic, or even East/SouthEast Asian men?

    I did accept a date with an Indian man at an event a few weeks ago, but I saw it as meeting someone new and hanging out (not finding a potential husband). He was cute and nice, so I thought why not. At this point, it’s all about whether the person’s personality and chemistry clicks or not with me.

  • Feminist Ex

    We Indian gals are in a tough spot. My cousin, who desperately wanted to be married with kids by 30 but would ONLY date Indian guys (religion, region, caste no bar, but they HAD to be Indian) is now near 40 unmarried and childless and living with a guy in his 20s who feels to young to get married.

    The sad thing is that all the Indian guys she dated turned out to be total duds in some way or they were awesome but found some minor flaw with her and wouldn’t marry her and had their mothers arrange a marriage to someone else, probably of the same region, religion, caste.

  • WarmWoman

    Feminist Ex-

    That’s tough. I hope she finds what she’s looking for! At some point, I think we do realize that we have to expand our options. It would be a fantasy come true if I could find an attractive long-haired open-minded Indian metalhead, but I know it’s not realistic.

    If people think the American SMP is an ugly place, the Indian marriage market is a vicious dog eat dog world. We should have our own version of Indian HUS, lol.

  • Feminist Ex

    “That’s tough. I hope she finds what she’s looking for! At some point, I think we do realize that we have to expand our options. It would be a fantasy come true if I could find an attractive long-haired open-minded Indian metalhead, but I know it’s not realistic. ”

    Go to Mumbai. Plenty there.

    Yeah, many Indian guys either wouldn’t date her or they’d date her but not marry her just because she drank alcohol or some other such thing like she was “too social”. She got a lot of shit from the community but refused to date outside of it because she said she could only get turned on by brown.

    Now at her age her best bet for family life is with an older divorced or widowed uncle type LOL but she likes the hot and hip guys so she’s resigned to not ever having kids as long as she can keep on living with this 20 something. They’ve been together for 3 years and no marriage proposal yet. By the time he’s ready to marry she may be in menopause. And then he’ll probably dump her for a young fertile woman. She’s clearly not thinking things through.

  • WarmWoman

    Feminist Ex-My facebook is filled with Mumbai metalheads, but things are different in America. :)

    “Yeah, many Indian guys either wouldn’t date her or they’d date her but not marry her just because she drank alcohol or some other such thing like she was “too social”.”

    I’ve also been judged for being a social drinker, as well as being seen as “possibly slutty” for liking metal/rock, liking horror movies and playing the guitar. I just enjoyed the fact that my white ex didn’t judge me for those things or expect me to be a bhartiya nari. I don’t think your cousin’s experience is uncommon.

    In that case, that’s why I feel that you just might find what you’re looking for when you try inter-racial dating.

  • Feminist Ex

    “Feminist Ex-My facebook is filled with Mumbai metalheads, but things are different in America.”

    The American community can be more conservative than the urban community in India.

  • WarmWoman

    I concur. I had a couple of men from India tell me that I come off as if I’m from the village (meaning that I appear too reserved), whereas a few Indian-American men have said the exact opposite.

  • Feminist Ex

    “I concur. I had a couple of men from India tell me that I come off as if I’m from the village (meaning that I appear too reserved), whereas a few Indian-American men have said the exact opposite.”

    This is exactly why I reasoned, “I can’t win so fuck it. I’m going to do whatever the hell I want with whomever I want and then settle down with an arranged marriage to an Indian guy when I’m in my mid to late 20s”.

    But you know, while those Mumbaiker metal-heads may want you, if they are living in a joint family set-up, its doubtful their parents would want you for a bahu.

    That’s why one of my qualifications for an Indian husband was “low family values”. Has you know, “family values” in India means living with the in-laws.

  • WarmWoman

    Feminist Ex-

    Believe it or not, Indian parents seem to love me. But, they also don’t know everything about me, and they don’t need to know. A couple of my mom’s friends told her that they wish their sons would marry me! How funny is it that Indian moms that see me as a potential bride more than an Indian boy, hehehehe

  • Feminist Ex

    “Believe it or not, Indian parents seem to love me. But, they also don’t know everything about me, and they don’t need to know.”

    That’s what I mean.

    They’ll see a pretty and well-behaved Indian girl with the right degree and think “ideal bahu”. But if they knew your habits and lifestyle….

    That happened to my cousin many times.

  • WarmWoman

    And that’s another reason why I idolized my white ex at the time. All his parents cared about was “is she cute and nice? Do you like her?” That was the end of the story.

  • SayWhaat

    its doubtful their parents would want you for a bahu.

    Probably the biggest reason I don’t really date Indians. I don’t want an Indian mother-in-law.

  • Feminist Ex

    WW and SayWhaat, I’m with you 100% The only reason I opted for an arranged marriage with an Indian guy after a decade of dating non-Indians (and some Indians too) is because by the time I was 25 there were no marriage prospects, these guys weren’t ready. And its very important to me that a man share my culture and religion, so I ultimately wanted an Indian guy, but one that did not live with his parents and thought more like an American in the sense of individual freedoms, etc.

  • WarmWoman

    Feminist Ex-If you don’t mind me asking, was your spouse raised here?

    I’m glad you found that, because for a second..I started to wonder if a progressive and modern Indian man still existed. I’m only speaking from experience, but I feel like the minute an Indian girl mentions she’s Americanized..it can give off the wrong impression.

    SayWhaat-I don’t want to deal with intrusive and jealous mother-in-laws either.

  • SayWhaat

    so I ultimately wanted an Indian guy, but one that did not live with his parents and thought more like an American in the sense of individual freedoms, etc.

    Those guys exist?? O_o

    Lol.

  • Feminist Ex

    “Those guys exist??”

    I had to field dozens of men continuously for about a year til I found him. I wonder what Indian men are going to do now that many Indian women do not want the in-law drama in their life and refuse to live in joint family?

  • WarmWoman

    Feminist Ex-Get women from India or neighboring countries (my brother married a Nepalese woman). My cousin in India also joked, “These men are in for a big surprise if they think girls in India are still virgins!”

  • Feminist Ex

    WW, I’d say the majority of both girls and boys are virgins when they marry in India. Its only the “fast” and “modern” urban set that might not be. When most married couples in India don’t even get enough privacy to have earthshattering, hairpulling, makeyawannaslap somebody LOUD orgasms, where is the privacy going to come from for high school or college kids to have them? You can’t even get a hotel room in much of India without proving you’re married.

  • Lokland

    @ Susan

    “Well, I think you have to take “market conditions” into account. With college enrollments as lopsided as they are in the U.S., we’re going to see more of this. The gender ratio will favor men for generations to come.”

    I get this but the hindbrain doesn’t care about social conditions. Hell its likely not even aware they exist yet.

    A woman who was both incapable of producing children and securing a provider by age 20 or so was an evolutionary fail (in the days before writing). Its hard for a woman to fail in evolution but some had to manage it.
    Now a guy cares about quantity but we would prefer high quantity and quality over just low quality/high quantity. (Hence why men want to bang HBs over normal women.)

    So a woman over 35> without kids/provider is the evolutionary equivalent of an omega male. Market conditions unfavourable for women? Its called evolutionary pressure, adapt or die. Evolutions a bitch.
    (Let me explain on why she is such a fail. In caveman days bein 35 was the tailend of lifespan. Even if she did birth a child it would end up being alone at age 5ish or so, dead kid.)

    Also, in regards to the guy with the kids, wtf? Hire a babysitter.

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

      I get this but the hindbrain doesn’t care about social conditions. Hell its likely not even aware they exist yet.

      You know, I used to think this – our brains haven’t changed in 100,000 years. But the more I read and study the topic the more I believe that there is enormous individual variation based on personality traits, genes, intelligence, and life experience. The hindbrain is the starting point – whether it has the final say is another question.

      Your relationship is a living example of this, if I may say so. Your fiance is extremely unusual – she has done considerable “overriding” of her hindbrain.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    This is exactly why I reasoned, “I can’t win so fuck it. I’m going to do whatever the hell I want with whomever I want and then settle down with an arranged marriage to an Indian guy when I’m in my mid to late 20s”.

    This sounds like the Indian version of the American girl who sleeps around with frat boys, jocks, musicians, etc… and then seeks out a responsible beta provider when it’s time to marry.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Have your aunties arrange someone from another state or country like I did, no explanation needed ;)

    Ugh. Yes, very distasteful.

  • WarmWoman

    “Ugh. Yes, very distasteful.”

    LOL, Jesus. I wouldn’t do that anyway.

    “This sounds like the Indian version of the American girl who sleeps around with frat boys, jocks, musicians, etc… and then seeks out a responsible beta provider when it’s time to marry.”

    I’ve been told by quite a number of people (including my mom) to just lie and pretend to be a virgin I just feel weird doing that. Plus, you would have to act really innocent and clueless in bed. No thanks.

  • Feminist Ex

    “I’ve been told by quite a number of people (including my mom) to just lie and pretend to be a virgin ”

    Aren’t you in your upper 20s? Surely nobody, not even Indians (of the demographic that you would consider for marriage) would expect a virgin at that age and at this point in time. Unless your mom plans on harvesting prospective grooms from the pind.

  • WarmWoman

    Yes, I’m in my upper 20’s. I also figured that it’s common sense to assume that an adult woman that age has had some experience.

    Remember how I told you how I went on a date with an Indian man recently? He was younger than me, but he did start to ask personal questions about past boyfriends. I don’t think that’s appropriate for the first date. Maybe later, but not when you just meet someone.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Warm Woman,

    LOL, Jesus. I wouldn’t do that anyway.

    I didn’t think you would. I could understand someone wanting to shut the door on their past and keep it a secret. I don’t think it’s a healthy thing to do necessarily, but still, the desire to is understandable.

    But setting out to have your fun with the understanding that your future SO will never know…. only a person of low character would do that.

  • pvw

    Susan:

    You know, I used to think this – our brains haven’t changed in 100,000 years. But the more I read and study the topic the more I believe that there is enormous individual variation based on personality traits, genes, intelligence, and life experience. The hindbrain is the starting point – whether it has the final say is another question.

    My reply:

    I agree; that is why I can recognize the significance of the brain’s dynamics with respect to evolutionary biology, but the brain’s biology is far more complicated than that, and life experience matters in all of this, in combination with the social, cultural, etc. We aren’t living 100,000 years ago, and that means something socially, culturally, etc.

    I must say, though, that when I hear the evolutionary biology stuff as the sole motivating factor for everything and the final determinant for everything, I think about the eugenics movement, which for me as a person of color, leads to some bad cultural memories of forcing the social and cultural to meet some fairly unproven and even unscientific presumptions about the biological in some real evil ways…

    If anything, the eugenics movement in the earlier parts of the 20th century were in conflict with the schools of thought that were grounded in studies of the social and cultural, the environmental impacts upon people’s behavior, that all behavior can’t be biological and innate. Some might argue that we need to go back to the other side and that the pendulum has swung to far to the social/cultural.

    My reply would be biology yes, but the social and cultural as well, insofar as all of these can impact the biological contexts.

  • BroHamlet

    @Jesus, WarmWoman

    This sounds like the Indian version of the American girl who sleeps around with frat boys, jocks, musicians, etc… and then seeks out a responsible beta provider when it’s time to marry.

    Now, I am fairly ignorant of the ins and out of arranged marriage in Indian culture today. Even though I do think this is distasteful, my reaction isn’t so strong to this. That’s because to me arranged marriage seems like buying a house “sight unseen”, which is a really risky prospect. People often have a knee jerk reaction to the concept of arranged marriage in saying that it benefits the man more than the woman, but I don’t think it’s all that good for a man either. As a man you would be entering into an arrangement where you don’t have ultimate choice over what you are getting and can’t really feel out the woman for yourself, so finding someone who has this “fuck it” attitude is a hazard of the game.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    On Dr. Laura:

    Laura S has a PhD from Yale in physiology (not “physical therapy”), the study of living systems. According to wikipedia her thesis had something to do with insulin response in rats.

    After she began giving advice on the radio, she got certified as a family/marital therapist by the state of California. It’s not that I’m going to trust that wacked-out hellhole of a state any further than I can throw it, but if the state is going to approve her to hold court with troubled families, that’s a credential in my mind.

    People get their shit in a bunch about her billing of “Doctor,” saying she’s misleading the public. It’s an appeal to authority, an attempt to discredit her qualifications because they don’t agree with what she says. I have two responses:
    -A lot of people with credentials are worthless (including plenty of PsyDs and psychiatrists).
    -Plenty of people (like me and Susan) give relationship advice without credentials; our built-up cred is our credential.

    In any case I’m guessing it was her radio station that originally billed her as Dr, and that she didn’t insist on the title.

    Dr Laura has actually gone through a very interesting set of changes. First she was largely secular, addressing sex and long-term relationships in a rather pragmatic and knowing way. “Ten stupid things women do to mess up their lives” was a tour de force.

    Then she underwent a conversion of sorts and became a Jewish version of a conservative Christian/socon, even refusing to write the word “God.”

    Then she left her relationship with Judaism and/or the good Lord and wrote books telling wives to have sex with their husbands and stop nagging.

    I liked her “now go take on the day” signoff. A lot of people just need to shut up and deal with things. I care less for her “I am my kids’ mom” thing, I concur with Susan that women (people really) are more than their status as parents or spouses.

  • WarmWoman

    Hi BroHamlet

    Today, both the man and the woman can agree or decline arranged marriage prospects. It’s not like how it was 30 years ago when parents said “This is who you’re going to marry and you can’t do anything about it.” An example would be how family and friends line up 10 men for a woman to choose. In the end, she’s the one who gets to pick who she would like to marry.

    There’s also the idea of planned marriage where a man and a woman agree to marry without formal Western dating. But, the man and the woman chose each other and not a third party.

    Even when it comes to Western style dating, a person can change after marriage or you might be taking a big risk without even knowing it. Some people don’t show their true colors until after you tie the knot.

  • WarmWoman

    “As a man you would be entering into an arrangement where you don’t have ultimate choice over what you are getting and can’t really feel out the woman for yourself, so finding someone who has this “fuck it” attitude is a hazard of the game.”

    I think most men today do get the chance to feel the woman out and decide whether they like her or not. And, some of my family friends have made the decision to marry a woman within just 4 months.

    Going by their facebooks, they seem to be very happy!

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Susan,Herb,
    ” @Herb

    ” I remember a woman I took out once who told me that just because she was a feminist and demanded equality didn’t mean she didn’t expect men to treat her like a princess. As long as society endorses that why would most young women pass it up?”

    Unfortunately, I think this describes most women, though many would not to so foolish as to disclose this on a date. This is the result of those twin evils I referred to: narcissism and hedonism.”

    The thing is, I bet this makes perfect sense to the young female mind – she gets the best of every situation, she’s always gotten it that way in a world designed for her benefit, doesn’t sound dissonant at all. Unfortunately for her, most men being rather logical are going to have one of two reactions to it:

    -Some men will go omega, get angry and debate the illogic of it. These men will go home with their hands and the woman will complain that men can’t handle a woman as awesomely awesome as her.

    -More suave men (read: with game, a la Solomon II) will smoothly flatter her sensibilities, igniting the tingle and getting poon. But what they won’t tell the woman is that they’ve done this by coming to regard her as completely irrational and infantile, and no longer believing that anything coming out of her mouth has a lick of credibility or critical thought put into it.

    I don’t think women realize that for all but the most betatized men, this sort of totally solipsistic behavior engenders a silent bump from ladder 1 to ladder 2, where you are no longer a contender for his relationship commitment but he’ll make efforts to have sex with you.

    This has happened to me more than once. A woman I’m interested in will say something with full conviction that is so entitled, self-interested and ridiculous, I instantly lose the ability to take her seriously again. Proving a game tenet that indifference is attractive, oftentimes my chances with her improve as a result.

    It’s the male analogue to a woman stringing a beta orbiter along, never giving him sexual release but spending time with him and verbally rewarding his taking her out, cuddling, etc.

  • Lokland

    @Susan, pwv
    “You know, I used to think this – our brains haven’t changed in 100,000 years. But the more I read and study the topic the more I believe that there is enormous individual variation based on personality traits, genes, intelligence, and life experience. The hindbrain is the starting point – whether it has the final say is another question.

    Your relationship is a living example of this, if I may say so. Your fiance is extremely unusual – she has done considerable “overriding” of her hindbrain.”

    Solid point. The hind brain isn’t everything.

    I’ll be quite honest though when I see a woman over 35 without a relationship/kids I simultaneously pity her and regard her as the lowest form of human I have ever encountered. Bad, probably, but true.

    The problem with biodeterminism is that:

    a) its made by idiots with a half-baked understanding of single concept
    b) its impossible to account for every single factor simply because there are too many factors interacting in too many ways for a single mind to comprehend (maybe a savant but all machines fail, biological or mechanical)
    c) luck plays a role but is typically ignored

    As for variation thats not suprising. People vary in millions of different ways. Theres a continium of heights and hair colours, the Ld50 (lethal does 50% of people) for alcohol is .4% blood volume, some people can handle double that with ease. (You get a DUI at .05%)

    @pwv

    Eugenics is an idiotic principle. Why?

    Simple, one mind, a group of minds now matter how intelligent cannot account for ALL factors. I have a friend with CF, he is adamant that with positive eugenics CF could be gone in a few generations.
    However what if some horrid disaster changed the enviroment drasticaly and only CF’ers could survive. Or what if linked to the CF gene was another gene with a variation that could cure/prevent cancer etc. You get the idea.

    Thats the problem with eugenics it takes into account a single or multiple traits deemed “good” and removes the “bad”. The problem is that in certain situations the bad can be good and vice versa. When those situations arise humanity either goes extinct or is drastically reduced.

    And of course it doesn’t consider the importance of luck.

  • Feminist Ex

    “This sounds like the Indian version of the American girl who sleeps around with frat boys, jocks, musicians, etc… and then seeks out a responsible beta provider when it’s time to marry.”

    That’s because you don’t know anything about it.

    Arranged marriage does not mean dating other people is forbidden beforehand. Its just another option on the market for us Indian Americans. In that regard we have the best of both worlds.

  • Feminist Ex

    “It’s the male analogue to a woman stringing a beta orbiter along, never giving him sexual release but spending time with him and verbally rewarding his taking her out, cuddling, etc.”

    There’s no such thing as “stringing along”. He can up and leave anytime. If he’s there, its on him.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “There’s no such thing as “stringing along”. He can up and leave anytime. If he’s there, its on him.”

    Sounds like Feminist Ex just endorsed the three-date rule and other hardline requirements for quick sex.

  • Feminist Ex

    “It’s the male analogue to a woman stringing a beta orbiter along, never giving him sexual release”

    That’s what masterbation is for.

  • Mike C

    Sounds like Feminist Ex just endorsed the three-date rule and other hardline requirements for quick sex.

    Yup

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    That’s what masterbation is for.

    You must be kidding. Except if you think men are responsible for giving themselves orgasms during sex, I guess not…

  • Mike C

    You must be kidding.

    I’m sure she is totally serious. That’s the scary part. That poor chump.

  • Feminist Ex

    Why would I be kidding? What else is masterbation for if not sexual release?

  • Feminist Ex

    “Except if you think men are responsible for giving themselves orgasms during sex, I guess not…”

    I wasn’t the idiot who started that. Some moron came on saying, “women are responsible for their own orgasms”. LOL! WTF? Yeah, when we masterbate we are. Otherwise it takes 2 to tango.

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Fem Ex,
    It was a joke. I knew you weren’t kidding. I’m teasing you because you seem to think that masturbation is a perfectly acceptable option for a man who can’t get sex.

    Let me ask you something: have you masturbated?

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    women are responsible for their own orgasms

    Well they are, because it’s largely mental. Whoever said that wasn’t a moron.

  • Feminist Ex

    “Fem Ex,
    It was a joke. I knew you weren’t kidding. I’m teasing you because you seem to think that masturbation is a perfectly acceptable option for a man who can’t get sex. ”

    Well of course it is. What’s wrong with masterbation? Is that a “sin” too or something?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Does “masterbation” mean FeministX is a master at it?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    What’s wrong with masterbation? Is that a “sin” too or something?

    Nothing wrong with “masterbation”, but “amateurbation” can be problematic.

  • Feminist Ex

    “Feminist Ex-If you don’t mind me asking, was your spouse raised here?”

    I missed this WW. Nope. Sirf dil chaiye that’s made in Indiaaaaaaaaa! Whoooooaaaaa! I got an asli Bharatiya nara. ;)

  • FeministEx

    But, you said he was also Americanized in a way?

  • WarmWoman

    Oops..I accidentally typed FEminist ex in my name.

  • Feminist Ex

    “But, you said he was also Americanized in a way?”

    What I meant is he is free from the typical ma-beta dynamic that you find in most Indian men. He’s lived independently from his family for a long time and has no intention of living with them ever again! Whoo! Hoo! I probably found the ONLY guy in India liket that! Beta here means “son” you guys. Isn’t that ironic though? That beta means son in Hindi? lol.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Does “masterbation” mean FeministX is a master at it?”

    Epic lol’s.

    “Nothing wrong with “masterbation”, but “amateurbation” can be problematic.”

    I don’t know about you, but I moved from amateur to expert status pretty quickly ;)

  • Feminist Ex

    Olive, “Let me ask you something: have you masturbated?”

    Who the heck hasn’t?

  • Jesus Mahoney

    That’s because you don’t know anything about it.

    Arranged marriage does not mean dating other people is forbidden beforehand. Its just another option on the market for us Indian Americans. In that regard we have the best of both worlds.

    Actually, I knew that much about it, thanks.

    No, what I was trying to say without being explicitly rude was that it’s incredibly skanky to plan on sleeping around and then snagging a husband from out of state who’d have no clue about your past.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Badger,

    Sounds like Feminist Ex just endorsed the three-date rule and other hardline requirements for quick sex.

    +1. Pity the husband. I’m not a fan of one-way open relationships or cheating, but in his case, I hope he can salvage some self-respect with a loving mistress.

  • http://femaleframechanges.blogspot.com Olive

    Fem Ex,
    Lol sin? No way. I was really just curious about what’s better for you… sex or masturbation.

    If your answer’s sex, then you know how dudes feel (and frankly how most people probably feel)…

  • Feminist Ex

    Olive, my experiences with sex have been this: whether I lay there like a dead fish or whether I employ my previous bellydance and pilates training, the man always climaxes, comes, gets release or whatever you want to call it. However I don’t.

    For me to achieve orgasm with a man depends largely (but not entirely) on his movements, timing and rhythm.

    When I masturbate, I always orgasm.

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

      For me to achieve orgasm with a man depends largely (but not entirely) on his movements, timing and rhythm.

      Funny, I think most women actively participate by moving in ways that arouse them. This is in keeping with your admission that you don’t move or pose in any particular way to arouse your husband.

      This sounds extremely entitled, but it also just sounds like really, really bad sex.

  • Feminist Ex

    ” This is in keeping with your admission that you don’t move or pose in any particular way to arouse your husband. ”

    Never said that.

  • Mike

    Looks like feminism’s end game is to change the rules of perception and shaming. It’s all about ‘celebrating’ old sluts now.

    http://www.facebook.com/SlutWalkToronto/posts/223465261074635

    http://m.xojane.com/issues/let-us-now-celebrate-aging-party-girl

  • Kelly

    I came to this blog to read a perspective on dating and maybe even get some advice. I didn’t come here to read posts bashing feminism, or any movement for equality, so maybe I should look elsewhere.

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

      @Kelly

      I believe that feminism’s goal is female supremacy, it is not a movement for equality. I also think it has greatly damaged relations between men and women. That is an important part of my work – if that upsets you, you’ll definitely not be happy here.

  • Liz

    The part about women not getting any happier: could this relate to growing income and wealth inequality? There is fairly broad cultural acceptance of the idea that women are supposed to have financial equality, but we’re not there yet, and the growing income and wealth gap affects women and ethnic minorities more heavily than white men (on average).

    Another New Deal would take women a lot closer to being economically independent from men, and having autonomy over our own finances and careers across our life span. Perhaps there’s a reason why socially conservative one-percenter men formed secret religious networks in 1935-ish in opposition to FDR and the New Deal. Black civil rights and second-wave feminism both grew out of the New Deal era.

    In any case, we’re still moving towards financial equality because women are now graduating from college in slightly greater numbers than men. It will just take some time for that to translate into high level positions (age 50-65 ish) and breaking the various glass ceilings.

    What is your basis for saying that feminists want female supremacy? I don’t follow this. I suppose there’s bound to be some bigots who’ll jump on the feminist bandwagon as an excuse for their prejudices, but we (feminists) are not all like that.

    “Men are presumed guilty of inappropriate aggression and nefarious motives in all corners of society, including education, professional life, social interactions with women, and popular culture.”

    Are feminists solely responsible for this? The patriarchal system has long wanted to scare women into thinking men are sexually dangerous so that we won’t have premarital sex. This worked nicely for conservative men who want to marry a virgin. One-percenter conservative men find it easy to attract women for sex (especially since they can fly anywhere they want and purchase sexual services), but it’s comparatively harder to find a woman who’s still a virgin. So, they stand to gain from pushing conservative sexual mores, because it won’t stop them from finding casual sex partners in other countries if necessary. So, they’re not constrained by their own hypocritical rules. In Afghanistan for example, only women and 99-percenter men are disadvantaged by the laws against women being sexually active before (or outside of) marriage.

    It seems to me that politicially correct negative stuff towards men is really not that different from the traditional roles under the patriarchal system. I agree -some- feminists have made it worse but I’m not sure I agree with the presumption that it’s all been caused by feminism.

    “We judge healthy male instincts such as competition and desire as moral failings.”

    Competitiveness (and risk-taking) has been judged pretty favorably during the Reagan-Bush era, especially on Wall Street for example. That’s why we have an economic crisis to show for it. I don’t see evidence of competitiveness being disfavored in the US; the opposite is true, due to cultural factors such as the Cold War, and race-baiting against African-American welfare beneficiaries during the period of backlash against the progress on black civil rights.

    I can agree that there’s some negative judgements on sexual desire, but this certainly predates the feminist movement. It’s more about conservative religious hangups that’ve been around for a few thousand years, give or take.

    As for feminism leading to women being more inclined to want premarital sex, how is this a problem? Doesn’t the fact that sex is more easily available mean that the men who just want sex won’t need to bother lying to women who won’t give it to them immediately? Only (some of the) men who genuinely want relationships will bother with women who aren’t immediately sexually available. This is good for women because it means the men who just want sex will go elsewhere and not trouble women who want a long-term relationship. (Though I guess some jerks still enjoy conquering a woman who’s more resistant, or something.)

    In any case, now that women are moving towards financial equality, we’re going to increasingly want to be sexually active outside of marriage. We’re no longer as intimidated by the idea of being “spoilt goods” to a future husband who our economic survival and place in life depends on. I predict this trend will continue regardless of whether people talk about “feminism” less on Google.

    However, I do agree with the goal of genuine equality for both women and men, rather than female supremacy.

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

    @Rollo

    As a social imperative, feminism has in the past, and readily still will, move it’s own goal-posts and objective ends to meet with it’s own unforeseen, often less than optimal results.

    Agreed, and I thought your post on sexual fluidity was right on. However, this too will remain “fringe.” I can’t imagine that the total number of women abandoning their beta husbands for butch lesbians, plus the never-married genderqueer feminists reaches even the low single digits as a percentage of the population. Here in liberal Boston, I know of only one woman who left her husband for another woman – her lesbian landscaper. There’s undoubtedly a larger group of genderqueer feminists, led by the large and in charge Jaclyn Friedman, but I would hardly describe it as a trend gaining traction.

    the logical reset is for feminism to create its own ‘Men’ from masculinized women to fill that biological imperative role.

    Since the female biological imperative is to procreate, this is illogical, an “alternative” lifestyle of choice that ignores the bio imperative altogether.

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

    @Rollo

    Well, considering the phenomenon was significant enough for Oprah to do a segment on it and devote a section of her empire’s website to it, makes me suspect it’s not as fringe as we’d like to think it is.

    I’ve never been a watcher of Oprah – of course I am aware of her show’s popularity among women, and her very high favorability ratings as a person. But I had no idea she had such an agenda. I’ve heard it rumored that she is a lesbian, and her site returns five pages of results for the search term “lesbian.”

    My guess is that she has been influential in gaining acceptance for gay and genderqueer individuals and lifestyles. I would call this a pet interest of hers rather than a reflection of any significant trend, though I agree with you that women past their prime are the most likely to switch.