This is the first of a two-part article on the political and economic forces surrounding marriage trends. Part Two may be found here.
Kate Bolick has ridden her Atlantic November cover article All the Single Ladies all the way to fame and fortune. It’s the most read article in the magazine’s history, was optioned as a TV show in development by Sony, and recently generated a book deal in the high six figures for Bolick. The book is titled Among the Suitors: Single Women I Have Loved. The announcement says “It develops a sly blend of autobiography and literary portraiture to question the conventional marriage trajectory.“
I congratulate Kate on her incredible success. She has clearly struck a nerve, and emancipated single women of a certain age are rushing to join the conversation and celebrate their single status. This is a marked reversal of the spinster lit trend of the last few years, where unhappily single women in their late 30s published memoirs attempting to come to terms with where they went wrong, and reaffirming their vow to continue their search for a life partner.
Ironically, the feminist media that champions Kate’s choice glossed over Kate’s opening in the Atlantic piece:
The decision to end a stable relationship for abstract rather than concrete reasons (“something was missing”), I see now, is in keeping with a post-Boomer ideology that values emotional fulfillment above all else. And the elevation of independence over coupling (“I wasn’t ready to settle down”) is a second-wave feminist idea I’d acquired from my mother, who had embraced it, in part, I suspect, to correct for her own choices.
…I was her first and only recruit, marching off to third grade in tiny green or blue T-shirts declaring: A WOMAN WITHOUT A MAN IS LIKE A FISH WITHOUT A BICYCLE, or: A WOMAN’S PLACE IS IN THE HOUSE—AND THE SENATE.
…What my mother could envision was a future in which I made my own choices. I don’t think either of us could have predicted what happens when you multiply that sense of agency by an entire generation.
Though feminism has brought us here, to a declining marriage rate and a female population more independent and educated than their male would-be partners, Kate Bolick and other women in her shoes are wise to focus on finding their bliss in life without a man. We’re facing at least a generation where a third of college-educated women will not marry college-educated men. This, among other factors, will continue to apply significant pressure to the declining marriage rate. It makes good sense for women to make the best life they can with or without a man, as many will not have the opportunity to marry.
Still, that’s different than championing singlehood over couplehood, which is where the momentum is now. Boston Magazine’s January issue featured an article by Janelle Nanos, Single By Choice, interviewing women (and one man) who prefer to remain single and do not want to be victimized by “singlism,” the social stigmas that unmarried people face. The term singlism was coined by Bella DePaulo, a psych professor at UCSB who is considered “the arbiter of the unmarried agenda.” And that’s the critical point here – there is an agenda that sees much more at stake than personal happiness and fulfillment.
Terri Tespicio, a writer who was interviewed for the article, said:
The idea that I would marry someone I loved has never crossed my mind. At 38, I feel more powerful and sexier and in control than I have ever felt…My life is a best-kept secret, and I wouldn’t trade it. As a single person, the world is my oyster. I’m just sorry that people who are married don’t have that freedom.
Even stronger proof of a political agenda may be found in a statement from Lisa Berkman, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who states:
Single people who have strong social ties often have fewer health risks than those “greedy” married couples who isolate themselves.
There will be a great deal more shaming of married people in the next 20 years, as women engage in whatever cognitive dissonance (or hamsterwheeling) is necessary to find an escape from singlism and more importantly, a nagging sense of personal disappointment. The Single By Choice movement is described this way:
They come in all shapes and sizes. They’re young men, who are the fastest growing percentage of those living on their own. They’re well-educated women, who are refusing to “marry down” to their less credentialed prospects. They’re gays and lesbians watching their friends in same-sex couples ensconse themselves behind white picket fences. Some have taken up their own distinguishing monikers, calling themselves quirkyalones, singulars, onelies or spinsterellas.
In truth, the population most affected by these trends, and they account for nearly all of those who identify with the movement, are never-married women in their 30s and 40s. It remains to be seen whether 20-something women will get on board before they know whether they will have the opportunity to marry. When Kate Bolick asked the young women at our dinner together whether her single status at the age of 39 freaked them out, they all nodded, awkwardly but truthfully. Each one of them also stated that they planned to prioritize having a family over pursuing a career. I suspect that the up and coming generation of women views these celebrations of singleness as a cautionary tale, and they’re anxious to make sure they won’t be calling themselves onelies or quirkyalones if they can help it.
While I am a supporter of marriage as the bedrock of civilization, I support the right of any individual to choose to remain single, and to find their happiness in life where they will. But let’s not kid ourselves. The Single By Choice movement is political, not personal.
{ 889 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 4 5 6
@Yohami
Thank you, for understand. *Kissinthecheek*
@Jackie
Oh boy, don’t get me started on the hierarchy. Living in Boston when the abuse scandal broke, and watching Cardinal Law sail merrily along to the Vatican – that made my blood boil. Fortunately, our parish is at BC (Jesuit), so we’re outside the normal diocesan chain of command. It’s been a tough period – many regulars left the Church, and I became very disillusioned myself. My poor husband – he comes from a long line of Calvinist ministers, and converted to Catholicism when we had our first child. Now he’s the only good Catholic in the family
What more could one ask for? I think True Blood is also written with great humor.
That’s brilliant. Great metaphor.
@Susan
Oh sorry I forgot to tell you that I’m asking for test readers at HUS because my leading lady is in college and is surrounded by the hook up culture so I need readers that are familiars with it at the very least. I hope that is okay.
Heh, not good enough. I want to point and shoot.
Of course! I hope you get some takers.
I’m too old to relearn the Nicene Creed!
Dear Susan.
I will stick around. I am so thankful that someone is trying to understand what I am saying. For now I will just reassure you that I never intended to say that women should not be educated or work. Women never were just taking care of children. Women have always been active in the economy, but women reigned in the moral economy where there was exchange of services and not money and men reigned in the money economy. Eventually the position of women in the moral economy became untenable and women were forced out into the money economy. I will write more of that later.
For now I will only stress that although it may look as women’s gains are men’s losses, this is not a fairly accurate picture, although it is true, because the losses of men will come back to haunt women in the end and I believe that’s one of the reasons you, Susan, felt compelled to start this blog – although you might not have realized it when you did so.
For every gain women make on the expense of men there will also be a loss to women far greater than loss you inflicted on men. So what women are basically doing right now is hurting themselves.
It is time for women to realize this and change your course, but maybe it is to late.
Now I must go to work so I can’t expand on these topics for now. I will return – it may take some days as it take some time for me to write, but for now you should take my word for it.
Susan:
I’d like to note my thoughts on the male commenting here; in particular denial of the male experience and the “on the ground reality” and my comments. It has resulted in my tussling with Jesus M on this and the defining sexy thread. I’ve felt some efforts by you and Jesus M to silence and discredit me.
On the defining sexy thread, Jesus M and I were debating back and forth about perfection. You chimed in that you thought I was arguing against Christian principles and demanded to know whether I am religious. Susan, the fact that I am a Christian doesn’t in any way detract from viewpoints I might make. It appeared your reference to whatever my spiritual beliefs might be was a suggestion that either (1) a Christian should not advance the argument I made; or (2) my argument should not be believed or credited simply because a Christian was making that argument. Perhaps you did not intend this, but this was certainly the way it came across.
On this thread the “bitter! bitter! bitter!” meme has reared its ugly head. I responded that men need to let go of their bitterness but women must also let go of their unrealistic expectations and appreciate men for who and what they are rather than what men can do for them. Men are human beings in their own right, and do not exist merely to provide boyfriends, husbands, pack mules and providers for women who want those things.
I again tussled with Jesus M. After trying to suss out his positions I suggested that all his arguments were Jesus M-oriented: If it didn’t affect him or he did not think it was a problem, then it was not a problem or did not exist. Jesus M then accused me of bitterness.
When I tried to walk away from the argument, stating “whatever” and “I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em”, you then confronted me with the tone of my comments, lamented the “change” from nice lapdog deti to strident, pissed off deti (I paraphrase for dramatic effect), suggested the red pill had become lodged in my throat, and said you detected anger in my commenting tone. I then referred you back to my comment at #248 above and headed out.
We all know what the “bitter!” meme is: “You’re just bitter!” The obvious suggestion is that the person’s bitterness and cynicism has distorted and perverted his perspective such that any arguments he advances are inherently incredible and should not be accepted. The “anger” meme is similar: “You’re just an angry, pissed off guy!” Again, the claim is that the person’s anger has clouded his judgment and perspective to such a degree that he cannot possibly advance a reasoned argument, and therefore he should not be believed. Both are attempts to discredit the person making the argument.
I haven’t come here generalizing about anyone, or men or women (though I believe Mike C is correct that generalizations are at times appropriate). When I have overstepped it, you’ve confronted it, and I’ve acknowledged it. I haven’t come in here to piss on the carpet, and frankly I don’t think I’ve done so.
It’s all well and good that you don’t want this place to become an outlet for male bitterness. I get that. That said, my coming here and posting in florid, blunt language in order to drive a point home with a little sardonic, dry humor is not bitterness and it’s not anger. It is “in your face”. It’s to the point. I admit my writing style here and elsewhere has become salty, sarcastic, pointed, even rude and vulgar at times. It’s intended to be. It’s intended to be bracing, attention-getting, and stark. I’m trying to help entertain and be interesting. I like to write, and frankly I think I’m pretty good at it. I’m trying to get the attention of some girl out there who struggles with these concepts. I’m trying to help give voice to some of the men who read, who might understand it but who might not be able to articulate it.
Perhaps you or others don’t like my writing style. Perhaps you don’t think it’s funny or entertaining, or it doesn’t articulate the point. Some commenters do seem to like it. Some commenters seem to think I have a few things interesting to say. Perhaps my writing style or my views or the way I express those views are no longer welcome here. If that’s the case, so be it.
Candidly, I’m disappointed to come here, post comments and add to lively discussions with people I’ve truly come to like and respect, only to have garden variety shaming language flung at me. “You’re bitter! You’re not to be believed!” That’s how Jesus M. came off. “You’re just an angry guy! Bad, bad deti!!” Susan, your later comment suggested genuine curiosity, and perhaps that’s the case. However, your initial comment didn’t come off as curious. Your tone came across as one of an irritated schoolmarm scolding a wayward seventh grader. I thought you were going to take out a virtual ruler and rap my knuckles. It was unnecessary, particularly since I don’t come here to mix it up, single out people or attack.
Shaming language isn’t going to get you or the women here very far with red pill men. It just gives your detractors more ammunition to heave your way. You’re smarter and better than this, and so is the reputation you’ve carefully constructed these past few years.
I do come here with strong opinions about ideas and concepts (NOT people) and I express them bluntly, but I’m not injuring or insulting anyone (except perhaps for Jesus M, who seems more and more willing to mix it up with and confront me of late).
Lest anyone think I’m just butthurt, think again. I’ve been commenting here since early summer 2011. In these pages I’ve written and talked openly and explicitly about the most difficult marital crisis I’ve ever been through in nearly 16 years of marriage, and I came here for support for it. I did so not only to get some help with it by writing about it to a friendly, sympathetic audience. I took my licks in those threads. I was called a liar, a sexist, a chauvinist pig, a coward and a tyrant (albeit not by any regulars here). I also sincerely hoped that someone else would read it, learn from my mistakes, ask the right questions, and make better choices. Maybe they did, or not, but it’s a good story of how premarital sluthood and deceit can damn near wreck a good thing. (Long story short: Wife of 15 years says “I’m just not attracted to you”. deti tells wife “appreciate and respect me or we’re done”. Mrs. deti confesses understating her premarital partner count. deti responds by taking “trust but verify” policy adapted from US Cold War policy toward USSR. Operation Trust but Verify is still in effect today.)
The entire point of this blog is to get women into marriages, as you’ve told us. I have something that the women who come here say they want — a marriage. It’s far from perfect. It’s taken some body blows in the last year but is still in the ring. It looks very different now from what it was when it started. But I’m willing to come here and tell your readers what I know about it, and about intergender relationships. And I can do it from a male perspective (MY perspective, not THE male perspective).
Many women continually say they don’t understand men, they don’t understand what men want, they don’t get why they don’t have boyfriends, they can’t understand this messed up SMP. I have a little knowledge about it and I can help explain it. The way I explain it might not appeal to everyone, but it is valid. It’s not bitter, and it’s not angry. The fact that others might not like it or erroneously call it “bitter” or “angry” does not in any way detract from its validity.
It’s not bitterness to acknowledge the very real pain and frustration men feel. I’m not here trying to choke down the last of the red pill. I’m trying to use what I know and my writing skill to describe it so that women who read here will understand what many men REALLY think and feel about it. Giving voice to that frustration doesn’t mean I’m angry, nor does it mean that anger is bad.
And this isn’t about me. My bed is made and Mrs. deti and I will have to lie in it the best we can–either together or not. She will have to continue living her life as an open book and I’ll have to continue trusting but verifying. It is no longer about me, or her. I have children to worry about. As I said at 248 above, I have a daughter who I want to have a good life without slutting it up. If she wants a husband and children, it’s in her interest not to destroy her MMV.
I have a son who I want to learn game so he can expand his options, live how he wants and not get knocked up, punked, or chumped out. I want him to have what he wants, whether that’s marital bliss, the player life, or GHOW.
I am not an MRA. I don’t subscribe to MGTOW (though I understand it). I don’t play for Team HUS, or Team Susan Walsh, or Team This or That Blogger-of-the-Month, or Team Woman or even Team Man. I’m just going where the facts lead me. I play for Team Truth.
@Ana: Congrats on your pregnancy!
I’m starting to wonder if there is a generational gap, and if today’s 16-20 year old is starting to have very different views/behaviors/etc then the 30-35 year old woman of today.
I fall within the 16-20 year old bracket, and [as I've mentioned before] I have an extraordinarily difficult time interacting with older women. I wish I could say I’m exaggerating, but IRL, I just don’t know any decent 30-35 year old women. Compared to my generation, Gen X women are really difficult to get along with.
The worst thing I’ve noticed about Gen X women is that they have elastic values [or non-existent values?], which leads to them engaging in amusing hypocritical behavior. For example, I’ve had single 30+ women complain about being single, then tell me I’m too young to get married. Or I’ve had older Christian women tell me “pre-marital kissing is a first class ticket to hell!” despite the fact that they themselves rode the carousel [why are the biggest promoters of hardlined abstinence always reformed sluts?] & don’t get me started on the horrible marital advice I’ve been receiving. “Ask him to buy you a car/house/Caribbean timeshare…” *facepalm*
Gen Y isn’t perfect, but these behaviors [hypocrisy, selfish materialism] seem less prevalent.
Anacaona – Felicitaciones para la nueva adicion a su familia. Que tenga un buen parto y mucha felicidad.
Hope – They tell me you are expecting as well. Thank God. May you and your husband’s tribe increase .
Desiderius- Who will get to play Alexander I of the Sexual Revolution, I wonder?
Susan – Don’t worry about the yobbos accusing you of plagarising the 80/20 meme from Roissy. I remember discussing it on the hoary old Mancoat/Nice Guy forum as far back as 2002, when Roissy was still pushing paper in the State Department. That’s the nature of Internet memes. I don’t even remember where I got it from, but now it’s orthodoxy.
Speaking of which, Orthodox Lent is upon us, so I will take my leave along with the observant Catholics and wish everyone a very prosperous and fruitful late winter and early spring. See you after Easter – which is a week after Catholic Easter this year.
@Mulaquemasticaespinas
Muchas gracias
Speaking of which, Orthodox Lent is upon us, so I will take my leave along with the observant Catholics and wish everyone a very prosperous and fruitful late winter and early spring. See you after Easter – which is a week after Catholic Easter this year.
Is Orthodox Easter the same as Greek Easter?
Also, a lot of Catholics here are giving up the internet. I’ll especially miss Bellita’s blog
Mike C:
I hope Susan doesn’t mind me posting links here, but being physically pushy is considered a warning sign in this article.
http://www.modernghana.com/lifestyle/850/16/8-signs-hes-only-interested-in-sex.html
In my last relationship where I felt like my partner was respectful of sexual boundaries, I recall him suggesting or hinting towards taking things the next level. I wouldn’t call it pushy though. My definition of pushy is someone trying to feel you up or talking non-stop about sex, and then getting mad when you’re not giving them what they want. Perhaps other people on here have a different definition of what it means to push for sex.
WarmWoman,
I actually think that article is a very good one in terms of pointers in sussing out a guy who is only interested in you for sex. I agree with the vast majority of it. In my mind, there is a massive difference between being “pushy” about sex versus what I’d call assertive masculine escalation. In short, when I think of a guy being “pushy” for sex I think of almost an aggressive used car salesman demeanor, and a guy who has lost his frame, and become emotional and tries to cajole or plead. The proper thing is to escalate hard and if you get shut down firmly, to react with aloof indifference, not get even more pushy.
Anyways, my advice to any guy who would ask me would be to escalate hard in a non-pushy manner which often involves 2 steps forward, 1 step back, or 1 step forward and 1 step back and than trying to take the step forward again. The key on the guy’s part is to know when to pull the plug in that moment in time and not try any further. Now if a woman wants to pull the plug on a guy because she thinks he escalated too much, that is certainly her prerogative. In my experience, the vast majority of women aren’t going to punish a guy for escalation if he knows when to back off, and in fact the opposite is true in that a guy will get punished if he doesn’t escalate enough because she’ll question his interest, his attraction, that he is too timid.
At the end of the day, few women will directly verbalize what level of activity they are comfortable with at a moment in time, so it is up to the guy to figure it out by pushing the boundary, gauging the reaction, and then calibrating appropriately (moving forward or backing off with the right attitude).
What Mike C said.
@christiankp
I agree with this, and although I didn’t know it when I started the blog, I learned it here from male readers.
It is too late in the sense that opportunities for productive partnerships with men will continue to be greatly reduced. Men have paid the price until now, women will pay going forward. In that sense, the pendulum is already swinging. There will always be success stories, though, and that’s why I started the blog. To help people figure out ways to come out ahead in this SMP.
Susan: It is too late in the sense that opportunities for productive partnerships with men will continue to be greatly reduced. Men have paid the price until now, women will pay going forward. In that sense, the pendulum is already swinging. There will always be success stories, though, and that’s why I started the blog. To help people figure out ways to come out ahead in this SMP.
My reply:
And I’m seeing it among a fair number of millenials that I know IRL, but the key is that they come from families where there was effective modeling and encouragement to be marriage-minded from the beginning. I’ll post on the millenials’ marriage essay on this.
Susan:
Re. being a C&E Catholic and Easter–”My poor husband – he comes from a long line of Calvinist ministers, and converted to Catholicism when we had our first child. Now he’s the only good Catholic in the family.”
My reply: I wonder how things might have been different if you joined his denomination? Was that an option?
I wasn’t living in New England when that scandal broke, but it is interesting that a number of former Catholics who have become Episcopalian like me have told me that story and the hierarchical nature of the Church as one that pushed them out towards our denomination, where there is a greater role for the laity in the hierarchy.
I noticed the differences in the Catholic liturgy when I visited some relatives for the holidays. I’m with you; I had problems saying the new creed when I remembered the earlier one from my childhood.
The last time the Episcopalians had that sort of liturgical change was back in the 1970s; they had various trial runs with the new liturgy and then left it up to the local churches to decide whether they preferred the old language or the new–the new prayer book offered both options.
Happy Lent to all those taking a break from the internet! I’m not going to. I will use the time, though, for some fasting and extra observances–no chocolate and I’m running an extra Lenten adult ed series. The last one we did was in Advent. We have the same period of Lent beginning with Ash Wednesday–I’ll go to services Wed. evening–a joing service with a few other Episcopal churches in the area. It’s funny, when I have gone to Ash Wed. services in the day, I appear to be Catholic; so this time, going in the evening, I’ll miss that experience….Not a problem, though.
@Susan
“I learned it here from male readers. ”
Now that would make for an interesting post; How your views have developed over the period that you’ve been running…
Mike C
Thanks for explaining. That makes a lot of sense. Since we all have different experiences, how we perceive things and terms on here could be different. Assertive masculine escalation doesn’t seem to be problem then.
Grandma and Great-Grandma probably knew and understood men 100x better than today’s woman.
I see a bit of romanticism here. I am old enough to have known the tail end of those generations before the big social changes that the 60s brought with them occuedr. I know that there is a lot of nostalgia for the stability of those days and agree that we have a great many more social ills now because of that instability than existed back then. OTOH, I don’t recall seeing all that many enviable marriages when I was growing up or a tremendous respect for men by any of those older women. Many were unhappy but afraid to try to support themselves or to face the social and religious diapproval that came with divorce. And some of the happiest were those who regarded their husbands as an extra child and humored him. Is that Grandma and Great-Grandma knowing and understanding men 100x better than today’s women?
Jackie,
“I just see so much of church taken up by petty squabbling that I feel Jesus’s teachings are being lost.”
As opposed to the rest of life where there are no petty squabbles at all? Of course, at HUS we do take care to make sure our squabbles aren’t petty, I’ll grant you that.
No, church is just the place, when functioning properly, where you have ready means available for rising (together) above the petty squabbles. Ours is in a nice place right now where other (very good) stuff is sort of crowding out any squabbling, at least among me and my peers…
“By the way, as the “Prince of Humanists” you are remarkably savvy for being 500+ years old!
”
The Erasmus book currently residing next to my toilet has a blurb on the back that screams “Four centuries ahead of his time!”, so I suppose here I (finally) am, Lord.
“My poor husband – he comes from a long line of Calvinist ministers, and converted to Catholicism when we had our first child. Now he’s the only good Catholic in the family”
Well, Calvin himself was the second-best catholic of the 16th Century, so that follows naturally.
In all seriousness, my guess is that history will come to see Koral Wojtyla as one of humanity’s finest representatives, and at a time (Hiroshima/Auschwitz) when such was most needed. I’m a buttress of today’s Catholic Church – I strongly support it from the outside. I try to be a pillar of the catholic one.
Mule,
“Desiderius- Who will get to play Alexander I of the Sexual Revolution, I wonder?”
Even I try not to mix my metaphors quite that severely. As for Wellingtons, you may be reading her blog. As with the Duke, she will need help.
deti,
A few things. First, I don’t think there’s any man here, unless he’s been through it himself, that can fully comprehend the pain and difficulty of what you’re going through with your wife. Coming at you after 15 yrs and telling you, a. I’m just not attracted to you, and b. I lied about my history, sounds… malicious. Honestly, I’m not sure how your marriage is still operating. I imagine that if I were in your situation, such a move on my wife’s part would create an irrevocable rift between us.
The fact that you’re still there trying to work it out is a testament to your character. The idea of a cold war approach to marriage doesn’t appeal to me personally. For the sake of everyone, including the kids, I’d cut and run. But… I have a lot of respect for your decision to stay.
All that said…. you telling me that my POV is all about me and that if it doesn’t apply to me than I don’t care…. and then complaining about me trying to shame you…. all that is disingenuous. You tried to shame me. I just pointed out the obvious truth: you’re bitter. Any man in your position who didn’t experience some bitterness wouldn’t be human. I would have, and so would any other guy here. That said, your experience with what I would call (with no disrespect to you) a shitty fucking wife has no doubt affected your view of women as a whole.
I like having you around. But just like you, I call it like I see it. If you don’t like that, then… I don’t know what to tell you.
@deti, I hesitate to say this, but you may remember that I have an ex who lied to me for almost ten years. I tried to support you back when you were talking about dealing with it, because I do think I have an idea how it feels. I personally could not deal with such a deep level of lying and deception. I was 24, almost 25, we had no kids or real asset, so I left. It was the best decision I ever made.
But you do have kids and have made a life together. Like Jesus Mahoney, I greatly respect your decision to stay and try to work it out. However, I do think your view of women is being colored by your wife and the women she associates with, and that is also coloring your views of the young women posting here or any hypothetical woman. They are basically “guilty before proven innocent.”
I prefer to view people on an individual basis. I think it is not fair to make an innocent stranger suffer for the sins of others. That is partially why the young women who either lurk or briefly posted become hesitant to engage in the discussions here. They may not have done any major wrong, yet they are viewed with suspicion and treated with disparagement all the same. Some of them might have done a wrong thing or two, but they are virtually crucified over hot psychological coal for the wrongs of other women who wronged the male commenters personally.
What young woman in her late teen’s or early 20′s wants to engage in a discussion like that? They won’t. Even young college-age guys don’t want to talk much here because it’s so, for a lack of a better word, intense. They’re still just kids, without much life experience, still trying to figure things out. Using colorful, forceful language on them is just like another professor talking down to them from the podium. You won’t really have much success lambasting the same audience that you’re trying to convert. “You suck — now listen to me!” isn’t very persuasive.
Susan may have said some personally shaming things, but she has overall been very accomodating and supportive of the male commenters here. She also liked and applauded what you were doing in the difficult situation with Mrs. deti, and has been a consistent voice of reason. She probably does not want to single you or anyone else out for changing the “tone” of the discussion here, but it has indeed changed. I notice it much more when I go to one of Susan’s much older posts where young college-age kids posted their romantic problems. They don’t post here now, because they don’t want the high-level theories about the modern SMP or the essays about feminism, they just want to know if that guy or girl likes them, or how they can get a call back.
Of course a blog is constantly evolving, and I happen to like theorycrafting and high-level discussions, so I find the discussions interesting. At the same time, if you really want to change “hearts and minds,” I suspect that shaming language used on younger women works about as well as shaming language used on older men. That is to say, not very well at all.
Jesus M., Hope:
I understand perfectly where you’re coming from. I don’t agree with your characterizations, but that’s really neither here nor there.
@deti, it’s not just you, but also other older male commentators. Certainly you write a lot of wisdom, but a young woman who reads words of wisdom does not necessarily understand the wisdom contained therein, especially if it comes with a string of ad hominems. That’s mostly what I’m trying to say.
And here’s where I’ll get personal — you know why I was able to read the manosphere for so long? My female relatives and my own mother insulted me from a young age, calling me all sorts of names, and so I can stomach it no problem. The emotional impact of words on a screen is nothing compared to being screamed at for an hour when you’re half someone’s height. Most young women growing up today will just move on.
Hope:
OK, but I’ve never ad hominem attacked anyone, including you or Jesus M despite his opinion to the contrary.
Now I’m going. I’m not going to hijack this thread further. I’ve said what I had to say.
Hope,
This is an interesting observation. After hanging around for a few months, I’m also able to stomach a lot of this stuff (I even came across PMAFT’s site the other day, though I would never dare comment. Seems like that’d be diving into a snakehole). But I never really had family members scream at me.
Perhaps it’s that the ladies who read the manosphere have dealt with stuff a lot of young women haven’t. For me, it was medical problems and bullying. For the married women not in their twenties, it seems like marriage has given them a new perspective.
Perhaps this is my own “bitterness” talking, or perhaps my lower-middle-class background, but sometimes I really feel like American college students live in a bubble of so-called perfection. They don’t know what real life is, and they’re horrified when they get a glimpse of it. Their biggest problems revolve around tests and over-drinking. To me, that’s the kind of trivial existence that leads to unhappiness over the smallest things, like feeling bored in your marriage. And I say this having lived that lifestyle for several semesters, with friends who (pardon my french) had their heads up their own buttholes. I’d even go so far as to say that I had my own head up my butthole for awhile.
I guarantee that if those friends showed up at HUS, the caliber of conversation would significantly dwindle, with Susan spending all her time doling out advice to unhappy ladies who couldn’t snag the boyfriends they wanted. Trust me, I know. I’m still friends with all of them on facebook.
As a lurker, I just have to say that I really appreciate the advice that both deti and Jesus Mahoney (& many other commenters) have given out. I’ve often incorporated their pieces and bits into my current life. It’s nice to have, sometimes, opposing viewpoints. It gives me different perspectives.
But I do agree with Hope about the tone of the blog, lately. One of the number one reasons I lurk in the shadows instead of commenting. I’m still new and relatively experienced in the SMP. Not to say that I don’t appreciate constructive criticisms. I just don’t want to be torn apart by harsh and mean-spirited opinions.
Plus, I don’t really have much to contribute, my role for now, is listening and gathering information/experience from other people.
*oops, that was meant to be “..relatively inexperienced..”
My thoughts about why women entered the work force and the delicate act of balance they have to perform:
Women have never been unproductive and just rearing children. They have always taken their part in producing goods. However, until recently women’s work was done in the moral economy. This economy, which was the greatest in society, consists of the exchange of services and goods without the use of money. One is doing his neighbour a favour and sometimes in the future the neighbour is bound to reciprocate the favour. The currency in the moral economy is moral obligations.
Men began exchanging some of the goods produced in the moral economy with money. This was very efficient because the two parties could exchange values without building reciprocal moral obligations that are very fragile and require a lot of social control.
Because of the effectiveness of the exchange with money over the exchange in moral economy this part of the economy grew tremendously and soon most of men’s labour was no longer done in the home but in the factory. He eventually took his salary home to the family, which internally still relied on moral economy.
The money economy facilitates a dynamic society, but moral economy doesn’t function well under dynamic conditions, because those who owe you a favour may not be there when you need it. Therefore, women’s situation in the moral economy got more fragile. They could no longer rely on exchange of goods with their neighbours and as the husband was working the woman became more and more isolated and lonely.
The fact that it was the man who brought home the salary whereas she could do nothing more than giving him sex, making good food and a clean and nice home also contributed to a tremendous shift in power balance in favour of the husband.
Then the pill came. And women went bananas because they got scared to death. Up until the pill pregnancy was something that men´s sexual desire imposed on women. So up until that moment, a man who was making a woman pregnant was caught in a net of responsibilities to that woman. But after the pill and especially after it became possible to get abortion a man never imposed a pregnancy on a woman. She chose to be pregnant. So the pregnancy imposes much less moral responsibility onto the man. (A woman in my mothers generation could call her husband to order by reminding him that the she had given him the best years of her life. If anybody could call someone to order in this way today, I believe it would be the husband.)
Now we had a society totally dominated by money economy and the women where caught up in their small nuclear family. They were totally dependent on men, but because of the reduction of the realm of the family women could not reciprocate men in a way so that men got just as dependent on women as women were on men. The only power women got over men was the fact that men imposed pregnancy on women. But after the pill and abortion this power vanished in the sky.
Women had nothing to do than to go out on the labour market and politicians and employers were exalted because the latter could use women to undercut the salaries of men thereby increasing their profit, and the politicians got the opportunity to tax women for their work.
And here we are, women are in the work force. Unfortunately women have driven a lot of men out of the work force. And some women foolishly seem to be proud of it as a sign that woman are more clever, more intelligent and more ambitious than men. But I think this is a misunderstanding.
Every time a woman replace a man in the work force she is increasing the work load of women and decreasing the recourses produced by men that could be turned over to women. The strategy that women have chosen is self-defeating.
Today women got the problem that they need to be in the work force at the same time as they need man to stay there – otherwise welfare will turn from a reallocation of resources from men to women and children to a reallocation of resources from women to other women – and most probably also from women to men. Someone has to pay for the prisons women eventually will shut large quantities of men up in.
In this situation it is just plain dumb of women to press for affirmative action. But you are very welcome pressing for equal pay as the lower pay women gets today is not a result of discrimination but the result of women not being loyal to their male colleagues by accepting a pay that is lower than theirs. Women could afford this as long as men provided for their families and women provided for them-selves. In a not so distant future you may se men undercutting women salaries because in the future it will be women providing for their families and men providing for themselves – if they want to.
Finally I will make a remark on power and the fatal misunderstanding feminists and women of this phenomenon. Feminists believe that you get power from status, education and money. Therefore women are rushing to get to the top of society. But you will never get any power that way.
There are to kinds of power that are real. One kind of power is based on violence and fright. This is a very fragile and inconvenient power to have because you just have it as long as you manage to scare people, and when you have come to the point when they are not afraid of you they will bite your throat. The price paid for this kind of power may be that the person having it may be the one who is most afraid.
Any real power is based on the fact that you have something that others need and that you can use these goods to build reciprocal dependency. The currency that men has is work and from that material resources. You have to provide something else. That used to be sex, care, compassion, respect and devotion. Many men are not so very fond of children so you should not believe that you could take them with you in the bargain as an asset on your side – I am sorry to say. You were able to do that in patriarchy because patriarchy put severe strain on men to become fathers. But know we know that children do not need a father and no one expect a man to get heirs. But somehow you found out that you didn’t need to provide anything – not even sex – because men in fact exploited you.
You also found out that it was your right to terminate the relationship with your children’s father at will, thereby violating the ethics of the moral economy that you still want to be the way of exchange between husband and wife. As you know the exchange of sex in the money economy is called prostitution.
Because of all this we are in a situation in which women are as powerless as they have ever been, at least when it comes to the control over men. And as more and more women chose not to invite men into the dependency chain and keep them there by obeying the ethics of the moral economy (that is a woman should not instigate divorce from other than the most compelling reasons), and as women displace men from the work force the power you hold over men will just diminish and eventually vanish for good.
On the other hand as long as you are dependent on the infrastructure build by men and serviced by men, men got power over you. You are just lucky that men have not used this power to call you to order. Women can be executive directors, board members, lawyers and doctors – as long as it is men who bring you food and water, take care of the cloaks, taking away the garbage, producing the electricity you need and so on in eternity, men have the power.
Women, don’t kid yourselves about where the power is and where the power will stay unless you choose another way. Unfortunately the exchange of dependency between men and women is going on in this way: every single man is dependent on a single woman inviting him into the dependency chain. This is a personal dependency which it is very hurtful not to get. Women are collectively dependent on men – more now that ever. But because women are not personally dependent on a man in her life, she may fool herself to believe that she does not need a man.
I wasn’t living in New England when that scandal broke, but it is interesting that a number of former Catholics who have become Episcopalian like me have told me that story and the hierarchical nature of the Church as one that pushed them out towards our denomination, where there is a greater role for the laity in the hierarchy
I had been raised a Catholic, but I recently converted to Episcopalian [my fiance's denomination]. Although the hierarchy was one of the many reasons I drifted away from the Catholic Church, the main reason actually had been lack of support for young engaged couples/out-of-touch marriage preparation/ban on contraception. My old church was very inhospitable [especially since my fiance isn't a Catholic], while my fiance’s priest was so kind and approached us after mass and offered to help us pick a wedding date. I suffer from a health condition [Rheumatoid Arthritis] that makes it dangerous for me to get pregnant. I wasn’t willing to argue with the Catholic priests in Pre-Cana over my intentions to use contraceptives [I plan to have kids, it's just I'll have to wait until I'm a bit healthier. NFP has a way too high failure rate to be considered an effective form of birth control].
That is partially why the young women who either lurk or briefly posted become hesitant to engage in the discussions here. They may not have done any major wrong, yet they are viewed with suspicion and treated with disparagement all the same.
I’ve learned to ignore all Christian manosphere blogs [ especially one in particular]. When I mentioned I’m a virgin waiting until marriage, or that I’m an engaged young woman head-over-heels in love with her betrothed – I still somehow ended up being called a evil hamster spinning whore that hates men. I was actually viciously cyberbullied quite a few times [by Christian MRAs]; I still occasionally receive hatemail. I regret ever venturing outside of HUS – it’s a scary blogosphere…
@Madisonkc
actually, on another blog, the millenials suddenly piped up…what an eye opener that was for Gen X’ers like me.
your viewpoint is as valid as anybody else’s here.
Susan said recently that maybe 98% of viewers didn’t comment(!) Why not give it a go?
(having said that, that’s me for tonight – cheers)
@Mule
I wish you a meaningful Lenten journey. We will miss you and look forward to your return.
Susan:
I saw in the other thread you were going to respond to me. Truly, there’s no need for you to do that. In fact I’d just as soon you deleted my comment 761 above and we can leave it at that.
Anacaona…”I already was part of a literary group that principal function was to make sure you never publish anything unless is 100% perfect”
Ben Stein once remarked that perfectionism is “the great crippler of young adults” and that it’s much better to do something workmanlike but imperfect, get it done, and move on to something else rather than agonizing endlessly to create the world’s best whatever it is.
Sounds like you’ve avoided this trap well.
Mind officially blown by christiankp. Wow.
Regarding the state of the blog: I read quite a few blogs, and HUS is one of the very few that managed to have very long comment threads that are reasonably coherent and mostly-civil.
Large finance/investment sites are some of the worst.
What’s here is actually fairly rare.
or perhaps my lower-middle-class background, but sometimes I really feel like American college students live in a bubble of so-called perfection.
Viva the LMC and those who escape from it! OTOH, don’t forget your roots. I started out life LMC as did DH. We went to college, live in the ‘burbs etc., but we and our kids are still far more resilient than the folks in our neighborhood. Hold your head high if the little rich bitches try to make you feel bad about where you come from. You’re better than that.
Funny story. A neighbor and I where born in the same city–me in an LMC area, she in a posh area. When I alluded to our having come from the same city, she immediately brought up her posher address and said something snarky. I smiled my most charming smile and replied, “Life is soooo funny. You came from X and I came from Y, yet we both wound up on ZZZ Street.” Then I turned to a friend and said in an innocent tone, “You know, it’s not where you come from; it’s where you end up.” My point was taken.
Ana–Conrats on your second draft. It’s so col that you are working on a YA novel. I don’t read romance, so I’m no judge of these things. Otherwise, I’d volunteer to be a reader.
Butterfly flower have you considered trying qigong for your condition:
http://www.wishus.org/researchpapers/Arthritis.pdf
Also if you struggle with pain from it check out the research on mindfulness based stress reduction. 40+% reduction in pain in chronic pain patients.
@deti
I saw your comment suggesting I not respond, but I feel I need to. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t want me to, but you felt strongly enough to write that and it’s been up all day. There are some things I would like to say.
It is not my intention to deny anyone’s experience. I don’t think there is one male experience, nor do I think there is one female experience. Any individual’s experience will depend on many things. We cannot even say that betas all have the same experiences. Very good looking betas are going to have different experiences than less attractive guys. STEM majors are going to have different experiences by virtue of the fact that they meet fewer women. We can speak about general trends and characteristics in the SMP, but there is tremendous variation. YMMV is an understatement. Your mileage will vary, and very dramatically.
There are times when statements here do not reflect my own experiences, or reports I receive from others. And surely my perceptions will not match yours sometimes, or perhaps even at all. I am not saying your experience is invalid, or inaccurate, for you. As I look around at my own family, social circle and community I see mostly stable marriages between beta males and women who never rode the carousel (or if they did, one would never guess). Divorce is rare. Some reports here do not confirm my own sense of the SMP. I’m not sure what to do about that, except to say that I respect your views, even as I believe they are not universally shared, even by men.
This is the point that I wondered about:
“No one is completely lovable. I’m not. You’re not. Your GF isn’t. Mrs. deti isn’t. You learn to live with that which you don’t like or love.”
It struck me right away as being 180 degrees opposed from Jesus’ primary message. I asked if you were Christian, I did not demand anything. I was not accusing you, as I am not particularly religious myself. I was curious. Later in the thread I stated, after reading more comments from you, that I believed you and Jesus were not far apart in your views, and that I thought the difference was one of semantics. I’m sorry if I offended you.
I’m surprised you feel that it’s necessary to make such a statement here. I don’t recall who mentioned bitterness, I believe it has been referred to by several people here, including men I would describe as sharing your views. I understand the visceral reaction to the word bitterness, but it is a word which characterizes a particular attitude, one that combines hurt and resentment with anger and a desire for revenge. Unfortunately, these feelings are not unusual among men here, particularly those that have recently swallowed the red pill.
I never thought you were a lapdog. When I published your essay about Summer, I found it beautifully written, perceptive and poignant. For all the disappointment, there was little anger. It was very accessible. Later, when you explained your Trust But Verify approach, the women here defended you enthusiastically against those ManBoobz types. Since then I sense there has been an increasingly angry tone.
I’m glad you shared this. It’s an honest response to the question I asked the other day. I confess it isn’t a writing style that I find particularly accessible or easy to respond to, but it helps to understand your motive.
I believe that you do not mean to injure or insult anyone, but I sometimes feel both of those things when you write. Not necessarily only at HUS, but elsewhere too. For example, this comment, which you left at Badger’s:
But the points you and I make [at HUS] meet with a lot of resistance because they are a direct challenge to the mindset that women should get everything they want from sex and relationships but men have to accept whatever scraps women are willing to throw them.
I feel hurt by it, and I also feel that it grossly misrepresents what I’m trying to do here, and what women are saying in the comment threads. It’s unfair, it’s facile and it’s inaccurate. You are free to say whatever you want about me or HUS, but don’t expect that such statements will increase your welcome here.
I’ll end by saying that I value your opinion and your insights. I understand that you’ve been through the wringer in the last year, and I fully support your chosen response to Mrs. Deti. I hope that you will continue to post here, but please do not do so in the hopes of telling women what they need to hear, if that means accusing us of treating men like pack mules who feed on scraps.
Yet if Jesus finds out his wife lied he leaves her, while Deti works it out. Who loves more?
Shortcut: Jesus is loving in the ideal.
@PVW
Thanks for your response. I could never feel comfortable in a Calvinist denomination – I love all the rituals and ceremony, especially incense! There is a wonderful Episcopal parish near us, and we do go there sometimes. The pastor is an ex-Jesuit priest who fell in love with a nun. They both left the church, married and adopted two children. It’s a possible option, but my husband absolutely loves singing in the choir at St. Iggy’s. It’s such a great church for music – there are several non-Catholics who come to sing there. He is very committed (they’re perpetually short on basses) and loath to leave. We shall see how this plays out in the next few years. I think your approach makes a great deal of sense.
@Yohami
Whoops, I meant Jesus Christ. The love your neighbor and even your enemies part.
@Just1X
That’s a great idea! I love that. I might juxtapose Before and After. What I thought when I was ignorant, and what I know now. Thanks, that is going on the short list.
@Madisonkc
Thanks for coming out and introducing yourself. I appreciate your sharing your understandable reticence about diving into rather intense discussions. By all means, keep listening and know that if you ever would like to join in, I’ll have your back. We’re aiming for a gentler, kinder HUS.
@christiankp
You are writing faster than I can absorb all of this information! Just kidding, I do appreciate it. I have copied everything for further reflection, once I am able to read Dench’s book. The ideas make total sense, and yet at the same time seem radical, or at least buried in a time of feminist thinking.
ButterflyFlower:
I had been raised a Catholic, but I recently converted to Episcopalian [my fiance's denomination]. Although the hierarchy was one of the many reasons I drifted away from the Catholic Church, the main reason actually had been lack of support for young engaged couples/out-of-touch marriage preparation/ban on contraception.
My reply:
Congratulations! This past fall I coordinated the adult education inquirer’s class for members of the parish seeking to become Episcopalian. Some were former Roman Catholics who were being received (ie., confirmed R.C.); others were getting confirmed, ie., not confirmed R.C. The confirmations and receptions will take place in May.
When the husband and I got married, the priests we worked with were so fantastic in organizing the wedding. It didn’t hurt that I was pretty involved in the parish and I knew all the priests. One was a female priest, married with children and grandchildren, she did the premarital counseling; her primary goal was to make sure we knew what we were going into, that we had good coping skills for resolving conflicts and making sure we knew each other well enough to avoid major problems. The priest who did the ceremony was a colleague at my school who became a priest as a second career–he didn’t give up his day job, but undertook a part-time gig as a priest at small parish elsewhere. His wife and I were good friends; I’d see her in church on Sundays.
Susan:
I could never feel comfortable in a Calvinist denomination – I love all the rituals and ceremony, especially incense! There is a wonderful Episcopal parish near us, and we do go there sometimes.
My reply:
My church used to be more “smells and bells” long before I began attending, but they discontinued the smells, since a few people had allergies. We use the bells on occasion, and there the ritual you speak of….When I want the full treatment, “smells and bells,” lots of acolytes, vestments, deacons, huge choirs, etc., I go to one of the more “high church/Angl0-Catholic” Episcopal churches where that is the norm. The ritual is so high, they closely resemble what R.Catholic services looked like pre Vatican Council 2.
He’s incredible, isn’t he? I thought I might run his first comment as a post, but he’s given much more than that. I need to do some serious thinking about this – these ideas are amazing.
@David foster
Thank you for your supportive observation. IIRC you have been commenting here for quite a while now – 2 years or so. That is the metric that means the most to me, truly. There are a few commenters here who go back to Nov. 2008, and I’m just so grateful, and I’ll admit it – proud.
@Susan,
“Whoops, I meant Jesus Christ. The love your neighbor and even your enemies part.”
But while he didn’t condemn the adulteress, he did tell her to “go forth and sin no more”.
I converted to Catholicism when I got married, so it’s been an interesting switch from my fundamentalist protestant upbringing. My historical interests are better served there…many Protestants don’t really have a good historical knowledge (it’s often a casualty of “Sola Scriptura”). The whole recent scandals, though, have made my Catholic acquaintances more “protestant” in some sense…
@PVW
Because my childhood was somewhat fraught with worry, some of my most precious memories involve reading my Missal during the Latin Mass. Hearing the Latin, smelling the incense, watching the dust motes in the light shining through stained glass…that became a weekly ritual of comfort. I was 8 or so then – here I am 47 years later moved to tears by those memories. I understand and appreciate rituals as comfort.
@ENY
Interesting, I am humbled by my husband’s knowledge of scripture. Also hymns. Catholics have never been big on Bible study, so we generally know less about it than other denominations, I think. On the other hand, the sermons I’ve heard from Jesuit priests are incredibly erudite and insightful. I think this speaks to the debate about the priest as intercessor, or whether the congregation communicates directly with God.
I know I went off topic here – sorry to all the atheists!
@Susan,
Off-topic again, oh well..
I do agree that your average Catholic is less familiar with scripture: my wife, for example, isn’t that well versed in the Bible. Growing up fundamentalist protestant, scripture was pretty much the whole of everything. However, between the first few church councils and the Protestant Reformation, it was a black hole for us. I remember reading the Divine Comedy, and researching the figures that show up there was a revelation of Church history that was never alluded to (except in a derogatory manner) in my childhood church.
I was an agnostic after high school (it’s hard to be in a church wedded to the 6000 year chronology when your career interest is science). When I went through the adult communion/confirmation classes before my wedding, the history of it all was very interesting…there was a lot of tradition of thinking about these issues spanning nearly 2000 years. That suited my intellectual side.
Oh well, Monday evening thread hijacking
@ExNewYorker
My husband has had a similar experience. He also appreciates the history and intellectualism of the church. Incidentally, his conversion was not received particularly well in his family. There was a concerted effort to prevent his grandmother from learning that:
1. I was Catholic.
2. I was Irish.
3. We lived together before marrying.
Never mind that his own father was conceived when his grandmother hit the haystack with the boy from the neighboring farm…
Interestingly, my husband’s grandfather Pop, a minister, was entirely supportive. He said, “A family should worship together, I think this is wonderful.”
@Hope
And here’s where I’ll get personal — you know why I was able to read the manosphere for so long? My female relatives and my own mother insulted me from a young age, calling me all sorts of names, and so I can stomach it no problem.
@Olive
Perhaps it’s that the ladies who read the manosphere have dealt with stuff a lot of young women haven’t. For me, it was medical problems and bullying. For the married women not in their twenties, it seems like marriage has given them a new perspective.
There’s something to this. I never thought of HUS discussions as especially intense (not until the thread which even Susan had to take a break from), and had actually been wanting to comment weeks before I finally did. The only thing that stopped me was the thought that my experiences wouldn’t be relevant to US hookup culture.
I think my level of comfort with these discussions (and with the Manosphere in general) comes from my own share of “medical problems” and my tendency to ask how screw ups might have been my fault. The former means I don’t think that a lot of things that people complain about are a huge deal (such as the drama Olive has mentioned), and the latter means I’m a little more sympathetic than I suppose the average woman would be to the idea that women have a lot to answer for.
On the other hand, I wasn’t always like this. Like Olive, I had my “head-in-butthole” years, too. But they have shown me that a lot of the generalizations being repeated on these blogs have a grain of truth to them. If they were true for me, then they can be true of so many other women.
@Susan
You may call these thoughts radically conservative, and yes I think that Dench is one of our greatest thinkers. He has managed to put much of that knowledge of human nature that was ingrained in those institutions now destroyed by liberalism and feminism into words.
These thoughts have haunted med for years and for the first time I have found someone other than my wife who wants to understand. So my writing is becoming a little bit obsessive.
@Mike C
Thank you for the kind words. I forgot to thank you yesterday.
@christiankp
I was tempted to TL:DR your posts, but I had an extra fifteen minutes today and did the opposite . . .
Now I’m really glad I did. Thanks for throwing that into the discussion. It’s priceless.
Ben Stein once remarked that perfectionism is “the great crippler of young adults” and that it’s much better to do something workmanlike but imperfect, get it done, and move on to something else rather than agonizing endlessly to create the world’s best whatever it is.
Sounds like you’ve avoided this trap well.
Is very funny because I didn’t had much support but I hate not having tangible results of things. The idea of studying something for years and never have something to show for it is just unbearable.
Ana–Conrats on your second draft. It’s so col that you are working on a YA novel. I don’t read romance, so I’m no judge of these things. Otherwise, I’d volunteer to be a reader.
Thanks. Is okay I have a couple of others test readers I just like to have more than one opinion to make sure things are working and the book is readable and details like that.
ex-New Yorker–”many Protestants don’t really have a good historical knowledge (it’s often a casualty of “Sola Scriptura”). The whole recent scandals, though, have made my Catholic acquaintances more “protestant” in some sense…”
I do agree that your average Catholic is less familiar with scripture: my wife, for example, isn’t that well versed in the Bible. Growing up fundamentalist protestant, scripture was pretty much the whole of everything. However, between the first few church councils and the Protestant Reformation, it was a black hole for us.
Susan:
Interesting, I am humbled by my husband’s knowledge of scripture. Also hymns. Catholics have never been big on Bible study, so we generally know less about it than other denominations, I think. On the other hand, the sermons I’ve heard from Jesuit priests are incredibly erudite and insightful. I think this speaks to the debate about the priest as intercessor, or whether the congregation communicates directly with God.
My husband has had a similar experience. He also appreciates the history and intellectualism of the church.
My replies:
Yes, this is off topic, but it is such an interesting off-topic thread.
Here is my perspective as someone who grew up Roman Catholic but then became Protestant as an adult. I now do adult education in my Episcopal parish, with an emphasis on church history and theology. As I mentioned, a fair number of the attendees are former Roman Catholics, like me.
It is true, that many people don’t have much biblical knowledge, and they don’t know much church history, but they also don’t know much theology.
I think it goes to the point that Susan might have made, about how many Catholics are raised to see church and the role of the priest, the priest as intercessor, so just follow what you are told and don’t think about it.
But I think there is something else going on; we are not a society that focuses on that type of inquiry any more? Lack of intellectual curiosity?
I can think of people who come to church and only know “they like” what is going on, ie., they like the priest’s sermons, the intellectualism or the evangelism, but they don’t think about the church history and theology that made their church what it is.
So I like that my branch of Protestantism, Anglicanism, has room for thinking: Hooker’s “scripture, tradition, reason,” so thus it is not just “sola scriptura.”
Where there is mature adult education offerings, it is not uncommon to find reading groups to study some of the latest books on theology and the Bible, or for members of the congregation to prepare the worship bulletins, write some of the prayers of the people (where the congregation prays as a group for certain needs/interests), and do sermons on occasion.
The prayer bookbook and the catechism sits in the pews; it is chock full of historical documents explaining Anglicanism in the context of the Reformation, grounded in a certain theological perspective–you are expected to read and think. Whether people read it or not is another story. They don’t know how to begin? The church might use a prayer bulletin, so they don’t know how to use the prayer book?
When I was Roman Catholic, all I remember about the Reformation was that “those people,” Protestants, were not members of the true church, that is what I heard from my parents. I don’t think we even talked about Protestantism and the Reformation in my Catholic school. In chatting with relatives who are still Roman Catholic, and who went to Catholic schools longer than I did, also have no knowledge.
So they do crazy things, for example, when they are in a new town and are visiting a church for the first time. They might go to a church on Sunday morning without doing their research–what denomination? What is their ministry, etc., etc. In their mind, well, it is a church, it seems very Catholic? Then they might see the priest is a woman, and “horror of horrors,” it isn’t Catholic, so they run off just when the service is beginning.
Oh boy…
I learned so much in my Education for Ministry class that I use in making sure the members of the inquirer’s class have that knowledge of church history and theology, so that they are thinking, what are the differences from the tradition I was raised in? What do I like about what we do here in our church? How does that connect to Anglicanism? They will know what to look for, so that if they go to any Anglican Church anywhere in the world, they will feel at home.
We started off with the Book of Common Prayer, read some documents from our church’s unique history, and read a book on church history and theology.
“documents from our church’s unique history”
I meant here, sermons written by the rector who was the parish priest in the 1930s to around 1951.
A few years ago my husband and I attended church with my in-laws. During his sermon the minister shared a story of finding himself seated next to a Catholic priest at a major league baseball game. They struck up a conversation, and the priest offered to buy him a hot dog. He said, “I refrained from telling him that in our church we do not purchase grace.” I nearly stood up in the middle of that church and walked out, and that was the last time I ever went there. I never knew how much anti-Catholic sentiment was out there until I dated a WASP.
Sue: “I know I went off topic here – sorry to all the atheists!”
No, keep going! This atheist is a former Lutheran, and enjoys theological discussion, too. The red pill was a big part of making me an apostate (thank you CL) rather than let weak faith anguish. I am enjoying relearning everything from the ground up from the outside.
I see a number of rhetorically faulty assumptions here, but I will only comment on one, because the others are so common in the media (and debunked on singles’ awareness sites) that they now bore me.
“When Kate Bolick asked the young women at our dinner together whether her single status at the age of 39 freaked them out, they all nodded. . . I suspect that the up and coming generation of women views these celebrations of singleness as a cautionary tale, and they’re anxious to make sure they won’t be calling themselves onelies or quirkyalones if they can help it.”
First, the preferred term, defined by me and Lisa at Onely.org, is Onelers.
Second, let us not forget suspicion is not statistics.
*I* suspect that (while allowing for the women’s valid desire to marry if they want to) a good amount of their freaked-out-ness stemmed from cultural portrayals singles as somehow. . . freakish.
Regularly at Onely we get letters from people who enjoy being single, who say we helped validate their feelings in the face of the social pressure to be otherwise. Our correspondents don’t *seem* embittered or in denial, but then, I can’t say for sure, because (unlike some people) I do not claim to have some kind of psychic insight into other peoples’ motivations.
Christina
I belive the Oneler does protest too much.
But then again, I do have psychic insight into other people’s motivations.
Susan:
Did you see this post about THIS post?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201202/hooking-smart-and-nasty
Uh oh, now you’re in for it Susan. Bring on the feminist singles!
Susan:
He said, “I refrained from telling him that in our church we do not purchase grace.” I nearly stood up in the middle of that church and walked out, and that was the last time I ever went there. I never knew how much anti-Catholic sentiment was out there until I dated a WASP.
My reply:
Obnoxious, indeed, and I can see why you would want to walk out. I can’t say I’ve heard that sort of obnoxiousness about Roman Catholics around Episcopalians, perhaps because we are so close with respect to worship and liturgy, but we are Protestant otherwise.
It is interesting, the closest thing I have seen to any sort of critique of Roman Catholicism is from 1949, a Reformation Day sermon given by the then rector of my parish church.
When the members of the inquirer’s class read it, they were surprised and wondered where it came from, because no rector in recent memory had been so critical of Catholicism in this “us-them” sense. A few Lutherans in the congregation could relate, because they grew up hearing the same types of critiques.
The irony is that 60+ years later, the former Roman Catholics in the class were critical of Roman Catholicism for the similar reasons, among a few: clerical celibacy; papal infallibility denies the people freedom of conscience and of religion; the hierarchical governance structure denies the lay people any role in the governance of their churches; insisting that non-Catholics convert and raise their children Roman Catholic denies the freedom of religion and conscience of the Protestant spouse.
Wow, Susan, you really pissed her off!
She makes a good point, though, in that certainly it’s not true that EVERY single woman is truly miserable. Some must be happy that way, and perhaps even happier than they would otherwise be.
But against the the proposition that some great % of these women are in fact not happy, or not happier, and did not choose this, all she can do is sneer. She must not have read Bollick’s article very carefully.
In any event, I wonder what the breakdown is. My own unscientific and loosely informed opinion is that well over 50% of never-married over-40 women are in fact not happy about it and didn’t choose it. This does not necessarily mean they are miserable day-to-day, only that they would be happier if things had “worked out” with someone.
Randome side-thought: I am re-reading Acid Test for a project (Susan knows about it) and I was struck by the following. There is a scene where Kesey and the Pranksters go to the Beatles concert at the Cow Palace, August 31, 1965 (Wolfe misreports it as Sept. 2) and they are struck by the overwhelmingly young female demographic of the audience and how totally bonkers they are for the Beatles. Only Mountain Girl, then 18, gets it and she feels like all the other Pranksters are Old Men. Mountain Girl, BTW, was at the time pregnant with Kesey’s baby, she also later married Jerry Garcia, so she was something of an alpha chaser herself.
Anyway, we all know about Beatlemania but to what extent did the rise of the rock star, concurrent with the Sexual Revolution, play a role in unleashing female hypergamy? There have always been stars and there have always been star-fuckers but from what I have read, with very rare exceptions, nothing quite like this had ever happened before and certainly not in public. Hollywood had groupies in the ’20s and this sometimes exploded into scandal (Fatty Arbuckle) and there is a story of a party thrown by Babe Ruth at which, as the evening wore on, he announced “All the girls who don’t want to fuck leave now” and few of them did. But this mass spasmodic pseudo-sexual shockwave, all unfolding right before everyone’s eyes, their parents drove them to the venue for christ’s sake, must have been well nigh unprecedented. This was a generation when girls were getting married at 20. How hard must at have been to be completely freaking out over Paul & John at 16 and then settle for “good boy” Stanley from across the street at 20? Is it a coincidence that the divorce rate went kaboom starting about five years later?
Anyway, we all know about Beatlemania but to what extent did the rise of the rock star, concurrent with the Sexual Revolution, play a role in unleashing female hypergamy?
This is a chicken and egg question in ancient Rome there was some sort of Gladiatormania with similar implications, so it was Roman liberated matriarchs that were free to chase around Alpha’s or it was the overabundance of Alphas and venues for them to display what drove them to chase them?
Well, at the very least it seems that the relaxation of adult shaming played a roll. For instance, no doubt there were plenty of girls in the ’40s who were gaga over Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw and the like. But their mothers would have slapped them silly for behaving in public like the Beatlemania girls did. It just was not done.
In my callow youth I always had an intuitive sense to stay away from girls who were too into this or that movie or rock star. They took their celeb crushes way more seriously than (say) a guy with the Farah poster on his wall. You just knew you couldn’t compete with that so why try …
This is an utterly offensive article that perpetuates the stigmatism of single people. You should not claim to understand the needs, wants and motivations of all people on the earth.
The divorce rate is very high which tells me that more than half of those who enter into marriage are indeed, very unhappy with their choice.
@Christina
Thank you for correcting the plural of onelie.
I did not equate suspicion with statistics. I simply offered a prediction, based on my knowledge of young women. I don’t know your age, but I am quite certain that most straight women in their early to mid-20s hope to marry. The statistics do give us that much.
As I have known the five women who spoke with Kate Bolick, extremely well for 7 years, I can assure you that what they fear is not finding a life partner, and not having the opportunity to have a family. You will have noticed elsewhere in the post that all five of them announced an intention to prioritize family over career.
They took their celeb crushes way more seriously than (say) a guy with the Farah poster on his wall. You just knew you couldn’t compete with that so why try …
I used to avoid guys like for the same reason. I was wrong??
J, whatever worked for you, all I can say is that I knew a lot of guys with Farah (or whoever) posters and none of them had any trouble connecting with their girlfriends, whereas I also knew a not-insignificant number of girls with celeb crushes who had serious problems finding anyone “worthy” of their aspirations for themselves. Not all of these were spectacularly hot girls either.
@Maggie
Yes, Bella de Paolo is the woman credited with driving the political agenda for singles. As she is open about this I’m not sure why she objects to the my post, which pointed out the political nature of the movement. Her real beef is that I dare to say that most women prefer marriage to a lifetime of singlehood. She is highly invested in “single supremacy.”
re 818, 826
The opening salvo has begun. Let the battle begin….
Yes, this is very true. In my elementary school, which was heavily Irish and Italian, there was one Lutheran girl. She was teased and ostracized. Can you imagine such ridiculousness? In any case, you won’t find me defending the Catholic church in many ways.
Esco,
All I can say is when I saw too many celeb or nudie posters on the wall, I was turned off. I acknowledge that guys like to look and that really doesn’t bother me on a moral level. Just don’t do it in front of me.
I just felt, despite having a banging figure when I was young and dating, that the unairbrushed reality of me did not measure up to Farrah or whoever else was up on the wall. I wasn’t even going to try to compete.
On a less personal note, there’s some thought that explicit images, especially pornography, desensitizes men to real women. There is a famous ‘sphere commenter who perhaps you have not yet encountered, who claims that he can not be “inspired” by women who don’t have acrylic nails or wear porn star make-up. With the exception of one female friend, he has no relationships with women.
@Escoffier
Fascinating thought! I have never considered the effect of the Beatles or Elvis or any other rock star on female hypergamy. I’m sure you’re right. Looking at old footage of Beatles concerts, the girls are stripping down to their slips and tears are streaming down their faces. It’s total hysteria!
Re Wolfe, his essay on hooking up is great. Here’s an excerpt, describing sexual mores in the year 2000:
#832 and previous posts
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews.
from Tom Lehrer’s “National Brotherhood Week,” a parody song criticizing hypocracy
The dark side of spirituality is religious prejudice, unfortunately.
whereas I also knew a not-insignificant number of girls with celeb crushes who had serious problems finding anyone “worthy” of their aspirations for themselves. Not all of these were spectacularly hot girls either.
Perhaps because I’ve worked a lot with teens, it seems to me that the most popular of girls don’t waste a lot of time on celeb crushes. They have real boy friends. It’s the girls with fewer options or those too young to date that moon over celebs.
LOL!
@Kristen
I did not claim to understand all people on the earth. I shared my belief that the vast majority of women in their 20s are not signing up for “Single by Choice.” In all the articles that have come out of the Kate Bolick phenom, I believe there have been zero women in their prime fertility years. That is very significant, I don’t see how you can ignore it.
The divorce rate among those with a college degree is 17%.
J, of course you didn’t measure up, in the sense that if you focus-grouped 100 guys and asked them to compare you and Farah, then, yeah, you probably would have lost. (Or maybe not, how bangin’ were you?)
The point is that, for guys, the poster on the wall or the Playboy under the bed is no threat to you and just a diversion for him. Unless he’s very strange, he’ll always prefer a real girl. It’s just that such is not always available and variety is nice …
There is no emotional attachment for the guy but I think there is for the girl. The huge crush on (Sting, Bono, Shawn Cassidy, whoever) affects her at an emotional level. What game blogs have helped me to understand intellectually rather than intuitively is that this emotional connection is hitting her attraction triggers exactly the same way that Farah and Playboy hit his. It’s just that the only consequence of the latter is a boner whereas the consequence of the former is a feeling of being “in love” that no actual guy in her orbit can compete with. In other words, you don’t really need to compete with Farah on looks. Your BF could date you and still have the poster on the wall and he would still really love you and find you really hot. It’s a lot harder for girls to do the same because their hearts and other parts are wired differently.
It is also true IME that the real alpha babes all had alpha BFs. It was the girls a click or two down who couldn’t land those guys who instead went for the celeb crushes and disdained the boys who were interested in them and whom they could have landed.
As for de-sensitization, I don’t doubt that it happens. I think it happens in a different way, though. I think everyone, men and women alike, has a certain finite amount of “sexual energy.” Your level may be very low or very high or in the middle, and it may wax and wane a bit, but for the most part it is what it is. The more that a dude channels that energy into porn, the less of it he has to employ elsewhere. I suppose the danger is minimal if he has a high drive and his partner is medium or low and he just uses it to get rid of the excess. The problem is when men use porn to stimulate their desire for variety (which porn is obviously very handy for) and all that energy ends up being channelled away from the parther, who is off to the side wondering “What the hell happened?”
As for a preference for porned-up chicks, well, once again I am an outlier. I really, really hate stereotypically porny looks, from fake nails (fake anything, really) to the makeup to the clothes, all of it. I just hate it. There are many things I don’t like that I can step back and think “Not for me but I see why people dig it” but that stuff is like “How could anyone find that attractive?????”
J: “On a less personal note, there’s some thought that explicit images, especially pornography, desensitizes men to real women. There is a famous ‘sphere commenter who perhaps you have not yet encountered, who claims that he can not be “inspired” by women who don’t have acrylic nails or wear porn star make-up. With the exception of one female friend, he has no relationships with women.”
Well, some folks are omegas like DA. Porn can change the risk/reward equation in a man’s mind – but I’d bet anyone here a case of beer that if the risk/reward was neutralized that even an omega would get a chub from a moderately attractive woman without the makeup and nails, if she just grabbed his junk. Changing the incentives is a very different think than being unable to experience attraction.
I bet that if women used a vibrator as much as that guy uses porn, they’d be desensitized to real men too. I don’t see why porn gets called out over sex toys. Well, actually I do. It’s because only male losers are restricted to porn, and so its OK to beat up on them.
So yeah, if you have sex with images or machines more than people, you’re going to eventually train yourself on that. However, it is possible to have a functioning sex life, including images and toys, if you have half a brain.
Here’s an example of a male reader prefacing his honest experience with a disclaimer that he is an outlier. I’m not so sure. I once suggested to my husband that we watch porn together, and he said exactly what you just did.
Susan, Charlotte Simmons is a book that I did not “get” when I first read it (the moment it came out). It is the only one of Wolfe’s books that I have not read multiple times.
Looking back I see that he “scooped” the major game blogs by several years, though perhaps he was reading the PUAs on usenet? I doubt that …
Anyway, Charlotte is a “good girl” with a “good upbringing” but whose parents are so unaware of the wider world that they completely fail to prepare her for what is out there. They do absolutely nothing to tame her latent hypergamy. It’s not clear why the inaction and I can’t recall if Wolfe offers an explanation. But the most likely is simply that they don’t understand hypergamy because it has become one of life’s forgotten lessons. So they send her into this mosh pit where of course, defenseless, she succumbs.
Beverley is rather typical UMC/UC hook-up slut.
Hoyt is the classic alpha without substance. That is, he is alpha in the strich Roissyian sense. He has the outward traits and the inner confidence despite having accomplished nothing of substance beyond admission to Dupont. The bulk of status comes from being in a selective, snobbish frat, which he got into on sort of false pretenses (misrepresenting his Greenwich background as being more tony than it really was). However, he DOES get chicks, showing that real substance is not necessary if you have “inner game” (which he has in spades) and the outward traits that the ladies like.
Adam Gellen is a pure beta. High achiever, going places, ambitious, will make some real money, but totally unattractive especially to college age girls ruled by the tingle. He makes himself Charlotte’s orbiter because he thinks, She’s smart, I’m smart, she should like me! Doens’t work. He nursemaids her through her depression thinking that her gratitude will win her over. Way wrong. He has no game whatsoever.
JoJo is in the middle. He is an athlete, which is a real accomplishment, but not the star, so less alpha than the other players. Still, even being on a team like that makes him more alpha than 99% of the campus. As do his height and his muscles. But his “inner game” is, if not weak, at least shakey. He worries about his status on the team and he worries that he is wasting his shot at a real education.
In the first grips of her hypergamy Charlotte falls hard for Hoyt. She goes straight for the most stereotypically alpha guy around. When he gets his ass kicked by the super-alpha lax player she does not abandon him but sympathizes. Only when he deflowers and humiliates here does she break with him.
Adam never interests here sexually or romantically even though on paper they are a good match. By matching her up with JoJo at the end I think Wolfe was trying to say, “This is the best we can do for now, at least it’s monogamous and stable,” and also, JoJo clearly is, character-wise, the best of the three male protagonists.
@Escoffier
I’ve read CS three times, and unlike the critics, I think it is a very fine book. I agree 100% with your analysis. In fact, as prep for this blog, I read it the second time, along with Laura Sessions Stepp’s book Unhooked. Interestingly, Duke was featured in both books.
Susan, funny thing, I once had a conversation with a table of six guys (total). Somehow we got on the subject “Hot or not? Watching porn with your girl.” We were evenly, vociferously, divided. Three said it was, or would be, super hot, and three (me included) said no effing way. In fact I went further and said that a women willing to watch porn with me, or what’s more who suggested it, I would consider that a DLV by her. Not casting aspersions on you, Sue, just sayin’ that’s what I said at that dinner.
If my wife made such a suggestion my response would be “Who are you and what have you done with my wife?” I would also be a little grossed out and disappointed.
As for me being an outlier, well, here is another example. Manosphere doctrine holds as an iron law that women peak physically at around 22 and decline thereafter, with the wall being hit hard around 30. Now, I don’t doubt that the flesh gets soft in places and wrinkles creep in, etc. But I know, see, or know of lots of women well past that age whom I think are positively beautiful. And I don’t mean that in the sense of “She’s a lovely person” but more like “Wow, she’s hot, if it weren’t agains the laws of God and man, I’d do her right here on the floor.” I work with one such, older than my wife, and it can be distracting, I can tell you.
if you focus-grouped 100 guys and asked them to compare you and Farah, then, yeah, you probably would have lost. (Or maybe not, how bangin’ were you?)
I was pretty cute in that long-hair-parted-down-the-middle, bespectacled way that college girls were cute back then. But I wasn’t the All-American, blue-eyed blonde that Farrah was. More dark and Mediterrean. Girls like me felt more inferior to girls like Farrah then.
The point is that, for guys, the poster on the wall or the Playboy under the bed is no threat to you and just a diversion for him. Unless he’s very strange, he’ll always prefer a real girl. It’s just that such is not always available and variety is nice …
Now you tell me…..Seriously, this would have been good to know day in the day.
There is no emotional attachment for the guy but I think there is for the girl. The huge crush on (Sting, Bono, Shawn Cassidy, whoever) affects her at an emotional level. ..It’s a lot harder for girls to do the same because their hearts and other parts are wired differently.
I think you are correct that boys have celeb sex fantasies and that girls have celeb love fantasies. Once as a teacher, I had to fish a freshman girl out of the bathroom. She was damn near suicidal over Joey Fatone. It was insane.
It is also true IME that the real alpha babes all had alpha BFs. It was the girls a click or two down who couldn’t land those guys who instead went for the celeb crushes and disdained the boys who were interested in them and whom they could have landed.
Huh?! I agree that the alphas pair up early, but IME, it’s the late bloomers and lower status girls who hold on to these crushes. Usually once girls start dating and there’s a release for all that pent up seual energy, they get goofy over real guys. There are always indeed both girls and boys who don’t find anyone in high school, but who probably could/should pair up with each other.
As for a preference for porned-up chicks, well, once again I am an outlier…. but that stuff is like “How could anyone find that attractive?????”
Lots of men I know don’t like that but I may associate with a self-selected group of men.
Anyway, Charlotte is a “good girl” with a “good upbringing” but whose parents are so unaware of the wider world that they completely fail to prepare her for what is out there.
Hypergamy didn’t exist before the late 70s because prior to women’s mass entrance into the workplace, they were dependent on men for economic resources. This gave average men enough “default Game” to arouse genuine attraction in average women. Faulting late GG and early boomer parents for not warning their daughters against hypergamy would have been like Jane Austen’s mothers warning their daughters to look both ways before crossing the street.
Ah, the bite of unintended consequences. Our sixty year experiment in making outliers feel normal has resulted in making life miserable for the mainstream.
It is a mistake to say that hypergamy did not exist before 1970 (or whenever). Hypergamy is a natural impulse that is always around. Before the SR it was tamed to some extent and channelled in others. What the SR did was unleash those restraints.
Also, I think you are unaware in what time period the book under discussion is set.
@Escoffier
Perhaps that is what my husband was feeling as well, but he got over it. (This was in the 80s.) I do know he prefers the classy, minimal makeup look on women.
I don’t think it’s strange that some men can find older women radiantly beautiful. Kate Bolick’s two most recent relationships were with guys 11 years her junior. I have no idea what the percentages are, but your words have probably cheered up a few women today.
OTC,
Gosh, I was trying NOT to call out DA by NOT mentioning his name. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a post from him, so I figured that what I was saying would be fairly anonymous, at least to relative newbies.
I agree that both porn and toys can be desensitizing for both sexes. I have heard of/read about women having to be weaned off vibrators because they could no longer enjoy toyless sex. I also agree that sensible use is not a bad thing for many people who don’t have addictive personalities.
My rule for makeup is: if I can notice at a glance that it’s makeup, you have on too much.
”The divorce rate is very high which tells me that more than half of those who enter into marriage are indeed, very unhappy with their choice.”
No, people are just unhappy. If they are married they believe they are unhappy because of that, and if they are single they believe they are unhappy from that.
Because it is easy to be divorced, unhappy people divorce, and because they always divorce when they are most unhappy they eventually become more happy and then they believe that they were unhappy because of the marriage. If they don´t become happy they can always blame their ex-husbands for their lack of happiness.
Marriage does not cause unhappiness. Unhappy people makes an unhappy marriage. That how it is.
Some woman watch porn. Perhaps it’s a different kind then the instruction- manual-for-a-model-car-like pseudo-shagging that goes on in typical can-I-fix-your-pool, Logjammin’-type, Tab-A-goes-into-Slot-B-this-that-&-the-other-way videos, however.
What’s always killed all that over the printed word for me was the thought of the camera crew watching the proceedings like OR techs. Can you imagine what a job that must be like?
“Too much shadow in that crevice! Go to camera bravo.”
“I copy. Setting camera course 324.”
Maybe they have codewords in sign language:
“I got thunder in the canyon, Bob, put the mic left of the hanger until the eagle lands!
Sports talk?
“Pull the flag from the cup once the second couple hits the green. Move to hole 3 or let them play through.”
No camera crews live in my head. Give me a book…
This is way OT, but has anyone ever done a study of what happens to porn girls (very few of them qualify as “stars”) after the industry is done with them? We all know the anecdotes of disaster and also the happy talk the industry likes to put out, but what is the broader truth? What happens, on average, to the average girls? I’m guessing it can’t be good.
Escoffier -
Go My Odd -
First post and I trip over all my words to such an extent my point fails to come across.
I am assuming that Charlotte Simmons’ parents are either late Greatest Generation (born appr. 1942-’48) or early boomers, born in ’48-’53. This would have them coming of age during the dissolution of the classical Double Standard/Assortative Pairing sexual constitution. I think it was their advice given to Charlotte and her peers that presupposed that framework.
I was wrong . Hypergamy has always existed. It was just that an ordinary man could fulfill its demands in 1958 than his grandson could in 2008.
Jane Austen writes extensively about hypergamy. There is the allure of the charming cad to be overcome, e.g. Wickham, Frank, Willoughby. There is very pragmatic discussion about the need for women to marry within an acceptable range of status, and how their SMV affects their options, e.g. Charlotte Lucas vs. Elizabeth Bennet.
@christiankp
Not only that, I think people expect marriage to make them happier than they were to start with. When it doesn’t, they want out and go back to being unhappy and alone. Since women initiate two-thirds of divorces, we can assume this is especially true of them.
@Pip
I’m with you, I prefer a sexy read.
Very true.
I am very glad for the positive reactions I’ve got from you OffTheCuff , Belitta and Susan. I am about to erupt in narcissistic megalomania. So I think that I will have to restrain myself. It is not appropriate for me to write a whole book on Susan’s blog. But hoping that you will not getting bored, I will fire off my last round for now.
I my last post I wrote about the two forms of economy, moral economy and money economy. The transactions in marriage are expected be inside the moral economy, although in marriage men are usually giving material resources to women, even in the form of money. In his book on the evolution of corporation Axelrod showed that corporation could only develop in a situation when the participants were obliged to stay in the transaction. In moral economy there is always one who owes to the other. If you permit the participants to retract from the continuing transactions you make it possible for one part to retract when she is has gained more from the other part than she has given.
In a situation where you cannot retract from the ongoing exchange of services in moral economy you don’t need to be friends neither do you need to love or like each other. You can be on the opposite sites in war and still cooperate. In WW1 the generals were not aware of this, so in some places on the front the same companies were facing each other for longer times in battle. An elaborate pattern of corporation developed between the opposing enemies. The enemy fired on you in a predictable pattern, making their generals believing that they were fighting. However, the predictability of the way your enemy fired his rounds made it possible for you to move between trenches not getting hurt. And, of course you reciprocated this favor by doing the same. If you did not, you could expect a massive barrage in return.
In this way making continual transactions in moral economy makes it impossible for you to inflict too much harm on your partner, because she can always pay you back.
This is one reason why I believe that marriage ought to be life-long and I believe women should be less prone than men to instigate divorce.
When a woman is taking out divorce some years after the couple has got children she does it in a period where she has gained and not repaid. She is violating the rules of moral economy and she is throwing the exchange of favors inside the family out from the moral economy into the money economy. And that’s a catastrophe, because in the money economy there are no long-term obligations. You get paid and there will be no obligations afterwards between the parts. But if there is something children need, it is that they will be the recipients of favors from adults based on long-term moral responsibility.
Women may protest here, and say: “He is so lazy, he doesn’t do household chores. I have to do everything. It is unfair.” Yes it is, but if you look at the crude facts you will see that you may be right, but still it is wrong. As long as your husband doesn’t harm you, and as long as he contribute every so little to your household you will be better off having him than not.
And if you look at birds that in many ways have organized their sexuality in the same way as humans, you will find that even here it is the female that are doing most of the work. That is your fate as females. In every species the females are working more than the males. Maybe, and I say maybe because I am not sure, for a very short time in western society when patriarchy was working at its best this order was reversed and men did the brunt of the work. But then, dear women, you messed it up allowing men to contribute less and less.
When a woman takes out a divorce from the father of her children she is retracting from the exchanges in moral economy at a point when she have gained and not reciprocated. Remember every transaction has to be asymmetric otherwise there is no reason for the transaction. The woman gets children and the man gets a wife – or we could say it this ways: for women, men are means to and end, getting children. For men, children are the means and getting a woman is the end.
Men seeking divorce are harming their children and that is serious enough, but they are not harming the rules of moral economy, because they pull out of marriage after they have given and before they are getting reciprocated – at least now after the pill and abortion. And often they are obliged to pay alimony or child support, which may so great that it may contribute to the woman’s standard of living. So when a man divorcing he is not harming society in the same profound way as a woman.
The male parallel of a mother divorcing the father is men going into LTR and then retract before the woman gets pregnant. He is leaving at the point where he had received and is expected pay back. A man living with a woman for 5-10 years having regularly sex with her and then leaving her at the moment she wants him to become a father is doing the same thing as a mother divorcing. But again, the harm done to the woman maybe great as she may not be able to find another man, but a least there is no children so they will not suffer, and often these men have said that they don’t want children and the couple isn’t married so he has exploited a woman, but he has not breached a formal or informal contract. Thus the damage he does to society is not as great as the damage done by the divorcing mother.
Although we find his behavior despicable, we have no way of calling him to order as long as women expect the right to divorce as they wish. I also believe that women are much more dependent on moral economy than men, so women opting out of moral economy is doing themselves a disfavor and hurting themselves – and they are hurting society at large.
Many women reading what I am writing may think that I am unfair not talking about men’s obligations and responsibilities. The reason is not that men do not have responsibilities. The reason is that male responsibilities evolve as a inevitable response to women taking on their own responsibilities to society as a mother and as the center figure in a dependency chain reaching from child through mother to father. But to many women refuse to do that today, and as long as women do not call them-selves to order nobody can call men to order.
And when women call them-selves to order they will be wise to make it look as if a man calls them to order and as if they are submitting to a patriarch. This may be a very bitter pill to swallow for most modern women, but the reason why I believe it is necessary is:
Women will never be able to call men to order by themselves. Only a man can do that. But if women do not obey this man, men will perceive him as a deputy and a mangina, and they will not respect him. The reason why women should submit to the patriarch is not male oppression and subjugation. The reason is simply that men will not obey a man speaking in the interest of women if women are not obeying him.
Feminists always talks about male privilege but they have misunderstood it profoundly, they believe that patriarchy is the source of male privilege. It is – and it is not.
The basic difference between men and women is that women give birth to children, whereas men do not. As a mother to be, every woman is dependent on others and this dependency restricts her freedom, but her privilege is meaning in life and a central position in social networks. A boy will never be restricted in this way and his privilege is freedom, the cost he pays is the fear of redundancy. But in spite of this, freedom is no little privilege and a privilege women has always envied men.
To make men useful and to constrain men’s freedom patriarchy developed. In patriarchy men are ultimately or at least officially responsible for their families and they are responsible for the public realm of society. As it is a woman who appoint the privilege, the role and duties of the patriarch to a man, it is also possible for her to retract the privilege from him if he is not living up to the task. Women will never gain control over men through the privilege of freedom, only through the patriarchal privilege they hand over to them. This again, is the rule of power through reciprocal dependency. You can only get lasting power over people by giving them something very, very precious, thereby giving them reciprocal obligations.
And in the reciprocal exchange between men and women, women are bound to be the first to give. Otherwise there will be no power.
my last post I wrote about the two forms of economy, moral economy and money economy. The transactions in marriage are expected be inside the moral economy, although in marriage men are usually giving material resources to women, even in the form of money. In his book on the evolution of corporation Axelrod showed that corporation could only develop in a situation when the participants were obliged to stay in the transaction. In moral economy there is always one who owes to the other. If you permit the participants to retract from the continuing transactions you make it possible for one part to retract when she is has gained more from the other part than she has given.
Christiankp,
Just got to acknowledge your thinking and writing is fascinating. My sense is overall you are hitting on some deep, primal truths that go back to the dawn of civilization. That said, none of this would float in the mainstream. Most are not ready to engage ideas like this. I can literally imagine feminists and womens’ studies types reading your stuff and having their head explode.
@Christiankp
I am hoping that I will be able to boil down this wealth of thought into something short enough for a blog post, hitting the key points. I don’t know if that’s even possible. Perhaps I should structure it as a review of Dench’s book.
Me too, that’s why I want to write a post on it.
WarmWoman,
I think Jackie got me sick. I’ve been under the weather the last couple of days. Anyway, I co-sign what Mike C said on trying for sex. But there’s a difference between “trying” and “pushing.” If a man “pushes” for it despite the fact that you’ve made it clear that it’s a no-go, then that’s a red flag. But “trying” for it is just what we do.
The guy who mentioned the boobs on the actress was just crass. And groping for a boob during a simple goodnight kiss seems awkward and amateurish, though I guess it would depend on the context.
Regarding character:
It’s difficult to say anything new and meaningful about character, since it’s been a topic authors have been writing about since about as long as writing has existed. Long story short, character is something we all have… and it’s what makes an individual painting identifiable as a Picasso or a Basquiat, what makes a film by Kurosawa different from every other Samurai flick that’s come out of Japan, and what makes a sentence by Pynchon a sentence by Pynchon. Character is like the mental software we’re working off of, or the map of the neighborhood of our minds–only a very personalized map, with certain routes highlighted and favorite spots circled in magic marker.
So what’s good character, and, what’s more important in the context of your question and the even greater context of this blog, how do you know when you’ve come across a man with good character?
In a way, it depends who you are. We all have our own inclinations and idiosyncrasies, but keeping in mind that you can look for a man seasoned to taste and that these basic ingredients can be found in different amounts suiting the palates of all but the most discriminating epicurean, here goes my take on what makes for good character in a man:
1. Authority: You’re not looking for the next leader of the free world (unless you are), but you want someone who can make decisions for himself, someone who has purpose, direction, intent. A person with good character can at the very least lead himself.
2. Strength: How does he handle opposition, disagreement, conflict, etc…? Does he maintain strong personal boundaries or is he a doormat? A person of good character can maintain poise while handling minor disagreements and conflicts.
3. Knowledge: He doesn’t need to be a genius (unless that’s your thing), but a person of good character has an interest in and a curiosity about the world, or some parts of it at least.
4. Love: After a while, you’ll be wanting to know whether he loves you or not, but until then… discover what he loves about the world and how he expresses that love…. discover what brings him joy and how he expresses that joy. And make sure you’re one of the things that brings him joy. People of good character enjoy the world.
@Jesus
I’m sorry to hear you’ve been unwell. I figured that the kindergarten teacher was on school break and you’d been enjoying yourself.
I think your list of good character traits is a great start. I would add empathy/compassion and honesty.
@Jesus-I hope you feel better and thank you very much for the essay on character. I learned a few new things that I didn’t think about, and should work on modeling those myself.
“And groping for a boob during a simple goodnight kiss seems awkward and amateurish, though I guess it would depend on the context. ”
As for breast grabbing in context, we were kissing for 2 minutes. He initiated it and I just went along thinking it wouldn’t hurt. I then asked him “Why did you do that?” He said that my body language was telling him “Yes.” I told him “We just met. I’m not looking for any of that.” He apologized, but I can look back and think that he gave off caddish vibes. This date happened a few years ago, so it’s irrelevant. But, that example comes to mind when I think of someone being “pushy” and giving clear indications that he was looking for NSA.
Sue,
The kindergarten teacher is the one who brought home the virus. She started it. But yea, we’ll have to make up for lost time starting tomorrow, I think.
There’s a lot that I could add. I was going for a quick sort of assessment tool. I think most of what could be added would have its basis in those four, anyway. Empathy, for example, would have it’s root in love… and knowledge (of others). I would say that honest has it’s roots in love (of self and other). Etc…
Sue,
I was also going to add for women to look at his friendships. How he treats his friends, the loyalty he shows towards them, the effort he puts into maintaining his friendships, etc…
Thinking about empathy, and it occurs to me that guys are going to be hesitant about showing too much empathy on a 1st or 2nd date. It’s just not a trait that guys think a woman wants to see, so he’s unlikely to highlight it or express it too openly.
Looking for empathy can definitely work for women dating w/i their social circles though.
WarmWoman,
No problem.
Honesty would also be related to strength, since it seems to me that lying is a matter of unhealthy personal boundaries, sort of the opposite of disclosing too much. Not that it makes a difference, just working it out in my head.
Teenager crushes
IME the crushes are more or less practice or hold outs to keep them with their minds preoccupied till they are ready to fell in love and have this feelings on real guys. I don’t remember any girl that didn’t had a crush on a huge celebrity before they were ready for a boyfriend (we consider it a normal stage in the life of a normal teengirl) but the ones that got ready earliest in 90% ended up pregnant. I think parents should be happy that their girls are crushing in Justin Biever for at least a period of time as long as it doesn’t becomes and obsession, than crushing on a boy in school that actually can fulfill this fantasy in the school bathroom, YMMV of course.
“The divorce rate is very high which tells me that more than half of those who enter into marriage are indeed, very unhappy with their choice.”
Others have chimed in already, but I couldn’t let this go… according to the most recent General Social Survey (UofC), ~60% of married men and women describe their marriages as “very happy”. Another ~20% describe them are “pretty happy”. I think the overall divorce estimate is somewhere around 35%, but well over half of marriages do stand the test of time, especially for the college-educated crowd.
@Jesus M (#862)
“I think Jackie got me sick.”
Oh no!
Feel better soon, JM!
*passes the extra-nice tissues and a glass of Emergen-C*
Mike C:
“My sense is overall you are hitting on some deep, primal truths that go back to the dawn of civilization”.
I am really honoured by these words. I am myself an atheist but I think that the thoughts I try to convey are the universal morality which I believe is the core in most religions explained in a way to be understood and maybe also accepted by non-religious people.
It is not my thoughts. The thoughts I have conveyed are from Kierkegaard, Dench, Axelrod and now religious people may get appalled even Dennett and Dawkins. Probably I should not have mentioned the two latter men, because religious people may get angry with me. But I do it anyway and I beg al religious people to restrain their gut reaction hearing these names, because you can’t afford it.
Humankind is in the midst of the most profound moral breakdown ever encountered. Religious people couldn’t stop it, because it is no use to refer to the word of God if very few people really believe in God. So religious people should be very happy that the morality we can deduce from evolutionary biology is congruent with the morality of religion.
Religious people call it the word of God. I call it the Moral of Necessity.
Religious people couldn’t stop it, because it is no use to refer to the word of God if very few people really believe in God.
I disagree with this we have the same amount of people believing in God as we did in the past is just that now the God is called Feminism, Kim Kardashian, Sex and the City, Jersey Shore, Politically Correctness, Manolo Blanick, Facebook… Most of this groups have more in common with religious fundamentalists that they have with real rational people that select atheism out of reason. Those are more scarce than anything else, YMMV.
I am really honoured by these words. I am myself an atheist but I think that the thoughts I try to convey are the universal morality which I believe is the core in most religions explained in a way to be understood and maybe also accepted by non-religious people.
christiankp,
I find your concepts of the money economy and moral economy intriguing because they tie into things that have been floating in my mind for the last 10-15 years.
This may be a bit disjointed and me rambling.
People familiar to these discussions such as on HUS, Roissy, Dalrock, whatever will talk of the red pill and the Matrix in terms of male-female gender/sex dynamics. In my view, this just scratches the surface, and there is a Matrix-red pill/blue pill that is 100x bigger than that that even most of the people here are still caught in.
And it ties to your money economy concept. And I believe it took on speed in the 2oth century with industrialization and technology. What have we become as human beings? Workers and consumers. Workers and consumers. Workers and consumers. Most people’s lives are defined by their job and/or career and a large amount of their self-worth/self-esteem comes from their “career” and attempts to compete and move up the “hamster wheel” of career progression. For what? So they can they can consume more? And marketing is all geared to brainwashing people that they need stuff for their “happiness” that they don’t really need.
The money economy has become all encompassing, like a beast devouring everything in its past. Ironically, the purest manifestation of that is the capital markets and I am actually an active participant in that. But my idea is to use the beast to ultimately free myself from the beast and engage in a life of introspection and reflection. But I need that fiat monopoly money to at least acquire the basic necessities of life.
There are other models of living as a human being. I think of the American Indians and the way they lived. They would find our quest for neverending “economic growth” to be a perversion. They hunted to get “enough” and then told stories, and got high.
Its funny….we got our bonus payouts at work, and my supervisor told me I was getting a little less because I was “slightly below average” in my group. I said OK, and that I wasn’t really interested in competing with the other people in my group. He looked at me with a very confused look. I don’t think he could wrap his head around the concept that I didn’t really give two shits about being a more competitive worker to get an extra 2-3% to buy more unnecessary crap. Most people spend their lives chasing/competing for something that they don’t even really know why they are chasing it.
I actually enjoy trading the capital markets but it is more the intellectual challenge and battling of wits than a “keep up with the Jones” desire.
In any case, I think the almost parasitic and all encompassing aspect of the money economy is inextricably linked with the male-female stuff because women feel that participation in the money economy is a necessity with the devaluation of the moral economy as a component of human existance.
I also believe we in the West lead very compartmentalized lives that isn’t in sync with real humanity.
I think much of our daily existence that we consider “normal” is actually quite abnormal. Is it really normal to spend more time with random people that are co-workers than your spouse? Is it really normal to sit in a box and click buttons on a computer for 8 hours? To what extent our many people prisoners of expectations they don’t even fully understand. And how does that affect their relationships and physical well-being?
Its funny to watch the morning streets in a big city like Chicago or New York and everyone going off to participate in the money economy. Sort of reminds me of mindless ants following their programming in building the ant hill.
Just some random thoughts.
Mike C, christiankp
Yes. This is the stuff worth talking about.
Agree! Nowadays, women are treated the same way like men. Women also can do much better than men. Thanks for sharing!
@Jesus
Little kids are always sick. I recall whole winters where one kid or the other was sick the entire season. I think kindergarten teachers probably get more viruses than average
I agree with you about the framework for discussing character. The four areas you mentioned should cover it all.
@Jesus
I think in the early days it is definitely better to be seen feeling empathy for someone else. This may be part of the reason women swoon when they watch men playing with kids. They’re seeing a side of him that screams “dad,” yet it is not directed at them in a supplicating way.
Sue,
That makes sense. Maybe a good screening technique would be to invite a guy somewhere that would provide opportunity for him to interact with children. Not sure how practical that would be in the very beginning of a relationship. But, you know, my girlfriend did just that….
Not sure if it was intentional….
Some thoughts on things mentioned upthread…
@Hope :
This is an interesting point.
I mainly lurk here, but I do comment from time to time. To be honest, I was considering quitting the blog because of some disturbing anti-women comments I’ve read here. However, it’s really good to see that on this thread and in recent comments on this blog that the tide is changing. That kind of bitterness is off-putting. I also tune out when extreme feminists go on the attack (see the comments in the Psychology Today hit piece). It wears on me.
@Mike C:
So true! Our lives as adults are dominated with work. I highly value my leisure time. Sometimes I veg out, watching brainless TV crap but by in large I prefer to spend my free time doing something. I’m more more conscious these days on being fully present when with people.
@ Yohami:
^^ This 100%.
Micke C
I appreciate your comment very much and aggree with you to 100 %. I believe that money economy, althoug we can’t live without it and although it’s many advantages is a cancer spreading in society.
The ideology that has been most effective in spreading this cancer is femimism. I guess you have come across the meme ”women’s unpaid work in the home”. When feminists are using this meme, they show that they don’t even acknowledge the existence of a moral economy.
I agree with feminist. A wife’s work in her family is unpaid, because all work in the moral economy is unpaid. But she is not exploited. She is getting reciprocated by the man providing for her and/or doing other things for her in the home.
When a feminist says that the work she does in the home is unpaid, she is basically saying that she doesn’t want to be the wife of her husband. She wants to be an employee and her husband should turn into an employer.
And that’s what feminists are calling equality of the sexes, the woman being employed by the man. It’s just so absurd that you get speechless.
Apart from that I think you are one of many men who has begun to think of the meaningless struggle in money economy. I myself am working less than I used to, to get time for thinking and reading. In the coming years men will opt out of the workforce or never getting in because they deem it worthless. And then women will be caught up there, unable to get out, because women need a functioning society and they will need to provide for their children as the male provider is increasingly lacking.
Here, again, we have an asymmetry between the sexes that as all other asymmetries has gone unnoticed by feminism. Mostly, when a man is engaged in paid labour he is doing it to qualify himself to be allowed into a dependency chain. If he will not be let in, his work will be meaningless to him.
When a woman does pursuing a career she is doing it to be able not to allow a man to get into her dependency chain. Therefore you could say that a man is working for moral reasons and a woman for narcissistic reasons. This is in principle and it is not a totally fair description of women’s motives. Actually most women need to work because men’s wages today are so low that they can’t bear the responsibilities of providing for a family, and I also think that women should work to provide a security for the family if the man should get sick or die. But they should never ever work to be independent or able to get a divorce.
christiankp,
On point. The full circuit is that men work so they are able to provide for the kind of women they want.
While its fine that women work and get money (and they have since the beginnings of civilization), the feminist motive of “not needing a man” renders all male work useless, in the views of men.
And of course, feminist motive aint that women work so they can provide to the kind of men they want. Women should be like men but lets not stretch it that far! And then of course they will want men to need and provide for women.
Or should I just say nonsense.
Cholmodney (?):
I was wrong . Hypergamy has always existed. It was just that an ordinary man could fulfill its demands in 1958 than his grandson could in 2008.
My reply:
Yep, and I can think of a recent story, the in-laws. Sunday, big family celebration; their 60th anniversary is coming up next month.
She is 77 going on 78; he is 81 going on 82. They were married when she was 17 going on 18; he was 21 going on 22. Not only was he older, but he was taller, for what it’s worth.
She was barely out of high school; he was about to ship out to Korea in 1952. They married 2 weeks before he left. She spent the year he was gone working as a clerk in a local store. He returned, she quit working but started raising a family. He got a job that enabled him to support the family on a high school graduate’s education.
We were all enthralled to see the family photographs over the years; how they changed and developed, the new members of the family and so forth.
On a sweet note, I asked him whether he remembered when she looked like the young 17 year old she used to be–she was a very attractive young woman. He hugged her and said “oh yeah!”
Today, most of the granddaughters are working (most of the grandsons are younger than the granddaughters who are in their late 20s into their 30s) whether or not they are marriedd; they would not survive otherwise. The one or two grandsons who are young adults are not married at all. They might not even be dating.
Escoffier,
Wow – ggod stuff on this thread.
“As for de-sensitization, I don’t doubt that it happens. I think it happens in a different way, though. I think everyone, men and women alike, has a certain finite amount of “sexual energy.” Your level may be very low or very high or in the middle, and it may wax and wane a bit, but for the most part it is what it is. The more that a dude channels that energy into porn, the less of it he has to employ elsewhere. I suppose the danger is minimal if he has a high drive and his partner is medium or low and he just uses it to get rid of the excess. The problem is when men use porn to stimulate their desire for variety (which porn is obviously very handy for) and all that energy ends up being channelled away from the parther, who is off to the side wondering “What the hell happened?”
As for a preference for porned-up chicks, well, once again I am an outlier. I really, really hate stereotypically porny looks, from fake nails (fake anything, really) to the makeup to the clothes, all of it. I just hate it. There are many things I don’t like that I can step back and think “Not for me but I see why people dig it” but that stuff is like “How could anyone find that attractive?????”
See:
http://yourbrainonporn.com/
The nature of porn has changed over the last ten years, or rather it has expanded – the old stuff is still around, but the new stuff is both more addictive and and very desensitizing.
In a nutshell: Jenna Jameson fucked like a man (even, or especially, in her lesbian stuff). Now young men can get an almost infinite variety of very attractive, feminine women fucking like women, and for free.
I’ve struggled with it. I’d imagine that it is a significant problem, especially with the sort of men that kind of porn would appeal to (the 80%/betas) getting locked out of the SMP in their formative years and being very familiar with the ways of the internet.
@pvw
I love the story of your in-laws, and feel badly for the grandsons!
“I know I went off topic here – sorry to all the atheists!”
As an atheist myself (I don’t believe in the same God that Dawkins/Harris, et. al. don’t believe in), I’d say the (patronizing) assumptions built into that apology risk being as offensive as some side conversation on religion might be. It’s a way some people make sense of this crazy world. No decent atheist I know would be offended by that.
Susan:
@pvw
I love the story of your in-laws, and feel badly for the grandsons!
My reply:
Yes, it was the cutest! Those sorts of marriages will become rarer and rarer as time goes on and that generation dies out, unless we get our acts together, stay married and work towards good health and longevity!
I feel badly for the millenial grandsons, born primarily in the late 1980s into the 1990s. They can’t do what their grandfather was easily able to do at a comparable age. I see much hope, though, in the millenial granddaughters born in the early 1980s. They all married in their early 20s and are currently raising families in stable marriages.
Their older sisters are members of Generation X (born in the 1970s); the differences are interesting not only among them, but with respect to their younger sisters who are Millenials. The oldest married at around age 31 and has no children (she is about 38 now); the younger one married at a youngish age (24 or so) but is divorced, raising 2 children.
Equality has two sides. Men have historically been the reproductive losers in so many respects, and it is a good thing to be able to come to terms with that. Not that anything will change, but it’s a good thing if men can feel at peace with their lot in life, isn’t it? Or maybe… competition – which contemporary society has been trying to beat down – is a better thing?
Really? Just wow – why is “alone” considered a bad thing? Do people really hate being alone so much, and if so, why? I love my friends and family, and I’ve been in love thrice, with three very lovely and wonderful people, but i prefer being alone most of the time.
And yes, I may be some weirdo, but I’m a pretty damned popular one – I get along with almost everybody, and genuinely like most people. People constantly ask me to hang out (friendship and/or dates). I’m not a model, but I’m still quite pretty, and could get at least a “decent,” if not “good” relationship pretty much anytime I felt like it.
Why is liking yourself so much that you prefer deep meaningful introspection, or pursuing your career or interests without having to compromise considered a bad thing? Do you people say the same thing about priests or nuns who give up romantic relationships for their faith? Why is really loving yourself, being more interested in things outside of romance/breeding, and not needing to have a significant other so hard to comprehend?
« 1 … 4 5 6
{ 2 trackbacks }