This post is dedicated to Ted D.
Jason DeParle’s recent column in the New York Times highlighting the growing class divide between married and unmarried parents in America provides a representative narrative well worth studying. In it he describes two women, close friends and coworkers, whose family lives could not be more diametrically opposed.
Jessica Shairer is a single mother who works in a day care center. Her boss Chris Faulkner is a happily married mother. Both are white. Let’s compare them side by side.
| Jessica Shairer | Chris Faulkner | |
| Marital status |
Never married; cohabitated with two men |
Married to Kevin |
| # children | 3, incl. one with Asperger’s | 2 |
| # involved parents | 1 | 2 |
| SES background | LMC | LMC |
| Religious background | Raised in church, still active | Raised in church |
| Mother’s Education | College dropout | College graduate |
| Father’s Education | College dropout? | College graduate |
| Home | Rent > 50% of income | Owns 3 BR home |
| Salary |
$12.35/hour $24,500 plus food stamps |
Household income of $95,000 |
| Benefits | None; could not afford to take time off after surgery for cervical cancer | Full, from Kevin’s job as a computer programmer |
| Child Support |
None No contact |
Kevin works sunrise shift twice per week to allow his attendance at children’s activities |
| Children’s Extracurricular Activities | One sport per year max |
Swimming, karate, baseball, Boy Scouts, $3,500/year Kevin is a Boy Scout Leader |
What in the personal histories of these two women separates them so tragically and increasingly typically? We know there are several risk factors that correlate to poverty and limited opportunities for children. Lack of education, less than two parents actively engaged in raising them, and teen pregnancy are just a few. But what is the root cause, the thing that we find when we strip away all the demographic factors?
Female Choice.
Shairer and Faulkner came from very similar backgrounds, and both were given the opportunity to attend college. Once there, they made very, very different choices.
1. Shairer got pregnant her freshmen year. Faulkner did not get pregnant.
2. Shairer considered terminating the pregnancy, but her boyfriend said “we should start a family.”
They agreed that marriage should wait until they could afford a big reception and a long gown.
3. Shairer dropped out of college. Faulkner graduated.
4. Shairer had two more children by the same man, remaining in a “troubled relationship that collapsed six years ago.” Her children’s father is completely off the scene, including financially.
Ms. Schairer has trouble explaining, even to herself, why she stayed so long with a man who she said earned little, berated her often and did no parenting. They lived with family (his and hers) and worked off and on while she hoped things would change. “I wanted him to love me,” she said. She was 25 when the breakup made it official: she was raising three children on her own.
Faulkner refused to marry a man without a bright future.
At the same time, scholars have found that marriage itself can have a motivating effect, pushing men to earn more than unmarried peers. Marriage, that is, can help make men marriageable.
As Mr. Faulkner tells it, something like that happened to him — he returned to college after an aimless hiatus because he wanted to marry Ms. Faulkner. “I knew I had to get serious about my life,” he said.
5. Shairer got a new boyfriend to move in, hoping he would help with the children and bills.
No Legos got built during his six-month stay, and it took a call to the police to get him to go. The children asked about him a few days later but have not mentioned him since.
The Faulkners divide and conquer, sharing parenting responsibilities every day.
Two parents also bring two parenting perspectives. Ms. Faulkner does bedtime talks. Mr. Faulkner does math. When Ms. Faulkner’s coaxing failed to persuade Jeremy to try hamburgers, Mr. Faulkner offered to jump in a pool fully clothed if he took a bite — an offer Jeremy found too tempting to refuse.
6. The Faulkners built a home in a community known for its good schools. Shairer is facing a move to a part of Ann Arbor with lagging schools but more affordable rent.
Jessica Shairer is not a bad person. She is by all accounts a loving and concerned parent, and a responsible one. She takes full responsibility for her choices:
Ms. Schairer barely lifts her children out of poverty, but she is not one to complain. “I’m in this position because of decisions I made,” she said.
That’s admirable, but I wonder if Ms. Schairer would acknowledge the real problem.
She has sex with bad men.
Education is indeed strongly correlated to female mating choices:
I. BIRTHS OUTSIDE MARRIAGE
1982: 17%
2012: 41%
High school education or less: 60%
College education: <10%
II. CHILDREN BY MULTIPLE MEN BY MID-LATE 20S
High school diploma: 33%
Some college: 12%
College degree: 0%
But education does not tell the whole story. Some women, like Jessica Shairer, will fail despite having been given the opportunity to attend college. The tragedy, of course, is the reduced opportunities for her children.
It’s estimated that 40% of income inequality is attributable to this state of affairs. Risks for children of single mothers include:
- Childhood poverty
- Behavioral problems
- Teen parenthood
- Dropping out of school
In contrast, married parents:
- Have children later
- Divorce less
- Provide a committed, involved father
Of course, feminists disagree that Ms. Shairer is responsible for her circumstances. Katha Pollit, writing in The Nation, says:
Well, if only we could clone Kevin—or maybe put great big Good Guy and Bad Guy signs on young men so that naïve college girls could tell which slacker boys are exploitive louts and which ones just need a nudge to become prime husband material.
…I don’t mean to be discouraging here, but maybe there was never going to be a Kevin for Jessica. Maybe there aren’t enough Kevins to go around, because of a whole range of developments over several decades, from the decline of good union jobs to our penchant for putting staggering numbers of men in prison.
…Jessica rejected abortion, she stuck by her man, she tried too hard to make a family. If we really want women like Jessica to avoid early childbearing and single motherhood, we have to stop promoting outmoded ideas about sex and gender: abstinence-only sex ed, shame that leads to inconsistent use of birth control, stigmatizing abortion, woman’s worth depending on keeping a man, “fixing” the relationship as woman’s responsibility, motherhood as women’s primary purpose in life.
…Why does it seem like a reasonable policy suggestion to tell Jessica she needs a husband, and pie in the sky to say she needs a union? Or a national day care system like the one in France, where teachers are well-paid, with benefits?
Jessica Schairer is doing the best she can. In fact, she is pretty heroic. It’s the rest of us that are falling short.
We can’t let feminists derail the conversation by focusing on financial band-aids for single mothers, or canonizing women who have behaved irresponsibly and are now struggling. Jessica Shairer made one bad decision after another, but it all started with who she chose to have sex with.
There are enough Kevins to go around. Choosing a worthy man of good character and potential as a sexual partner is the single most important decision any woman can make. The costs of choosing poorly amount to much more than losing a job, interrupting a career, or failing to earn a seat in the boardroom. They amount to raising children who don’t have a bright or promising future, children who are primed to repeat your mistakes. Children who are destined to participate in the decay of American family life.
{ 2474 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 »
“You may not like it ms ion but the scale is real, smv is real, and the smp is real. ”
That explains the 2 weddings I’ll be attending within a month a part, both with a black female in her late 20s getting married (one of whom was single last year), while you at what, 45, are unmarried? What part of your SMV rating system is real then?
“Men really dont care whether youre currently employed or not”
Yes, according to the manosphere circle jerk. But here, in the REAL WORLD being unemployed in a crappy economy means stop dating until I could afford rent. I am sure most in NYC would agree that they postponed finding someone and focused on work, because that’s what we were told to do, and it was necessary to survive. http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/sep/22/new-york-never-married-women/ If you are correct than I will listen to reason, just not from the old bachelor. Plus, I trust wnyc’s age MMV much more.
Also Mike C is the ONLY one who commented in your favor, so you can stop referencing his one sentence that supported your alleged SMV. You are still wrong, abusive, and target women for vitriol when we say we like betas. It is making Susan’s blog less productive for the women who visit here, knowing they will be subjected to SMV abuse and have their body parts, skin color, etc., heavily scrutinized by invisible men behind the curtain.
How’s bout you grow up?
@ms ion:
The problem youre facing in nyc is something ive discussed both here and at my blog previously but will briefly restate:
Nyc is a victim of its own success.
See, despite your blathering, the fact is that the main reason why nyc is brimming over with single women is because…
…wait for it…
ITS SAFE.
Thats right-as a result of the reforms put in place by rudy, nyc went from “the bronx is burning” and so forth, to the world class city thats SAFE for single women to come and find their fortunes. Take that hbo show “girls” for example-ms walsh recapped one episode that took place on bushwick ave. I can remember a time when no one white would come within ten miles of bushwick ave. But you see, its been made safe for white folk again. Which means, its ok for single white women to go there again.
But all this safety has a downside-which is, that the very shy beta guys you claim to like? They wont make a move. Why?
Because if they do make a move and you aint feeling them, you can make their life a living hell in numerous ways:
1. Getting them locked up for various forms of “harrassment”
2. Getting various white knights to beat the crap outta them
3. Getting them fired from the job for not being tom brady (see saturday night live for more on this)
Etc.
Nyc is a feminists paradise which explains why some of the “third waves” leading voices take up residence there. This is why all that you said about “street harrassment” was taken with a block of salt by me because ive never seen any such thing on the streets, and i was all over nyc-not just manhattan, but the boogie down, bed stuy and other parts of bklyn, staten island, queens, you name it. A man harrasses a woman in nyc, his butt is getting locked up proto.
So it makes sense that the only guys who are gonna approach are the “players”-and theres a hella lot of truth in that. That central park concert i attended (have you ever checked out “summer stage”?) is a case in point-ive had women throw themselves at me while completely ignoring the two single brothas sitting right behind me. Nyc has become so safe that only the players and/or those seen as the most desirable men by women, get any play now.
Enjoy!
O.
this woman was just one of “those girls” to a T. 33 years old, with a new guy every other week, a demonstrated inability to bond emotionally with any of them despite many of them being really great, decent guys offering real commitment, etc. She was genuinely sweet to me and wasn’t bitchy or competitive with other women, but I just found her so depressing to be around
We’ve all had friends like this. I do try to tell them, in the most helpful way possible, that it’s their own pathology that prevents them from bonding with good men. I’ve pushed a couple into therapy that way.
“you are so high value that I can’t even wait for you to propose to me, I’ve got to ask you and try and lock it down”.”
Mike C, that is sadly the reality of the male shortage in the black community, I’ve never said otherwise, but have you not noticed that on the internetz, EVERY guy is high value, has multiple women around the world, and that he uses these examples to fuel his “credibility”? I can never tell what’s certain.
I agree with 100% of what you said otherwise. Especially this:
“In any case, I think volunteering assessments of someone’s SMV is kind of inappropriate which is why I generally don’t do it. It is just too difficult to be honest without hard feelings getting created. It is a different story though if someone specifically asks for feedback as a guide to making strategic decisions.”
YEP!
@ O that last comment about NYC was really bizarre, and has nothing to do with me, or the shy girls who work here. So I am not responding to it.
@ms ion:
Please point out to me the part where i said that ones smv prevents one from getting married?
And as for myself, since you evidently didnt get it the first time: *i chose NOT to be married*. I chose to define my life, by MY standards-and it has proven effective, with quite a few ladies willing to engage in a ltr assocation WITHOUT marriage. Its not that i couldnt get married my dear.
I chose not to. And i still got what i wanted.
The big question is-can you?
O.
There’s an old saying on the Internet: don’t feed the trolls.
Re: female SMV and male assessment. I think it’s probably good to have a realistic self-image, or even a slightly deflated one, but you also want a guy who thinks you’re hot and doesn’t think he is settling. I think of myself as a 4-5 mostly, 6 at best, but my husband thinks I’m higher than that, which is nice.
Meeting nerdy/STEM guys: check out your local GameStops, BestBuys, comic book stores, cardboard game shops, and other such places. Ask them for advice about stuff they’re likely to be knowledgeable in at these places. They’re also all over the place online, especially in video games, forums that have to do with video games, tech forums and websites, etc. You’re more likely to be successful to get to know them via extended social circles and connect with them that way.
My advice to women who want to communicate to males that they are not promiscuous is to avoid keeping company with promiscuous women. It’s hard to let friends down, but you’re tarnished by association.
This is a good advice on general terms. I will say that if for some reason you think you can help your promiscuous friend to get better having a second herd of nice girls also helps. The issue is when you only hang around with sluts. Men don’t do mental gymnastics like that to guess if you are good or bad they do judge you for the company you keep so having lots of slutty friends becomes a filter the good guys will stay clear and the players will try to get with you. No win for anyone. Make sure the slutty friends are worth the risk.
Just my $.02, and others will no doubt vehemently disagree!
I disagree!
First the fake tits is a market like anything else on the SMP by doing it you would had rejected the men that don’t like fake tits whether by personal choice or by principle and there is not going back after that.
There is also the fact that is an expensive surgery you could invest that money on hair extensions, better wardrobe, more trips that will help you a lot better than a permanent choice to alter your body.
And ultimately as a model I can tell you using push up bras and paddings to improve the look (emphasis on improving don’t try to take having 4 sizes more than you actually carry that is dishonest and you will be insecure if you have to take it off or he wants to cop a feel) can make “the girls look better” and few men are going to complain when you take the bra of and they get to feel it. I mean I don’t think a man can tell the difference for a centimeter or two of padding, when he is exploring them without the undergarment. Also if they are pretty you are probably okay too.
I would advice corrective surgery, if they are asymmetrical the nipples have deformation or if you spent so much time worry about them that you can’t actually date over it, YMMV.
I would agree that a women needs to process her feelings before she acts. In fact, I knew DH close to six months before we even dated, but are you saaying that you’ve had that “love at first sight” feeling or thatg you wouldn’t act on it?
I have had the “love at first sight, hate a first word” experience with the same guy. I will say that even if you feel a strong connection waiting a bit to see if the rest of the man matches what you want. Most of the time when a woman find out things about their mates that are deal breakers but stay with them out of the feelings feeding the hamster IME. So is better to try to be as rational as possible, evaluate and then and only if the man is worth left him lift the Mjolnir of your heart.
@Bastiat
“Royale, I’m going to probably receive some scorn for throwing this out there for consideration, but I’d personal recommend looking into breast augmentation. It’s probably true that I could be guilty of employing personal biases here, but I’m really just going through a process of elimination—based on what I can see and read I think that you have everything else going for you.”
To be completely honest, I have flirted with the idea but a few quick mental calculations keep me away from that option
1. Too risky
2. Too permanent
3. Too regrettable
4. Too expensive
I prefer to compensate by keeping my tummy small. I’ll never have a dream rack, but ratios (chest to tummy) can work in a lady’s favor.
@Ramble: No need to worry
“*i chose NOT to be married*. I chose to define my life, by MY standards-and it has proven effective, with quite a few ladies willing to engage in a ltr assocation WITHOUT marriage. Its not that i couldnt get married my dear.
I chose not to. And i still got what i wanted.”
I agree totally. And because you chose to play the field into your 40s and beyond, and refuse marriage no matter how wonderful the women you were with, it would behoove me to reject the advice of men like yourself, no?
I should heed the advice of women who have what I want (LTRs with possibility of marriage, or happily married), and the men who are objective about what they want in a woman re MMV.
There’s no real advice you can offer me, and that works out for me. I just don’t want to be a target of your “low SMV” whippings and verbal abuse about my skin color and class either. Again, I didn’t ask to be born.
A woman who is 5’4″-5’5″ and a size 4 is probably north of 20% bodyfat. My fiancee has fluctuated between a size 0 and 4-6 in the time we’ve been together. I think she is a 4 right now, and she is trying to drop about 15 pounds by our wedding which would still be 10 pounds over her contest stage weight
I’m very confused. Pre-baby, I measured 36.5-25-34.5 and weighed 112 pounds. I was the perfect Roissy-ian skinny girl with a big rack, and I wore a misses 6 dress size and junior 9 jeans (like a high school girl). Not an ounce of fat on me. I’d have had to shrink my bone structure to get any smaller. How does your fiancee need to drop weight? What was her stage weight? 100lbs or so to fit into a size 4 or less? She wants to weigh 85 lbs? I don’t get it.
I think we’ve discussed “true sluts” vs. “fake sluts” before, true sluts being the girls who can genuinely sleep around and not feel any kind of secret regret (they do exist) and fake sluts being the girls who are on some sort of power trip or mission to feel better about themselves. In my experience, the latter are more likely to be nasty to their non-slut friends, and the former are more “live and let live.”
Olive, saw your comment. Hope you are doing well healthwise. Regarding the bolded part, this is an interesting difference that I think kinda makes sense. I think the former group happen to be wired with a more “male sexuality” and are just indulging a base physical drive. They could care less if someone else is or is not. The latter group are doing it more out of validation and to boost self-esteem so a friend not similarly engaging is perceived as an indirect negative judgement on what they are doing.
@ms ion:
My nyc comments had everything to do with you its just that as per usual you CANT deal with what ive said. Lol
Moreover there is no “black male shortage”; there is a “black male shortage of the kinds of black men that i want to settle for me and only me, when im ready to settle down” lol. Of course none of those who trot out this tripe have ever asked whether black men have their own ideas as to how they would like their lives to proceed. Quiet as its kept, brothas are the sharp end of the manosphere/mgtow spear, and have been for years.
I happen to know quite a few gainfully employed and handsome brothas right now in nyc who literally hold court with the ladies. Effortlessly. Why? Because they clearly have what the ladies want.
As for all this walking on eggshells wrt ones smv: it is what it is and just because people are nervous talking about isnt gonna change it so we might as well put it right out there on the table and deal with it and get it over with. Theres no such thing as a beauty democracy, most guys can and will lose and go home empty handed, alls fair in love and war. Not facing up squarely to these facts of life not only wont change anything, they also wont help anyone either.
Ok so lets see:
Ive debunked ms ions ridiculous remarks about me personally
Ive explained why shes having a difficult time up there in nyc with the beta boys
And ive explained to her a bit about how the smp actually works-whether she likes it or not
Oh-and ms iggles recent success? Congrats!-but its interesting that she employed something “iois” that came right out of the players gamebook.
I am loving the irony in all this…
O.
@ O.
I’m not responding to that either…All of that is leftover resentment you have clearly for other women. I don’t have to live with your crap dangling over my head, especially not baggage as a result of the 20+ years of dating you’ve had. NONE of that described me or my tastes, or what I’ve argued here. EVER.
I would also appreciate it if you’d stop taking jabs at Sassy as well, I am not her, and we don’t have the same tastes. It’s disrespectful that you’d even hold me accountable and trash her simultaneously; passive aggressively saying “posters who would remain nameless” like an 8th grader.
Give it a rest.
@ms ion:
I never set out to “advise” you; you were the one to respond to what i was saying to ms rwc, who has reiterated the fact that she was asking for male input on her smv. So in truth the convo really had nothing to do with you, being female. Though i dont mind because like i said, you amuse me and i like messing with you.
Moreover, are you suggesting that women who also dont wish to be married, are somehow *less than* than those who do-and if so, on what basis? Just to be clear, im not one of those brothas who has umpteen babies by umpteen baby mamas: ive been disease free, debt free & baby mama free, for years. Indeed, many of the women ive encountered have had kids and/or formidable debt loads from school that i had to consider as a factor in making my final decision as to whether they would be suitable to me or not. Yes, i ask for their debt load very early on in the interviewing process. You should see some of the responses/facial expressions of the ladies. Lol!
Anyway, if you happen to be darker skinned it doesnt mean that you wont get a mate. It simply means that a plurality of black men dont prefer that. Just like my being shorter doesnt mean i wont get a mate. It just means thats not what women prefer, in aggregate.
Why is that so bad or wrong to simply say?
O.
Mike C…”Back in 2006 at the height of the housing bubble, there was a quite telling commercial where the wife browbeats/cajoles the husband into purchasing a home beyond their financial means”
I’m curious…what were they selling?
I tried to find the commercial with no success, but it is one of those things that is fascinating to analyze and dissect from a red pill perspective. I believe it was some realty group that sponsored the commercial. What were they selling? They were selling the idea that now is right time to upgrade to your “dream home”, that you literally could not afford to wait, with the subtext that if the wife really wants it, you have to buy it to make her “happy” even if it is a completely imprudent thing to do. The commercial is set in the kitchen with the husband and wife, and I believe the realtor is on the speakerphone. You can sense the fear in the husband believing it is a bad decision, but in the end the realtor and wife pressure him into going along with it. The way things played out, they were probably one among the many people who ended up upside down on a mortgage where the debt exceeded the value of the property.
Right, because he likes to beat and choke women into an unconscious state while calling them filthy fucking whores.
And yet no man ever calls him on stuf like that. Some of the so-called “Christians” even think that guys like him are doing God’s work but punishing the sluts. A year os so back, I believe it was Riv who stated that he hated his aging, HB6 gf, who was very clingy, for loving him. Her love was proof that he had a low SMV and that he would have to find a young 9. IIRC, he said that he wanted to smash her ugly face in for making him see how unworthy of a 9 he was. Pathological self-esteem issues much? No one suggested to him that he needed some help.
I have become much less empathetic to men who harbor deep resentment and hatred towards women. It’s not necessary to be a feminist to want to steer clear of men with such ugly views.
The fact that you need to say this is why my ears close at the sound of the word “feminist.” It means nothing in the ‘sphere. Everyone from Crazy Jaclyn to women who don’t think 11 year olds should marry is a “feminist.” “Feminist” is what call a woman whose arguments you can’t deal with on their own merit. It’s just something to say to shutdown discussion.
I’m very confused. Pre-baby, I measured 36.5-25-34.5 and weighed 112 pounds. I was the perfect Roissy-ian skinny girl with a big rack, and I wore a misses 6 dress size and junior 9 jeans (like a high school girl). Not an ounce of fat on me. I’d have had to shrink my bone structure to get any smaller. How does your fiancee need to drop weight? What was her stage weight? 100lbs or so to fit into a size 4 or less? She wants to weigh 85 lbs? I don’t get it.
Damn, J, you had one heck of a figure there
The missing variable you aren’t accounting for is muscle weight. Muscle is dense so it has a higher weight to volume ratio. My fiancee has significantly more muscle than the average woman especially in her back and glutes where you can add a lot of poundage but it doesn’t look “fat” in any way. Anyways, her contest weights fluctuated between 113 and 117 at 5’4″ and she wore a zero at that weight. Since her last contest, both of us have packed on a bit of weight
You are absolutely right that bone structure plays a big role as well. Ultimately, actual weight is irrelevant. It is about bodyfat. The BMI index tells me I am grossly obese, but no one can believe my actual weight when I tell them what I am trying to get down to for the wedding.
will say that even if you feel a strong connection waiting a bit to see if the rest of the man matches what you want. Most of the time when a woman find out things about their mates that are deal breakers ..
Agreed.
@mcb:
You make some very powerful points about how a womans looks can in effect inoculate her to some extent from her past actions. And yea, homeboy whose with the kerry washington knockoffs got a heck of a reckoning coming if and when one of those alpha type brothas she used to mess with comes sniffing around…
O.
Right, because he likes to beat and choke women into an unconscious state while calling them filthy fucking whores.
For the record, I find this deplorable, and given that….that was a poor example on my part. I want NO part of giving a guy a high five who is dishing out physical and verbal abuse.
It’s really not important, but what I really meant is that I think at one time you had a different take on say a guy who broke a long bout of involuntary celibacy whereas now you are probably 90-95% focused on a woman who can’t get the relationship she wants, and the guy who has gone without sex for 1-2 years doesn’t really factor much into any concern.
I’ll say this….if you are even remotely right on your quantitative analysis and your qualitative take on the 80% of females, there is a gold mine to be had for whoever can figure out how to hook up this 80% together. There has to be some reasonable rational way to get the respective 80%s to engage each other.
Let me ask you a constructive question. What specifically do you think is holding back each of these 80% from forming relationships in college? Do colleges need to institute some venue for socializing outside of the fraternity/sorority system that would facilitate meeting for beta males and beta females?
Damn, J, you had one heck of a figure there.
Indeed, I did.
I still look pretty good–a little older, a little heavier, a little hippier (and consequently more hourglass-shaped), but it’s all good.
The missing variable you aren’t accounting for is muscle weight. Muscle is dense so it has a higher weight to volume ratio.
Right, so a muscular woman can get away with weighing more and still being able to wear the smaller size. She’s heavier, but she’s also tighter and has less volume. A muscular size 4 should weigh more, not less, than a less muscular one. Hence my confusion. What is your fiancee trying to lose? Muscle?
You are absolutely right that bone structure plays a big role as well.
Right. For example, my hipbones grew during my pregnancies. Even with dramatic weight loss to less than my pre-pregnancy weight, I have never gotten back into junior 9 jeans. I never will. My skeletal shape is too different. My pelvis is less boyish. I have a woman’s hips now and not a kid’s.
Ultimately, actual weight is irrelevant. It is about bodyfat. The BMI index tells me I am grossly obese, but no one can believe my actual weight when I tell them what I am trying to get down to for the wedding.
I too have a large BMI for a small woman. Mostly because I’m pretty solid for an old broad. I ignore the scale and BMI and go by what I look and feel like.
Mike C…thanks! I think there’s no question that marital politics, combined with the lemming media, played a big role in the boom/bust. The spouse who wanted the bigger, more-expensive house (usually, but not always the wife) could browbeat the other into submission by pointing to all the articles about how wonderful the perpetual increase in housing values would be, and how if you didn’t get on the train now you’d miss it forever.
I know one very sad case where the husband persuaded the wife to put up their house (given free and clear by her parents) as collateral for buying other houses as investments. It ended as badly as you might expect.
It really pisses me off when I hear the ads by the Realtors association as to how important home ownership is, given the damage done by the irresponsible behavior of that industry.
Mike C
“A woman who is 5’4″-5’5″ and a size 4 is probably north of 20% bodyfat. ”
—————
This is a common mistake many men make. Women’s recommended BMI % is different than men’s, where women require a higher %ile of fat in order to menstruate and become pregnant.
There are cultural differences to what is considered overweight/obese, but the universal consensus seems to be ~ 18.5 % is the minimum recommended BMI for women- ranging up to about 22 % or 24% .
(Hope this doesn’t come out distorted)
Recommended percentages:
Women Men
Essential fat 10–13, 2–5
Athletes 14–20, 6–13
Fitness 21–24, 14–17
For a 5’5″ women, the ideal weight range is ~ 108 -132 lbs. (or 144)
depending on body type and muscle mass, etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentages
I knew a pretty girl who lost so much weight that she stopped menstruating.
Her parents had her drop out of college and move back home so that they could help her out.
For those that like happy endings, she recently got married to a nice guy (I hear) and I believe that she is now pregnant.
@RwC (1959)
In my opinion, you’re doing the right thing!
Meanwhile, I would get fitted by a professional– the bra ladies at Nordstrom do a really fine job and can work miracles. (Please skip chintzy places like VS! If you are in NYC, BraTenders does a really good job.)
To me, unnecessary plastic surgery is sending the message, “I’m not good enough as I am, so I’m going to get sliced open like a Christmas turkey and have bags of saline shoved under my skin to be more ‘attractive.’” It’s like sending out a sonar of low self-esteem at an unspoken level.
I also think we are going to look back in 10-20 years and think all this gratuitous surgery crazy, ghastly and completely needless.
I remember seeing on television that Heidi girl from the Hills– with her dozens of plastic surgeries, rebreaking her nose, putting HUGE implants in, shaving down bone in the chin (YIKES). Before she looked like a sweet, fun girl. Afterwards — not even remotely similar. She looked like a synthethic humanoid in her 30s-40s. That poor girl.
@Ramble, Alias
Ramble– Yay! I love happy endings.
That has happened to me and a bunch of my friends –not completely stopping, but missing for a few months, usually accompanied by a LOT of exercise. My friend was on the swim team at the same time she was losing weight. There was a point when I was running 10 mi/day that I missed a month or two, here and there.
Looking back, if I had made smarter nutrition choices, I could have had a WAY more balanced and healthier approach. Live and learn, I guess!
Right, so a muscular woman can get away with weighing more and still being able to wear the smaller size. She’s heavier, but she’s also tighter and has less volume.
Correct.
A muscular size 4 should weigh more, not less, than a less muscular one.
Hence my confusion. What is your fiancee trying to lose? Muscle?
No, bodyfat. If I had to guess, she probably has 10-15 extra muscle compared to the typical 5’4″ woman. She and I both got sloppy the last 12-16 months and also added a decent amount of bodyfat. We both hit poundages March-April of this year where we were like WTF and since then we have had a contest to drop weight. It ends this August and I am on track to win
She is really getting into planning all the wedding stuff (Nov 2013) and wants to start looking at dresses this fall. Based on what she has told me, she wants to wear style of dress where it is imperative that she get off the 15 extra bodyfat pounds gained otherwise it won’t look good.
@Obs
I agree strongly with this. Our culture is very misandrist. Unfortunately, the men most motivated to speak out against it are marginalized, often because their frustration results in such angry belligerence that people literally hurry (or click) away when they speak. That’s why MRA blogs have little productive debate, and almost zero input from women.
One potential remedy is for women who sympathize to join forces with men in exposing misandry, but I was an utter and abject failure in my own attempt to build relationships there (except for my fave Just1X). Only women who loathe their own sex are granted membership in that club.
I confess I have no more constructive suggestions. Until men find a way to communicate productively to express their real and justified fears, they’ll be dismissed as scary and creepy by the likes of Marcotte et al, who have a point.
she get off the 15 extra bodyfat pounds gained otherwise it won’t look good.
I’ll take your word for it, but I have no idea where at her size she’s hiding an extra 15 pounds of fat. I can’t visualize it. Since she does contests, I’ll assume she knows how to retain enough weight to still menstruate, look feminine etc.
Still, I wouldn’t apply that standard to the average petite woman like Royale.
@Olive
Good point, I’d forgotten about that. I agree that a woman’s degree of comfort with her own choices, as well as her motivations, will dictate whether or not she’s threatened by women who make different choices.
There still is some danger is socializing too much with a promiscuous crew if that’s not who you are, but people can be friends without necessarily going out on weekend nights together. I do recall one story of a college freshman who fell in with a really promiscuous group upon arriving at college, and first semester she constantly found herself left completely alone at frat parties as her pals peeled off with guys. Ultimately, she realized it was no fun to go to these parties, refuse drunken advances and call herself a cab at 1 in the morning. But she had to start from scratch making friends.
Olive, I haven’t said it before, but I’m really happy to see you back here. You’ve always been such an insightful and interesting commenter! I hope you are feeling well and will stick around. We missed you.
@Royale
Yes, I love Mrs. Olsen’s facial and verbal reactions, especially how she tells Nellie that she doesn’t want to see her become the Minnesota Pig Queen.
Ms. Beadle is a good person and it would be interesting to know her back story of why she was single up until then. Interesting to compare her with Ms. Eliza Jane who is also single.
If you’re still looking for some very-honest-yet-positive male feedback and discussion on your SMV I would be happy to discuss it with you if you have a blog or non-identity-revealing email that you can be reached at. I’m not really interested in discussing it on her because some people might take anything that wasn’t a glowing comment as an attack when that would certainly not be my motivation. If not, no problem.
I will echo what others have said that a radiant smile is very helpful, for at least 2 reasons: 1) it makes you more attractive physically and 2) it displays and suggests warmth and approachability, something which the “hot-bitch-stare” certainly does not.
As to breast implants. In general, if they look like volleyballs, softballs or even baseballs, the overly spherical, unnatural look is a turn-off to me. There are teardrop implants though that do have a more natural look. As for me, I won’t lie, I personally like a woman to be a B-cup or larger but only if it’s a natural or relatively natural look. I have dated women who were an A cup and it was never a deal breaker but a bit larger size would have been an added cherry on top. As one commenter said here, he liked small, perky breasts and on the other side I’m sure there are some men for whom small breast size is a deal breaker. Overall, though, I think women exaggerate how important it is (but it’s not completely unimportant).
I read a study where most men were happy with their partner’s breast size while most of the women felt too small and the women were happy with their partner’s penis size but most of the men felt too small or would like to be larger.
I know some women who are natural B, C and even D’s who want implants and I always try to tell them that they’re really just fine as they are. I can see how an A or AA cup women might want to get implants.
I think that being open to older men is good advice and getting out where the kind of men you like who would be interested in you is huge. No matter how reactive a chemical is, if it’s kept completely isolated then it will never bond.
And finally, luck does play a part but as they say, good luck often comes to those who prepare (and put themselves in the path for it to happen).
Best of luck to you and feel free to ask about or clarify anything!
@Mule
What a fascinating account of three women. I think there’s a screenplay there. It’s good that two of the three were able to change their behaviors and bond in serious relationships.
Brooke sounds like a tragic figure indeed. Reading your account made me think of descriptions in literature of the “big hearted prostitute.” Her ability to marshal self-awareness on your daughter’s behalf is admirable.
Most men? What percentage?
12% of men in the AskMen survey said they had “no sex life.”
@Megaman
What does the 13% refer to?
Haha, I’m a sneaky one, I’ve lured you back again.
Susan, how do you square that data with how many virgins there are in college? I am guessing that it might be one of three possible scenarios:
1. College virgins are ultimately becoming sexually active and afterwards are answering surveys like the one reported by AskMen.com
2. The one group (virgins) and the other group (those polled by AskMen) are somehow from mutually exclusive groups (I don’t remember how AskMen went about getting survey subjects)
3. The large virginal group is a fairly new cultural phenomenon and not old enough, yet, to be included in the AskMen survey.
(If you respond to this, you can do so in your newest thread if you want…this thread is enormous).
Hey Jackie:
“Also, look at how we are describing Jessica: Bad decision, will never get another man, criticizing her looks, etc.”
————-
> She didn’t have 1 or even 2 babies, but 3!- not only out of wedlock but without them having any financial stability. So yeah, Jessica made a *series of bad decisions*, but of course, she didn’t make them alone.
She may be able to get another man if she’s looking for *companionship*, but what Jessica wants is a man to pick up the tab for her & her kids and to help take care of them- she still wants the house, the white picket fence- that’s unreasonable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jackie:
“ The baby daddy we are like, Well what can you expect? *shoulder shrug*”
———
> Not me. Not providing for his kids doesn’t bode well for the baby-daddy. I want him to be accountable to those kids but we don’t even know why he hasn’t been because the little info they gave us was too vague.
If we want him to be involved with those kids, taking them away from him is going to do it. From the info given, it’s possible that he may be living in a different state.
Re: black men & abandonment
That may be true but in this case it appears that Jessica’s the one who left since she wondered why she stayed as long as she did.
Re: Abuse—> I don’t recall reading anything about abuse.
“She was young, she had to quit school” – it’s possible that he was in the same boat.
I don’t mind generalizations for the sake of discussion (when the stats support the probability), but when we’re talking about individual cases, I want to see some evidence.
@MikeC, J
Hey Mike– good luck to you and the future Mrs. C on your weight loss challenge!
In my experience, ITA about the wedding dresses. Some styles are completely unforgiving of even a couple of extra pounds. I don’t know why the strapless style has lasted as long as it has– I’ve seen even skinny girls with “backfat”! (It was just extra skin and poor fitting/tailoring.)
For a famous example of hard to pull off, look at Princess Kate:
http://media.vogue.com/files/filecheck/2011/04/29/img-kate-middleton-wedding-dress_075548914142.jpg_article_gallery_slideshow_v2.jpg
If you aren’t tall and thin as a rail, you’re going to look like a dumpy lampshade!
I think something like Princess Charlene’s is way more forgiving and flattering– simple with a retro look:
http://0.tqn.com/d/weddings/1/0/7/E/117975309_8.jpg
My never-worn wedding dress is somewhat similar to PC’s, by the way, so it may be a personal prejudice!
I want him to be accountable to those kids but we don’t even know why he hasn’t been because the little info they gave us was too vague.
I thought is was interesting, though not surprising, how little info thye gave about the baby daddy.
I don’t know why the strapless style has lasted as long as it has– I’ve seen even skinny girls with “backfat”!
I don’t know jackshit about wedding dresses and I know exactly what you are talking about. On that note, I am often surprised at how popular strapless, tube-top style bikinis are. They are so rarely flattering to a girls figure.
I believe that the unwanted tan line from those straps is what drives so many to where the tube top bikinis.
@HanSolo
Thanks for your input. It was very clear.
“If you’re still looking for some very-honest-yet-positive male feedback and discussion on your SMV I would be happy to discuss it with you if you have a blog or non-identity-revealing email that you can be reached at.”
If you have anything else to add, you can send comments to kh_art@yahoo.com
Hey Mike– good luck to you and the future Mrs. C on your weight loss challenge!
Thanks, so far so good, I’ve been dropping about a pound a week.
In my experience, ITA about the wedding dresses. Some styles are completely unforgiving of even a couple of extra pounds.
Yeah, and I think that is the style she is going for.
J, to answer your question, it is actually pretty easy to hide 15 extra pounds of bodyfat even on a 5’4″ frame, that won’t really be noticeable in regular fitting clothing but you’ll notice standing naked if you look honestly. You can easily throw 5 pounds in your stomach which might add a 1-1.5″ in diameter, another 5 pounds in your ass which in jeans isn’t noticeable, and then another 5 pounds in your arms and legs particularly in your hamstrings. In regular clothes, you’ll look perfectly fine, won’t look fat at all, but if you want to wear something really sleek fitting, those little bulges will stand out.
@Escoffier
I respect your desire to protect your daughter from any and all casual sexual experiences. The truth is, we do not know exactly what the sexual behavior of college students looks like re which partners they choose. National data is not relevant because it includes all ages and all SES groups, two factors that are highly predictive of promiscuous behavior. It does not make a good proxy for college data. My analysis of the larger SMP is here:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/
I was motivated to write the post based on the oft repeated claim in the manosphere that 80% of women ride the alpha cock carousel. I suppose I should be gratified by the fact that the conversation has changed so dramatically and that claim is no longer bandied about.
We do know several things about promiscuity that may give you some reassurance. It’s correlated to the following things:
1. parental divorce
2. genetic sociosexuality predisposition
3. personality traits of low conscientiousness and low agreeableness
4. heavy alcohol consumption
5. low self-esteem
6. depression
7. education
Re men with a very large number of sexual partners, mostly cads who use exploitive strategies to maximize sexual opportunities, I don’t doubt they count low N women among their conquests, because that makes sense, though we have no data to support this. We do know that hooking up drops sharply after freshman year, and few senior women engage in the practice.
Since you are hell bent on concluding that a significant percentage of college women have deliberate ONSs with alpha males, it seems to me that you want to spend time with your daughter urging her to let the reasoning part of her soul guide her.
I do not and have never claimed to know the answer you seek. I continue to read and study whatever I can and will continue to share what I find. It is in my best interest to know “the truth” for several reasons of my own:
1. Understanding how widespread Pluralistic Ignorance is on college campuses is a key part of any strategy looking to combat it.
2. Understanding the psychology of hooking up among young women is essential to my being able to address their concerns. If I’m wrong, the growth of my readership will be stunted.
3. Understanding the sexual behavior of males is essential to understanding how the # of sexual partners is distributed among the male population.
I suspect on this last point that a very, very small number of men (perhaps 1% or less) racks up the kinds of numbers that suggests cutting a swath through the female student body. As I posited earlier, on a moderately sized campus of 5,000 students, 20% sluts give us 500 slutty coeds. If a male student has 144 sexual partners in college, which is at least one new girl every single weekend, he need only tap a third of the women known for promiscuous behavior. I have not heard any clear rationale for rejecting this scenario, and it strikes me as infinitely more plausible than his raiding the library stacks in search of low N coeds.
If your search for the truth outpaces mine, I would greatly appreciate your sharing your findings.
Mike C,
Thanks! It’s taken awhile, but I’m doing much better; I think I’ll be ready to write again soon.
I actually think a lot more women fall into the latter category. Funny story: I had two friends in grad school and we sort of hung out as a threesome. One was the girl who slept with Tucker, the other was in a LTR for 4 years that was headed towards marriage. Once we were at lunch telling stories, and the second was telling us how she lost her virginity to her current BF the first or second night she met him. In the middle of the story, she gave me this look, to which I responded “What? I’m not gonna judge you.” I guess giving it up that quickly can be seen as a slut move, and that I came off as an anti-slut.
@Ted
Whoa! When’s the wedding day?
Thanks for explaining about the hypergamy you’ve seen around divorce.
My never-worn wedding dress is somewhat similar to PC’s, by the way, so it may be a personal prejudice!
Great dress! Mine was sort of similar, a sheath with an off the shoulder neckline, but it was tea length and had an organza lace over dress topping a satin sheath. Same lines though.
@Mike C
That makes sense, though 15 extra pounds on me is more than a dress size.
My ostensible mission has always been about relationships. One of the things I learned from having male readers was that many of them want a girlfriend, not to become some player who pumps and dumps. So now I write about both sexes getting the relationships they want.
When I started, men were telling me that 80% of guys were in the sexual desert, and that 80% of women were banging alphas. 500 posts later, I know that the CDC says 16% of men did not have sex in the last year, and 12% of men say they have no sex life. Has the number of celibate men been lower at any time in history?
This is a question that many institutions are grappling with right now. They have studied their student populations, concluded that only about 10% are into the hookup scene, but that most students believe it’s much more widespread. Because they found that exposing Pluralistic Ignorance around binge drinking had a dramatic effect on the culture, there is an intention to spread the word about PI and hookup culture as well.
If the number of students that think “everyone else is hooking up” goes from 80% to 50%, that’s a huge group of kids that suddenly realizes “lots of us aren’t hooking up, and lots of us don’t like that scene.”
It is my hope that this will lead to increased student involvement in other kinds of activities and entertainments. For example, one prestigious college had a huge Mad Men party in the school library with no alcohol. It was a spectacular function, very elaborate, and extremely well attended, even by the Greeks. Today, most if not all campus parties are thrown by Greek organizations. When that changes, different modes of social interaction will occur.
I suspect we will see a return to something that looks more like traditional dating. My daughter was amazed upon graduating how prevalent dating immediately became, even among men who didn’t go on a single date in college. Once freed from hookup culture, young men willingly embrace a different paradigm. (An exception is the guys who loved hookup culture, who at 23 are loath to switch things up.)
Anyway, I don’t have the whole answer, but this is how I predict things will begin to move. I know that many colleges and universities are looking carefully at what is really going on with their students. I don’t think we’ll ever see 100% of students being successful with the opposite sex, nor do some even want that. There will still be awkward guys and unattractive girls. But I do think we can do a much better job of creating different kinds of opportunities for at least half of that 80%.
Thanks for asking that question. It felt really good to talk about something positive. I get enthused thinking about the possibilities.
Susan,
That’s true. When it comes to parties it’s difficult to not go along with what everyone else is doing. That’s sort of how I started dabbling in hookup culture. Ah the herd, so powerful!
Thanks, I probably won’t comment as much as before (must get my work done), but still it’s good to be back.
I suspect we will see a return to something that looks more like traditional dating. My daughter was amazed upon graduating how prevalent dating immediately became, even among men who didn’t go on a single date in college.
I think it’s because then there is actually a chance of settling down with someone you date. My sons don’t “date” formally, just hang out in groups, because “it’s too soon to even think about that.”
@Royale W. Cheese
Sent you an email. No need to reply here unless you didn’t get it. Cheers.
Hey Ramble! *Saw* you but don’t like to clog the comments section if I have nothing to add. Hope you’re well.
______________
Susan:
“My daughter was amazed upon graduating how prevalent dating immediately became, even among men who didn’t go on a single date in college. Once freed from hookup culture, young men willingly embrace a different paradigm. ”
——-
Some possible reasons for this;
1- No longer having a readily available venue to meetup in, they must find one.
2- Jobs = they now have some $$ to spend.
3- Friends have dispersed – so they’re no longer distractors or there to witness/judge their choices.
4- They’re trying to achieve their next milestone- marriage/LTR.
5- They’ve been given the “OK” for dating now that they’re “old enough and done with school”
Susan, I don’t see how you can deny that “good” low- to moderate-N girls are having casual sex with alphas since you personally know, have interviewed, and have written about exactly those girls!
I gather you are not bothered by it because as far as you can see they turned out all right. Well, for one thing, we don’t know that yet. How many of them are happily married? We have a long way before we know how this little experiment of de-stigmatizing casual sex will play out. All the visible evidence so far is that it’s a disaster.
Second, your own reports, the Kate Bollick article, and many other sources report that many of these girls, even the ones who put it behind them successfully, got really hurt in the process and may have had their souls mal-formed for the duration of their lives.
There is a really agressive commenter at Lackrod’s, I forget his name (because so many are like that), but he is quite a jerk most of the time. And then once he wrote this incredibly moving post about how he had a lot of causal sex in the 1970s and it corroded his soul. I wish I could find it.
In other words, there is a real risk in the refusal to condemn casual sex.
Susan, I would bet that like nearly all non-hippie UMC parents, you don’t want your kids doing drugs, you taught them not to do drugs, and if you caught them, you busted them, hard. Yet, you probably also know some people who went through a serious stoner phase, got over it, and led productive lives. Most of us do. So how bad can drugs really be?
What you did not do is conclude from that, that the right teaching for your own children to hear from mom was “Look, it can be dangerous, I want you to know the risks, but you have to make you own decisions, whatever you do, don’t go overboard.” That is, in my reading, basically your teaching on casual sex.
Fake boobs don’t have to look fake. One of my family friends went from AA to a small C, and nobody would ever notice. Ever for larger sizes, which work on larger women, you can go for teardrop-shaped ones behind the muscle, rather the high-projection fake look. (My wife was considering a lift a while back, and we saw TONS of pictures, and I consider myself a boob expert.) You’d be amazed how many women get a little bit of work done, and don’t say anything about it.
Sorry for you girls, wish you all had a father or a male brother (and would listen to tis warnings) bad guys DO have a huge sign in their faces. Having said that, thank you good night.
One of the things I learned from having male readers was that many of them want a girlfriend, not to become some player who pumps and dumps. So now I write about both sexes getting the relationships they want.
FWIW, I mostly agree with you. I think some guys go through a phase where they want to indulge that base instinct for variety (and some have very little desire to) but that it is only a small minority who want to make that a permanent lifestyle. Look at guys like Zach and Jason as an example of that. Most guys do want a girlfriend, but here’s the thing about, and I mean this in the most constructive manner possible….not trying to argue here. It has to be a real relationship, not something you just slap the “committed relationship” label on with a good chunk of the female motivation being the validation of having a “boyfriend”. I would highly encourage you to read Badger’s latest post on Decoupling Intimacy and Committment.
I’ll be honest…I think a lot of people are writing Checkers level stuff and Badger is taking some of these thoughts to the Chess or Go Level. There is some really deep stuff in that post about the interplay between sex, intimacy, and a committed relationship, and the sequential order a guy has to take some of those things in the current SMP. This is speculation on my part, but it is my sense a generation of women were raised who do not know how to provide and receive genuine emotional intimacy. When they do get it, they question what is wrong with the guy, and they don’t know how to provide it. You started to go down a positive road in this with your emotional escalation post. I wanted to send that to my sister as well, but then I remembered it was deleted. You should rewrite that post minus the personal details. Just my opinion, but more stuff like that is needed to make today’s young woman a better relationship prospect, than slicing and dicing different data and surveys a million ways to Sunday or dissecting what exact mix of alpha and beta most women prefer based on something 1 million years ago. When I think back to my decision to go the relationship route rather than a variety of casual sex, I think on some level I sensed I could get a level of true emotional intimacy. I still needed to be alpha, but I didn’t have to play a character.
This is a question that many institutions are grappling with right now. They have studied their student populations, concluded that only about 10% are into the hookup scene, but that most students believe it’s much more widespread. Because they found that exposing Pluralistic Ignorance around binge drinking had a dramatic effect on the culture, there is an intention to spread the word about PI and hookup culture as well.
It is my hope that this will lead to increased student involvement in other kinds of activities and entertainments.
I think back to my college days, and it definitely would have been helpful to have some venue for socializing outside of the Greek scene. If you are correct in terms of what most young women want, then it shouldn’t be an impossible task to put those women in a room with the Coopers of a college campus and get some real dating/relationships started. But those women have to do their part and not just be entirely passive, because those guys aren’t going to be super assertive. It has to be more from both sides.
Thanks for asking that question. It felt really good to talk about something positive. I get enthused thinking about the possibilities.
No prob. Look, if more people are content about their sex and relationship lives that is a good thing all around. How can anyone argue with that?
@Ramble
I went looking for data on college male virgins over time but could not find anything. Here’s what we know.
Around a quarter of both male and female college students are virgins as seniors.
A snapshot of college students shows that 37% of women on campus and 43% of men are virgins.
In contrast, in the general population, 80% of males have lost their virginity by age 19, and 97% by age 25. This is just one more example of how general SMP data is not applicable to college students.
AskMen targets males 18-34, probably skewed towards college grads, I’m not sure.
My guess is that your first option: “College virgins are ultimately becoming sexually active and afterwards are answering surveys like the one reported by AskMen.com.” is the accurate one.
Hey Ramble! *Saw* you but don’t like to clog the comments section if I have nothing to add. Hope you’re well.
Alias, was this meant for Olive?
Either way, I am feeling fine. Thank you.
@ Royale W. Cheese,
– get yourself out there, learn about your target demographic. Good luck!
I’m also rooting for you!
One thing: do you normally wear contact lenses? (some guys like the glasses but I think you’ll do better w/o)
Dresses, smile, no brain-wrestling with da menz
___________
@ Susan,
Regarding the high count men >Ns than high count women-
do they specify anywhere whether these encounters are all hetero?
Ramble:
“Alias, was this meant for Olive?”
—–
For you- since you quoted me ^^ – don’t want you to think I’m ignoring you.
Glad Olive’s well too.
@ Mike C
Olive, saw your comment. Hope you are doing well healthwise. Regarding the bolded part, this is an interesting difference that I think kinda makes sense. I think the former group happen to be wired with a more “male sexuality” and are just indulging a base physical drive. They could care less if someone else is or is not. The latter group are doing it more out of validation and to boost self-esteem so a friend not similarly engaging is perceived as an indirect negative judgement on what they are doing.
_____________
I agree with this and would add another group.. The women who audition for relationships using sex as the hook. Lots of them out there too. They start with sex and then see what develops. Probably not a great method, but I`m sure it works for some of them.
Sue, cutting through all the verbiage, I believe that far more than 20% women are employing, or have employed in the *past*, a short-term/low-investment/nonmonogamous strategy, without necessarily seeing it as a path to a boyfriendhood, or being deceived by a cad. Yourself included, right? I believe, along with Jimmy, that this is probably close to 60% of women, and not limited the 20%.
And, in those moments, she will likely cross paths with a high N man, simply, because low N men don’t really do short term mating all that well – the high N man is going to outcompete him by a mile. He’ll be there in the club or bar or Facebook ready to go that very night with the now-DTF-just-for-the-day woman, while his low-N counterpart is still asking women out on dates and trying to escalate over a a few weeks.
I agree, J. It makes sense to move from informal to formal modes of courtship as finding a life partner becomes a priority. I understand Desiderius’ and Escoffier’s concern about delaying marriage, but I really don’t see that genie going back into the bottle.
but I really don’t see that genie going back into the bottle.
Much to my consternation, neither do I. I’ll no doubt be over 70 when my first grandchild is born.
@Alias
Those all sound valid to me. I also perceive there’s a kind of “turning over a new leaf.” Suddenly, no one really knows who was a “winner” in college and who was a “loser.” I’ve seen a lot of the beta guys I know going on a ton of dates. Increasingly, young people embrace online dating after college, mostly OKCupid in my area. Despite the ‘sphere wisdom that this is bad for men, I know several guys who are quite happy with their results, even at age 23. There are a lot of guys seeking casual on there, though, it’s very important for young women to filter aggressively.
@Escoffier
What are you referring to? To be honest, the most promiscuous girl in the bunch (35+) has a thing for beta guys. I’m quite close to her (though obviously not influential enough) and her college bf and the guys I’ve known who got with her have been unassuming guys (and small too). I hope this doesn’t cause you to get all up in arms about how betas don’t get laid. The ones I know do OK. Again, my personal observations are very much in keeping with the college data. They’re not high N, but none of them feels like a loser, as far as I can tell.
FWIW, I don’t disagree with your assessment of the potential LT damage of all this casual sex. But I do believe that condemning it is pointless. That’s why two dozen young women call me instead of their mothers. Mom condemns sex, thinks her daughter is a virgin. My son’s 25 yo gf’s parents believe she is a virgin. It’s ridiculous.
What I have found is that I can have the most positive impact by taking a strategic approach. Casual sex does not lead to satisfying relationships or good marriages. That argument has struck a nerve, and I am convinced that is the best way of curbing the behavior. That’s why my new post features real information about what head cases kids hooking up turn into.
Parents, churches and other authority figures condemn casual sex and it hasn’t made a difference. Kids who take the pledge get as many STDs as everyone else, and kids wearing abstinence rings rely on anal sex before marriage.
In the end, I may just be pissing in the wind, but moral condemnation definitely is.
Susan, my moral condemnation I don’t just mean scolding. I mean we have to seek a restoration of true morality, which is in itself a reasoned argument. I don’t over the long term you can regulate behavior that is at root moral with a purely instrument, cost-benefit argument.
A very good post. I hope this means Badger is backing away from his previously expressed default assumption that all women are sluts. I have some quibbles. He disses LTRs with a Lackrod “serial monogamy is female promiscuity” link. And this is a ridiculous bit of hamsterbation:
Another factor here is that women have raised the costs and expectations of a “relationship” to very high levels, such that men are wary of putting the “relationship” label on things so as to avoid the subtextual obligations. Thus men may steer towards “friends with benefits” arrangements that, far from being booty calls, are relationships in everything but name.
Of course, Yohami and Deti are there to get their misogynist licks in.
If you don’t like this review of Badger’s post, you may want to hold off on linking him. I have no desire to hurt his blog.
@Alias
OMG, I don’t know! I can’t recall, but I’m going to check.
Esco, believe it or not I agree with you. It is going to take something drastic that happens in the west, America, to cause a moral shift back to where it should be. The pending financial house of cards and the inevitable major life styles changes that will come with it may force people back to a more simple time, economically and morally.
Susan is right, shaming isnt ever going to hold the water it did years ago. Education is a slow process, but it saves one at a time.
Susan what you do is good and worthwhile for college kids. Im not sure the same info and principles appy to older people, say 35+. I`m not totally clueless when it comes to the modern college scene, but almost. Even with a daughter who has been out of college 5 years, I still dont know what makes them tick. Now for the older crowd, I have a pulse on that group. Im sure you agree, life experience counts for something, and as people get older they change, sometimes in a good way, sometimes, not
This thread is a zombie that’s trying to kill me.
Let’s go back to my original claim. Approximately 20% of both men and women are promiscuous in college, and are mostly servicing each other.
How do I define promiscuous?
A slut is a person of either sex who regards sex strictly as a physically pleasurable activity. Sex in and of itself does not include an emotional, spiritual or practical component. Love, emotional intimacy and reproduction are sometimes associated with sex, but are in no way necessary or even desirable as a precondition for sexual activity.
This is my characterization of the college SMP. It does not say that a woman who has one ONS is promiscuous. It does not say that a woman who has three ONSs and dates #3 for four years is promiscuous.
Promiscuity is an attitude or belief system that predicts a high partner count.
I have no idea what percentage of college women have had a ONS. We know that around 40% are virgins. That leaves 60%. Have all non-virgins in college had a ONS? I doubt it, but I don’t have the data to determine that information.
I have nothing more to offer on this topic, and I’m certainly not interested in repeating myself.
“Agreed. On our third date, uh sexcapade, my husband shared that he hoped to have a daughter with a particular name. It was very old-fashioned, I didn’t know anyone under 80 with that name. Of course, we named our daughter that and there were never fewer than 3 girls with her name in any class”
You mean it had become a popular name?
A very good post.
Yes, for sure. To be clear, I didn’t suggest it as nasty debate fodder but to provide some food for thought and reflection.
I hope this means Badger is backing away from his previously expressed default assumption that all women are sluts.
Why does that matter? If the post stands alone as highlighting something of importance, then anything else is irrelevant. FWIW, there is sometimes the difference between the underlying reality of something and how one has to tactically think and act. I actually live near a city which is one of the worst in the U.S. in terms of crime. If I were going to go walking through the neighborhoods, the reality is most of the people are still decent, law abiding citizens but I probably ought to still assume everyone I see is a potential robber for my own personal safety.
Of course, Yohami and Deti are there to get their misogynist licks in.
Stand down soldier.
The comments are irrelevant to the post. Can you see that statements like this are intended to provoke continued confrontation? I’m not going to waste my time trying to defend their comments.
If you don’t like this review of Badger’s post, you may want to hold off on linking him. I have no desire to hurt his blog.
I don’t think he would care. Honestly, it isn’t like you could hurt his blog even if that was your intention. He is writing for a different target audience (primarily men), and truthfully I don’t think anyone reading him is going to stop because of something you say. Again, I didn’t provide the post to secure an enthusiastic review. I provided it to hopefully get you to think a bit from a different perspective.
To your point about the hamsterbation, there is something real in that statement. If your end goal is the happy formation of relationships, then it behooves you to understand why some men might be reluctant. I really hope my attempt here to be earnest is not an exercise of stupidity on my part.
@Susan
I’m probably with the “parents, churches and other authority figures” group just for being religious, so I’m biased here, but I see Escoffier’s point.
Pointing out that casual sex can “corrode the soul” does not necessarily have to be condemnation, any more than pointing out that drugs can “fry your brain” is. (It seems to me that the words in quotation marks can be replaced with alternatives that retain the message without also keeping the moralistic tone.) In fact, I think you’ve already done a little of this yourself in the past. The post about “manwhores” having made themselves unable to experience true emotional intimacy comes to mind.
Sue: “Approximately 20% of both men and women are promiscuous in college, and are mostly servicing each other.”
Sure. No beef with that, with the “mostly” in there.
But then this drifts and crossmixes to the larger topic of “how many men are alpha?”, not limited to college. That’s also a small amount, probably around or even less than 20% of men. When we talk about that, then your 20% slut rule is somewhat related, but not really what we are talking about. Perhaps Esc/Mike/etc and you are just talking about different things.
I actually have been toying with a new definition of alpha. How about a more simplified one? An alpha is a man who has as much options (read: can get as laid as easily) as a typical woman can. Chew on that for a bit.
****
RWC is clearly a cutie and surely deserves a man with a job and teeth. Her looks are not stopping her. I am sitting here with a friend’s relative who looks like a fat teen boy to me (short hair, obese, no boobs, bad posture, very plain face, frumpy clothes) and she has no problem finding boyfriends… with teeth and jobs.
@Escoffier
What would you like to see? I’m in earnest – I’d be really interested to hear your ideas on alternative approaches. I’m willing to consider anything that might be effective.
Susan,
“I agree, J. It makes sense to move from informal to formal modes of courtship as finding a life partner becomes a priority. I understand Desiderius’ and Escoffier’s concern about delaying marriage, but I really don’t see that genie going back into the bottle.”
Boomers gotta get paid.
That’s exactly where its going, whether we like it or not.
Then again, I may be wrong.
If so, the problem isn’t necessarily delaying marriage per se, it’s delaying the search/not being open to it if the right one comes along “too early”. And of course women like yourself will continue to delay marriage and do fine. But you’re not exactly in the 50th percentile.
Agreed on the formal modes of courtship (hell, courtship at all) being an improvement.
Your gracious welcome of Olive is appreciated.
Yeah, and that happened with my son’s name too. Weird.
“You seem to think that I should be impressed by the feminine role you’ve taken in your relationships? Bragging about your mates height, and accomplishments/degrees instead of your own, like a hypergamous housewife, and then blushing about marriage proposals you’ve received? ”
Ouch! Giiiirrrrrrrlllll you sure got that power punch, don’tcha?
Royale Cheese, why not actively pursue STEM guys who are a decade or so older than you, and not just Black ones either?
“Sure, so you’ve been with brown sugah for 4 years, and you’re already 40s, and you aren’t married because????
Or are you patiently waiting for her to get down on one knee, and pull out the ring? :-/”
Holy damn! You’re the gift that just keeps on giving, aren’t ya? LOL!
I get that, but the claim that men pursue FWB that are relationships in everything but name is bogus. The only reason men say “no relationship” to FWBs is to preserve options for sex with others, which reflects their lack of emotional investment. It’s an avoidance of intimacy.
@OTC
I prefer Bastiat Blogger’s Option A, and Ogi Ogas’ definition of dominance, which has to do with men succeeding in competition with other men. I think that equating alpha with sexual activity is highly problematic, and I think that sexual options are very difficult to assess if the activity is absent. As I said earlier in the thread, watching the Olympic road race Saturday, I knew I was watching one big pack of alphas, and it had zip to do with whose dick was wet.
“As far as I can tell, the closest thing to an analogy would be if my wife said to me that if I gained weight and lost muscle mass, she would be less attracted to me. I could understand, but I would also think it was slightly odd that a girl would say something like that.”
What’s odd about it?
@OTC
Is Rice n Beans Plain Jane?
Is Rice n Beans Plain Jane?
Her or Sai is…or both.
“I think that equating alpha with sexual activity is highly problematic”
Yeah I think Roissy got to that definition by working backward from his assumption that hypergamy is the problem.
That definition precludes one from seeing how much true alpha behavior (and the problem is more acute the more socially beneficial that behavior is) is currently going unrewarded or even being penalized by women.
For one example, the generosity that the primeval “big man” employed to demonstrate and cement his power and thus the good man today attempts to use to demonstrate his dominance/prestige is often now mistaken by women as either manipulative or naive.
““Men really dont care whether youre currently employed or not”
“Yes, according to the manosphere circle jerk. But here, in the REAL WORLD being unemployed in a crappy economy means stop dating until I could afford rent. I am sure most in NYC would agree that they postponed finding someone and focused on work, because that’s what we were told to do, and it was necessary to survive.”
Yes, it depends on the class and culture of the man. I looked up the manosphere you talk about and those guys complain about paying for dates so yeah, they care if women are employed or not too, no matter what they say.
Susan Walsh, my 6 name guesses are Isabelle, Anabelle, Mary, Grace, Rose or Lily.
Close?
@rice n beans aka BAG LADY:
Since it could be said that im a member of the manosphere to some extent, and since ive made quite a ruckus over the “who pays for dates” bait and switch many women in our time engage in by all means please allow me to speak to all that:
In that ive never wanted for money because ive always earned a nice living, the issue isnt want of money-its about the principle. If a woman believes in equality then the area of dating is the acid test. Every man has every right to spend his money as he sees fit but as the wise man once so aptly said, a fool and his money are soon departed. I do not feel that i should have to “pay” for an “audition” and have come up with means and countermeasures to avoid doing so regardless as to the environment or venue i happen to find myself in. No woman is forced to deal with me or anyone else; they are more than free to deal with whomever they wish; may they go with my blessing.
But i have every right to aggressively look out after my own interests and i do it with gusto; and it is not in my interests to spend one red cent nor one nanosecond with any woman who does not any sexual (and by extension relationship) interest in me. And any man who still does the 1950s happy days thing, deserves to be got.
Btw, hows horace doing?
O.
@rice n beans aka BAG LADY:
Tried looking up your ann bauer link but it was dead. But for the sake of argument lets say youre right-women are repulsed by obese men too.
Ok: so what?
If men who are repulsed by obese women can easily fix their problem by not dealing with such women, it then follows that women who are repulsed by obese men do not have to deal with them either; its a simple matter of voting with ones feet.
So whats the problem either way, bag lady?
O.
@Mike C
I apologize for getting snarky re your earlier suggestion. I do appreciate your earnest attempts to share your POV. To be honest, I do not believe I can learn anything from that corner of the manosphere. It’s just too hostile an environment. There are other blogs I read with a male POV, including Vox, Ricky Raw, Mark Manson, Rules Revisited, and a few others.
“Teaching teens how to make better choices is not easy – about friends/school/career/lovers – or anything for that matter.”
This generation is the most teachable to come along in awhile, but they’re not much for bullshit, and pretty good at detecting it. They’re not real comfortable with infallibility – if you’re comfortable coming in and admitting your own mistakes and shortcomings and what you’ve learned from it with a positive outlook, they will appreciate the (rare) opportunity to be open about their own, and then you can do some real work.
You want respect, you gotta bring it. Too often many adults don’t. Unfortunately this approach has come to be called “preaching”, when actually effective preaching (such as that delivered by this guy, evidently despite his Christianity) may be what is most needed.
@ms walsh:
In that im familiar with the “alt game” blogs you mentioned, allow me to suggest that perhaps at least *some* of them are a bit, shall we say…light?
For me, a lot of life revlolves around being able to handle things we dont like. I find that often, some people would rather not deal with something if it makes them upset. I guess im different in that i always look to whats being said not whether i like the person who said it or how it makes me feel. Usually what i feel is an afterthought.
This is why i said to you a little while back that being nuked is the best thing that can happen to a man? Because often a man needs to hear the unvarnished truth about himself from the women hes trying to get with. He has to confront some things about himself if hes serious about becoming successful with the women he desires. Usually what happens is that many guys flakeout because confronting the mirror is way too painful for them to deal with. But it doesnt make it any less true.
I dont know badger et al to say one way or another whether what hes said is of any value or not. Personally i tend to eschew anything that i see as approaching esoterica to tell you the truth. I prefer bluntforce truth telling, the blunter the better. Gets right to the point and also gives my mischevious streak a healthy outlet.
But i do think that guys like manson et al sugarcoat a lot of what they say so as to be palatable to feminine ears. This is a grave mistake. Another thing i do not like about him is that he heavily moderates his forum. This i do not consider a manly form of discourse.
But thats just my take.
Going back to our earlier convo:
All men cannot win in competition; indeed by definition most men will lose.
Now what?
O.
@Rice n Beans
“Royale Cheese, why not actively pursue STEM guys who are a decade or so older than you, and not just Black ones either?”
A 45-50 y/o STEM guy (of no particular race) sounds right up my alley. That profile alone gives me the tingles. I need to figure out where they are, how they interact with single ladies, and what they are looking for in a relationship (in general).
Re: the breast augmentation discussion…I did some Google research and found some very natural looking under-the-muscle implants…and the temptation started creeping in, until I saw reports of bacteria and fungus growing inside of the saline sacks, and the girls with fabulous looking boob jobs awkwardly confessing recurring pain on YouTube.
A boob job is like a medical prosthetic. I may have a small rack, but I don’t think it’s at the point of being a disability. I’ve seen smaller, less symmetrical, and less perky girls than mine. Give me a push-up bra and I’m good.
“All men cannot win in competition; indeed by definition most men will lose.
Now what?”
Let them eat gay marriage!
@ms walsh:
Youre right about the vitriol etc of the manosphere. However, as tom matlack has proven with the good men project, even if you come at the whole question of mens stories with a calmer voice, it still wont get on so to speak. Simply put there just is not any cultural space or vocabulary for airing those kinds of issues out because the prevailing view is that men have it infinitely better easier etc than women and that any problems men encounter is due ultimately to their own failings and no one, male or female, wants to hear it, bottomline. I just do not see any way around that in the current climate nor do i see that changing anytime soon.
To be sure though, the manosphere isnt helping and like you said the marcottes of the world, rightly or wrongly, will be able to successfully marginalize them, saying that they deserve to be alone etc. Personally, i dont see any solution to this issue happening in our lifetime. There is simply too much invested in certain core ideas of which feminism plays a strong but by no means sole role.
On top of that, if we accept the ideas of evopsych, then we have to come to grips with the reality of male disposability-that we all are kind of hardwired to accept that a certain amount of men at any time will be washouts. The fact that for every spinster there have been two bachlelors ought to say something about this to us. I think the key differences from previous eras is that men on a whole are living longer, and the internet has educated men enmasse about all of this, which the manosphere is a kind of exemplar. Sure, erroneuous ideas can and do exist there; but the overarching themes, memes and info there, even people who strongly disagree with the more shriller elements of the sphere find hard to deny, such as the both of us.
At any rate, this is more than a matter of “tone” or “public relations” ms walsh. It goes a heck of a lot deeper than that. And while i wouldnt be against crafting a “kinder, gentler” message, at bottom are some core ideas that are just anathema to the coin of the realm in our time.
I simply do not see any way out.
On this we sadly, agree.
O.
Royale, like Hope said, if you plan on having babies don’t do the boob job thang, gurl. I know from a close relative’s personal experience. They balloon up to astronomical proportions and then sag like no tomorrow and then make you look fat when you’re not. If you plan on having babies your small boobs will grow anyway, so just wait til then. And I’d say 50 years old is too old of a guy. You’re in your early to mid 30s, right? then early to mid 40s is the highest you should go. And there are plenty of single men in that age range. Are you a STEM gal yourself? If so, you should know where to meet them. Otherwise, go to the Universities and check out the professors or take a vacation in Silicon Valley, no pun intended, heh.
“I simply do not see any way out.”
(1) Read Strauss and Howe. These things go in cycles, and its already swinging the other way. Before too long we’ll have feminist allies interested in preserving at least some of their gains.
(2) The Sexual Devolution was driven by the concern with overpopulation causing the abandonment of the “everybody reproduces” social contract. Of course as you note it was never literally everyone, but the spirit was the more the merrier. At the depth of the Devolution, breeders were being shamed. To put it mildly, concerns with overpopulation have been greatly ameliorated.
The frantic advocacy of gay marriage (and the concomitant estimation on the part of the sexual haves that 25% of the population is gay = wishful thinking) is the last gasp of that abandonment. Our social welfare/entitlement systems were predicated on a growing population, and as the financial consequences of attempting to maintain those systems with a static/shrinking population become clear, growth, the social mores necessary to promote it, will again become popular.
Boomers gotta get paid.
I’m not sure why you regularly seek to solve this problem. You can’t give everyone a Participant trophy. Women compete as well – not to get sex, but to get commitment. And there are some losers there too.
Sue: “I prefer Bastiat Blogger’s Option A, and Ogi Ogas’ definition of dominance, which has to do with men succeeding in competition with other men. I think that equating alpha with sexual activity is highly problematic, and I think that sexual options are very difficult to assess if the activity is absent. As I said earlier in the thread, watching the Olympic road race Saturday, I knew I was watching one big pack of alphas, and it had zip to do with whose dick was wet.”
If I were a smartass, I’d say that by succeeding with women directly, you are competing with other men.
What you say makes perfect sense, just that I see little use of discussing them, other than identifying the “prize” from the female point of view, so she can acquire it. I usually mean “SMV leader” and it’s plainly apparent to me that such SMV leaders don’t need to be super-competitive in non-sexual areas. Most men can’t be alpha, then, and so most women can’t have one all to herself.
Just like all women can’t be “perfect 10″ 25-year old bikini models.
It’s a lot more interesting to me to talk about what us Regular People can really do for ourselves, that just observe royalty from afar. Who here is a super-dominant leader of men, or a bikini model (uh, other than Sassy)?
@Obsidian
It’s hard to say, because he made a fatal error in allowing GMP to be a platform for feminists. He was stunned when they started throwing him under the bus at his own blog. His other big mistake was allowing Hugo S. to become a big personality there. Basically, he stocked his swimming pool with piranhas.
Re male concerns, I do observe some improvement in general awareness in the population, but I’m not objective, as I am often the person to raise the issue.
Lopsided college enrollments probably have the best chance of getting people interested in males, and it won’t be long before we’re forced to confront that, as it will cause another big blow to assortative mating among SWPLs. How long the “Man up!” folks will prevail is uncertain, and it’s hard to imagine feminists not spinning that as evidence of male inferiority. Indeed, feminist writers are already chortling with glee over the college ratios and the increasing prevalence of female breadwinners.
I’m not sure whether the message needs to change, or just the messenger. It will be hard to get women on board when MRAs are marginalized even among men.
@ Rice n Beans
“Royale, like Hope said, if you plan on having babies don’t do the boob job thang, gurl. I know from a close relative’s personal experience. They balloon up to astronomical proportions and then sag like no tomorrow and then make you look fat when you’re not. If you plan on having babies your small boobs will grow anyway, so just wait til then.”
At 35, I am not too sure how much I should anticipate having kids, realistically, due to many factors.
Rab: “And I’d say 50 years old is too old of a guy.”
I think my entry into 35 officially marked the age where it is acceptable to consider a 50 y/o guy. My parents are 60.
RAB: “Are you a STEM gal yourself? If so, you should know where to meet them. Otherwise, go to the Universities and check out the professors or take a vacation in Silicon Valley, no pun intended, heh.”
Yes I am STEM. Ph.D in molecular genetics, currently an Asst. Prof. I’ve been making the naive assumption that running across STEM guys should come naturally to me. The trick here is that STEM guys aren’t necessarily looking for STEM gals. However, based on my limited observations, they aren’t looking for what typical guys are looking for, at least not entirely. Physical looks, certainly. But there seems to be more to it than looking hot. I’m still trying to figure out the nuances.
I wouldn’t look to Si Valley too optimistically. It’s overrun with greedy pseudo-smart MBA’s and wannabes. STEM guys with heart are rare out in SV now days…and the money is attracting good geeks gone dark. I know one personally.
@OTC
I’m with you there, and I think Game does provide that. I think whatever the metric is, it will have to be subjective. Each man defines what success in the SMP means to him, and if he is happy with his results, he is a winner in his own eyes and we need not affix a label of our own to him. Anyone would be free to say, “I like what he has, so I’m going to emulate his strategy.” Where we get into trouble is when we lionize that person objectively, which assumes that what he has constitutes success for everyone. That’s dangerous because he may actually be making the SMP worse for everyone, including other men.
@ms walsh:
My reason for asking such questions is, as ms alias has rightly observed previously, socratic. I want to determine just how well thought out weve weighed these questions.
While youre right to note that there are and have been female losers, the scale is much smaller-roughly half-as small as the males. Throughout the animal kingdom there will be invariably more male losers than female. The human race is no exception.
Even if we take the current askmen survey as gospel, it is clear that there are losers. And since just about any women can sex ie, get to reproduce, the situation gets even more grim.
I wholeheartedly agree with you and many ladies’ definition of what makes an alpha male-at least in part it is his ability to win in open competition with other males, to gain prestige from it, and to gain the respect and deference of other men. The big problem in all of that is that simply, most men cant cut it; they simply will not have, “the right stuff”.
Sure, you and any other lady here or anywhere else, can simply shrug and say it aint my concern; and you would be right. But it doesnt change the essential fact that much of human existence a crucial and persistent question has always been:
What are we going to do with the males?
In an age and an society that so valorizes winners, where competition for any and everything meaningful in life is so very fierce, and in an era where prestigious spots at every rung on the ladder are ever shrinking, men face pressures that may be in some ways unprecedented. Some have suggested that the recent horrific dark knight shootings were yet another outburst of “beta male rage”; no matter what one may think of all that what is true, is that guys are feeling the heat as never before, and that it cant help to manifest in various ways. This too is something that is simply not discussed nor taken seriously by the powers that be, which comprise various elements of the cognitive elite. Feminists are aspects of it but they are by no means alone.
No, every guy shouldnt get a trophy just for showing up. But if women are attracted to guys who can wed know how with charisma, then surely we have to admit that there will be men who wont have either. That we dont even have a cultural vocabulary as to how to even address this simple mathematical fact, really should tell all one needs to know as to just how difficult our hardwiring is around such issues.
O.
@SW
CDC/Census: 20% of men have ever been divorced
Assumption: 2/3 of those divorces filed by women (13%)
Subtract: men divorced for “good” reasons (abandonment, alcohol/drug problems, domestic violence, infidelity, loss of affection, mental illness, money problems, etc.) ~ 5% or less
Speculation: Frivolous divorce is probably less common than these more acute causes of marital discord.
But younger “unattractive beta” husbands aren’t necessarily the ones hit by the EPL phenomenon the most. Where the divorce rate is currently rising is amongst the oldest baby-boomers who are in their 50s and 60s (see “gray” divorce).
@Megaman
Thanks very much for clarifying that. Makes sense.
@ms walsh:
Wrt tom matlack i agree with you 100%; having said that, another question arises: is it possible for him to do the same thing, get the same kinds of press etc, WITHOUT female and in particular, feminist input? I would say an emphatic “no”-and thats because, rightly or wrongly, feminist/cognitive elite thought and cant have so thoroughly permeated our social discourse atmosphere, to the point that, without the approval and “tempering” of feminists/women, the gmp is just a nice guy ™ version of the spearhead.
And THAT, is the problem.
O.
He should have gone for some conservative females – there are plenty of anti-feminists around. If I’m not mistaken, the problem was that he identified as a feminist himself, and did not anticipate that they would chew him up and spit him out on Twitter.
You’re right about feminist influence, though – it’s pervasive. Even Lena Dunham has had to bow and scrape her apologies to feminists unhappy with her political angle. I’m afraid they’ll destroy Girls as she works to placate them.
@ms walsh:
If matlack had indeed sought out conservative women the gmp would have been buried before it had a chance to get off the ground. Simply put the atmosphere in which we all breathe is too permeated with the kinds of ideas that make men actually discussing things that women can and will disagree with virtually impossible to say above ground, let alone have it be respected and taken seriously.
As for megamans data/stats: as ive said before and it bears repeating, the “eat pray love/50 shades of grey” phobia in the manosphere extends more beyond matters of data points on a spreadsheet; it speaks to deepseated fears, even irrational ones, on the part of many men. Sure, they may not be as old as those in the “gray divorce” cohort-indeed, quite a few are younger and single. But i think we miss the point.
Which is, that these men be they divorced or not, are greatly afraid that they wont make the cut-be that more dominant in the bedroom, or simply failing to make the grade in a host of other ways. While much has been said about female reaction to 50 shades for example, the reaction on the part of men has been mocking, derisive, condescending. Little if any thought or caring has been put into attempting to get a handle on such things. In an age where women can demand “more” and rollout when they dont get it, it is wholly understandable as to why there are at least some men who are nervous.
Theres a there, there-even if it doesnt show up on a spreadsheet…
O.
I’m not sure whether the message needs to change, or just the messenger. It will be hard to get women on board when MRAs are marginalized even among men.
I have said it before and I will say it again: these things are driven by women.
If men start saying, “You need to be concerned about us, we are hurting.”, then they are pathetic and weak.
If women say, “We need to be concerned about boys not being aggressive and masculine enough” then they are being caring, unselfish and nurturing…you know, like, feminine.
“Be a man.”
“Take it like a man.”
“Man up”
“Boys don’t cry.”
Whether it is said literally, or indirectly, all of these things communicate that boys/men should get to work and keep their mouths shut. No complaining!
Instead of being supported by girls, we compete against them. Except, when you see some guy complain about work/life balance, well, he is just a little bitch.
Political Correctness and it’s feminized culture have been a fantastic weapon wielded against traditional, active, aggressive, competitive masculinity.
Ultimately we get girls working in offices and asking, “Where are the good men?”
Sue: “Each man defines what success in the SMP means to him, and if he is happy with his results, he is a winner in his own eyes and we need not affix a label of our own to him.”
I have to say I disagree here, as this sound very close to the “everybody wins” no-competition philosophy. SMV-leaders are leaders, and everyone can’t be at the top of the pack, so long as women are so viscerally attracted to leadership itself.
“Where we get into trouble is when we lionize that person objectively, which assumes that what he has constitutes success for everyone.”
It’s not lionizing him, so much as acknowledging his superior SMP position to our own. Esc has been clear about separating out being a SMPL vs. morally good. You can win being bad, clearly.
“That’s dangerous because he may actually be making the SMP worse for everyone, including other men.”
Perhaps it does. I’m well past the point of caring, though. I’d rather make it better for myself and my loved ones, and let everyone else fend for themselves. After all, that’s what they are doing, too.
@Susan
“Promiscuity is an attitude or belief system that predicts a high partner count.”
Yep, it’s a lifestyle choice. And when you really dig into the insinuations that a lot of Manosphere guys are making when they talk about “sluts,” I get the impression that their true definition of the word has as much to do with a girl’s vapid, princessy attitude and certain stereotypical appearance factors as it does with her N or ONS count. Not that those things are irrelevant, of course, but I feel like when bothers a lot of these insecure kiddos is that the girl acts superior to them in one way and they feel like these women rub the ease with which THEY can get the casual sex these guys crave in their faces.
@Escoffier
“Susan, I would bet that like nearly all non-hippie UMC parents, you don’t want your kids doing drugs, you taught them not to do drugs, and if you caught them, you busted them, hard. Yet, you probably also know some people who went through a serious stoner phase, got over it, and led productive lives. Most of us do. So how bad can drugs really be?
What you did not do is conclude from that, that the right teaching for your own children to hear from mom was “Look, it can be dangerous, I want you to know the risks, but you have to make you own decisions, whatever you do, don’t go overboard.” That is, in my reading, basically your teaching on casual sex.”
Escoffier . . . I grew up with parents who disapproved of sex before marriage and drug use. Most of my childhood/high school friends did, too, but many of their parents were stricter about preventing it and more condemning towards those who disagreed. The fallout of that level of moral rigidity is not always pretty. From one of the strictest social circles in particular–friends who were homeschooled–there’s been more drug use, sex outside of monogamy, bad relationships and general broken family relationships than in any of my secular friends’ families.
This idea that Susan’s pragmatic, honest approach is not condemning enough is quite ridiculous. The analogy you tried to make with drugs really backfires here. Lots of people do go through brief stoner phases with pot and are none the worse for wear. Many people can have a couple ONS in their lives and still be able to create satisfying sexual and emotional bonds. I would agree with eschewing both these activities is ideal, but then again, let’s not overlook the dangers of repression, either. I’ve known several divorces to occur in the religious social circles I was a part of precisely because the women in question had been made so afraid of sex, and had their own natural sexuality shut down by overboard moral teachings, that they were never able to really get interested in it after their weddings. (And these women were married to some very good-looking pretty high-dominance men, for the record. This wasn’t about the beta not being sexy enough, it was about someone’s sexuality being tampered with beyond repair).
It is essential to not swing the pendulum too far in one direction simply because you fear the far end of the other. We’re not going back to a world where people (or at least women) don’t have sex before marriage. For a certain segment of the population, promiscuity will be a lifestyle choice that is certainly damaging, but for most people, it will be either a brief dalliance in college or not a choice they make at all, and healthy relationships are still very possible for most of these folks. I think Susan’s a needed voice of reason out there, being critical both of unrealistic moral expectations coupled with condemnation, and of promiscuity as a default mode. The Abstinence Only-ers vs Slutwalkers is a product of a wider culture war with a shocking lack of self-criticism on both sides and very little concern for the actual results of their ideology on this generation of young men and women. There should be more respect for people who try to think critically about the debate, not less because they fail to pick a side.
@OfftheCuff
Sue: “Each man defines what success in the SMP means to him, and if he is happy with his results, he is a winner in his own eyes and we need not affix a label of our own to him.”
I have to say I disagree here, as this sound very close to the “everybody wins” no-competition philosophy. SMV-leaders are leaders, and everyone can’t be at the top of the pack, so long as women are so viscerally attracted to leadership itself.”
Uh. Think about the people you know for a sec. Some guys out playing the field and feeling like winners, and some guys in steady monogamous relationships with cute girls also feeling like winners. I don’t think Susan’s saying that EVERY guy feels like a winner in the SMP. Obviously. But there’s at least some who define winning as banging lots of babes and some who define it as getting one to commit to him. Or some combination of those two things. As long as the guy gets what HE wants, of those options, he’ll feel like a man and feel good about himself. A guy who fails to get a wife and a guy who fails to get lots of sexual variety, when each of them have those respective things as their individual goals, might feel like less of a man.
Royale, try harmony.com, match.com, any relationship oriented match site with a good reputation. Also, you’ll have to be pro active. I suspect STEM guys and lots of guys for that matter, are a bit timid in approaching women. You might have to be the first one to step.
Are you in New York?
Courtley,
“The Abstinence Only-ers vs Slutwalkers is a product of a wider culture war with a shocking lack of self-criticism on both sides and very little concern for the actual results of their ideology on this generation of young men and women.”
+1
That’s exactly it. The kids aren’t playing that game. Good for them.
“It is essential to not swing the pendulum too far in one direction simply because you fear the far end of the other. We’re not going back to a world where people (or at least women) don’t have sex before marriage.”
There never was such a world. The difference was that the norm was that you didn’t, and if you did it was kept on the down low. Now the norm is you do, and if you don’t you have to take steps to conceal that. The change was due to some extent to an effort to eliminate norms altogether (nice theory, wrong species) in concert with an attempt to being norms more in line with practice.
It hasn’t worked out the way nearly anyone hoped, most importantly those suffering through the current SMP. The burden of proof would seem to be with those who take issue with the prior norm that after all worked pretty well.
Regardless, its the rising generation who will ultimately decide and so far they’re not turning out to be exactly free love types in my experience.
@Mike C
I apologize for getting snarky re your earlier suggestion. I do appreciate your earnest attempts to share your POV. To be honest, I do not believe I can learn anything from that corner of the manosphere. It’s just too hostile an environment. There are other blogs I read with a male POV, including Vox, Ricky Raw, Mark Manson, Rules Revisited, and a few others.
Susan, it’s all good…no prob. FWIW, Badger is still listed on your blogroll so I assumed you don’t put his blog in the category of hostile corner of the manosphere which is why I linked to the piece. Just my opinion, but you don’t have to like someone and can even dislike them and still learn something but YMMV. FWIW, there is an investment blogger that I actually dislike quite emphatically, and he and I have actually exchanged a number of quite nasty e-mails back and forth, but I actually still regularly read his blog because he actually does do some quality analysis in particular areas.
@Royal W. Cleese
“What I see is an attempt to turn an emotional reaction to hook-up dysfunction (those crazy girls keep choosing those guys over good men like me) into a solid logical conclusion in order to throw the fundamental character of all women under the bus…some kind of slut determinism model.”
Heh, yes, it’s stating the obvious but that’s not always a bad thing. It’s pretty clear who’s reacting emotionally here, and it’s not the laydiezz.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. Feel your feelings, guys! Much healthier that way, and I, at least, love sensitivity in men.
Susan at 1845: “We disagree re the pervasiveness of this taste for bad boys. Which isn’t to say taste for dominance – I believe all women want dominance. A woman will choose a jerk over a mama’s boy every time if those are her only options. This is why the feminization of males is such a huge problem.”
Welcome to the Betapocalypse! (a term I’m still hoping will catch on, though no luck thus far)
Susan, in your eagerness to ridicule and vilify feminized “mama’s boys”, I don’t think you’ve really thought through the full implications of what reversing the betapocalypse would entail. I won’t go through the whole argument there — that would take up a whole ‘nother thread — but I firmly assert that the return of male dominance as a default posture would/will be incompatible with basic daylight equality between the sexes in the public realm (ie work, education, politics, etc.). Reverse the betapocalypse, perhaps, but the cost may be high: your daughter and granddaughter will have to live in a much more sexist world, and will have a substantially harder time achieving the same kind of educational and career success that you enjoyed. Is that a price you’re willing to have them pay?
The polite, deferential and egalitarian “momma’s boys” you despise, are exactly the ones who made your life’s extra dimensions as easy as they were to inhabit [which is not to say your achievements were easy in any absolute sense; but they would have been much harder in a more sexist society]; so think twice about that, before you sneer at them again.
@Desiderius
Re: “there never was such a world”
Tomato, tomahto. We seem to agree that things have changed.
I think the sexual revolution was largely the result of urbanization and medical technology like The Pill as much as it was an intentional drive towards Free Loving. That intentionality is more the myth and lore of the 60s than what actually happened.
Did the former norms work well? For a pre-Pill society, yeah, they were stabilizing and rather necessary. I think we’ve (collectively and broadly speaking) gone a bit crazy in its aftermath, and I hope we can all start being a little more honest here pretty soon. I hope that young women can start being honest about how miserable meaningless sex makes them without being told they’re “slut shaming” or anti-woman. I hope we can get more accurate information about divorce rates out there so that the many, many young people I have met who would LIKE to believe in lifelong monogamy but have been fed this idea that it’s statistically unlikely can learn the truth and be strategic and wise in they go about pursuing it (getting an education and financial stability first, not being too young but also not discarding a great partner just because you’re not ready YET, keeping their N low, etc.)
“Susan, in your eagerness to ridicule and vilify feminized “mama’s boys”, I don’t think you’ve really thought through the full implications of what reversing the betapocalypse would entail. I won’t go through the whole argument there — that would take up a whole ‘nother thread — but I firmly assert that the return of male dominance as a default posture would/will be incompatible with basic daylight equality between the sexes in the public realm (ie work, education, politics, etc.). Reverse the betapocalypse, perhaps, but the cost may be high: your daughter and granddaughter will have to live in a much more sexist world, and will have a substantially harder time achieving the same kind of educational and career success that you enjoyed. Is that a price you’re willing to have them pay?”
As a woman who really values my education and the ability to support myself, I’d give a resounding ‘No’ to that question. But I also don’t have a big penchance for high levels of dominance and would dispute that most women really desire it, at least at a very high level. This has been discussed elsewhere. I, personally, am quite happy with things as they are–I have my education and independence and I feel like most of the guys I know are fabulous young men who probably all fall within the “beta” camp. Obviously not everyone feels this way, though, as I am sure you could expound upon.
But also, Esau . . . seriously, anything that hints at a coming “apocalypse” is a bit much in my book. The world is not ending here. People are still making families and actually, our divorce rate has dropped as people have worked out the kinks of the new equal male-female dynamic. There are social problems as there have always been, but speaking of them in apocalyptic terms is unnecessary at best.
I personally think we need to replace ‘dominance’ in these conversations with something like ‘leadership’ or ‘assertiveness. ‘ I’d concede most women don’t want to be with a man who lets other people push him and/or her around. But this does not mean women by and large want to be pushed around themselves, or that they want to be in a relationship where their opinions are disregarded on things that really matter to them (their children, as an obvious first example).
but I firmly assert that the return of male dominance as a default posture would/will be incompatible with basic daylight equality between the sexes in the public realm (ie work, education, politics, etc.). Reverse the betapocalypse, perhaps, but the cost may be high: your daughter and granddaughter will have to live in a much more sexist world, and will have a substantially harder time achieving the same kind of educational and career success that you enjoyed. Is that a price you’re willing to have them pay?
Esau,
I see no reason why this has to be true for the simple reason that people CAN and DO compartmentalize their lives. Public life is public life and personal/home life is personal/home life. There is nothing that says the exact same intergender dynamics have to exist in both realms.
I am perfectly capable of going to my white collar office and work with female analysts in a 100% equalist fashion, and then come home and have more of the Captain-First Officer dynamic in my relationship/home life. There is nothing that prevents a woman from going to work and being the hard-charging, assertive, aggressive, take charge professional and then coming home to her husband/boyfriend and switching hats and being more feminine and him being the assertive, take charge role.
The truth is in my opinion, even if most women won’t admit it or are not totally self-aware of it themselves, that is exactly what they want. They want to go into the work world and be treated as equally competent (which in many cases they absolutely are, I work with a woman whose professional abilities astound me) and then come home and be “the girl” and be with a “take charge” man.
A blogger today was writing about his wife who is a medical professional basically handing him the keys to her truck to drive when they first started dating. For a long time, I was driving a deathtrap that my fiancee hated being in, so we took her car, and she drove. When I bought my new car this past December, I was struck when she told me sitting in the passenger seat that “she felt like the girl” with me finally driving on outings. I doubt that means she wants to give up her job and income earning power.
In summary, I think you can easily see more of a return to a more dominant, leadership role in romantic/sexual relationships with zero carryover or negative implications for women’s roles and opportunities in career and education.
I personally think we need to replace ‘dominance’ in these conversations with something like ‘leadership’ or ‘assertiveness. ‘ I’d concede most women don’t want to be with a man who lets other people push him and/or her around. But this does not mean women by and large want to be pushed around themselves, or that they want to be in a relationship where their opinions are disregarded on things that really matter to them (their children, as an obvious first example).
I would basically agree. I’ve never really liked the word dominance in this context and have 100x more problems with it, than the alpha-beta nomenclature. The problem is….as you yourself did somewhere else, most people see dominant and then conflate and use that interchangeably with domineering. In my mind, they are not the same at all, but to the extent people see dominant and think domineering, the word dominant becomes counterproductive. I agree very few women have a preference for domineering men. In fact, a man is usually domineering when he hasn’t properly established the leadership frame from Day 1.
I think leadership/assertiveness/take charge is what women are really looking for, not domineering or overbearing.
Ed: Link removed.
@Mike C
Yeah, in a weird way controlling/domineering men come across as very weak and insecure in their own masculinity and MANY women pick up on this right away. I think a lot of young guys with little life/romantic experience on Manosphere blogs conflate dominance as we are defining it with ‘domineering,’ though, and this colors their view of ‘female nature’ pretty negatively.
@Mike C
“In summary, I think you can easily see more of a return to a more dominant, leadership role in romantic/sexual relationships with zero carryover or negative implications for women’s roles and opportunities in career and education.”
Yes and also, a lot of couples have been doing this all along, with less self-awareness than you, perhaps, but pulling it off nonetheless.
@ms courtley:
Ive been reading along your many comments and observations re: the manosphere; and i take it that youve seen at least a few of mine. Assuming thats true, i trust we can have an interesting discussion about said ‘sphere, in that i bring a unique perspective to the whole ball of wax, for obvious reasons.
A huge problem with all this, with what youve said, is that women want it both ways, what kay hymowitiz called the bait and switch: they want the be the success on the job and at school, and want to be treated “like a girl” at home; they want all the bennies of 21st century life and all the romantic bennies of the jane austen period.
Well, there are quite a few fellas who are having none of it.
I know its no big whup to you and yours (read: umc white folks) but the truth is, that black folk have been “working this out” for quite some time now; one of the huge areas of contention, is exactly issues like this. For a host of reasons real or perceived, professional black women feel that they have to be “hard”, but demand that black men be “traditional” when it comes to dating and the like. And for their part, black men have responded-with a resounding “no thanks”. This is the source of tension on the neverending “who pays?” battle lol-because many brothas think, rightly, that if indeed a sista is so “strong” then she can demonstrate that “strength” when the time comes to ante up.
Moreover, as ive said many times before and would love to get your reaction-womens liberation also meant mens liberation, and not always the best in men either. But since womens liberation itself wasnt predicated on “good behavior” of sorts-indeed various aspects of feminism seem to pride themselves on their ability to “color outside the lines” of what would be considered polite discourse-such a thing should be if not welcomed, at the least tolerated.
But the ladies, as we can easily see, are not having any of that-they demand that men adhere to a 1950s standard and way of doing business; not only that, but this way of doing business should be on a “on demand” basis, per the womans whim. This is most definitely the case in the black community, to which black men have resoundingly responded, and to which black women have little, if any, response-well, any response that can be measured in terms of effectiveness, that is. Simply put, brothas know very well a flim flam when they see one-and they know that many women want to have it both ways. Worse, many of them will try to deny this and only concede it when cornered.
Is the manosphere extreme? Some parts of it, hell yea-but any more extreme than the many parts of the femosphere? Do you or anyone ele reading this deny that the latter is easily as extreme as the former-oftentimes considerably moreso? Does that mean the former is off the hook? No-but the point im making is that its low hanging fruit to use that as an out to keep from honestly engaging the legitimate issues the manosphere brings up. The bait and switch issue that im bringing up ms courtley, is highly legitimate. And refusing to deal honestly with that and taking seriously what men feel about it, on the pretense that the manosphere is filled with a bunch of crzies, im sorry, thats just not gonna get it.
Holla back
O.
@ms courtley:
Another clear-and-present example of the “bait and switch” outlook/worldview/tactic/strategy that women in general adheres to in our time, can be seen right here in this very thread up-page a bit.
Ms ion inserted herself into a conversation btw ms rwc and myself, after the latter had put out an open request to hus’ male commenters/readers to assess her smv and advise accordingly. Ms ion saw that as an opportunity to “assess” my own smv, to which, surprise, she saw quite lacking.
Because i tend to think a dozen moves ahead, i was prepared for such a move, and responded in particular detail to ms ions “assessment”, which included “assessments” from many of hus’ most vocal commenters, including hus’ founder herself, ms walsh. What was ms ions response?
An ill-formed attempt to use shaming language (read: classic ad hominem) to derogate me, because of course she couldnt actually engage anything i said with reason or countervailing evidence (note how she has yet to respond in kind to rr’s posts etc), suggesting that i, and by extension black men, were not in fact “real men”-she even used the word “feminine” in her feeble retort/attack on me. This is yet another example of the bait and switch ideology that hymowitz talked about-and as a black men am quite familar with (ms ion really does need to get a late pass)-because the very women who tout a mean game about “equality” or failing that, have no problem in the least supping from the bennies that flow therefrom, will turn right around and then reassert old played out gender norms whenever it suits them. Not only did ms ion show herself to be a faulty thinker and an inadequate debater, but she has also shown herself to be a rank hypocrite to boot.
Thus is the way of our age, where what women most desire is to have it both ways. But the biggest problem isnt this…
…the biggest problem is that far too many men allow it.
I, do not.
Holla back
O.
@Obsidian
“A huge problem with all this, with what youve said, is that women want it both ways, what kay hymowitiz called the bait and switch: they want the be the success on the job and at school, and want to be treated “like a girl” at home; they want all the bennies of 21st century life and all the romantic bennies of the jane austen period.
Well, there are quite a few fellas who are having none of it.”
Well, but apparently, as Mike C pointed out, plenty of guys are fine with it. They LIKE having a more traditional dynamic at home, but they don’t feel threatened or insecure by having female bosses or colleagues or a wife with a job. Quite frankly, even for UMCs, the days of one-income families seem to be rapidly disappearing and if a man wants a family in this future America we seem to be creating, he’s wise to get used to the idea of having a wife who works, or is at least equipped to work if need be. You don’t have to like that, but I’ll continue to be confused as to why having a certain dynamic at home with the wife and a different one with female co-workers is such a buzzkill for some of you guys.
As far as the race issue and the black community . . . I will take your word for it. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool UMC white chick from one of the most UMC and whitest cities in the United States and, quite frankly, very few friends of color just given the demographics of where I am from and who I’ve been socialized with. That’s the perspective I offer and yeah, that is roughly my ‘target audience’ here. This is probably why we’re not relating too well here, and you know what, that is cool. I’m glad I come from a diverse country and I enjoy different viewpoints and you have a good debate going with some of the black female posters here and I shall leave you to that.
In my opinion, based on quite a bit of reading, most of what I read on mainstream feminist blogs is nowhere near as extreme as your average Manosphere blog. They’re just not comparable. There’s some things I agree with in the “femosphere,” as well as things I think they’re getting totally wrong right now, but the Manosphere generally sounds like one big, emotional angry rant and I think there’s a PALPABLE sense of misogyny on those blogs. Most of the feminist ones, by contrast, don’t strike me as misandrist at all–they’re much more concerned with speaking to society as a whole and don’t seem to target “Men” in the same sweeping way that the Manosphere does to women. ANYONE who holds ideas these women disagree with are targets, regardness of their actual sex. A lot of these women writers are either quite sexually promiscuous or in relationships with men and I get the general sense that, I dunno, they basically like “men” as a whole. There’s just a completely different vibe and this is why, quite frankly, they are taken more seriously than 90% of the Manosphere.
@ms courtley:
Another area of contention that i find in your statements about the manosphere, is the notion that “we are working all this out”. This would be true only if one considers a rather small cohort of americans-the cohort to which this venue caters.
However this very discussion-which centers around a supposed “comparison” of two middle class, middle american white women-makes quite clear, that all of us-a sizable portion in fact-arent “working it out” very well at all. And which brings up all manne of very deep questions that despite our best efforts, arent going away, and as murray and others point out, are not only different in scope but in kind as well.
Simply put, the massive changes that women like you enjoy were brought about by a certain cohort of people who gave little if any thought as to how their ideas would play themselves out for others outside their cohort; indeed if anything, those “others” served as props and tools with which to further said groups ideological wars on what it saw as old stodgy, restrictive modes of living and being. And when it became clear that “liberation” didnt prove so liberating for certain others, these thought leaders then tucked tail and got outta dodge-only to ape the very kinds of stodgy, restrictive lifestyles they railed against. Murray, hymowitz and others have written extensively about all of this.
Moreover as the topic of this discussion clearly demonstrates, the problems of adjusting to “liberation” are no longer associated with the darker peoples of inner city urban cores; they are quickly becoming part of daily life in whitebread flyover country too. This mission creeping upwards and outwards is something that clearly and starkly challenges any notions you or anyone else has of “so far so good” on these and other fronts. The 500lb gorilla in the middle of the room has to be, how long can our republic gon on this way? And do those for whom such “liberation” has worked, really want to live in a society where they are figuratively and increasingly literally, walled off from the rest of the country?
Talk about digging an ideological moat around oneself…
O.
“What was ms ions response?
An ill-formed attempt to use shaming language (read: classic ad hominem) to derogate me”
OK. So I take it from your passive aggressive jabs that this bothered you, and I am honestly surprised you’ve devoted so much attention to it. Especially since you were quick to assume commenters here (including myself) were unattractive, not to mention about 6 comments from others above devoted to whether or not women should get boob jobs. So what I said can’t be THAT out of line.
Sigh. I never doubted you couldn’t get women, I always expected you had your share of all the women a man could want, and this painted some of your entitlement and vitriol directed to the middle class women who may have rejected you. I honestly wasn’t surprised that you only date women with higher education than you have either.
I rated your attractiveness, not your SMV. I attributed your SMV to the “tingles” black men get by merit of being associated with masculinity, because they are black. Isn’t it only fair to rate your actual attractiveness ASIDE from the masculinity buffer?
But being middle aged, stocky,not being conventionally handsome, being under 5’9, being unwilling to marry, lower/working class and only willing to date women more accomplished than yourself, an asian or white male would get a 3-5 rating. Why do you think yours is higher, if not for this grading curve for black men?
Likewise “game” won’t allow a middle aged stocky man of another race to get marriage proposals from the most attractive and accomplished women, no matter how “educated” he is on matters of philosophy, unless he is rich. You don’t think this speaks volumes about your privilege? It isn’t based on your accomplishments or how you look obviously.
If you are wondering why I can respond so quickly, it’s because this is the first thread I’ve ever commented on, and signed up for email alerts
. My phone alerts me everytime a comment is posted. Man, it sucks to be me right now.
“Ouch! Giiiirrrrrrrlllll you sure got that power punch, don’tcha?”
Nah, just an answer to the karma Obsidian put into the universe. LOLz
@ms courtley:
It would be a mistake to impute certain broadbased ideas to me personally, as do pride myself on my ability to discuss things while also leaving my personal position(s) at the door. If on the other hand you want to know what my take on any particular issue or meme in pertaining to the manosphere, i would be more than happy to do so.
Lets drill down a bit here:
WHO, specifically, are we talking about when we use terms like “manosphere” and “mainstream feminist blogs”? Because i can assure you that youre unlikely to find as evenhanded a “mainstream” manosphere as say, the good men project or glenn sacks’ blog, in comparison to whats in the femosphere; moreover, history records a kind of radical feminism that would make even the more extreme voices in the manosphere pale by comparison.
Further, i invite you to peruse my manosphere writings on the web. Ive been featured at both the spearhead and the good men project.
Additionally, the fact that some men are apparently good with the bait and switch many women engage in our time does not and cannot make it right. I think youre bright enough to see and know this.
Yes, i say that it is encumbant on men to force women to pick a side-which will it be? In the recent discussion on ethics in dating i made the case that not only do women lie more than do men, they arent held accountable for it. A number of ladies attempted to justify lying, and while i certainly could see where they were coming from in the end the justification for lying cannot undo the fact that it is indeed a lie-and if women deem it a matter of utmost importance that men not lie, they then must exemplify their commitment to principle by not lying themselves-no matter what the cost. It was a most lively discussion. I trust youre aware of it?
As for the notion that what goes on in black america is a separate country…surely you would agree with me that the last decade in particular has demonstrated, that what goes on in kabul or baghdad can and will have profound implications for us here at home, and this will be true whether you or i actually know anyone who is an afghan or an iraqi or not. Moreover, bringing it back to black america, we/it greatly informs the discussion on the wider question of changing sex/gender roles and expectations and yes, sexual politics. Indeed, and again, this entire discussion was just about that. The “mission creeping upwards” continues apace, with no end in sight. And which speaks to why mine is such an important voice in these matters.
Holla back
O.
Courtley, very well said.
@Ramble
I agree, my point was that the woman above will find no support from MRAs. She’s a lone wolf, so to speak. My own strategy is to make other women aware of how bad things have gotten for males, appealing to them as mothers and/or potential mothers-in-law. What I usually find is that women have not thought of it that way before – they have mostly bought into the “man up” argument. I’m working on one convert at a time.
“Simply put, the massive changes that women like you enjoy were brought about by a certain cohort of people who gave little if any thought as to how their ideas would play themselves out for others outside their cohort; indeed if anything, those “others” served as props and tools with which to further said groups ideological wars on what it saw as old stodgy, restrictive modes of living and being. And when it became clear that “liberation” didnt prove so liberating for certain others, these thought leaders then tucked tail and got outta dodge-only to ape the very kinds of stodgy, restrictive lifestyles they railed against. Murray, hymowitz and others have written extensively about all of this.
Moreover as the topic of this discussion clearly demonstrates, the problems of adjusting to “liberation” are no longer associated with the darker peoples of inner city urban cores; they are quickly becoming part of daily life in whitebread flyover country too. This mission creeping upwards and outwards is something that clearly and starkly challenges any notions you or anyone else has of “so far so good” on these and other fronts. The 500lb gorilla in the middle of the room has to be, how long can our republic gon on this way? And do those for whom such “liberation” has worked, really want to live in a society where they are figuratively and increasingly literally, walled off from the rest of the country?”
Whole lotta truth there. That certain cohort wouldn’t have had much success if the country itself weren’t feeling it ourselves, but I don’t think things have played out as well as we had intended, not to mention the unintended consequences.
As you note, its finally starting to bite the cohort itself in the ass, so I don’t share your pessimism about the possibility of change. As for the nature of that change, I was raised a feminist myself, so I anticipate extensive rearguard action.
The genie that’s out of the bottle now is the truth about the myth of female omnicompetence (the flaw is their humanity, not their gender). As usual, its not about what men think, but about what women think about themselves.
I have a teaching colleague – awesome woman, 50 with the energy of a 25-year-old, feminist to the bone (first-wave feminists are some of the best people you’ll meet) – teaches computer programming. Number of female students in her 5 classes last year: zero.
She’s dumbfounded.
Desiderius…”I have a teaching colleague – awesome woman, 50 with the energy of a 25-year-old, feminist to the bone (first-wave feminists are some of the best people you’ll meet) – teaches computer programming. Number of female students in her 5 classes last year: zero.
She’s dumbfounded.”
What is her analysis / what is your analysis of the reasons for this?
@Mike C
I believe you. Perhaps this is an example of women being more emotional. As you know from reading here, I get very distressed when there is a lot of conflict, and strongly dislike harsh language. It’s personally difficult for me to read, and I worry about my female readers.
I don’t think I can separate the intent of the writer from his analysis. If he has a “female unfriendly” position in the ‘sphere, which Badger has been cultivating for a while, then every single thing he writes is suspect, AFAIAC. It’s not ad hom, more like “consider the source.” It’s not the analysis that is necessarily tainted (though it may be), it’s the application of that analysis to the SMP. One key example is a recent post that declared all data and studies invalid as they relate to the SMP, nothing more than an attempt to discredit real, old-fashioned analysis. Meanwhile, he announces he’s been deeply analyzing the SMP and has concluded that men in FWB are in relationships in everything but name. WTF, that’s spurious and random. As someone who has been engaging in the analytical process for 30 years, it’s painful to observe.
I agree, my point was that the woman above will find no support from MRAs.
Is that the case for Christina Hoff Summers? I am genuinely asking, I do not keep up with these things.
What I usually find is that women have not thought of it that way before – they have mostly bought into the “man up” argument.
Yes, I agree, girls have bought into a very masculine argument. How feminine of them.
@Esau
I suspect you are right about this. But Millennials may do this for themselves. A large percentage prioritize family over career, perhaps a sort of backlash to the “you can have it all” gogo years. 91% of men and 94% of women in this generation say they want to have children, and they are under no illusions about how that works when both parents have full-time careers.
I don’t despise them, I feel great empathy for them. And it pains me to see them shooting themselves in the foot again and again in the SMP. I’ve shared here how guys write for step-by-step advice and I’m forever saying, “Don’t text! Don’t call! You’re smothering her! You’ve only known her a week, how can you say you are in love with her? Don’t tell her that! Why did you crawl to her and apologize for a fight that she initiated for no good reason?” etc. etc.
These guys need a course correction, a deprogramming. You know that is why I am a fan of Game. Personally, I believe the only Game worth learning is Inner Game, separated from the outcome of getting laid, but that’s heresy in these parts.
In any case, the essential point is that men will continue to strike out with women if they cannot find that in themselves which demands that the female qualify herself to earn respect and affection.
+1
I actually have been toying with a new definition of alpha. How about a more simplified one? An alpha is a man who has as much options (read: can get as laid as easily) as a typical woman can. Chew on that for a bit.
______________
Bingo!..Most alphas do not have to chase women, they normally make their intentions clear to him.
Ive seen laid back unassuming betas who were really good looking have that alpha effect on women from their looks alone. In real life they were betas, but in the SMP they were definately alpha.
CHS did address a conference aimed at establishing Male Studies departments in universities. One of the organizers told me she was “OK, not great.” This was someone very involved with A Voice for Men. I think most MRAs feel that women, even women sympathetic to the cause, don’t go far enough. That was definitely the case with me. I was pilloried for trying to hoodwink men into relationships, the “female form of promiscuity.”
MRAs remind me of the Shakers. They need to get out more.
I tried to make this point earlier. Handsome men are often betas, especially in this era of women preferring less masculinized faces. They do not struggle to have ONSs, they have a hard time sustaining attraction to get the LTR they often want. They could easily adopt a hedonistic nihilism but that is unthinkable.
Susan, honestly, you don’t find that a little ridiculous? The ONLY game worth learning? Really?
So, guys should not learn, via Game, how to properly escalate (which is more than simply Inner Game)?
Fuck, your example of how guys don’t know how to pass Shit Tests is more than simply Inner Game.
Inner Game is definitely a part of these things, but, come on.
Susan, I just did a very quick perusing of GlennSacks.com and I saw a bunch of very positive references to CHS. I understand that is not some great survey, but I think it is no worse than your anecdotal evidence.
Look, I am not arguing that there are not a ton of rabid idiots in the “Mens Movement”, but, I think that people like CHS would do just fine with the Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrells.
Courtley
“We’re not going back to a world where people (or at least women) don’t have sex before marriage. For a certain segment of the population, promiscuity will be a lifestyle choice that is certainly damaging, but for most people, it will be either a brief dalliance in college or not a choice they make at all, and healthy relationships are still very possible for most of these folks.”
_____________
I totally agree with this. Very well put. Most people will survive a promiscuous phase and do well in a relationship. Some however may not.
WOW Courtley I really like your ideas and opinions, a breath of fresh air here to be sure.
You said,”I think the sexual revolution was largely the result of urbanization and medical technology like The Pill as much as it was an intentional drive towards Free Loving. That intentionality is more the myth and lore of the 60s than what actually happened. ”
You are right the pill changed everything. It gave women options they never had before, sex without fear of pregnacy. Free love in the 60`s/70`s may have been a bit over exagerated, but it was such a radical change from the norm that its impact was not over exagerated. It was an awakening never seen before. That is why that period of “hippies” make history.(oh and trust me it wasnt all lore and myth, I was there.)
Courtley
Not that those things are irrelevant, of course, but I feel like when bothers a lot of these insecure kiddos is that the girl acts superior to them in one way and they feel like these women rub the ease with which THEY can get the casual sex these guys crave in their faces.
______________
That definately has an effect on some guys attitudes. great observation.
Mike C:
I see no reason why this has to be true for the simple reason that people CAN and DO compartmentalize their lives. Public life is public life and personal/home life is personal/home life. There is nothing that says the exact same intergender dynamics have to exist in both realms.
PVW: EXACTLY!!!!! THANKS FOR SAYING THIS!
Mike C: I am perfectly capable of going to my white collar office and work with female analysts in a 100% equalist fashion, and then come home and have more of the Captain-First Officer dynamic in my relationship/home life. There is nothing that prevents a woman from going to work and being the hard-charging, assertive, aggressive, take charge professional and then coming home to her husband/boyfriend and switching hats and being more feminine and him being the assertive, take charge role.
PVW: I notice the same thing among numbers of my peers who work in more traditional male-dominant fields, ie., my colleagues who teach in professional schools (law and business) and who work as magistrate judges and litigators. They turn off all that stuff when they go home and are quite “feminine” in dealing with their husbands. For example, my flexible teaching schedule allows me to live the lifestyle of a stay-at-home mom who works part time. This allows me to do all the cooking, and other household management, which Mr. PVW enjoys.
Mike C: A blogger today was writing about his wife who is a medical professional basically handing him the keys to her truck to drive when they first started dating. For a long time, I was driving a deathtrap that my fiancee hated being in, so we took her car, and she drove. When I bought my new car this past December, I was struck when she told me sitting in the passenger seat that “she felt like the girl” with me finally driving on outings. I doubt that means she wants to give up her job and income earning power.
PVW: I rarely, if ever, drive, and this dates back years ago to when Mr. PVW and I were dating. If we had to take my car, I gave him the keys. He always paid for our dates back then, and even now, when we are both working.
Susan – “Whoa! When’s the wedding day?”
This Saturday August 4th at 8:30pm PST. So 11:30PM for all of you stuck on the east coast. It is late because we are doing it outside, and I wasn’t about to roast in the mid-day sun…
Courtley – “The world is not ending here. People are still making families and actually, our divorce rate has dropped as people have worked out the kinks of the new equal male-female dynamic.”
Sure, they just stopped getting married and simply live together. Is that something you feel is a viable solution? To never really, fully commit?
“Yeah, in a weird way controlling/domineering men come across as very weak and insecure in their own masculinity and MANY women pick up on this right away.”
Of course they do. That type of desire to control another person almost always comes from a place of weakness. I understand it, because to an extent I “feel” it all the time. You see, some part of my psyche is still afraid because of what happened to me and my marriage. One of the main reasons I tried so hard to work through all this was because I truly feared I would become one of those men if I didn’t. When I feel like I don’t have control of something, I tend to double-down on whatever jack booted method I can come up with to get control back, and no one wants a boot on their neck. When anyone tries that hard to control you in a relationship, realize it is because they fear that YOU are not as committed as they are, or that YOU have far more options than they do. That control comes from a scarcity mindset, and it will kill any chance of a healthy relationship with another human, be it a friendship or a romantic relationship. I had to make changes to ensure that I never feel like I’m without options again, because it is knowing I have those options that helps me let go of the reins and give my mate some room to be herself.
“You don’t have to like that, but I’ll continue to be confused as to why having a certain dynamic at home with the wife and a different one with female co-workers is such a buzzkill for some of you guys.”
I can answer for myself here. Because, I simply dislike treating people differently based on, well, anything. I VERY MUCH want to treat every single person I meet with the same set of rules, customs, social norms, and it really, really stresses me out to have to “think” about how I should treat someone based on where I am. I’m an introvert, and even though I completely understand social conventions, I truly find it difficult to “feel people out”. I also don’t ever consider other people’s feelings into my thinking, and it has caused me to hurt people without even considering that what I had to say MIGHT BE hurtful to hear. Frankly it pisses me off that most people are so damn sensitive, and it takes a good bit of effort on my part to be what most would consider “civil” in mixed company. I hate to pull punches, and I mostly like to tell it like it is without all the fluff and candy coating. Or as Obsidian likes to say, I like to keep it raw. Adding nuance and subtulty to communications just complicates things and confuses me, but most of the world seems more interested in making sure nobody’s feelings get hurt than actually getting to the truth and fixing things.
You are asking me to treat YOU like one ‘type’ of person in the office, and then telling me to treat my SO as another ‘type’ of person when I’m at home. How should I treat her when we are out in public together? As your type or her type? Is it a third type?! I can’t begin to explain to you just HOW MUCH anxiety this line of thinking is causing me right at this moment. I simply DO NOT want to put this much effort into being a ‘social creature’, and adding more to it isn’t going to help.
Sorry you see my lack of social graces as a ‘buzzkill’, but it is important to keep in mind that just because the vast majority of humanity is extroverted and loves playing social games, there are plenty of us that don’t, and to be frank we are the ones you DO NOT want to marginalize too much. I’ve said elsewhere on HUS that had my upbringing been a bad one (in terms of abuse and such) I could have been made into a very effective monster. My lack of empathy and disconnect from normal social interaction makes it easy for me to disassociate myself from people, and once that is accomplished it is a small step from there to actually bringing pain and suffering to people without conscience or remorse. I haven’t read up on the Dark Knight killer, but I am willing to bet that he is an introvert with sociopathic tendencies. (well I guess he proved that…) I’m not trying to be dramatic here or scare you unnecessarily, but I can understand how someone like that “snaps”.
The real problem here is: by asking me to treat you one way and my SO another, you are asking me to put my mind in this frame, and it is a dangerous path for me to take. I already tend to hold most people in contempt, and I do honestly believe that I am smarter than most people I see every day on the street. In many ways, it is my morality and ethical beliefs that keep me from inflicting harm on others, and asking people like me to “compartmentalize” is training them how to become effective killers in a way. Once I can completely turn off caring for others, what I do to them becomes irrelevant. Is this something we want to promote?
Mike C – “There is nothing that prevents a woman from going to work and being the hard-charging, assertive, aggressive, take charge professional and then coming home to her husband/boyfriend and switching hats and being more feminine and him being the assertive, take charge role.”
Well, the women themselves are stopping this. You see, I believe they got the message that women are equal in the workplace and are making great progress there. But somewhere along the way, the message became the same for relationships, and it simply doesn’t work most of the time. Many women seem to truly believe that allowing their husband to “lead” is forsaking her fore-sisters that fought so hard for her freedom. I personally have seen many wives that seem to almost take an adversarial stance with their husbands simply to keep the power in the relationship “equal”, which again just doesn’t seem to work.
If you can figure out how to convince women to bust balls in the office and take a back seat at home, you will be a VERY wealthy man.
“In summary, I think you can easily see more of a return to a more dominant, leadership role in romantic/sexual relationships with zero carryover or negative implications for women’s roles and opportunities in career and education.”
OH, and I forgot to add: you’ll also have to figure out how to teach men to become the “leader” again without turning them into bitter, woman hating MRA agents. I have to say, during my red pill conversion I went through at least two separate periods of feeling very resentful towards women in general, which I might add was very difficult being as I’m in a relationship AND raising two young girls. Of all the “self improvement” stuff I’ve gone through during my life, this was by far the most mentally exhausting and frustrating. I’m far from done, but I feel like I’ve finally made it over the peak and now I can keep momentum without so much effort.
Obs – “A huge problem with all this, with what youve said, is that women want it both ways, what kay hymowitiz called the bait and switch: they want the be the success on the job and at school, and want to be treated “like a girl” at home; they want all the bennies of 21st century life and all the romantic bennies of the jane austen period.”
Exactly. The question I have is: is there a corollary for men? Is there some way men can ‘be the man’ at home and still be PC in the office? Escoffier seems to believe it is possible, but I’m not so sure. Yes, many people can and do successfully compartmentalize their lives, and in doing so may hold the key to future happiness. But I for one find it difficult and massively energy intensive to “compartmentalize” my life, and in fact much of my early complaining regarding “game” within my relationship was that it made me feel like I had to continue compartmentalization (damn THAT is a rough word to type…) at home when I spend all day at work doing it. I can’t and won’t “live a lie” at home, so I had to find my way through the red pill without using that tool from the shed. (on a side note, your post on Soresu game REALLY has my interests piqued. I’d love to chat on that at length sometime in the not so distant future.) So I don’t know that playing a different part at work and at home will work for everyone. Surely for some it works splendidly, and I think I know a few folks that actually seem to enjoy playing a ‘role’ every day of their lives, but I for one find it nerve racking at best, and I’m sorry to say but if forced to do so constantly and for the rest of my life, I don’t know that my mental state would be stable until my last breath.
I tried to make this point earlier. Handsome men are often betas, especially in this era of women preferring less masculinized faces. They do not struggle to have ONSs, they have a hard time sustaining attraction to get the LTR they often want. They could easily adopt a hedonistic nihilism but that is unthinkable.
__________
I agree.. the ladies like them and have sex with them, but it is true, some of those guys get hurt because they dont understand how to keep a woman interested. It intial lust does eventually wear off…Most learn, eventually.
« 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 »
{ 1 trackback }