Women today don’t understand femininity very well. It’s a dirty secret from the patriarchal past, and it’s been mostly successfully scrubbed from our consciousness by gender-bending feminists. This loss is mourned by men, who desperately seek feminine women. At the same time, the denial of biological sex differences has affected them as well, as male behavior and nature is routinely shamed in our culture. The end result of this disastrous social experiment is a masculinized female population and a feminized male population. This is not conducive to happy mating.
Recently, reader Sai expressed her bafflement at what femininity is supposed to look like:
When I spent way too long Googling “how do girls act”/”what are girls like” I knew I had a problem.
I don’t want to completely morph into a touchy-feely mother to all living things. I’m honestly still not sure what I’ll gain from this -the visual component is seriously lacking, which is why I saw no point in being that sort of girl -or even where to start. But I am curious, and I often see gals who don’t like how the sexes currently interact being exhorted to act more girly.
Susan Brownmiller, in her 1984 book Femininity, described it as “whimsy, unpredicability, emotional patterns of thinking and behavior, including tearful expressions of sentiment and fear.” She noted that all of these behaviors lie “outside the established route to success.”
Laura Kipnis wrote in Slate that “Femininity is a system that tries to secure advantages for women, primarily by enhancing their sexual attractiveness to men. It also shores up masculinity through displays of feminine helplessness or deference. But femininity depends on a sense of female inadequacy to perpetuate itself.”
This is what the French call “la difference.” What’s important to note is that both sexes are happiest when women are feminine and men are masculine. Previously, I’ve attempted to describe femininity in all its aspects, but today I want to focus on just one part of it – perhaps the most important part. It has nothing to do with appearance, tone of voice, or mannerisms. We need to shift our way of thinking to acknowledge sex differences, and how the sexes, though different, can complement one another perfectly when we’re honest about the different wants and needs of men and women. In my opinion, this complementarity is a key part of successful relationships and, ultimately, marriage.
Principle #1
Women need men, and men need to be needed.
This is heresy to feminists. In that orthodoxy, the most shameful thing a woman can do is need or become dependent on a man. However, in the ancestral period women could not survive without men. Men provided food, shelter and protection, as well as strategic alliances and genes for offspring. Women were attracted to men who could provide these things, and sought qualities in mates that signaled the ability to accumulate resources and the temperament to share them.
Today, women don’t really need men to provide food and shelter. In large cities, 20-something women make 120% of what their male peers earn. This trend will continue as women represent 60% of college graduates in this country, even though many of those women will not enter high-paying professions.
We do still need men to protect us, however. Despite an increased number of females in the police force and military, there’s a reason why Navy SEALS are male, why men do most of the heavy lifting and building of construction projects, and why men perform the most dangerous jobs in our economy.
Taking it to the personal level, what woman does not love being enveloped by strong male arms in a protective embrace? I rely on my husband to be stoic, strong and efficient in all manner of mini domestic crises. When there’s a hurricane coming, a bat in the house, or strange sounds in the night, he embraces the risk. He mans the grill. He is a rock during the emotional upheavals that occur in all families. He provides for our family.
Not surprisingly, when he acts out his male role in this way, I feel attracted to him. I communicate appreciation, my comfort in depending on him, and express physical affection. Both parties are rewarded, both win. That can’t happen if I refuse to need a man, or refuse to accomodate his need to be needed.
Principle #2
Women want to nurture, and men want to be nurtured.
This too is heresy to feminists, as it supposes that women live to serve men. In fact, women serve male needs for nurturance in the same way that men serve female needs for provisioning. Men and women are happiest when we gladly give and receive what the other has to offer.
If men evolved to provide shelter and food, then women evolved to make that shelter and food experience as pleasing and comfortable as possible. (If you don’t want to cook for a man, you’re missing a great opportunity to nurture your partner and your relationship.) Of course, there are many other ways to do this as well. Caring about a man’s feelings, demonstrating loyalty, and expressing love and desire are all excellent ways to nurture a man.
Female nurturance does not preclude male nurturance, nor does needing a man mean he won’t need you back. Just the opposite is true. When we need and nurture our partners, we become stronger, and we invite them to need and nurture us back.
Long live sex differences.
Needing and nurturing, embraced by women, and freely welcomed by men. That’s one thing we can all do right now to improve our dysfunctional SMP.
{ 1115 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 »
“It’s also my call when I learn that they’re bored to tears by middle aged men complaining about their ex wives! ”
And you’re not getting paid for this?
You have the patience of a saint.
@deti
“You’re missing the point. The way most men in the ‘sphere see it, most women want a man for what he does; and what a man does means his occupation and the things he gives her. His status, his profession. It means his ability to provide babies, money, security and status. In other words, it is his outward actions which result in direct benefits TO HER. ”
I don’t think most men in the ‘sphere see it that way. In fact, a lot of them are frustrated that it isn’t that way, right? I mean, wouldn’t hard working, high IQ betas have it made in that scenario? Maybe I’m misunderstaning you, but a lot of the complaints see to about women (especially young women) throwing themselves at low-life douchebags rather than hard working engineering and pre-med students.
I guess, reframing your complaint, perhaps you are saying that that those same women later pair up with the betas solely for the financial benefits but never really feel for them and would dump them when the benefits cease. Yeah, ok, that’s been said about 1,000,000 times.
“I like to take road trips. I like to watch old movies. I have a dry, sarcastic, punny sense of humor. I like to get up early while everyone else is asleep so I can do things I like. I like to read books over and over again (I have a few favorites). I like to see American landmarks and vacation to them. I like to live a homebody type of life. ”
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens . . .
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens . . .
Brown paper packages tied up with strings . . .
@plain jane
“You say “women do this to men all the time – turnabout is fair play”. But this PARTICULAR woman has not done that to this PARTICULAR man. They don’t know each other from Adam. ”
His point was that your outrage would mean a little more if bothered you (or other women) when women give men nuclear rejections.
As to this particular rejection, it was awkward, but not hostile. He wasn’t saying she was gross or disgusting or even undesirable. Suppose some woman accepted a date with a guy and then later came up to him and said “Sorry, I didn’t realize you were a Republican. I don’t think it would be a good idea.” Would that be rude? Lame, maybe, but not really rude.
Finally, as to this PARTICULAR GIRL, the fact that she got knocked up by a douche bag means that she spent her younger years rejecting the bookish types (as this PARTICULAR GUY undoubtedly was in his youth) and giving the best of her sexuality to the douche bags. So, in a sense, yes, she did reject this guy previously when she was at her most desirable. Expecting him now to clean up her mess after doing so is asking a lot.
Also, before I go, just a few thoughts about my ex-wife.
Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah. Blah blah blah, divorce theft, blah blah, hypergamy, blah blah, slut, blah blah, frigid, blah blah, bitch, blah blah blah blah, more hypergamy, blahblahblah.
Susan: “Men doing men’s work is sexy. Men doing women’s work is not sexy. “
Very straightforward! When you put it this way, it’s hard to see why there should be any misunderstanding.
But, first, curious for your reaction to this, which does seem to reference a scientific study:
http://goodmenproject.com/noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz/men-who-do-chores-are-happier/
(NB: posting this link does not constitute endorsement of the sentiments therein, by this station or its management.)
Now, back to Susan’s statement. Unless one simply appeals purely to tradition — though you’d have to pick the era and locale — it’s not always easy to separate men’s work from women’s work with 100% accuracy. Men cook outside with primitive tools, women cook inside with modern appliances; men cut grasses short, women plant and trim flowers; men paint, women polish. Is there a real underlying principle that will always distinguish men’s from women’s work around a house? or is there a substantial component that’s just the custom of that time and place? In the latter case, it seems like the imperative would read “to be a man, and hence to be sexy, is to do what all the other men are doing” — not that this is necessarily a bad view (!), just pointing out that the definition of “men’s work” doesn’t always rest on an absolute, never-changing foundation (or, do you think it does?).
Meanwhile, what should we think about all those women — as reported in Lord only knows how many magazine pieces — who report that their number one complaint is that their spouse doesn’t do enough/his share of the housework? I really don’t think they’re all just sh*t-testing, that’s just my feeling. But, do you think the women who say that would actually be less happy, and admire their husbands less, if they got what they asked for? Don’t they really know their own minds? Or are they likely complaining about something else indirectly/in disguise?
There’s also a very practical question here, which I think would be enlightening even to the target audience to contemplate. If a man’s wife asks him, straight up and sincerely, “Ward, I appreciate that you’re off making a living for us, but the fact is that I could really use some more help around the house”, then what is the Emily Post-approved way for him to say “June, I’d love to help out more but I’m afraid that if I pick up that mop once a week then I’ll become less sexy in your sparkling eyes”? Instead of spending an hour doing the mopping himself, maybe should he work an extra hour overtime at the office and use the proceeds to hire a maid for an hour? I’m curious for the opinions of the ladies here, married or otherwise.
deti,
“We want to be wanted and liked and loved for WHO WE ARE”
And women want men who care about something other than their own wants.
Goes both ways.
“We are likely to see the world become more conservative (in an Asian sense) on matters of sexual relations (among other things)”
Then why is it that East Asians — the Chinese and Koreans in particular — have become less conservative on matters of sexual relations? The Japanese never really have been.
The arguments about the growing Chinese presence in the world overlooks several factors.
1. They have demographic problems too.
2. For everyone with an income of $25,000, someone else is living in a cave (literally)
3. They have many ethnic minorities inside the country that detest the Han majority and don’t want to be a part of China.
4. More important still, it can be argued that the country is in a pre-revolutionary state. The oligarchy is getting fabulously wealthy through its connections and stashing money overseas. Meanwhile, there were roughly 180,000 serious public disturbances nationwide last year. An average of 500 a day. One little-reported example is the people of a town who wanted to demonstrate against a new paper mill because of pollution concerns (the country is filthy with it). The city refused their demonstration application. They demonstrated anyway, overturning police cars, breaking into government offices, and stripping the mayor naked on a city street and forcing him to wear a demonstration shirt.
5. Don’t have time to look for the link, but here’s another point. There are three hundred million people in China whose lives are a relative mirror image of those in the US — rich, poor, and in between, professors and factory workers. The other one billion are peasants.
@ Sai
What why? What did India do to the US?
@deti
You wrote :
And then there is this :
And who wrote this you may ask ?
Roosh.
And then Heartiste said this :
Can you explain this ?
No.
Am I mocking you then ?
No.
Why not call a spade, a spade deti ?
And what is that spade deti ?
SNAFU.
Ultimately, there are no answers to this deti.
There’s only questions.
And maybe we’ll get an answer if the right questions are asked.
We never ask the right questions.
SNAFU.
@ Marellus
One could argue that religion in the West is merely returning to its roots. Western Civilization dates from roughly 500 AD (I know there are some who try to claim ancient Greece and Rome, but in reality it is not until the sack of Rome by barbarians that the embryo of the West is formed) so the West has existed for roughly 1500 years, but only in the last 800 years has it been able to effectively defend itself and only in the last 500 years has it been globally dominant; what happened, the answer is the Protestant Reformation. If you have ever read Machiavelli’s masterpiece “A History of Florence”, you can see that rather than the renaissance being a rebirth of culture, it was a time of cultural decadence that should have marked the end of Western civilization. Much like our own day, the renaissance was a time of loose morals (think indulgences), stagnate politics (think the Medici), institutional barriers to discovery (think Galileo) and capital consumption (renaissance era palaces and art are pretty, but they cost a lot to produced and did not generate profits). Enter John Calvin with his message of self-discipline, reason, and self-denial; how he got any converts, I don’t know, but it caught on like wildfire. It was the militant Calvinist who introduced the ideas of the godliness of work, equality of all men before the law, and the godliness of capital accumulation. They also brought reason to the forefront of men’s minds. It was John Calvin who said,” if a man should abandon evidence for the work of his own mind then he will inevitably abandoned God for an idol of his own imagination”; few in the West today see that you cannot have Enlightenment without first having a Reformation. Most importantly, the militant Calvinist threw the bums out; they dissolved the monasteries and ecclesiastical institutions. Prior to the Reformation, between 25% and55% of national income in Europe saw its way into the hand of professional beggars (the Church); they put end to that and put the capital and asset (as well as the people to work). Today , European nations spend roughly the same to slight more on modern beggars. Over the last 400 years and particularly over the last 150 there has been a major change of view among Westerners. Firstly, there has been a great secularization of the views of the major camps. Do you see any difference between “Social Justice” teaching and “Catholic Social Teaching” other than its rejection of hierarchy? What is the difference between Calvin’s doctrine of Election and Eugenics/ Genetic Determinisms, except one is spiritual and individual, while other is biological and collective? Both side’s doctrines are ridiculous and dangerous in there secular forms. Among professing Protestants the change has been even greater; when was the last time you heard them speak of election? It is all about “Free Grace”; no need to be disciplined and moral, just love Jesus and you are going to heaven; I often remark that there is not a single mainstream preacher in America today that would not have been hanged for heresy in the time of John Calvin. Calvinism produced in the West a middle class outlook which we could keep; it required too many sacrifices and too much work. So, we have returned to the Catholic idea the poverty is piety, but with the new idea that others pay the bills of the pious. We embrace the old idea the God loves the poor, with the new caveat, so should the rich with their money. We affirm the old feudal idea that everyman should be guaranteed proper status in society, but with the new idea they should not have to take orders from above as a part of that guarantee. Again we accept St. Teresa of Avila belief that “life on earth is like a night in a cheap motel”, but add that the state must make it a nice motel. So, we are just getting back to our root, but we should not expect to keep what was built up on completely different foundations.
@HerrKaiser
Mein Gott !!!!!!!
@ Ted D:
While I understand your concern for cleanliness, I think that you also do not know what you are talking about with respect to foreign medical facilities. Indian hospitals are kept just as sanitary as U.S. hospitals, if not more so. Furthermore, more and more people are traveling to India for life-saving surgeries that would otherwise bankrupt them in the U.S., receiving the same standard of medical care at a fraction of the cost.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2587670&page=1#.UFKl66RYswE
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-beauty/news/20061018/more-americans-seeking-surgery-abroad
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/dyer/dyer-resident-traveling-to-india-for-surgery-saved-money-relieved/article_d40e8fa0-6b57-5bed-8c22-9c33644ca4ab.html
This is completely OT, but I wanted to provide an update on my dog. He passed this morning naturally in his sleep. He was so loving and mischievous, but at 13 years he lived a full life. I will miss him greatly.
I’m saying no foreign medical facilities. I have no desire to catch some funky bacterial infection because of their bad cleaning habits.
I forgot to address this one. Ted you are drinking the Kool Aid in this coming from the third world I can tell you that you don’t have the best healthcare in fact you might be getting less for your money than I ever did back in the country and my friends pregnancies were tended a lot better than here with medical coverage I’m planning to get some procedures done when I’m visiting back home because the service was better, same quality, the doctors are not terrified of getting sued so they are more open and is a lot cheaper. Just do some research about “Health Tourism” before you refuse it completely, one never knows, YMMV.
@SayWhaat
Sorry to hear about your dog, my condolences.
“Interesting conversation was going on over at Herr-teest. Turns out a lot of guys who become kitchen bitches are OCD and they shack up with slob like women who contribute more to the mess than they can clean up, and then bitch about the men who pick up after them for not doing it right.”
Why would a slob complain about the cleaning not being done right? A true slob wouldn’t have sensory for that, wouldn’t even notice. Usually its the neat freaks and OCD cleaning fanatics who nag over that stuff.
Oh Say Whaat, I am so sorry. It’s tough to lose a dog, epecially one you’ve had since you were a kid. At least he went peacefully; that can be sort of a comfort. I hope this goes as easily for you as it can.
SayWhaat, “While I understand your concern for cleanliness, I think that you also do not know what you are talking about with respect to foreign medical facilities. Indian hospitals are kept just as sanitary as U.S. hospitals”
Ted D is probably envisioning the government and charity run hospitals. Don’t worry Ted D, you’d be going the state of the art rich people ones.
I know someone who had Lasik in Israel for a third of the cost she’d have paid locally. She and her husband had a wonderful vacation on top of it.
This debate is ridiculous.
Love is conditional. All of it. Even parent to child.
To suggest that male love is unconditional is both supplicating and pathetic.
‘I’ll love you forever and ever no matter what happens’ is a load of supplicating shit.
I have a list of dealbreakers ranging from “if you hit the kids even once we’re getting divorced, I’m taking you to court and I will crucify you” to “I don’t dig that piercing in your ear, don’t wear it please” (long story but ear piercings invoke an involuntary puking response in me).
The same could be said if she gained 100 pounds, sat on the couch and did sweet fuck all or any other number of things.
I would leave and I would not love her. All she has to do is not fuck it up and shes good.
However, these conditions for love are well defined and nearly unchanging.
If the argument was made that the conditionals women place on love are mysterious, foreign and hard to identify I would think this argument much better.
In general do to communication differences I think a lot of men are unaware of what the conditions are that will be considered unacceptable. This is probably what scares most dudes the most. ‘Not an OMG I could fuck up’ but ‘OMG how do I know if this is a fuck up?’
@Susan
You’ve claimed a few times that the only loves that are unconditional are god to people and parent to child. The god issue isn’t one I’ll concern myself with.
Simple question. If your son/daughter tried to kill you, murdered his/her children or was a psychopath that hurt others would you still love them?
PS I realize thats harsh and I want to say that I genuinely hope and expect that it never will occur. I merely want to point out the conditionality of parent to child love.
My intent is neither to offend or scare you, I’m sorry if that occured.
SayWhaat, I hear you. Passing in his sleep was a small blessing, but the sadness of the loss is still there.
Best wishes to you, and remember him fondly, and bring your love into another dogs life when you are ready.
@ Anacaona, SayWhaat
Definitely. Some of the third world countries have excellent heath systems (with India being one of the top), and health problems are more due to malnutrition, lack of access in rural areas, lack of money to pay for even cheap healthcare, etc., not due to bad hospitals.
“Women, it seems, can grow dissatisfied with a man and change their behavior (negatively) but they tend not to go him directly and say “Here’s what you’re doing wrong that is making me unhappy.”
In my case I didn’t articulate it because I didn’t know how to do so in a way that he would understand and not get angry. He took a lot of things the wrong way. Also, I didn’t want to seem to vulnerable or clingy. And also at the time he did or said those things I was often at a loss of what even to feel, what to speak of say. They put me in a temporary state of confusion, then I’d forget them, but then a few weeks or months later something would trigger the memory/feelings and I’d flip out.
I think people do a lot of stuffing down of emotions in relationships in order not to rock the boat or just to process them internally before laying it all out on the table. A lot gets stuffed then later triggers happen and the shit hits the fan.
We actually did a weekend motivational seminar retreat together where some good communication skills were taught and did ok for a few months after that.
Ted D is not harsh. He comes off as a big teddy bear to me. However he got it wrong that I think people are defined by their jobs. I’ve worked jobs that I did not identify with at all, HOWEVER they did not conflict with my ethics and values, they were just neutral. I actually turned job offers down because they conflicted with my values and looked for neutral ones.
@ SayWhaat
SayWhaat,
Talk about unconditional love! No doubt he appreciated the love you gave him in return.
I’d echo JutR’s sentiments.
Maybe some day I’ll have the opportunity to engage in the beautiful give and take that Susan has described in her post.
In the mean time I’ll keep attempting to push my boobs out, bruise my toes in high heels, and increasingly soften up my career title (teacher w/ HS diploma instead of professor w/ PhD) to be given a chance. It has been working a little bit. I need to make the workplace story more plausible.
HERR KAISER,
“what is clear is that the genesis of Western decline is to be found in its own values and ideologies”
> Bingo! I made this argument over at the other thread, but it goes deeper and has many layers and can be traced back hundreds of years. I do disagree though that we will return to Patriarchy. Our future will not be Patriarchal nor Matriarchal but something better than either. Unlike many I see a lot of positive transformation taking place and think our future is bright. And it does have to do with Asian influence, but not in an economic sense.
SUSAN,
You mentioned how the show Sopranos does a great job of portraying a ruthless killer in an empathetic light. Do you think its a form of brainwashing to get us accustomed to accepting that type of behaviour? Since the topic veers toward DIVORCE my parents said that decades ago TV shows and movies started to portray divorcing parents explaining to their children that “sometimes people fall out of love, and that is what happened to mommy and daddy, though that doesn’t mean we don’t care for each other anymore”.
And we are decades later and that is the most common trope that is dished out about divorce. Coincidence?
SAY WHAAT,
“Ugh. Sorry that happened to you. And if she was able to be guilt-tripped into being in a relationship, well, that makes me worry about her, too.”
> Well, she seems to be happy. He got her pregnant on purpose so she would feel obliged to marry him, which she did. It was evident (from Facebook) that in the beginning she wasn’t as into him as he was her, but he eventually grew on her, and in her belly, and she’s madly in love with him now).
M3,
“Wife doesn’t bother dressing up in heels and makeup everyday”
> Heels? When at home? Don’t most people go barefoot inside their home? I’ve heard of house slippers but never house heels.
Passer_By (604),
LOL! There’s also the cock-carousel, the 20%, and the “what is an alpha?” discussion.
Royale,
I don’t think you need to lie about your PhD. There are tons of guys who like smart girls. It’s only a problem if you beat people over the head with it. Adopting a more feminine style is probably all you really need in order to “soften” your image.
I think Escoffier dumped his Grace Kelly lookalike girlfriend because she was too dumb, and Zach also dumped his last girlfriend because she lacked “intellectual curiosity”. There’s a demand for smart girls. It’s the snootiness that many smart girls have, rather than the intelligence itself, that often turns guys off.
That’s a given. But, again, to declare a whole set of issues off-limits because they’re examined by a bunch of bloggers you decided to start a silly online feud with, is intellectually dishonest and stifles debate.
@INTJ
Oh! No, not India, India lives long and prospers while AFGHANISTAN becomes the smoking crater next to Pakistan. I still remember the hotel attack, and wonder if India’s secret service is working right now on an epic plot to crush some terrorists.
@HerrKaiser
Calvin always deserves respect, but wasn’t part of his doctrine predestination? Maybe people today think God’s already chosen the number, so if they’re not going to make it anyway they may as well try to have some fun.
(and it has been a LONG time since I read or discussed anything about Calvin, so I could be horribly wrong, and if I am I apologize in advance and ask to be corrected)
@SayWhaat
13 years must have been pretty good times… it’s good to know the transition was peaceful.
One’s ability to overcome personal loss is largely dependent on the future perspectives one sees. So yes, the political, cultural and economic environment matters a lot.
Yup. That explains why women throw themselves all the time at selfless men who view their own needs and desires as of secondary importance.
Oh wait…
@Marellus
Thanks for looping back to the topic
I find that example of kubbutzim so interesting – it was only recently that I learned that today the remaining ones are little more than tourist destinations.
@Passer By
LMAO!
I couldn’t help but pick out the word frigid…
I would not expect a man to continue loving a woman who was frigid or refused sex. If “making love” is off the table voluntarily, I don’t think love can survive.
@SayWhaat
I’m so sorry your doggie died. Thank heaven you were able to spend time with him at the end. His passing in his sleep is so far preferable to putting him down that I’m glad it happened that way.
xoxo
Wasn’t there a study that showed a huge number of hospital infections in the US occur because doctors (including surgeons!) don’t wash their hands?
@Lokland
No worries, I’m not offended or scared, although it is a horrific thing to think about.
I’ve actually thought about this a lot, because I’ve been aware in cases of serial killers and other psychopaths that their mothers stood by them. I don’t really understand it in one way, but at another level I do.
I think I would separate completely from my child if they did such things. But the love in my heart would not die – there would always be grief. Perhaps because I made that child – I would feel culpable for the outcome. I can imagine committing suicide to stop these feelings, but I can not imagine the love ever dying.
I believe that this is the nature of the bond between parent and child (it does not necessarily work the same way for children). It doesn’t always function – there are plenty of parents who harm their own children. But this is my experience.
The love I have for my husband is of a very different sort, and it would not survive his being a monster.
@Plain Jane
I wouldn’t use the word brainwashing, because it ascribes motives that I don’t think are there. I don’t believe there is a conspiracy. However, I do think that this kind of moral equivalency does alter the way people think. It reduces shame for the most horrific behaviors. So yes, we are being manipulated by the storyteller, and this probably changes us a little bit, even temporarily.
Sex and the City was also tremendously influential with young women, and not in a good way.
Popular culture is very powerful.
Ugh, I’d love to ignore this, but will respond to clarify to anyone reading here.
First, it’s not the issue that is off limits. I am happy to discuss the different ways that men and women love each other, what each sex wants from the other, how we’re wired differently, etc. I am not happy to discuss how Rollo thinks that women are incapable of loving as completely as men are. See the difference? I don’t care to provide a forum for Rollo’s sociopathy (and this is not hyperbole).
Second, I did not start any online feuds. Dalrockgate began when one of his Flying Monkeys (was it you?) reported a comment from me to Doug1 in the middle of a very long comment thread. Dalrock wrote a snide and nasty post without asking me what I meant – he was clearly spoiling for a fight. (And he couldn’t even demonstrate the frivolous divorce is not overblown in the manosphere.
“It is a tale told by an idiot, all noise and fury, signifying nothing.”
Rollo too has been a brute. I am not interested in feuding, or in having any contact whatsoever!
I WANT A OLLOLOLOR AND LACKROD FREE LIFE!
Is that so much to ask? Just leave me alone and let me do my own thing!
This all happened because HUS got cited in the Atlantic article for an idea (the apex fallacy) that originated in the manosphere. That produced massive envy and resentment. Too bad.
No. Rightful opposition was generated because you gave further media exposure to a feminist who’s doing everything in her power to perpetuate the dysfunctional current SMP and glorify childless spinsterhood. Plus you called her “gorgeous”, even though the magazine cover proved that she obviously isn’t, thus showing that you consider yourself justified in deciding what men find attractive.
grerp.blogspot.hu/2011/10/piece-of-advice-97-look-farther-into.html
It’s impossible to do that without discussing certain aspects of those differences that cut too close to the bone for many young women, or for young men for that matter (the latter is often palpable on Rollo’s blog). You know that. It doesn’t matter one bit whether these differences are presented by Rollo or not. They could be presented by the cutest betaboy dressed as a bunny, in the most diplomatic and inoffensive ways possible, and they would still cut too close to the bone.
Oh yes you did.
hookingupsmart.com/2009/10/02/hookinguprealities/stop-putting-out-for-alpha-asshats/
If this doesn’t constitute spoiling for a fight, I don’t know what does.
Susan…”Wasn’t there a study that showed a huge number of hospital infections in the US occur because doctors (including surgeons!) don’t wash their hands?”
Yes. See Mark Graban on “National patient safety awareness week”
http://www.leanblog.org/2012/03/thoughts-on-national-patient-safety-awareness-week/
@Hollenhund
Very interesting response.
I like Kate Bolick. I think she’s taking responsibility for her own life, including past mistakes, and doing some intelligent planning for the second half of it. There are going to be more Kate Bolicks in this generation. The sex ratio is too lopsided for assortative mating. Women are going to need alternatives to marriage, and Kate Bolick is at the forefront of that trend. When I met her she felt it was anything but glorious, but a book deal and TV show later, I imagine she feels differently. Good for her. Smart woman.
I find her gorgeous. I’m allowed to have my own standards for beauty, and by the way, women are not exactly shielded from understanding what men find attractive. I don’t tell men what to find attractive, but I understand reality. For the record, several males left comments saying they would hit it early and often, and no fewer than three male readers wrote to me to request an introduction to her.
I have no problem with difficult truths. I have a problem with difficult lies.
I stand by every aspect of that post. Women should indeed stop putting out for alpha asshats. Furthermore, I did not even know a manosphere existed then. My post was about Tucker Max. Roissy just happened to be another blogger who’d also written about him. In any case, no apologies.
Is he worthy of unconditional love?
Boston Children’s Hospital doctor accused of buying child porn
@Passer By
Thank you for summing up why I don’t date single mothers: if I wasn’t good enough to have fun how am I good enough to take the responsibility for said fun.
Doesn’t this kind of go against the whole idea of women needing men? Bolick promotes gender apartheid and the notion that men are completely optional. Plus she consciosusly ignores the fact that the lopsided sex ratio you referred to is the consequence of long-term and deliberate feminist policies.
The mainstream media is dominated by feminists, and people who support them, and suck up to them, or avoid angering them. Yet Bolick is getting her own TV show and a book deal. Doesn’t that ring any bells?
It’s not possible to promote debate when you declare in advance certain ideas to be lies that shall not be named.
“There are going to be more Kate Bolicks in this generation”
Who won’t even replace themselves via a child thus, per proper natural selection, dying off without another to a carry forward their views, diatribes and propaganda.
@Sai
Ah, but the way to learn you’re predestined is to work in this life and see the outcome. The Lord will reward the elect for their work (and perhaps has only selected those who will work). The Protestant Work Ethic sees earthly reward for work as proof of selection.
Susan.
As far as I recall, this happened in the 1960′s or early 70′s. I’ve tried finding a good link, but that proved difficult.
And yes, I am derailing your thread, but in doing so I also elicited comments from Herb and HerrKaiser that were damn interesting. I neither read nor took their comments seriously.
And I suspect that some other commenters can say the same.
If I can get a top-down perspective of the SMP via such methods, I will do so. No matter how OT it might appear. It’s about the big picture.
What is happening now on HUS is a bottom-up view of the SMP via the comments. The women are driving it. And I’ll admit that the women are the masters at this approach.
They have an uncanny ability to describe personal scenarios that seems to be at odds with the big picture, and when the men try to rationalize it, the women become indignant.
Then it’s the men that must resort to mudslinging to gain an advantage, and then the women start (rightfully) complaining about dirty laundry.
And the men must then sling mud yet again.
On and on. I swear you can set your watch by who is getting offended at who.
There is no victory in such a case. None.
It’s tiring.
@Herb
It’s the age old question isn’t it ?
How do you organize a mass of people into doing something, that they will not like to do ?
And history have shown four methods by which this done.
1) Slavery.
2) Religion.
3) Legislation.
4) Money.
And sometimes it’s a mix and match of the four.
What is happening now then ?
It really does seem as if the men are headed for a kind of slavery, via religion, legislation, and money … no matter how justified the women are in supporting this.
So what will happen then ?
It’s already happening now isn’t it ? MGTOW, foreign brides, and later I suspect, a mass emigration of unmarried men to greener pastures.
You know, sometimes I’m on the fence about whether certain commenters have a point, or whether they are off in Cloudcookooland, and then I read things like “Bolick promotes gender apartheid” and everything gets cleared up.
Emily:
No, the Grace Kelly girl was my graduate school GF, I didn’t break up with her because she was dumb (she was very smart) but because she was crazy. And, actually, that’s not fair, she wasn’t crazy, but we were crazy together, it was a bad dynamic.
I broke up with my college GF because she was too dumb. She looked more like Sara Rue.
This reminded me of a comment from another blog on what (many) inner city teachers are taught in some Ed Classes.
From a teacher:
If there is a norm in society, you must subvert it. If you don’t get that, then you don’t get it.
Re: parents and unconditional love.
So, one of my grad school professors had a really babelicious daughter who was a STEM genius and worked in some kind of infectious disease lab. She married a dude and two months later he was dead.
Turns out she was having an affair with her boss and the medical examiners found some rare poison in hubby’s body that, funny thing, happened to be one of the ones she worked with in her lab. She went on trial and was eventually convicted.
Her parents maintain her innocence to this day and they paid for her (very expensive) legal defense. Nobody else in their circle believes she was innocent, of course, the evidence was pretty damning but the prof is a good guy so we just sort of nodded and patted him on the back. What can you do?
Women do need men, but if there aren’t enough* men to marry, some will have no choice but to go it alone.
*Enough to qualify for assortative mating.
No she doesn’t, that’s how she begins the article. I perceived the article as mildly anti-feminist, and feminists initially viewed it the same way. At some point they took over the narrative, just as they did with Lena Dunham’s Girls. Now they are using Rosin’s book to promote the idea that women prefer hookup culture, which is demonstrably false, even in Rosin’s book.
The fact that Kate Bolick has become famous and profited as a result does not make her evil, or even a feminist.
Let me be very clear on this. I have stated this many times, but will again now.
I believe in gender equity.
No apologies. I reject any notion either sex is superior to the other. I acknowledge sex differences, and I believe in a meritocracy.
This is at the core of who I am. I will not debate that, it’s a given here. I reject female supremacy as preached by feminists, and I reject male supremacy as preached by numerous ‘spherians, including you.
If you don’t like it, go away. Those are the terms.
You obviously didn’t bother to read Bolick’s article. She basically promotes all-female matriarchal communities where children are communally raised without men’s involvement. And yes, gender apartheid is a very real concept popular among many women, no matter what you think about it. There are many women promoting the creation of women-only places and communities.
@Marellus
Like I said, when I’m dead I’ll have myself burned in international waters with my houseboat and all my assets in cash save the money to pay the lawyer and tug crew whose job it is to see it done.
I wasn’t good enough to pass on then what I made isn’t good enough either.
I did read the article, and I’m way more negative about Bollick than Susan is. Maybe it’s because I’m from Northern California, but I thought her wistful descriptions of female communes was just funny, not disturbing. It’s never going to happen, and even if it did, what she describes would be voluntary and hence cannot be apartheid.
“Right there. Not cool. Not respectful. I am not dodging the point. I am happy to assume I have communicated poorly if you aren’t getting me, but I will bow out of the debate if you question my integrity.
I don’t know if that’s just the way guys debate, but it’s not my style.”
Given all the crap in the rest of the thread and the general abuse that’s been thrown your way (you have the patience of Job to hang in there), I don’t blame you at all for this response, but in this particular case I have to disagree.
It’s not how guys debate, there are plenty of great women who do it that way too. I dodge points. It’s ok, I’m human. I appreciate being called out for it even if I wasn’t actually dodging the point in that case as the willingness to take and offer criticism in good faith is critical to keeping me honest.
Deti’s argument was not circular, he identified an actual problem at 492 and offered a great follow-up at 503. It wasn’t a case of him not getting you, but of you not getting him at that point in the conversation. It has nothing to do with your integrity, especially since you came back a few comments later and actually engaged his point, and well (the I signed up for tits story).
@Höllenhund
I wouldn’t say “without men’s involvement” but “without men’s direct involvement”.
I’m sure Bollick supports making men pay for the kids they created…after all, men knew when they had sex they were risking 18+ years of being shaken down. We’re not like women who need abortion because they don’t know sex makes babies (you’d think their mothers would warn them or something).
@Marellus
Then the question is: Are the women lying or might we have the big picture wrong?
I have provided several posts, exhaustively researched and analyzed, that prove the big picture in the manosphere is wrong.
The 80/20 apex fallacy is bunk.
The “all women are sluts” is bunk.
All women want alpha? Bunk.
Premarital sex destroys marital bonding? Bunk.
I could literally go on and list another hundred items. If men want to fool themselves and follow advice that amounts to a massive DLV (yes, you heard that right), that’s no concern of mine. But I won’t allow the spreading of that misinformation here.
Hooking Up Smart: Where Dirty Lies Perish
Plain Jane – “Ted D is probably envisioning the government and charity run hospitals. Don’t worry Ted D, you’d be going the state of the art rich people ones.”
Yeah, that is a great point. My concern is that India is one of the countries that seems to have problems with some very aggressive and hard to kill bugs. I didn’t mean it as a dig on any particular country, but I’ve read enough about such bugs to be very concerned. But, money does buy a much better kind of care, and I imagine “a lot of money” has a totally different meaning in terms of actual cost in India as compared to the U.S. Regardless, I won’t be going anywhere outside the U.S. for anything elective. If it is life or death, sure. But it just isn’t worth it for a sterilization process, even if that process is technically better than what we have here. Remember, I am a “security” type of person, and just travelling outside the U.S. would cause me some anxiety. Going outside the U.S. for a medical procedure might require a LOT of sedation for me to tolerate it.
Lokland – “I would leave and I would not love her. All she has to do is not fuck it up and shes good.
However, these conditions for love are well defined and nearly unchanging.
If the argument was made that the conditionals women place on love are mysterious, foreign and hard to identify I would think this argument much better.”
OK, that actually makes perfect sense to me:
The conditionals women place on love are mysterious, foreign and hard to identify.
“To suggest that male love is unconditional is both supplicating and pathetic.”
OK, then for the most part *my* personal love is unconditional. Or, it USED to be unconditional. I am now doing my best to work on “loving” by your model: set conditions and expect them to be met. It isn’t how I grew up thinking love should be, but I grew up with a lot of bad ideas.
Plain Jane – “Ted D is not harsh. He comes off as a big teddy bear to me. “
I must be doing something wrong. I got Hollenhund calling me a beta, Susan saying I’m a good guy (in the classic sense. No offense taken). And now you calling me a teddy bear. Now, I’ve been called that by women before, but I was sleeping with most of them. Oh well, like I said, at least I’m not coming across as the asshole I feel like much of the time.
Susan – “I would not expect a man to continue loving a woman who was frigid or refused sex. If “making love” is off the table voluntarily, I don’t think love can survive.”
With all due respect, you’re kidding, right? I stayed with my ex for YEARS with little to no sex life. Yes, I still “loved” her, I just didn’t like her a whole lot.
“I think I would separate completely from my child if they did such things. But the love in my heart would not die – there would always be grief. “
And this is exactly how I still feel about my ex-wife to an extent. Perhaps I’m just a total dumb ass when it comes to loving. I simply don’t understand how anyone can simply “disconnect” from someone they truly loved. Cutting a person I love out of my life is a VERY difficult process for me. I’ve never managed it other than simply drifting apart from people. In fact, I couldn’t even cut my first LTR mate out of my life completely when she cheated on me. Yes, I broke up with her. But, the truth is we stayed in touch on and off for two years after, until she met and married a guy that didn’t like our continued relationship. (even though it was NOT a sexual relationship in the least) Again, I am just wired differently I guess.
“Dalrock wrote a snide and nasty post without asking me what I meant”
This might be a better avenue to take (asking her what she means) than direct calling out.
@Susan.
It’s comments like these that make me wanna don some copper armour; paint your name right on my heart; drink some whiskey; and then waltz up a hill in the midst of a thunderstorm … and shout that all the gods are bastards.
“Ah, but the way to learn you’re predestined is to work in this life and see the outcome. The Lord will reward the elect for their work (and perhaps has only selected those who will work). The Protestant Work Ethic sees earthly reward for work as proof of selection.”
Predestination follows directly from a strong belief in the Sovereignty of God. That doctrine has traditionally been a powerful help in bucking up the the powerless when times were tough (the Exodus/Exile/Roman Persecution/Reformation/Civil Rights Movement). During good times, its obviously less helpful in various ways and tends to fall out of favor for good reasons.
@Emily/Royale,
“I don’t think you need to lie about your PhD. There are tons of guys who like smart girls. It’s only a problem if you beat people over the head with it. Adopting a more feminine style is probably all you really need in order to “soften” your image.”
“I think Escoffier dumped his Grace Kelly lookalike girlfriend because she was too dumb, and Zach also dumped his last girlfriend because she lacked “intellectual curiosity”. There’s a demand for smart girls. It’s the snootiness that many smart girls have, rather than the intelligence itself, that often turns guys off.”
I’d co-sign this. I love smart women. But I can’t stand women who constantly feel the need to point out how smart they are. It’s obnoxious and makes me lose respect for whatever accomplishments they may have. The way I see it, if you’re truly good at something, then you don’t need to go around telling people about it. If I strike up a conversation with an intelligent girl, I’m gonna’ be 100x more impressed if she allows it to come across gradually and naturally than if she keeps trying to find ways to interject it. Or even worse, turns it into a pissing contest. HUGE turn off…
@Susan,
Regarding the list of eight or so warning signs that your SO is unhappy, what would be the proper response for a guy in that situation, in your opinion? Obviously your point was that he shouldn’t ignore them. But game tells me I shouldn’t be supplicating or too eager to accept blame. And chances are (as you seem to imply) if I ask her straight out, she probably won’t even be able to articulate what’s bothering her. So what does that leave? Tell her to “man up” and quit crying? Automatically assume I must be acting too beta and switch over to jerk mode? Something tells me that’s not the right answer, either. I’m honestly curious. Seems to me that once she gets to that point, it’s almost a no-win situation for the guy if he doesn’t already know what’s causing the behavior.
@Ana/anybody else,
Could someone please tell me what the hell YMMV means? I’m not much of a computer guy, and I’ve probably spent hours (or at least more minutes than I’d care to) trying to decipher the dozens of acronyms the posters here on HUS (acronym) seem so fond of. (Seriously, after writing a half dozen paragraphs, how hard is it to spell out “For what it’s worth…”?) But I have to admit, this one has me baffled. Someone enlighten me. Please. I’m begging you. It’s driving me crazy. I can’t sleep at night. I toss and turn. “What does it MEAN? What the hell does it MEAN?” repeating over and over in my head…
@Ted D
One thing is clear from this thread. Everyone loves in their own way. Like everything else, there’s genetics and environment, including upbringing. As with other traits and characteristics, I suspect there are much greater intrasexual differences than the difference between men and women overall.
Also, as usual, we’re arguing about semantics and definition.
One person says unconditional love is staying with your wife if she gains 50 lbs. Another one says it’s staying with someone if they murder your child.
One person says a man who aspires to be a Couch Potato is useless to women and it’s mercenary greed that keeps women from giving that man the love he deserves. Another says no, I don’t want a lazy mofo.
Lots of talking, minimal understanding, I’m afraid.
Royale W. Cheese,
Yes and Ph.D. can be quite the yoke around the neck both professionally and romantically, wholly overqualified. I have a friend and occasional wingman who has a M.A.Sc. in aerospace engineering, but he can get away with just saying “I’m an engineer” and equivocating on what he actually does. “I’m a physicist,” is just way too alien and hard to relate to, but if I’m vague that just leads to more questions, so ick. Generally I go for a perfunctory explanation and then try to change the topic, but all too often they turn it back and the conversation withers. The trick is to get across that I have a career but I’m defined by my hobbies, but I haven’t figured out how to convey that yet.
I wouldn’t necessarily wear high-heels though if you’re already too intimidating to men. Subtracting height by wearing ballet slippers might be a better plan. I definitely feel more dominate and in control around women 6″ shorter than me than women 2″ shorter than me.
That’s beside the point. The point is that Bolick clearly considers men optional – unless we’re talking about mandatory child support payments, as Herb rightfully pointed out.
Ms. Walsh gave her exposure, invited her to her house and is now defending her right here…where she’s just declared that men are necessary and needed.
Wtf? What gives?
@RAmble
OMG, I wish I could hit the eject button on the teacher’s union.
I saw an article in Salon claiming Breaking Bad is a white supremacist show.
@Escoffier
How heartbreaking for the parents, that’s terrible.
Why did she marry the guy? Was it for his assets? How could she think she’d get away with that?
Travis…”I love smart women. But I can’t stand women who constantly feel the need to point out how smart they are.”
It’s not just women, our society is plagued by large numbers of people who insist on advertising their (claimed) smartness. There is actually a car called a “smart car,” obviously being marketed to such people (almost total absence of crush space doesn’t seem too smart to me, though.) There is an atheist movement which advocates atheists rebranding themselves as “Smarts.” (Good move if you want to recruit the maximum number of jackasses.) The 2008 Obama campaign frequently used the term, as in “smart power,” “smart diplomacy,” etc.
She doesn’t promote it, she visits and reports on it. She is a journalist. She does the same with the women in PA and the women at my house. You’re demonizing her, it’s stupid.
@Desiderius
You’re right. I have become sensitive to questions raised about my honesty, e.g. moving the goalposts, using different and opposing arguments when convenient, etc. Those may be debating tactics, but they’re shady. We all make mistakes, and we all have difficulty expressing ourselves clearly sometimes. I don’t mind people getting exasperated with me, but I do mind suggestions that I am using dishonest tactics.
I misunderstood deti’s intent, and all I can say in my defense is that this time I at least asked for clarification. I’m learning.
Re parents and unconditional love,
My eldest brother used to sexually abuse me, he is also an ex drug addict who has never worked, my mum still loves him, I don’t think she can help it to be honest
@Travis
That’s a good question. I know of two very effective approaches. I’ve shared my own story before, but in case you missed it, I was generally being a brat and avoiding sex, and my husband confronted me, and basically said that he had no wish to be in a sexless marriage. So that was basically an ultimatum. On the bratty behavior, I explained how frustrated I was by his long workday, how stressed out he was when he was at home, and how unhappy he was in his own demeanor. He really heard that, which is what led to his changing jobs.
The other example is Deti’s. His wife disrespected him in public and he came home and challenged her outright. That led to him laying down the law in a number of ways, all of which I have always supported, despite my going round and round with Deti on this thread.
I don’t know if you would call this Game, or manning up, or what, but I think it is really just men demanding respect, while demonstrating they respect themselves.
Most of those things constitute bad female behavior. Some like crying, might not, but if you ask what’s going on and she says “nothing” that is bad behavior.
Female bad behavior must be called out by men. Don’t take any crap. If there’s a real problem, discuss it. My husband laid down the law but he also listened to what I had to say. That was truly a turning point. I would never have left, but my kids were little and I remember wondering how on earth I could live like that for a lifetime.
@Hollenhund
Can you please cite the quote where Kate Bolick addresses child support payments? I don’t recall her wading in on that issue.
@unigirl
Oh, I’m so sorry, that’s terrible. A good friend of mine had sex with her three teenage brothers from the ages of 10-13. They have been estranged since she left home at 18, but she has struggled with the aftereffects all her life.
So basically this entire phenomenon can be summed up thus: women demanded social reforms so that no woman will have to depend on a man. Now we’re seeing the long-term consequence i.e. the lopsided sex ratio and whatnot. Some women welcome this and declare that men aren’t necessary anymore. Other women say that men are needed, or should be needed, but given the long-term consequences I mentioned, many of them aren’t in a position to be needed – male underachievement, “Guyland” and whatnot -, so they are, in fact, not needed.
Did I get that right?
Isn’t that scenario too complex? Bolick must have known very well that an actually anti-feminist column won’t get her a TV show, a book deal and a magazine cover. It’s much more likely that feminists simply co-opted her from the beginning.
Rosin’s latest column in The Atlantic celebrates the hookup culture on the grounds that it’s driven by independent, empowered single womyn who don’t want to return to more strict and regulated sexual norms. She’s openly, fully siding with the feminists.
But this has nothing to do with male superiority or female superiority. The question is whether certain issues can be openly debated or not. If yes, then some men will conclude that men are morally superior, women are trash and whatnot. But many others won’t, and you need to look no further than those dreaded Manosphere blogs for evidence, where many men are putting together elaborate explanations and justifications for the types of behavior other men find repellent. You know, “women have always assumed enormous reproductive costs”, “women are smaller and physically weaker than men”, “women have a biological clock” and so on.
She didn’t. I was referring to Herb’s assumption, which I find highly probable. Maybe you can ask her in an e-mail.
“The point is that Bolick clearly considers men optional ”
I didn’t see that in the article. It seemed she was painting a cautionary tale for young women that they are not going to be 28 forever and to stop throwing away opportunities for a good man.
As for the women who lived in the commune type home, I think they were just trying to make the best of a bad situation from poor choices they made when they were younger. Do you really think that most women would prefer to live this way? I don’t think so.
As for sexless marriages, I’m surprised that any husband or wife would put up with that for long except in cases where a spouse has a health condidtion. What’s the point of marriage if you have to live like this?
Susan, no, it couldn’t have been for the assets, the guy wasn’t making that much money as I recall.
The latest post at The Plankton.
She’s honest.
hellhound, my interpretation of the Bolick article was that it was nearly all hamsterbation. She found herself nearing 40 going “How did this happen?” and then spent the rest of it saying “Actually, this is great! I love my life! How can I make things even more groovy!” It’s not a serious proposal, it’s lipstick on a pig.
In a bipolar mood. Yesterday was i was all Angar. Apologies for rufflage.
@ Say Whaat
Sorry about the fluppy. 13 years was a good run. Neither of my German Sheps made it past 11 and both got hip displacia. Not a nice thing to see, so passing during sleep was the best way to go after happy life. Still, it’s always painful to lose a trusted and loyal companion. My condolences. My current baby Jack is turning 3 soon. I hope she makes it to 15.
Plain Jain 615
“Why would a slob complain about the cleaning not being done right? A true slob wouldn’t have sensory for that, wouldn’t even notice. Usually its the neat freaks and OCD cleaning fanatics who nag over that stuff.”
Good question. I’m slightly OCD and i like things tidy.. but im not a nazi about it. But i never let things start to pile up before i have to complain about it being a mess. My other half at the time always had stuff strewn about, but then always complained when it got too messy. Also, the urge to constantly host dinner parties and have people over meant that there would be ‘rush’ cleanup jobs on spur of the moment which really irked my sensibilities. And who was in the kitchen cleaning up after the dinner party? Moi. Most of the ‘manmade’ mess was not mine, but was ordered to clean up for the sake of appearances. When this happens often enough, you tend to get pissed off.
Plain Jane 626
“Wife doesn’t bother dressing up in heels and makeup everyday”
> Heels? When at home? Don’t most people go barefoot inside their home? I’ve heard of house slippers but never house heels.
Heels in bed heh. But seriously, i’m talking about the baggy, frumpy, overly casual to the point of hobo look. Slippers? No. They wear crocs now. Crocs are libido killers but you always hear it’s all about comfort. If i’m supposed to know when to be alpha, when to be beta, when to be dominant, when to be vulnerable, and how to be attractive at all times.. then women should too. A fact that isn’t lost on me when i went to Poland 2 years ago and noticed how all my relatives enjoyed getting dressed up for the ENTIRE day to look good. They want to look feminine at all times.
Lokland 619
“This debate is ridiculous.
Love is conditional. All of it.”
And to all others who say love is conditional. I understand what is being said by all of you that you are required to not do certain things to have that love removed, such as murdering small children or kicking puppies. That was never the criteria being put forth. It was about the passive dismissal about how men had to maintain their high attraction triggers such as keeping a high powered job, lifestyle, etc.. without being put on the chopping block for something better. Usually comedians are the only ones who can speak truth in a way that people will accept it, under humor.
http://www.theseriouscomedysite.com/showreview.php?r_id=1712
I’m sure neither I nor Deti were talking about the guy who sits on the couch in his underwear and swills beer after being a superstar lawyer. We were talking about the guy who gets left behind because circumstances beyond his control, economic meltdowns, or a decision to stop working himself to death and taking a pay cut for a more meaningful job with better hours will directly impact his partners ability to love him. If you’re saying too bad, it’s part of the attraction game.. then i posit there should be millions of 9 months pregnant women crying themselves to sleep as their partners leave them for being round and kankled monsters. Or if the wife doesn’t put out every day like she did when they were dating. I guess he should start an escape plan to find someone else who will put out as much as she used to.
This is what i was railing against. Not unconditional to the point where i expect her to love me if i go on a mass murder rampage (tho Bonnie did love Clyde), but that i lose my job and can’t find another one to satisfy my ex’s needs. That because i’ve been told a steady stream of ‘help your wife out with the chores’ was a good thing, but actually now discover it leads to me being an emasculated kitchen bitch and grounds for losing the ‘being in love’ feeling. Etc. If a guy leaves his wife for a younger, svelte woman because his wife got fat after pregnancy and views being in the kitchen as oppression, he’s Darth Vader. If a wife leaves her husband because he’s supplicating and lost his job due to wall street greed, she’s awesome leaving that deadbeat doormat and hooking up with that tall dark handsome high powered banker.
Finally, i was trying to get across a message that won’t fly well on HUS. That marriage in it’s current form is a sham, yet it’s what is being actively promoted here, that men man up and marry good girls despite the inequities in the event of dissolution. If love is conditional and can be revoked (like a light switch) then why is anyone actually championing such an archaic and legally lopsided tradition where one party inherently assumes all the risk. If marriage as a contract cannot have any teeth to enforce the choice made, then perhaps that choice shouldn’t be available. Nowhere in contract law do you have such an ability to breach a contract for frivolous reasons and expect to walk away. I can’t go to Ford and say ‘yeah, you know what.. my Focus just isn’t as peppy or stylish as it was when i first bought it. i know i signed the financing agreement 1 year ago but i want out, i don’t want to pay breach penalties, i can’t show good cause as to any defects in the car or how it failed to perform its role, i just feel i would enjoy the Mercedes better. oh, and Ford has to give me half of all it’s profits.’
With such admissions on HUS (and all parties that love is conditional and revokable with the goal posts having been widened so far that they’re off the playing field).. why is marriage even allowed? This is where me and Plain Jane are in complete agreement. Marriage 2.0 is fraud. And why would any man knowing all the perils sign on the dotted line when it enhances nothing to the current feelings you have for someone but may very well be the instrument of destruction?
After everything everyone has discussed here… who stupid or fraudulent would you feel standing up at the podium in front of the priest, your family and your god mouthing words you know have zero meaning behind them.
It isn’t one flesh.
It is divisible
What he created you can break apart
And that’s just for you religious folks. For all the rest.
Don’t have to forsake all others, he’s a doormat, he won’t mind.
Good times and bad?
Richer YAY. Poorer. Get out.
Sickness. See Newt Gingrich. In health. You’re spending too much time at the gym and not enough on my emotional needs.
Do you promise to love, honor, cherish… whooops. You lost me at promise.
Seriously. Marriage should be nuked and lawyers should simply draft up separate legal docs so you can choose ‘products’ like you do insurance or finance stuff.
Want to have kids? Purchase the Offspring kit.
Want your partner to have legal rights to make decisions for you when ill or incapacitated? Buy our Power of Attorney kit.
Want to engage in sex with predefined responsibilities or abrogation of said responsibilities prior to sex? Get the NSA Casual Sex package. No strings indeed.
Marriage 2.0 is like getting the bundle package for your phone/tv/internet. Your stuck with a whole bunch of shit you don’t need that can come back to haunt you when one of the services suck donkey balls.
It’s ok, I’ve talked to her about it a few times in the past and it’s been very much swept under the carpet, I thankfully sensed that it was somehow very wrong after he had been doing it for a while and threatened to tell but of course I was too scared and ashamed. After that he switched bullying and he basically made my life afterwards a complete misery.
I can’t blame every bad choice I’ve made on this of course but I can say that it led to my rebelliousness as a teenager, as far as I could my family didn’t have my best interests at heart, so why do what they tell me? I was very angry for a long time, I got myself in some bad situations reacting whenever I sensed anyone try to push me around because I saw that I was the only one fighting my corner and I never wanted to be treated like that ever again.
It’s all properly come out in the wash just recently, he moved back home recently and I had forgiven him, but when he tried to start throwing his weight around, and leaving the key in the door so I can’t get home from work etc I gave him a piece of my mind and exactly what I think of him and what he is. Very satisfying! Apologies for de-railing, i’ve been fighting the urge to vent on and sundry it’s hard lol
Susan, re: how she thought she could get away with it. Well, the police initially ruled the death a suicide. The woman pressed hard to get the body cremated ASAP but the husband’s family pressed investigators to do a more fullsome autopsy. Then apparently a co-worker called in an anonymous tip to the cops saying that she was having the affair. That’s when the cops started to look at the possibility of murder. They sent the body to a more sophisticated lab which found the strage substance (the first lab had not tested for that).
So, she almost did get away with it!
Re: the Plankton, I read through a lot of that blog a while back and while I started from a position of sypathy, that drained away as I read. She is clearly still quite “picky” in a bad way and (sorry!) hypergamous. She rejects perfectly suitable guys all the time on the flimsiest grounds and pines for two men who clearly are out of her league and will never choose her. I actually wonder if it is the first draft of a novel.
@Susan,
Thanks for the reply. I’m pretty good on the blatant stuff. Disrespecting me in public (or even in private, for the most part) isn’t going to fly. Likewise, refusing sex on a regular basis is pretty straightforward. I don’t think I’d have any problem dealing with those issues.
The more passive-aggressive, pouty stuff is where I run into problems. Is that what you mean by “bratty” behavior? Basically if a girl acts antagonistic, I can handle it just fine. But if she were to start acting sad or depressed or even began to subtly withdraw either emotionally or physically, my first instinct is more to try to comfort or to ask what’s wrong. Which I’ve realized is usually just going to exacerbate the situation. But it still seems a bit harsh (even after ingesting the red pill) to automatically threaten to toss her out unless she knocks it off. Especially if she denies anything is wrong (which seems to be a pretty common response).
I don’t know. I guess what I’m saying is that I find it a lot harder to deal with the stuff I read as a more subtle cry for attention than I do with the out and out hostility. But basically what you’re saying is that in reality, it’s ALL hostility and should be treated as such, correct?
Exactly. I have had those men here in great numbers, and I did not enjoy the experience. In my view, your definition of open debate is analogous to suggesting that I can’t host a dinner party and have a debate without welcoming paranoid schizophrenics I find on the T.
I have every right to decline to engage certain people if I find them rude, angry, insulting, of poor character, or downright insane, which is how I view most of the commenters from your favorite sites.
There are blogs and people I wish to have no association with. That is my right. If that changes the conversation, good, I like things sane and civil.
@Travis
I will show mercy
YMMV – Your Mileage May Vary
Basically, “I accept that your experiences may not match those described here”
I would guess that it comes from car adverts;
“50mpg (miles per gallon) or 5.625l/100km – YMMV”
== ‘those are the official numbers, but drive with lead feet and you may not even get close’
I threw in the l/100km in case you’re of a metric persusaion. Conversion assumes man size IMPERIAL gallons, not US mini-gallons.
HTH (hope that helps)
Wasn’t there a study that showed a huge number of hospital infections in the US occur because doctors (including surgeons!) don’t wash their hands?
And you have an whopping cough epidemy due the antivaccine campaign. Even the most illiterate peasant in my country knows how bad things were when kids didn’t vaccinated. First world =/= everyone is doing it the right way.
Doesn’t this kind of go against the whole idea of women needing men? Bolick promotes gender apartheid and the notion that men are completely optional. Plus she consciosusly ignores the fact that the lopsided sex ratio you referred to is the consequence of long-term and deliberate feminist policies.
Holle
You are thinking like a man, herd mentality cannot be attacked directly. Herds are to be joined with smiles, compliments and cookies then attacked slowly in the weakest points so they can crumble this is an inside job. You are asking Matahari to take a gun and die on the fields when her job is more valuable dancing, seducing, getting info, this is Susan job luring the young women looking for answers and giving to them in a way that doesn’t intimidate them, women eat feel good crap, that is how it is you can add some sour there and there but you cannot just go full bitterness on them, women are allergic to it. A problem like this cannot be solved with just one strategy it most be attacked by multiple angles. Leave Susan work hers and you works you we will meet in the end when the stars are right, YMMV.
This reminded me of a comment from another blog on what (many) inner city teachers are taught in some Ed Classes.
Oh boy this reminds me many notes from my proofreader…
Could someone please tell me what the hell YMMV means?
Your Mileage May Vary it means that the other person might disagree.
Why did she marry the guy? Was it for his assets? How could she think she’d get away with that?
Psychopaths specially smart ones think they can get away with anything is probably not the first time she broke the rules to get some gain but it was the first time she got caught, sadly a man is dead over it.
Inconditional love
One of my Dominican best friend brother stabbed his mistress 32 times on the chest. He tried to kill himself after that he failed and claims that jail is not the worst part but having killed the woman he loved…I don’t think loving unconditional makes that much of a difference into acting on certain ways against that person they love. Even my mother that still loves my sociopath of a brother knows to keep her distance, finally after 15 years, but I do think there is a lot more guilt than love, YMMV.
@Hollenhund
I thought so. In that case, please refrain from putting words in Kate Bolick’s mouth. That is extremely dishonest. She has said nothing about men’s rights, family law, whether women need men or anything other than what is in her article. Her article was not a promotion of single life, it was a recognition of her life circumstances and an investigation of how women cope with being alone in the second half of their lives. When I met her she was still hoping to marry and have a family, and she stated directly that her choices, aligned with feminism, had been poor ones. (For the record, she has never promoted single motherhood either.)
I agree with this. She is desperately trying to find a way to make it groovy.
@Just1x,
TY! (Thank You) TDH. I appreciate it.
Re femininity….meant to post this earlier in the thread, but couldn’t find the book. Dr Anthony Stevens (a Jungian), in “Archetypes,” talked about 4 variants of the female archetype:
1)The Mother…”tends to be impersonal or collective”…concern with gestation, child-rearing, home-making, etc. Represented by Demeter, etc.
2)The Heitara or “Love Goddess”…concerned with “getting her man and relating to him at the intensely personal level rather than taking on the social role & responsibilities implicit in becoming a wife and a mother.” Represented by Aphrodite.
3)The Amazon. “independent and self-sufficient; in modern life she is the career woman…comrade or competitor rather than wife or mother…orientation not towards individuals but rather tends to be impersonal and objective.”
4)The Medium: “lives in close relationship with the collective unconsciousness; immersed in her subjective experience and speaks with the conviction of an oracle…may startle her friends and relations by the power and unusual nature of her insights.” Represented by the Delphic Oracle.
@M3
Several reasons.
Most young people want to marry, including men.
Most young people want to have children, and marriage is the best framework for raising them.
Inequities are not inevitable – the vast majority of dissolved marriages are mediated without conflict.
Divorce is not inevitable, and among my readership, the rate is 17% in the first ten years.
The vast majority of married people consider there marriages ‘happy’ or ‘extremely happy.’
Healthy marriages confer enormous benefits on both parties, related to finances, health, etc.
Marriage is good for society, good for civilization, and good for the economy.
In short, the benefits of marriage far outweigh the risks, IMO. Having said that, I would never try to persuade a young man to marry if he did not wish to. Nearly all of my male readers hope to marry.
I will continue to promote relationships leading to marriage and family. Please desist from peddling your argument here any further.
Susan, I hope that you understand that, for many of us, this translates to: this world has many supplicating males.
I am not saying that she is ugly. She is absolutely not ugly. (Though, she is many years from being beautiful…and the picture they chose for the cover was very Aniston-esque, which is not good)
@unigirl
No apology necessary for venting. You have good reason to feel enormous anger.
Susan, my point was this:
The type of logic that goes into anti-sexism is the same type that goes into anti-racism. And I am guessing that, on some level, you already understand that.
However, for the record I am not looking to make this thread, or any other, into a thread about modern racial issues.
Ramble…things being taught in Ed School classes. It also turns out that peanut butter & jelly sandwiches are racist:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/principal-sees-racism-in-peanut-butter.html
Thanks to everyone for the condolences.
(Desi, that clip from ‘UP’ cracked me up. He was a goldie too, and he was *just* like that sometimes.)
So, Susan, knowing that “gender equity” is a really generic statement, I have some questions:
Do you mean that, in general, men and women are equally capable of reaching the greatest heights in Math, Physics, Engineering and the other hard sciences?
(I don’t mean that the numbers will turn out that way since many women will exit the workforce, if only partially, to start/raise a family. Simply that, in a parallel world where women did not need to make choices like that, they would have achieved STEM greatness in the same amount as men.)
Do you think that women are as capable of being great police-officers/detectives as men?
Do you think that they are as capable of being logically detached from serious issues?
(Corollary) Do you think that they are as capable of being great judges?
Do you think that they are as capable of starting great companies? Say, the next Google or Apple.
Or, do simply feel that men and women should be treated equally by the law? If one gets a ticket for going over 65, then they both do…that sort of thing.
Thanks Susan, I haven’t been so generally angry for a quite a long time, I’ve left home now and am kind of away from it all. I think I need to just not speak to my mum for a while or things will never change, on the other hand it seems like at this point I am an adult and all my actions now have consequences, so I can’t shake the idea that she might have a car crash on the way to work and we’d have never made up, or get depressed and kill herself or something. Not that she’s ever shown any signs of that I could just imagine it would be hard to deal with as a parent.
M3, such marriage contracts actually exist in Europe. If you want to argue for marriage reform, I suspect you will find many willing ears but you need to do so objectively. My parents had a big nasty bitter divorce when I was eight, so I am already predisposed against traditional marriage, or at least parts of it. However, you are still living in the past and thinking way too much about the failure of your own marriage, and that comes through loud and clear. You need to actively train your mind to live in the present so that you can move on. Only then will you be able to effectively debate marriage reform.
We need to delineate between intelligence quotient (IQ), emotional quotient (EQ, how well you manage your own mind) and social quotient (SQ, how well you manage other people’s minds). People with high EQ and to a lesser extent SQ are successful in life, whereas high IQ has a small correlation with success. However, someone with a high IQ can actively work on their own behaviour (i.e. cognitive behavioural therapy) and improve both their EQ and SQ. It takes years, but I’ve done it and it was well worthwhile. If you’re oscillating between euphoria and apathy, well that’s a problem you can ameliorate with a few years of effort.
The vast majority of married people consider there marriages ‘happy’ or ‘extremely happy.’
“The vast majority of never-divorced/never-separated people consider there marriages ‘happy’ or ‘extremely happy.’”
Susan, this is the most common mistake, as far as I can tell, when people are trying to survey marriage in America, or anywhere else in the West.
And, considering how the trend has been over the last 25 years, it might have been translated to: The vast majority of the Upper Middle Class are ‘happy’ or ‘extremely happy’ being Upper Middle Class.
re: Peanut Butter and Jelly
David, that comment I quoted was from a thread on that subject. The thread was on a board that I will not mention because Susan refuses to read him even though she has never read him. She just knows that he is evil.
(Susan, you can delete that last bit. I am being a dick again.)
Bolick and Plankton are two correspondents sending communiques from No Man’s Land. No Man’s Land is very real place, and most women are slowly and inexorably travelling there.
My grandmother, who lived to be 104, used to welcome my visits to her retirement home. She lived with my grandfather until he died at 97, leaving her a widow for the last 10 years of her life. To be honest, she kind of came alive during that last decade, even to the point of allowing me to take her on a road trip at 99 to visit one of her last remaining friends.
There were only about twenty men in her facility, and only half of them were perambulatory. My grandmother didn’t mind No Man’s Land. She had the memories of my grandfather, with whom, despite his shortcomings, she was deeply and permanently in love. But a lot of her friends did, especially the younger ones and the ones who had been widowed earlier. I just mention my grandmother because, demographically and statistically, No Man’s Land is where most women will spend the last part of their lives.
What has changed in the last 20 years is that you can get to No Man’s Land a lot more quickly now. You can take the A-train express to No Man’s Land as Kate Bolick did by disqualifying 99.99% of men straight out, then dismembering the remainder. Word gets out, but even Kate dwells in No Man’s Land voluntarily.
What The Plankton discovered is that the borders of No Man’s Land are no longer the senior citizen’s home, but that you can cross the frontier even earlier. There is a disconcerting [to women] change in the balance of power between men and women that occurs somewhere around the mid thirties. Even attractive women start to notice that the quality of the manstream is starting to get thin.
By the time you’re fifty, like The Plankton is, and yopu lose your man for whatever reason, you’re pretty firmly in No Man’s Land. That is to say, if you’re a woman, you’ll experience the same grinding lack of attention from the opposite sex as you would have at fifteen if you were a male. Of course, even at fifty-three you have the outliers, the star quarterbacks of the menopausal world, but even Ironing Board Abs is going to find No Man’s Land an unforgiving place if she doesn’t use her advantages to find a travelling companion.
People are great rationalizers. I admire Kate Bolick for accommodating herself to No Man’s Land as well as she has. Like I said, for Kate it’s probably voluntary, for The Plankton it probably isn’t.
That being said, one little item that the Androsphere roundly ignores is that No Man’s Land is preferable for some women than Bad Man’s Land, or Bitter Man’s Land, or Boring Comic Book Geek’s Land, or Sub-Par-Man’s Land and they shouldn’t be demonized if they have faced that choice squarely and made it.
Ramble,
“Susan, I hope that you understand that, for many of us, this translates to: this world has many supplicating males.”
Heh – I may have been a supplicating male when I made the request (although that was certainly not the front I was putting on at the time), but I’m definitely not one now, and the request still stands. Bolick and I have made similar mistakes and she brings a lot to the table. I’m not chopped liver either.
If you read me as supplicating to Susan, you’re misreading my intent. See Ana at 691. I’m just as much of a selfish son-of-a-bitch as every other human being that walks this planet. On some level I’m using her to get what I want, as she does me.
It’s the other levels that make life worth living.
travis,
Passive-aggressiveness in women is a pain in the butt. You can try being diplomatically assertive, but realize that if it’s an engrained habit of hers rather than just shit testing, you can’t change her. A woman can change her own behaviour if she wishes, but you can’t make her change. So employ the break-up card, and if the passive-aggressiveness continues leave her and employ a better picker next time (i.e. screen for better character over the first few dates).
RE: the Plankton, but she is NOT claiming to get zero male attention. If you read her (which admittedly I have not done in a while), she does claim to get male attention, just not from the males she wants.
I do often wonder if it is fiction because it is quite similar to things we’ve already seen. E.g., just like the Mr. Big of SATC, she has a man she pines for called … oh I can’t remember but anyway he is supposedly a very successful writer and world traveller and occasionally shows interest and then disappears.
Much of the rest reads as it if it were written by a manosphere writer as an example to gloat over. She complains in one breath about how “there are no men” and then she talks about being hit on at a coffee shop but the guy was bald and had a belly and ick! She is a perfect specimen of middle aged hypergamy, so perfect that it’s quite possibly too pat to be true.
@Susan
It has a bald white guy who has killed at least one minority…that’s white supremacist anymore.
If he kills even one woman it becomes misogynist too.
@Susan
She celebrates inner-city women and their bonding to raise children with out men.
Of course, said women are getting plenty of tax dollars paid primarily by men, so in celebrating a world that can only be sustained by tax transfer from men it’s hard to not conclude she considers men unnecessary in a direct sense but either considers them obligated to support directly or indirectly (even if it’s an unconscious assumption she hasn’t even really thought about).
@Unigirl.
I don’t like reading stories like yours, but they need to be told. I wish you well. I wish you happiness. I wish you hope.
I also know of a woman that was also molested as a child, and she turned out ok. I love her to bits.
She’s my mother.
She celebrates inner-city women and their bonding to raise children with out men.
Pardon me the interruption but I read it as an alternative for women that “find themselves single” more than celebrating it.
I also told Susan that this was a “Poor hot, rich, successful me, look at what I will be to do if I don’t get a corporate successful sort of rich man to marry me, rescue me!” article to get married. And I still think she will, she is probably dating and will postpone for a while till she cash her money and then write an article about how “I found the right person and I’m giving myself the chance, but you single women don’t be scared of being single I would had being happy that way too” sort of article with wedding pics and all that. I might be wrong but I don’t think I am, YMMV.
Desi, you are attracted to whomever you are attracted to (tautology). But, Susan has often mentioned how many guys wrote her to tell her how beautiful Bolick was after the piece came out. That is an example of supplication.
If you would like to see her socially, and think you have a decent shot, then that is, obviously, fine.
But we didn’t need Susan telling us that men would want to see her socially. That would have been evident to any guy that is not completely “Spherical”.
Ana, as always, +1.
@Ana
And how did said women find themselves single and mothers? Did they all have immaculate conceptions?
She considers living off men they have no use for and no relationship with an acceptable alternative when they “find themselves single” via their own bad choices.
I’m single, arguably from my own bad choices. Is it reasonable for me to demand a sex subsidy from women who had nothing to do with said choices. Will the Atlantic publish that article and will you defend my demands as an an alternative for men that “find themselves single” more than celebrating it.
That’s what I thought.
Ramble’s comment at 702 is telling in that he takes all the areas in which, in our culture, men are considered more excellent than women, and asks if women are equal to them, rather than take all the areas in which women are considered more excellent than men and asking if men are equal to them.
In other words, he wants us to conclude that women are not equal to men based on that criteria in which women would supposedly show up lacking in comparison to men.
Thanks Marellus! I am ok I think, I’ve made some bad choices in my life, I nearly drank myself to death a couple of times in my teens, I got arrested once, these both still make me cringe even now, I’ve been jumped and beaten up, I’ve had bad friends that have stolen from me and have been punched in the face by a man I was having an argument with. I’ve also had periods of promiscuity, I couldn’t entirely lay the blame for all that on my past but I know it did influence me onto a path I wouldn’t otherwise have gone down, these things could probably work against me more in the long run than the abuse and bullying which is all over and behind me now. It all is really fine now, I started gradually just looking after myself not hoping someone else was going to do it, and I’ve mostly stopped my self destructiveness nowadays. I spoke to somebody the other day
It’s just the ostrich behavior I’m dealing with with my mother now so I think I probably need to drive the message home by not making up straight away and allowing it to be swept under the carpet.
“She found herself nearing 40 going “How did this happen?” and then spent the rest of it saying “Actually, this is great! I love my life! How can I make things even more groovy!”
Susan: ” I agree with this. She is desperately trying to find a way to make it groovy.”
Yeah but remember, by middle age people are extremely set in their ways and attached to their space and routine, unwilling (or unable) to compromise a lot because they are already molded.
I think its more like
“In my 20s being single was great.
In my 30s it wasn’t so great.
But now that I’m in my 40s and love the ebb and flow I’ve created for myself, living a compromised life would suck, so being single is great again.”
“There are going to be more Kate Bolicks in this generation”
Abbot: “Who won’t even replace themselves via a child thus, per proper natural selection, dying off without another to a carry forward their views, diatribes and propaganda.”
Then no worries. Childless feminists and MGTOW will die off in a generation and the human race will be carried forth by men and women who feel they need each other and usher in a new era of family values.
I think everyone benefits if they look at their life and decide what works for them, and what does not. I know successful career women who are single because they are not “feminine.” If they are happy, good for them! But if they are not, they would benefit from the advice in this article.
Herb – “She considers living off men they have no use for and no relationship with an acceptable alternative when they “find themselves single” via their own bad choices.”
Yep I thought the exact same thing. It may be a matter of perception, but I saw the article to be self promotion as Ana described peered with just enough subtle man bashing to pass the “smell test” of keeping it from offending most men outright.
To be frank, I was disappointed that HUS even featured it. But, Susan seems to have a completely different outlook on the article, and knowing that I understand her support of it. I’ve never been one to believe “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” though either.
Peered = paired.
So many susan comments on one page that merit response.
“The 80/20 apex fallacy is bunk.”
Only insofar as it is an overstatement (see below for why) and, as the engineers would say, “there are no step functions in nature.” However, the stats that you use to disprove the general notion do not (and realistically can not) take into account the degree to which male partner numbers represent sexual access and the degree to which female partner numbers represent sexual willingness. And, since your statistical analysis flies in the face of average guys (most of whom would be happy to fuck many average girls but cannot), I’ll believe my lying eyes.
“The “all women are sluts” is bunk.”
Ok, but I’m not really sure this is the contention (putting aside a few crazies).
“All women want alpha? Bunk.”
If alpha is essentially defined as what women prefer sexually, then you are denying a tautology. If this is saying that some guys may be what most women prefer sexually, but others have different preferences, well . . . bell curves and all that.
“Premarital sex destroys marital bonding? Bunk.”"
Yeah, I agree. There may be some statistical correlation, and there may be even some slight causation, especially in extreme cases, but not nearly to the degree that the ‘sphere states. Like I’ve said before, if a woman has had several unsatisfying sexual encounters, and then a guy fucks her so that her eyes roll back in her head and her whole body quivers, she’s probably more bonded to him than if she never had sex prior sex at all. Easier said than done, I guess.
As I’ve said before, the ‘sphere tends to find evidence of a statistical tendency, even if slight, and then take that to be an absolute.
“he was clearly spoiling for a fight. (And he couldn’t even demonstrate the frivolous divorce is not overblown in the manosphere. ”
Well, since pretty much everything is overstated in internet echo chambers, that isn’t saying much. But it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a serious issue. As a UMC west los angles professional, most (if not all) of the divorces I’ve seen are some variant of the type described by he who may not be called by name.
“Inequities are not inevitable – the vast majority of dissolved marriages are mediated without conflict. ”
Hmmm. I won’t link it, but, ummm, but I think luciferrock was generally on point in “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law.”
@Ramble
I’m curious! Who might that be? I generally don’t call people evil without giving them a hearing first. And you’d be surprised. For example, I don’t think Roissy and Roosh are evil.
@Mule
Thanks, my sentiments too. If people take responsibility for their choices and are honest about them, I say to each his own. I will admit that Kate B. hasn’t been 100% honest – she has adopted some feminist rhetoric – but I can’t entirely blame her. She’ll have the last laugh, and I bet she gets married in the end.
@Desi
I never said or thought any such thing, and I wouldn’t have outed you, just so you know. You weren’t the only one, though, and I wasn’t surprised. I took an immediately liking to her. I guess you had to be there…She is actually very feminine and warm, and not the least bit ideological.
Hmmm. Depends on what you mean by celebrate. It also depends on the stories of those men. If men disappear, women coming together to share resources and childcare is a very pragmatic approach. I don’t recall anything KB said that implies men are disposable.
“No Man’s Land is preferable for some women than Bad Man’s Land, or Bitter Man’s Land, or Boring Comic Book Geek’s Land, or Sub-Par-Man’s Land and they shouldn’t be demonized if they have faced that choice squarely and made it.”
Fair enough. But I sure do hear a whole hell of a lot of women talking about the following:
1. How bleak, desolate and horrible N0 Man’s Land is;
2. They all want Hot Alpha Stud Dominant Millionaire Man’s Land.
There’s little recognition that the women doing the complaining are not the inhabitants or governesses of Fabulous, Kind Woman with Much to Offer Land.
@Marellus
I just read your comment and burst into tears. For all the dysfunction and greed and selfishness in human relations, the resilience of people floors me every time.
“the star quarterbacks of the menopausal world, ”
LOL!!!
HAHAHA!
Oh, Ramble, it is so good to have you around today. Your dry sense of humor really tickles my funny bone.
BTW, I remember you were the first comment on the KB post and you said, “Oh no, why did you call her gorgeous?”
You got that one right.
@Unigirl.
******************************************************************
@The Bashers of Bollick.
In both cases of Kate Bollick and The Plankton, you’re trying to make their life stories seem atypical, and hence irrelevant.
I disagree.
Bollick’s story was published in The Atlantic, and she gained fame from it. Now who would be her prime constituency ?
Other single women.
And she’s raking in the money.
And more like as not, these customers of hers, are mouthing off on her, behind her back … just like you are … Is this not a universal practice of women between women ?
Yes it is.
Is this not hamsterbation as well ?
Oh yes, I’m single, but I was not like Kate Bollick. Kate Bollick was (insert insulting rationalization of your choice here), so I deserve a chance. Now I’m gonna buy her stuff, to prove this to myself.
Ha.
Same thing with The Plankton. She has a column in The Times. And I don’t see any single women campaigning against her.
And while this happens, the manosphere gloats.
The battlefield is rape articles. The war is cat magazines.
@Passer By
I agree with you, which is why I promised to look into it and write the EPL Divorce post.
The bottom line, which is based on a survey Petrock has never written about, to my knowledge:
If there’s any data available on the prevalence of Eat Pray Love divorces, I haven’t found it, though the table above suggests it might easily be half or more.
I used a very liberal definition of frivolous to arrive at that number:
Incompatible
Personal growth
Grew apart
Personality
Unhappy
Loss of love
Lack of communication
Immaturity
Interference from family
Failure to meet family obligations
Don’t know
I think that’s a hell of a lot of frivolous divorces, but it wasn’t good enough. I had men arguing that infidelity was no excuse for divorce. So. We know roughly how common it is, but I guess KC Lardo is going to stick with 100%.
OK, what?
@Ramble
No. I am aware that the distribution of IQ in the population has more men in the long tails. I do not think pushing women into STEM fields will work, because people like what they’re good at, and they’re good at what they like. Women will always be a minority in very analytical fields.
Police officers? Probably not, because they don’t have the body strength for the most challenging parts of the job.
Detectives? Maybe – I took a battery of aptitude tests once and the skills that make good detectives also make good lawyers. There are many good female lawyers. I scored very high on that, btw, and I’d be a terrible engineer… One of the tests was being shown a B&W photo of many (hundreds of) objects for 30 seconds, and then making a list of the ones you could remember.
In general, we’re less analytical, but this varies a lot in the female population. I’m fairly male-brained, for a girl. But I’d have to say there are many excellent female physicians. I could come up with tons of examples of women who are good at this.
Yes, probably.
Capable in terms of creativity or IQ? Yes. But women are generally more risk avoidant than men are, so success on a huge level like that is probably unlikely. Still, the number of women with successful small businesses is very large.
I think the ticket example is pretty weak, but I do believe that most laws should apply to everyone equally. There will be some differences based on physical differences between men and women, e.g. abortion.
In summary, I believe that men and women are both good at some things, and some talents are more frequently found in one sex or the other. I believe in a meritocracy. You want to be an astronaut? Go for it, and if you can’t cut it, you’re out. No affirmative action by gender.
Alas, the visa requirements for entry into Hot Alpha Stud Dominant Millionaire Man’s Land are extremely high. Getting a tourist visa is not as hard, but to become a permanent resident, you really have to have something to offer. Also, needless to say, they prefer younger immigrants.
I was among those who said I bang Kate were I single, but I am not supplicating. I was just responding to the “ew, look at those pointy elbows/sharp knees” types who were pretending she was beneath their standards. I do think Susan wildly overstated it with the “gorgeous” thing, but, as I said then, that’s just the hyperbole that women use about each other when they like each other. Get over it.
http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/uploads/monthly_10_2008/post-47638-1224795000-1.jpg
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/MrPickins/atot.jpg
@susan
“I’m fairly male-brained, for a girl. ”
Total slut tell.
Alright. Spill it. What’s your digit ratio?
@Suzan #728
Oh bloody hell Suzan, I’m one of the trolls here, remember ?
Now put on your combat mascara; eat your raw Mexican Chilli’s; write ‘Dalrock’ on your toilet paper; name your doorstopper Roissy; graffiti ‘Roosh’ on your dustbin; and listen to the sweet melodies of your pet cicada named Rollo … are you ready now ? … OK … let’s have it then madam … and don’t hold back.
Yeah, there are obviously men out there who’d pump&dump Bolick. That doesn’t mean even them actually consider her “gorgeous”.
@Susan
1. Article is about having a wonderful life without a man (even if you have to from stupid choices).
2. One group she uses as a model (ie, celebrates) is inner city moms.
3. The group in #2 is successful as they are (and I’ll admit it’s not very) due to transfer payments*.
4. The reality of US transfer payments is they are mostly paid by men and received by women due to:
a. They are majority paid by our highly progressive income tax (OWS not withstanding even the OECD admits the US has the most progressive income tax and overall tax system in the developed nations).
b. Most means tested programmers are aimed at single parents and children. Said parents are disproportionately women due to both biology and political policy.
Based on that I feel free to claim Bollick celebrates a lifestyle based on no direct role by men (by choosing men who aren’t responsible enough to stick around but are fun at the time…the classic ‘sphere alpha) but using force (ie, gov’t) to have other men who aren’t even offered a direct role to play for the lifestyle (the classic ‘sphere beta).
Personally I think it’s a crap lifestyle and Bollick would find some UMC slub to marry ASAP if faced with it. I doubt she thinks about it enough to realize the excluded man who pays issue (similar to Amy Shales The Forgotten Man in terms of Great Depression policy), but I’d be very surprised she isn’t feminist enough to argue for every “dead beat dad” and “end poverty” law out there.
It’s really a “fish don’t see/feel water” issue because the feminist ideal of “men should pay not be heard” is so assumed in our society you have to actually think about it to notice it.
* Look into how the census excludes 97% of gov’t transfers when calculating poverty and then realize there is almost no poverty in effect in the US by the gov’t own definition if we include transfer payments. In fact, families in the bottom quintile are the only ones whose average consumption excess their average income which surprised me given the wide use of credit in this country. They also only report pre-tax incomes. This is important because all the anti-poverty policy and every end the wealth gap policy proposed is based on taxing the top and more benefits from the bottom. Even if every single one passed the numbers would not move an inch.
Marellus 609:
“Why not call a spade, a spade deti ?
And what is that spade deti ?
SNAFU.
Ultimately, there are no answers to this deti.
There’s only questions.
And maybe we’ll get an answer if the right questions are asked.
We never ask the right questions.
SNAFU.”
OK. It’s all f**ked up. And so we will have to limp along as we have been. Married men will need to learn game not as a matter of enjoying themselves, but to prevent them from boinking Roosh. Single men will either (1) wank to internet porn or (2) just GTOW. Married women will continue as harpies and harridans, or overworked undersexed and underappreciated hausfraus.
Single women will either (1) slut it up on the carousel and then cougar it; (2) slut it up on the carousel and then fraud betaboys into marriage; (3) wail about where all the good men are; or (4) write articles for national media outlets and then make TV development deals and bask in the media glow.
Or, Marellus, we can do our best to make it at least a little better, for ourselves and our kids.
@P_B
Susan : “I just read your comment and burst into tears”
not really butch behaviour…let’s not get the boiler suit, comfortable shoes and a pipe out for Susan just yet
@Travis
Well, that’s not hostility, necessarily, she may be working stuff out that has nothing to do with you. I don’t think offering comfort or asking what’s wrong will exacerbate the situation. But you must come at it from a position of strength. A woman will lean on you if you are stronger than she is. But she will open up in her own way and time. If you say, “You seem preoccupied tonight, is anything wrong?” you’ve given her an opening. If she says no, you can say, “OK, but just know that I’m here for you if you ever want to talk.”
IOW, acknowledge the shift in mood. Then ask about the reason. Then give active support, or an open-ended invitation to talk further when she’s ready.
I think you know the difference between bitchy behavior and “down” behavior. If she’s bratty, or bitchy, don’t offer that loving support until she knocks it off. In that case I would say, “Wow, you seem annoyed about something. What’s up?” If she says nothing and slams the door, call her out. “If you don’t want to talk that’s fine, but don’t take it out on me.”
Bottom line is to support emotionally vulnerable behavior and push back on bitchy behavior.
Does that make sense?
Just so you know, I’m no expert, I’m just winging this. But this is how I see it. For the record, this will vary depending on the character and quality of the woman. If you go for the psycho sex kitten, I have no idea what to tell you!
@Marellus
Uhm, I never claimed Bollick was atypical, I claimed she was proclaiming “life without men is great” when her only US based example and one of her two developed world examples (her third example is in an agricultural era society) in face required men to work and provide income transfers. Thus, she wasn’t celebrating life without men but life without having to include the men who support it that life in it.
I have no idea who this Plankton person is.
To me, Bollick is a snake oil salesman to women and a snake to men. She sells the former a life most don’t want as being “fabulous” while supporting policies that make men who had nothing to do with said life foot the bill when she can.
@Passerby #603:
“@plain jane
“You say “women do this to men all the time – turnabout is fair play”. But this PARTICULAR woman has not done that to this PARTICULAR man. They don’t know each other from Adam. ”
His point was that your outrage would mean a little more if bothered you (or other women) when women give men nuclear rejections.”
O: Boom! I knew I wasn’t alone; it was only a matter of time before someone would call Ms. Plain Jane out on her obvious state of being obtuse, and you my good sir, did not disappoint. *tips Kangol*
When that Great Gettin’ Up Morn’ comes when Men can clearly and plainly see Women upbraid their sisters, in public spaces like clubs and the like, for nuking guys, then I just might think about doing that which Ms. Jane and Ms. Walsh are requesting. They can lead the way in this regard in fact. Ladies first.
“As to this particular rejection, it was awkward, but not hostile. He wasn’t saying she was gross or disgusting or even undesirable. Suppose some woman accepted a date with a guy and then later came up to him and said “Sorry, I didn’t realize you were a Republican. I don’t think it would be a good idea.” Would that be rude? Lame, maybe, but not really rude.”
O: Boom – again.
“Finally, as to this PARTICULAR GIRL, the fact that she got knocked up by a douche bag means that she spent her younger years rejecting the bookish types (as this PARTICULAR GUY undoubtedly was in his youth) and giving the best of her sexuality to the douche bags. So, in a sense, yes, she did reject this guy previously when she was at her most desirable. Expecting him now to clean up her mess after doing so is asking a lot.”
O: All Choices, have Consequences. The Ladies, will pay for theirs.
As Men have always done, for theirs as well.
O.
LMAO! I think there are a lot of illegal immigrants in that crew!
I just measured for the first time!
Index: 2 3/4
Ring: 2 3/8
That makes me female. Men usually have longer ring fingers.
« 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 »