Don’t be Carrie
The Millennials, or Generation Y, are currently aged 10-28. The oldest are just reaching the average age at marriage, and though 70% of them plan to marry and 74% want children, there are indications that many women are frustrated with their dating lives. (H/T: Stuart Schneiderman) What’s the problem? Their careers.
In Why Are So Many Professional Millennial Women Unable To Find Dateable Men?, Larissa Faw of Forbes writes:
My Millennial-aged girl friends and I never doubted that we would accomplish all of our life goals. Everything, thus far, has pretty much gone according to our plans. We were accepted into the right college, landed the dream job, and developed a network of amazing friends. Our apartments are beautifully decorated and we have closets full of stylish clothing. Romance hasn’t been entirely sidelined, but we don’t waste our time trying to cultivate a relationship unless someone is really amazing.
But now, a growing number of Millennial women are beginning to fret over the unanticipated consequences of prioritizing our careers before love. And I only need to look at my group of friends to see this reality. Again and again, year after year, my successful, gorgeous, and amazing friends remain kiss-less on New Year’s Eve. And on Valentine’s Day. And on the 4th of July. The only dateable men we encounter are either attached, gay, or otherwise involved in “it’s complicated” situations. We are coming to the realization that we were unwittingly playing a game of musical chairs — while everyone was pairing up, those focused on our careers are left standing alone.
I’ve been using the musical chairs metaphor since I began blogging – it’s been clear for two decades that women were outperforming men in education, and the current college ratio of 57% female, 43% male makes it undeniable that we have a serious problem with marriage prospects.
One third of today’s female college graduates will not marry a college educated male.
There are two reasons why Millennial women at the upper end of the age range are single and lonely:
1. They want high achieving men, and there aren’t enough of them to go around.
2. They are ambitious in their careers but lazy about their love lives.
For one, it’s not as if we are holding out for Jake Gyllenhaal, but we do have certain non-negotiable expectations for potential mates that include college degrees and white-collar jobs. Life has always gone according to our plans, so why wouldn’t we land a man with these (reasonable) requirements?
This unwillingness to settle for less than we think we deserve is joined by a lax attitude towards searching for potential mates. We’re busy dominating the world. We don’t have time to hang out at bars. While some of us explore online dating or take a more proactive approach, the majority of Millennial women have long assumed we would meet Prince Charming via friends, or through their own social circles.
There’s nothing women can do about the sex ratio in college, but they can certainly be strategic in their search for a mate. Indeed, it is not a random game of musical chairs. By making the right choices, you can get a tipoff on when the music is about to stop.
How Millennial Women Really Feel About Their Careers
Faw observes that many young women are burning out at work by age 30:
Today, 53% of corporate entry-level jobs are held by women, a percentage that drops to 37% for mid-management roles and 26% for vice presidents and senior managers, according to McKinsey research.
She notes that “Many also didn’t think of their lives beyond landing the initial first job…Even those who did plot out their lives past the initial first career have unrealistic expectations about full-time employment. It’s not as if these women expected their jobs to be parties and good times, but many underestimated the actual day-to-day drudgery.”
More importantly:
While earlier generations may have opted out of the workforce through marriage or motherhood, these paths aren’t viable for these self-sufficient women, who either are still single or unwilling to be fully supported by men.
Meghan Casserley, in Is ‘Opting Out’ The New American Dream For Working Women? confirms that most working women (not just Millennials) want to step off the career track:
At a moment in history when the American conversation seems to be obsessed with bringing attention to women in the workplace (check out “The End of Men,” or Google “gender paygap” for a primer), it seems a remarkable chasm between what we’d like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what we’d like for ourselves (getting out of Dodge). But it’s true: according to our survey, 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.
“I think what we’re seeing here is a backlash over the pressure we’ve seen for women to perform, perform, perform both at work and at home,” says Leslie Morgan-Steiner, the author of Mommy Wars: Stay-at-Home and Career Moms Face Off on Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families. “Over the past three to five years we’ve seen highly educated women—who we’d imagine would be the most ambitious—who are going through med school, getting PhDs with the end-goal in mind of being at home with their kids by age 30.”
Arguably the most famous working mom in corporate America today, Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, wants women to stop dropping out. In her widely viewed TED Talk, Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders, Sandberg tells women the most important thing is to “Keep your foot on the gas pedal!” and not take any more time off for kids than is absolutely necessary. She holds herself up as a model of a loving and involved mother who also happens to have a big job. However, close viewing of the Talk reveals the following inconsistency:
“My daughter, who’s three…” (early in the talk)
“I have a 5 year old son and a two year old daughter.” (end of the talk)
This is a woman who does not know the age of her own child.
Kay Hymowitz, in The Plight of the Alpha Female acknowledges that Sandberg’s exhortations are futile.
Feminists have come up with some theories to explain the dearth of women in the C-suite: those in the running would necessarily be aggressive, a trait that men in power don’t like to see in women; executives and boards don’t believe that women are capable of the highest-octane work; women lack men’s sense of entitlement in the pursuit of fame and fortune. But “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” a recent, widely discussed Atlantic cover story, should help redirect the conversation to the obvious: it’s the kids.
…Women are less inclined than men to think that power and status are worth the sacrifice of a close relationship with their children…Nothing in the array of work/family policy prescriptions—family leave, child care, antidiscrimination lawsuits, flextime, and getting men to cut their work hours—will lead women to infiltrate the occupational 1 percent. They simply don’t want to.
Hymowitz argues that this strong female preference to be at home with children is what makes the “end of men” argument silly. Still, I don’t think society is in good shape when we expect men to play second string, getting in the game only after women have opted out by choice. And what does that mean for men who want to marry? How can they advance in their careers when women who plan to step off in less than ten years are front and center until then, scooping up promotions?
Your Best Strategy For Finding a Mate
Prioritize relationships.
Don’t waste time halfwaying it or “just having fun” if you want to marry and have a family.
Date for the long-term.
If you don’t meet your future spouse in college (few people do), immediately upon graduating think of every potential relationship as serious and lasting. No dating Mr. Right Now.
Filter, filter, filter.
Dads not cads. Filter in for character, and drop the checklist of superficial stuff.
Put the word out.
Don’t pretend to be fabulously single unless you want to stay that way. Let your friends, family and coworkers know you’re in it to win it. Accept as many invitations, blind dates, and introductions as you possibly can. Dial down the bar scene as your go-to weekend plan. Your chances of meeting your husband in a bar are not nil, but they’re slim.
Your Best Strategy For Staying Home With Your Kids
Penelope Trunk wrote a post with some excellent advice: How to plan a career in your 20s to stay home with kids in your 30s.
Key points:
Understand that your job performance is ephemeral.
For those of you who will fall into the 84% [who want to stay home], understand that the life you have as a high performer at work is going to end when you have kids. Priorities will change, and it will not matter that you are a high performer because you will not choose to sustain that when you have kids. Work is a place where you get external rewards for being smart and productive and a good team member. You do not get that at home.
Accept that you will fall behind.
Women are performing at a higher level at work than men are right now. So, statistically speaking, when you decide to stay home with kids, the people you were better than will start moving ahead of you. It will kill you. Prepare for this. It works best to think of your career as a time in your life. You were a high performer when you did it, but now it’s over.
Live below your means.
You know at age 23 if it’s likely that you’ll want to stay home with kids. Which means the minute you get married you should adjust your spending for one income. This will always keep the door open for you to stay home with kids.
Pick your spouse carefully.
If you want to stay home with kids, don’t marry a guy who can’t earn a living. If you want to stay home with kids, make it clear that even though you earn more than the guy, the guy will be the breadwinner. If you want to stay home with kids then you put all your financial hopes in the guy’s career. Whatever his earning ability is, then that is your earning ability, because you are a team, and he is the breadwinner.
Don’t be the woman who turns 30 and says, “Whaaaaa?” Plan ahead. Be smart. When the music stops, you want to get a chair, and with any luck it won’t be a barstool.
{ 1314 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 »
Jackie, I agree that you shouldn’t live your life in fear. I think children are wonderful, and I think people should have them.
You are right that one has to make a decision one way or the other and I would note that it is easier when you have a level of confidence in your choice of mate.
That being said, I have heard a lawyer advertising as a men’s family law attorney, stating you never know a woman until you meet her in divorce court.
http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html
“Waldorf, who divorced his wife of 11 years in 2011, was ordered to pay $2,000 a week in alimony to his ex. That amounts to $104,000 a year. In addition he was ordered to pay $3,300 in child support. The problem is that Waldorf has only been taking home about $90,000 a year on average, according to Eden. Eden said he has Waldorf’s tax returns dating back to 2000. The highest income reported by Waldorf during the marriage was $147,000 before taxes according to Eden. In most years Waldorf made $90,000 to $120,000 before taxes. His average take home pay has been about $90,000 a year.
The alimony payments are in addition to about $100,000 in legal fees incurred during the divorce process.”
The alternate, however, is exploding population forever and ever.
Not really, population is like wealth and food it concentrates on parts of the world but properly distributed shows that there is enough for all, immigration is a temporary solution for that reason.
There are people who say continuous population growth will never be a problem, because humans will always find ways to develop the technology that will help us grow more food, or colonize Mars, or whatever. I’m not that optimistic.
We already beat Malthus prediction once, why wouldn’t it happen again?
Anacaona, I would read Mark Steyn’s ‘America Alone’. It’s got a good summary of how demography will pan out over the next century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone
I would like to note that it was Western Civilization that gave us many of the advances to surpass prior limitations. Anti-intellectual cultures with totalitarian religious mandates are driving the demographic bus.
Malthus’ argument was based on food production, IIRC. We have bigger problems now, including energy and water use (and global climate change, but people apparently don’t believe that’s an issue around here).
The thing is, it won’t matter. Birth rates in developing countries will decline regardless of the consequences for an aging population, because infant mortality rates will decrease. In most cases, it’s a natural consequence of development, not a policy enforced by governments worried about overpopulation.
@JuTR
Another part of the article says:
“It now also appears Waldorf has lost his job because of his jailing. Meanwhile, Waldorf’s ex-wife, who is disabled, has been getting nothing.”
That’s insane to order him to pay more per year than he brings home. What a fucked up judge!
@Olive
I really like you (in a platonic/intelectual way lol) but I think that climate change is overhyped. Why have temperatures been flat for the last 15 years while CO2 increases? If it turns out to be real and menacing then geoengineering and adaptation will cost about 10% as much as reducing enough CO2 to make a difference.
On a practical note, we’re on a course where CO2 is going to continue to rise since nothing significant is being done and won’t be done by China and other rising energy users while developed countries are only minutely reducing their emissions. We will see in 10-50 years if anthropogenic global warming is real and to what extent.
My personal opinion is that it’s real to a much smaller extent than claimed (1 degree celsius vs 3 or 4).
@Olive
One of the biggest unresolved issues with AGW is what the water vapor feedback will be. The pro-AGW people say it will be a positive feedback, that higher temperatures from the CO2 (I don’t dispute that the CO2 itself is a greenhouse gas and a doubling of it will lead to about 1 degree celsius warming) will produce more water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas and lead to 2-3 degrees additional warming (for a total of 3-4). However, they assume that there won’t be any real change in cloud formation. If you do get more cloud formation then that will block incoming radiation and serve as a counter balance to the water vapor’s warming effects.
Since we haven’t got as much warming as predicted by the models so far, I tend to think that the cloud (and other) effects may be playing a role and thus make the situation less dire.
What are your thoughts?
(I’m not trying to argue in a jerkish way either. I respect you as a fair-minded person, and actually enjoy many of your comments about relationships and human nature.)
Olive,
“Malthus’ argument was based on food production, IIRC. We have bigger problems now, including energy and water use (and global climate change, but people apparently don’t believe that’s an issue around here)”
Concerns about energy aren’t new, though…back in the 1600s/1700s, there was massive deforestation in Britain/Scotland due to the the heavy use of wood for fuel (heating, cooking, and smelting) as well as construction. What saved the situation was increased use of coal, partly enabled by steam engines which could drain deep mines, and the discovery that coke (derived from coal) could replace coke (derived from wood) in metallurgical furnaces.
And then there was the problem of “peak (whale) oil” (used for lighting), which was solved by the use of oil-derived kerosene.
@ david foster
Yes it’s certainly out of place in American society, which was why I was so surprised by the nonchalance with which it was being discussed there. Yes, I had seen authoritarian thinking before – both from right wingers and liberals – but this was at a level I hadn’t previously seen.
India has a particular history with population control though. Back in the mid-late 20th century, a bunch of neo-malthusianist liberals decided that the Third World population growth was unsustainable – and the only way to respond would be drastic measures to lower birth rates. They pushed governments to implement various policies to meet population control targets in exchange for development assistance and foreign aid. Many countries participated, and of course China independently implemented its insane policy. The Indian prime minister signed up for it, and her took charge of a sterilization program. To meet sterilization targets, they used deceptive practices (such as lying about the reversibility of sterilization, performing sterilization on surgery patients without their knowledge/consent, etc.). Between the sterilization program and the prime minster declaring a state of emergency, the Indian population became very unhappy with the government. The subsequent election resulted in an unprecendented landslide loss for the ruling government. As a side effect of that whole thing, many Indian people became and to some extent still are deeply suspicious of the birth control pill.
I have spoken about it to my friends in the honors program, though I was unnecessarily diplomatic with those in charge of the program.
HanSolo,
Glad you showed up! We’re overdue for this discussion and now I have time to respond. Admittedly earth systems science was probably my least favorite course in college, but I’ll do my best.
Well, keep in mind that when we talk about Earth science, a span of 15 years is fairly negligible. You want to look at the big picture, not the relatively small time increments. People who say “look at all the snow this year, and they say the Earth is getting warmer!” drive me nuts.
Having said that, I invite you to examine this link:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
There’s good graphic evidence there, not just on surface temperature, but also on sea/land ice and sea level.
Yes, this was the argument for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, and it’s actually the main reason the U.S. did not ratify. “If China isn’t participating, why should we?” China is not considered a fully industrialized country, and as such was considered part of the non-Annex I countries, who were not asked to reduce their emissions. It’s unfortunate that the Kyoto Protocol has had a much smaller effect than expected, simply because the U.S. chose not to ratify.
Honest question: what would it take for you to believe that it’s a real problem?
Yes, this is an interesting point, and one my professors have made (and it’s why we refer to the changing weather patterns as “climate change” and not “global warming.”) The problem is that increased cloud cover could lead to a whole slew of problems we haven’t thought of before. I’m no meteorologist, but I have to wonder about the lasting effects of increased moisture in the atmosphere, and presumably increased precipitation.
Also, scientists are still debating about this, but the thinking is that melting sea ice will increase the amount of freshwater in the polar regions, which could affect ocean circulation and, in turn, weather patterns. I can’t find a good source or recall the terms at the moment, but in one of my courses we had discussed the theory that if ocean circulation patterns were compromised, it could actually send Europe into an Ice Age (hardly what we think of when we hear about “global warming”). By the way, feel free to challenge me on that last point—I took earth systems science three years ago, and the scientific thinking and knowledge is always changing.
But you can see that surface temperature increases are not the only concern.
It’s possible, but again, warming is not the only thing to be concerned about. Many have proposed that climate change will actually cause more extreme weather patterns, like Katrina and Sandy. Unfortunately I don’t know enough about meteorology to give an educated opinion about that.
So I don’t know a lot about geoengineering, but I looked it up when you mentioned it before, and it seems to me that the basic goal is to increase cloud cover, with the intention of reflecting sunlight. The problem is that this will lead to the same issues associated with increased water vapor: more moisture in the air, and increased precipitation. What will the effects be? I’m skeptical.
LOL! Trust me, I’ve been around for over a year, and have been involved in some pretty contentious debates. It would take a lot for me to consider you a jerk.
Susan,
This constitutes as serious derailing. Say the word and I’ll take this to e-mail.
@ Olive
In the long term, total fertility rate is directly related to dependency ratios and whether a population grows or shrinks, aside from net immigration.
@ Olive
We won’t be able to grow indefinitely at a constant growth rate. At one point, simple geometry will prevent us from sending ships to new planets fast enough to maintain an exponential growth rate. But at the current rate we aren’t going to reach anywhere near there. If things continue as they’re doing now, the population will peak in a few decades, well below the carrying capacity of the Earth, and we will have a global demographic crisis on our hands.
@ Olive
Energy and water use per capita can be cut dramatically through more efficient use. The population isn’t the main factor here – it’s per capita consumption.
Not for the one in five people that live in China.
@ HanSolo
Game of Thrones season 2, here I come!
INTJ,
Carrying capacity is a function of both.
Obviously.
Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
@Olive
What would it take for me to believe it? It would take for me to see the temperatures rise as predicted by the models. That’s usually the criteria for accepting any theory or model, that it agree with observation or experiment.
As to climate change instead of global warming, no. The whole point is that the temperature rises which will then eventually melt the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland and drastically raise sea levels and change weather patterns.
You won’t get significantly different weather patterns if the temperature isn’t raised.
As to more water vapor, the global warming models actually predict less precipation with more variation.
As to the 15 years, yes, it could be other cycles causing a temporary cooling that masks the otherwise warming global temperatures but then this shows that the climate modelers don’t really understand the earth climate enough to say what is “natural” and what is humanmade.
But, do you think anything will seriously be done? The US has reduced its emissions but that is dwarfed by the increase from China. That’s why I say that we’re headed down this road and it would be wiser to figure out how to adapt and geoengineer in the best way possible as opposed to continuing to try and fight a lost war (that is if you even think it is worth fighting and for me the evidence is skanty that it is).
david foster,
Interesting how non-renewables were replaced with other non-renewables.
I actually have no doubt we’ll work through the energy thing (nuclear!). Water will be an issue, but as INTJ said, it’s a matter of cutting back on consumption. Just the same, I’m not convinced that continuous population growth should be a goal.
@INTJ
Enjoy. Let me know what you think, especially of Sam as he flirts with that girl. lol
@ HanSolo
Haven’t gotten to that yet. But I’ve come up with the scenario that I’d prefer for things to work out: the North gets independence under Rob Stark and all the two-faced Lannisters are killed with Tyrion taking their place as king.
To a T? Tough sell, man. I guess the trends won’t convince you then, just the exact numbers?
Okay, but understand that some of those changing weather patterns will actually result in colder temperatures, depending on location. The greenhouse effect is not about temperature, it’s about increased energy from the sun entering the Earth’s atmosphere, which could change any number of weather patterns (from cloud cover to air circulation to ocean circulation, etc.).
Can you source this? And is it location-dependent? For example, the Sahara desert won’t get much precipitation, but is the same true of, say, the tropics?
Admittedly I suck at science, but as far as I remember, increased water vapor leads to increased precipitation (because the vapor heats/expands/rises, hits the cooler air and condenses/sinks).
Methinks you didn’t check my link. I’m not sure why you keep mentioning cooling, because 2005 and 2010 tied for the warmest years on record.
Yeah that tends to be the fallback argument of climate skeptics. There are certainly still aspects of the climate issue that are not well-understood, but it’s very clear from the data that there have been changes that correspond to rise in atmospheric CO2. I encourage you to seek out that data (and not just the models, which only predict the future).
No, because there are too many people like you who still debate whether it’s a problem.
In all seriousness, I do think politicians will continue to dig in their heels when it comes to climate change. They’re too busy using it as political leverage and making it into a Democrats vs. Republicans issue to actually consider real solutions. Several years ago cap and trade was actually on the table and even had bipartisan support (from John Kerry/John McCain/Lindsey Graham) but the media got wind of it, called it “cap and tax,” and basically killed it.
Couple thoughts on this. First, no one ever got anywhere by pointing fingers and saying “he’s not doing it, why should I?” Emissions are not being reduced as we wait for China to reduce theirs before we reduce ours. To me it’s one of those “act first, then talk” issues. Second, China is in the middle of a development boom. Their circumstances are quite different from ours, and I actually suspect their economy would be hurt more than ours would by enforcing emission reduction measures. I forget where I read this, but somewhere I heard that most of China’s emissions are from manufacturing, while most of ours are from individual consumption. Further, when you break it down to per capita, China’s emissions are actually lower.
But, you know, none of that matters if climate change isn’t actually a problem.
Unfortunately for me, that got the conversation going on this thread. You drop these turds and then I have to respond. In future I’ll just delete and not deal with it.
Hmmmm….can’t say that I am all that surprised to see you whip out the “I’m going to delete your comment” card. So much for tolerating a dissenting opinion. My comment on the Mars and Venus was civil and I didn’t attack anyone, and simply stated my opinion. You continue to nitpick my comments looking for any possible offense you can potentially read into them. I have already exercised an enormous amount of restraint and discretion in response to your wishes, but you continue to push to gain even further ground.
I don’t want to belabor this point, but earlier in this thread both Passerby and BroHamlet basically articulated what I was pointing to, and they are hardly hardcore manospherians. The term is really unimportant whether femcentric or female oriented or whatever. The point is about what the default assumptions are. The fact is you yourself have admitted this is the case in schooling presently with the educational environment tailored to the ways girls learn instead of boys. We simply disagree on the magnitude of the overall societal orientation towards the female POV and female interests.
Let’s not use that word. Once again, I regret its introduction into the conversation by Mike C, who really can’t resist bringing Rollo here, like a cat with a dead mouse.
And just for the record I didn’t “bring Rollo here”. It really is quite silly to equate me using a term he happens to use with me “bringing him here”. I’ve already abided by your request to not link to his blog. And just a few threads ago, you said you welcomed him to the debate. Make up your mind already and stop concocting flimsy accusations to direct at me.
@Olive
Doesn’t have to be exactly but it should be roughly in line, which they’re not. Also, all the things about hurricanes is bogus. The total cyclone energy is at some of the lowest levels over the last several years that it’s been in many decades. One stat I’ve read is that we’ve been 7 years without a category 3+ hurricane reaching landfall in the US and that’s the longest period since 1900.
Okay, just looked at your link. That’s one record but it has some flaws as to how it calculates things, including urban heat island effects and improper placing of many weather stations in places with lots of asphalt.
There’s good reason to believe the Medieaval Warming Period was as warm as now too, but which cherry-picking climate “scientists” like Michael Mann find ways to only include certain bristle cone pine trees that make the temperatures appear lower so that the current temperature appears to be the highest. Oh, and when these temperature proxies have shown lower temperatures in the last 50 years then they just cut that off and spliced in the thermometer record without mentioning that to create infamous and discredited hockey stick of flat lower past temperatues and then a big rise in the last 100 years that Al Gore used to focus on.
Don’t have a source on water vapor and precipitation right now but can find one.
Correlation and causality are not one and the same. As I said, the causal link between higher CO2 and excessive global warming is the water vapor causing another 2-3 degrees of warming. If you only are raised in temperature 1 degree, then you won’t get the full amount of water vapor that you would if the water vapor causes the additional warming (meaning, the water vapor will also create more water vapor if it is indeed a positive feedback).
Yes, I do debate whether it’s a serious problem because the global warming proponents haven’t proven that there is a positive feedback with the water vapor and clouds and the temperatures haven’t risen in agreement with the predictions of the models. So, as of now there have been no detrimental effects that can be clearly linked to manmade global warming. Until you can prove a problem then it makes no sense to spend trillions of dollars on solving a problem that may not exist, especially when we can mitigate things later if it turns out to be a problem.
And for the record, I am open to the possibility that there will be a positive feedback with the water vapor and the larger warming could happen. At this moment though I’m not convinced.
I’m very happy that cap and trade got killed. I love fracking. Coal is not a favorite of mine. More nuclear should be built but look at Germany, planning on shutting it down. Where will they make up for that energy from? Likely fossil fuels. They’re not serious about fighting carbon emissions and they’re one of the greenest countries on earth.
Actually, emissions in the US and EU are down over the last 5 years, due to using more NG than before and displacing coal, better mileage, and the recession.
Those that try to act first will harm their economies. Look at Germany. They had very generous solar subsidies and are now fading them out. California is the test case in the US and their financial situation (for other reasons as well) is terrible.
And I agree, I don’t think it’s much of a problem. But we will see. Baring some miraculous invention that produces clean and cheap energy, we’re like the roller coaster car that has gone over the edge and we are just going to have to ride it out and adapt as needed.
@ HanSolo
Last I checked white-knighting doesn’t count as flirting. Granted, she did the whole flirting thing with “you’re so brave”, but he didn’t really respond in kind.
Turns out Sam isn’t a coward though. I mean, I’d be way too scared (both of that husband/father guy and of the captain of the watch) to get involved in a situation like that, but Sam did.
@INTJ
Well, he flirts later and giver her a present.
He’s not afraid of the father because he’s in a pussy trance!!!
@ HanSolo
Yeah just saw that.
Yup. I always wonder why I’m immune to it though…
Also, Tyrion gets more and more badass by the day. This “the Queen mustn’t know I’m planning to wed Princess Marcella to x person” thing is epic!
@INTJ
Not sure why but have you tried hanging out or going out with any girls? You’ve said you don’t want anything serious unless it has a good chance of really leading to marriage. That’s fine. What about asking out girls that you may know or trying online dating?
Yeah, Tyrion is pretty awesome. lol
I wish Aria would have killed Joffrey back at the start of Season 1.
Re: Old People
If the Boomers want to be taken care of in their old age, it would probably be in their best interests to stop screwing over the younger generations. I think it was INTJ who made the same point earlier: I plan on doing whatever I can to make sure that my own parents are taken care of, but I’m not exactly feeling indebted to the rest of them. …especially considering how they allowed so many of the elderly from the “Greatest Generation” to go neglected.
HanSolo,
I plan to come back with a longer response when I’m not on the verge of passing out, but I just wanted to address this:
This is the info I found on their measuring methods:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Particularly this:
As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which now stands at about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981. Further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which has largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).
It should be noted that this is from NASA. Maybe I could see concern about bias if we were talking about the EPA, but NASA is hardly the epitome of tree-hugging environmentalist hippies.
Re Global Warming/Climate Change
There is another perspective to the issue beyond which science is right. It is the classic Type 1 versus Type 2 error. Which outcome is worse if you are wrong? Warren Buffett had some good comments awhile back:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35644956/page/2/
BUFFETT: I’m not a physicist, but if–it may be that odds are 90 percent that the global warming people are right. It may be 95 percent, it may be 50 percent. But if it’s 20 percent, you still have to act like they’re right, because, I mean, if you’re betting on the future of the planet, you know, you do not want to say, you know, `Well, I’m not sure about it,’ when the problem keeps increasing year by year. So we have to do something significant to reduce carbon emissions. I didn’t think–the cap and trade thing was a big wealth transfer, basically, from the Midwest to the coast. But we can–we can dictate that X percent of electric generation by 2020, by 2030, by 2040, you know, has to be–you have to get rid of the stuff that’s polluting the atmosphere. And the utility industry will do that. It’ll be expensive. Consumers will pay for it. I mean, it’s the nature of utilities. Consumers will pay for it. But it’s the price we pay for the planet. The big problem, of course, is it’s a worldwide problem and the United States can’t do it by itself.
If climate change is completely bogus and you institute restrictive policies, the cost is perhaps lower standard of living, slower economic growth, etc. If you do nothing, and it is correct then the cost may have catastrophic consequences. Most people buy insurance and add costs to their budgets hoping they will never need to use it.
@Olive
The head of GISS at NASA, which produces the record you mention, is James Hansen, a scientist and global warming activist, so no, he is not free of bias.
@mike C
I was just going to say that
@HanSolo
You have several scenarios with consequences described here:
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf
@Mike C
Why spend 10′s of trillions of dollars to fight global warming when it’s not certain it will even be that damaging when we can use geoengineering at a ~1/10 the cost to reflect sunlight back into space at a later point if needed and once we understand the climate and atmosphere and earth cycles much better?
This discussion is interesting but in the end it doesn’t matter. Nothing will be done about it and we will see what the truth is in 10-50 years. Better to spend effort on figuring out how to adapt instead of trying to talk about something that won’t happen–namely, reducing CO2 levels.
HanSolo,
Okay, fair enough. The man is a well-respected scientist who’s been studying this stuff since the early ’80s, way before it became a huge political issue. But okay, if my source is biased, then I gotta ask: what are your sources? You’ve shared tons of info but have not backed it up with anything.
Why spend 10′s of trillions of dollars to fight global warming when it’s not certain it will even be that damaging when we can use geoengineering at a ~1/10 the cost to reflect sunlight back into space at a later point if needed and once we understand the climate and atmosphere and earth cycles much better?
I would certainly agree if you are correct about the geoengineering and reflecting the sunlight. Admittedly, this is way outside my bailiwick. My only point is this is one of those things you don’t get a do over on if you are wrong.
This discussion is interesting but in the end it doesn’t matter. Nothing will be done about it and we will see what the truth is in 10-50 years. Better to spend effort on figuring out how to adapt instead of trying to talk about something that won’t happen–namely, reducing CO2 levels.
You may be right on that, but I don’t see why a global treaty involving the major economies is an impossibility.
People (including HanSolo) argue that all the strides made by the developed countries in reducing emissions will simply be negated by the increased emissions of developing countries, like China.
Interestingly, I wonder if China won’t be the first to figure something out. It’s true that they now have the highest emissions, but I read an article a year or two ago about their work with clean coal technologies… which I’m admittedly not a fan of, but it’s interesting that they’re considering these things, even if they were not asked to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
@Olive
Here’s a source for the UAH satellite-based temperature anomaly record.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_2012_v5.5.png
There is also an RSS record.
As you can see, the temperature is flat over the last ~15 years. I’m not sure what other sources you want. Everything I’ve said can be backed up, though some of those things represent an opinion or uncertain area and will have papers and evidence on both sides.
The deeper issue is what is your point in terms of an action plan? Are you hoping to reduce CO2 levels to 1990? IMO, never going to happen this century, barring some miraculous technology or complete societal collapse soon.
If global warming is real it seems more sensible to figure out how to adapt and/or geoengineer.
@Mike C
A treaty is not an impossibility but the trends are in the opposite direction. Kyoto is expiring and Canada, Japan, and Russia are not willing to sign onto a successor–so you have fewer significant emitors than before willing to do Kyoto II. China and the US aren’t showing any signs of being on board either.
My guess is there will continue to be a lot of talk but no significant action and all the while CO2 levels will continue to rise. Here’s the CO2 levels over the last 50 years:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
HanSolo,
As I suspected, your source is just as biased. I looked up Dr. Roy Spencer, and he has a rep. of being one of the primary climate skeptics. He was once interviewed by Rush Limbaugh and believes in Intelligent Design. Let’s just say… I’m not convinced by him any more than I am by Hansen. If one is an activist, so is the other.
@Olive
This is what China and India are doing (along with others):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute
@Olive
There is no disputing that the satellite record shows no warming in the last 15 years. The other satellite record shows the same thing, done by other people.
HanSolo,
Again, it’s an issue of politics, and the sad reality is that climate change does not garner enough public concern for politicians to make it a hot-button issue. And when it was a hot-button issue, it was just another Republican-Democrat divide. There’s no consensus about whether it’s actually a serious issue.
There are ways to reduce emissions though. They involve weaning ourselves off coal (switch to nuclear, increase funding for large-scale solar/wind projects) and oil (hybrids/electric cars).
You’ll be interested to know that I actually hate discussing climate change, as far as environmental topics go. I get very stressed out when I look at the data and I become easily frustrated by skeptics. I’m also not great with explaining scientific concepts clearly and concisely, which is exasperating and limits my ability to share all of my knowledge. Look up “heat capacity” though; it sort of explains why a temperature increase of 1 degree celsius, particularly in the ocean, is such a big deal.
One other thing: in this conversation, you’ve sort of gone back and forth between claiming that climate change is not a serious issue and that it doesn’t matter if it’s an issue because we’ll never make the appropriate changes anyway. Pick a point: I’ll either argue with you about whether it’s a solvable issue, or I’ll argue with you about whether it’s an issue at all. But there’s no point discussing whether it’s solvable if your fallback thesis is that there’s no problem in the first place. Likewise, there’s no point discussing whether it’s a real problem if your fallback thesis is it’s not even solvable.
To be honest, neither of the graphs look flat to me. They oscillate. There are two primary differences: 1) the UAH graph shows temp. anomaly since 1979, while the NASA graph goes back to 1880; 2) in the UAH graph, the red line is a 13-month mean. In the NASA graph, the corresponding red line is a 5-year mean.
The 13-month mean will capture more of the variation, while the 5-year mean shows the more long-term trend.
@hansolo
http://cagw.mythicalunderworld.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/47bde_SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
@Olive
I am familiar with heat capacity.
I have been consistently making 2 points all along:
1) Global Warming is likely going to be moderate but I could be wrong. The magnitude of future global warming is uncertain due to the unknown water vapor feedback effect and other unknown climate cycles. I am of the opinion that there will not be a high amount of additional water vapor caused global warming, due to more cloud formation. However, since this is unknown at the present I could be wrong. I think there will be moderate anthropogenic global warming in the 1 to 1.5 C range for a doubling of CO2.
2) If AGW does occur then I think that geoengineering and adaptation is a better strategy because it is much cheaper. CO2 will very likely continue to rise because as a whole people are not doing anything significant about it. Because of this it seems futile to try and come up with plans to reduce CO2 when none of this is going to produce total reductions. Given that CO2 will continue to rise it would be better to spend effort on how to adapt and geoengineer increased reflectivity without messing up other things, in case AGW really is of the stronger version.
@Olive
“This is because I highly doubt people are deciding to have kids specifically because it’ll get them more government money”
doubt away, but you’re wrong.
@szopen
Look at the satellite records. They both show a flat average over the last 15 years.
Those articles you mentioned are using ground-based data that has more problems than the satellite-based ones.
@Olive
The satellites only go back to 1979 or so because that’s when the satellites were sent up. By flat (over the 15 years), it is meant that if you fit a straight line to the data that you get zero slope, not that there are no oscillations in the data itself.
@Han
yes, the risug/vasalgel stuff looks very encouraging for men, catastrophic for birth rates though, I suspect. If both sides have to decide that they’re up for kids and one side doesn’t have da baby rabies…no more accidents.
I heard of a friend of a friend who said that, “when it was time for kids, she’d make it happen”. pretty poor attitude for a man if you ask me. how about, you know, at least having a conversation and make a joint decision?
@Olive
Going to bed. I’m happy to continue the conversation but it’s probably better to do it somewhere else (maybe by email: quantumcastle) so as to not threadjack during prime time reading. And sorry Susan if this got too off topic. And that would be yahoo. Good night and cheers.
@Han!
thought you were in the States(?)
are you having trouble sleeping?
good night, I’m still a page back in reading, else I think I would have known why you were still up.
@Just1Z
Yes, I think we will get to a point where only voluntary reproduction will happen. It will be interesting if there is some genetic component that contributes to people consciously wanting (more) kids and that this will be chosen for once more universal (male and female) birth control is available.
@Just1Z. Have to get up in 5 1/2 hours for a breakfast date. I have a feeling I won’t be at my best. lol My “game” sucks when I’m tired. Thanks a lot Olive
lol
Meant “propagate” or “be selected” instead of “chosen for”.
I think you made up your mind already.
Once again, cloud formation brings about it’s own problems. I’ve already addressed this.
That’s what Dr. Roy says too.
One more piece of evidence in favor of climate change:
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/4288/20121207/arctic-sea-ice-melt-equivalent-size-u.htm
I already had an argument against geoengineering, mainly that increased cloud cover over the ocean will lead to increased precipitation, which could change weather patterns and ocean circulation.
You know, maybe China isn’t doing much, but recall that the U.S. is responsible for 19% (nearly a fifth) of worldwide emissions.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
Whatever we choose to do to reduce our emissions will have a significant effect.
@Ana
it’s what my botty-bot is for.
I don’t fancy a future as a vegetable, when I decide that time is up for any quality of life…’nuff said. I’ve seen female relatives ‘keep going’ for a couple of decades having a crap life, not for me thanks. And a sufficient, but not necessary, sign that it’s over is the permanent loss of ability to clean my own arse.
Also, spending 20 years+ raising kids so that they’ll hopefully take care of me for twenty years…where’s the glory in that life? The noble spirit etc etc.
I’m a Trekkie at heart (glorious future of adventure and discovery), your option sounds rather Soylent Green (mmmmm soylent green). Society seems to be aiming for Brave New World (drugs and enforcement of class), while the signs look like 1984 (Big Brother’s gentle care and loving supervision) will be the result. Only BB’s ability to take care of us will be far closer than Orwell described.
OT, but ever read ‘The Starchild’ trilogy?
http://www.chris-winter.com/Erudition/Reviews/Pohl_Williamson/Starchild.html
it’s pretty old (older even than I) it has children with perfect pitch ‘singing’ data into computers (living modems. but it also has people having to log in with the computer regularly so that their explosive security collars aren’t detonated. It’s a dystopian science fantasy series with some weird signs of it’s age.
but anyway, I’m not worried about sticking around for dystopia as a vegetable. and I wish the next generations luck with where they take things, because there’s a lot of potential for interesting times.
@Olive
http://www.the-latest.com/single-mothers-living-welfare-lifestyle-choice
My point is not specific to the UK. It is that when benefits make it a viable choice (whether you or I would choose it or not) some people will choose it.
a single mum here gets a free apartment, unemployment and child benefits. girls living in areas where a decent job is not going to happen, living with their mother for the rest of their forseeable future…some of them can and do choose to get put up the duff by a local thug. rinse and repeat whenever a requirement to get a job threatens…
@Olive
so having put you on a downer over human beings, let me cheer you up over AGW – it’s ony fair.
http://alfin2100.blogspot.be/2012/11/data-suggests-climate-entering-30-year.html
Just1Z,
After The Great Global Climate Change Debate, I have zero desire to discuss/debate welfare, or those leeches called single mothers. I also don’t want to derail poor Susan’s thread any further (as if that was actually possible).This time you win.
“most of China’s emissions are from manufacturing, while most of ours are from individual consumption”
yes, this is what happens when you export the US’s manufacturing to China. Greenies use it to try to shame the States, but as usual it’s worth thinking about it a little beyond the line that they’re pushing.
Anything requiring massive energy consumption has to flee countries with expensive energy (i.e. environmental regulation). Germany is in the process of discovering why its green energy moves are catastrophic. They also closed their nuclear plants down when Fukushima went pete tong (they restarted some with little fanfare). they now import electricity from France (nuclear) and Poland (coal). because wind and solar either don’t work economically, or just flat out don’t work when the weather is wrong.
The UK show some, slight signs of political thinking about power production (shale gas vs sea based windpower), but unfortunately our political class are all technologically retarded and tied themselves to the mast of greeniedom some years ago. They aren’t STEMs, they studied Politics, Philosophy and Economics ‘PPE’ and never worked outside the political machine – sound familiar? it really should.
PPE and political power – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11136511
@Olive
I win! cool, and good night, sleep tight
“about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981″
call me a cynic, but my immediate question is, “What was the magnitude reported in 1981?” and the next question is “Why wasn’t it quoted?”.
If it was large they would have quoted it as a number, but they didn’t. They clearly thought that their biggest bang per buck was saying ‘twice’.
‘Young’ people (under forty – you durned whippersnappers) might not be aware that we haven’t always believed that global warming was happening, in fact in the early 70′s it was ‘the coming ice age’.
Have you watched ‘The great global warming swindle’ – Full version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
I’m not saying that this program is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But it might flag up some points for consideration. It’s also a few years old, so the 15 years of static temps wasn’t available to them.
This woman is ‘cool’
http://joannenova.com.au/
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf
@Passer_By
“Maybe the women will fight with swords over the high status men and shout “There can be only one!” as they behead each other. That would be pretty cool to watch.”
It’s even funnier because you were replying to Highlander!
Renee #247
I agree~
(I WAS CURIOUS AND BORED)
@INTJ
I did not know the Indian government did that.
“I have spoken about it to my friends in the honors program, though I was unnecessarily diplomatic with those in charge of the program.”
You’re a better person than I. I would have reamed them.
@Just1Z
“I don’t fancy a future as a vegetable, when I decide that time is up for any quality of life…’nuff said. I’ve seen female relatives ‘keep going’ for a couple of decades having a crap life, not for me thanks. And a sufficient, but not necessary, sign that it’s over is the permanent loss of ability to clean my own arse.”
+one million
@Just1Z
It was not. The scientists never in their majority at any period of XX century believed that ice age is coming. What have been journalists writing is totally different matter, but you cannot blame scientists for alarmist news made by journalist. You should know how science is being reported.
I have watched. It is full of errors, half-truths, misrepresentations of real data and so on.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html
Ocean heat content has not stabilised. In fact, it is rising continously in the last 15 years.
I agree with most of this post and at the age of 26 I am taking my search for a husband pretty seriously. I am now dating a guy who has all the right hallmarks and am putting in an effort to show him my qualities. I dated him briefly in 2010 when I still so messed up about an ex and unsure of myself and never took it further. Now he is giving me another chance and I am grateful. Truly.
I haven’t read all the comments yet so excuse me if someone has brought this up already. There is another option – there are men out there who are becoming stay at home dads. I’ve met a few and in fact I had a relationship with one when I was 18 – 22. He actively used to say to me if you want to have a long term career and go to the top I want to be the carer of the kids. My dream is to have some kids with my wife and work part time or have my own project and be the main carer. I might even stay at home and not work part time if needed. At the time I thought he was unique and alas I left him already, due to my commitment issues. He was a good catch. You live you learn I guess. Nowadays I am completely ready to be the main carer. I don’t see my career as the be and end all like I used to. I am actually going into teaching and find that this career path is supportive of working and having kids due to environment and the holidays. Plus I am well suited and enjoy encouraging learning.
My point is that when you find someone suitable it might not turn out to be the ‘traditional’ set up but might be the result of you and your partners unique strengths.
I also think that the state of the economy is making lots of people think differently about their choices. This is a good thing.
Yes in the UK there are a lot of women doing this. Sigh. One of my oldest friends has just down this. It saddens me and I actually had a crisis of confidence in being her friend when she told me her plans. She actually asked me to be involved by living in her future council flat and paying her rent money while she stayed at home with her mum and saved up the dosh. Now she has her baby and lots of drama with the father (who is an ex boyfriend who she started having sex with again just to get pregnant). She doesn’t want him to look after the baby without her around because his family is unsuitable (he lives with his mum). Aparently his uncles a paedo, his mums an alcoholic, his sister is a drug addict and he won’t know how to look after the baby properly.
MY answer (after coaching her about not creating more drama) is that you made your bed. Now Lie.
How do I delete a comment? it had a specific spelling error!
To add to this – I had a frustrating conversation with my mother recently. I was explaining how I feel about finding a partner ( I was a little pmt that day). She isn’t the best person in terms of experience to give advice and in truth I just needed someone to listen to me more than advice hunting. All she had to say to me was that if I don’t find a suitable man or (one that will have me!) then I can have a baby by myself and theres nothing wrong with it. In fact it might be a better option. That way I scan have a kid first and then I might find a man. This sort of attitude is very prominent and my flatmate is actively planning on doing this (she’s 39). I just felt like I have lots of negativity around me and need to talk to some people who haven’t given up!
Mike C…”Most people buy insurance and add costs to their budgets hoping they will never need to use it.”
But most people also don’t buy insurance policies so expensive that they impoverish themselves.
Economically-rational people also *shop* for insurance policies, rather than voluntarily paying 3 times more more the same coverage. Yet a high % of “global warming” believers are also opposed to nuclear power, which tends to make one think that their true agenda is something other than CO2 reduction.
@szopen
“You should know how science is being reported”
indeed I do. What did you think of Jo Nova’s booklet?
“I have watched. It is full of errors, half-truths, misrepresentations of real data and so on. ”
so, quite unlike Gore’s pack of lies and distortions then?
also, as I said,
“I’m not saying that this program is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But it might flag up some points for consideration. It’s also a few years old, so the 15 years of static temps wasn’t available to them.”
Jo Nova’s booklet http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf
(follow the link, it’s free) is clear and concise.
If you can debunk that, that would be interesting to see.
@Sai
do you know how surprised I am that you are of that opinion too?
not in the slightest
at a terrible time for my family, only the knowledge that the incapacitated person would not want to be resuscitated spared the rest of us that discussion, decision and living with it on our consciences. the person in question’s views had long since been made clear and we respected them. as it turned out, this decision was not a factor in the conclusion of the ‘matter’, but it could have been. I’m not saying that my way is the only way, just that it is my way, and that it is a good idea to have the discussion with your next of kin ahead of time – my relative was beyond asking when a response was required. I expect to be more pro-active when my time comes, but you never know how the cookie will crumble.
@szopen
contrary to your assertion that ‘scientists’ blah-blah
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336
links to
Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice – In Order to Prevent Another Ice Age
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/scientists-considered-pouring-soot-over-the-arctic-in-the-1970s-to-help-melt-the-ice-in-order-to-prevent-another-ice-age.html
I were young at the time, but I remember a BBC science program ‘Horizon’ talking about it. some scientists have always tried a little hyperbole to increase their funding, using a new catastrophe du jour.
@Just1Z
She does not understand a theory. For example, she writes that in the past CO2 was rising after temperature have risen first, which is something which is predicted by the theory.
At page 3rd, I haven’t heard the 1st one, 2nd one is her misunderstanding of the theory, the 3rd is a partial truth, and 4th is a valid question (the saturation effect) but it is already addressed by scientists – I would have to google a bit, and I need to go to kindergarten, so tomorrow I will provide the links. On page 7, she is mistaken. The data was checked by Berkeley universities, and urban stations are NOT causing the warming.
On page 11, she is mistaken again repeating that CO2 follows temperatures (something which is predicted by the theory) and she does not quote things which are usually given as evidence.
The only thing which is IMO valid is about the saturation, but I really had to go now.
Here is some more cautionary tale. Confirms that there are women for one thing and other women for all the rest, aka the real double standard.
“people in friends-with-benefits relationships had more sex partners”
“people in these relationships were less sexually satisfied”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/friends-with-benefits-safe-sex-study_n_2232534.html
.
UHI (urban heat islands – surface stations) http://www.surfacestations.org/
there’s a world of chicanery exposed. check out the photos of heat sensors now surrounded by tarmac, cooling vents but that’s okay? yeah right. Nova makes points about this.
“She does not understand a theory. For example, she writes that in the past CO2 was rising after temperature have risen first, which is something which is predicted by the theory.”
Tell it to her, a climate scientist.
I guess you’re talking about the theory as amended when the original theory made no such mention of CO2 lagging temp? when they had to bodge the theory to match the evidence? how about a reference to a prediction of the lag made before the evidence was revealed? Nova makes points about this.
did you look at the predictions of temp vs the reality in Nova’s booklet?
the climate models are borked.
I followed the UEA catastrophuck and the ‘inquiries’ that weren’t (inquiries that is). the politics stinks right alongside the science.
skeptical science is proper science. agw is a religion, and it’s killing people in the third world.
Olive
“The alternate, however, is exploding population forever and ever. There are people who say continuous population growth will never be a problem, because humans will always find ways to develop the technology that will help us grow more food, or colonize Mars, or whatever. I’m not that optimistic.”
I don’t know about that, all I know is that when the average middle class “American” family consumes as much as 30 Kenyans (and what? 15 Indians, 30 Guatemalans?), etc., then telling the third world to stop making children is hypocritical, and borders on Eugenics.
The 2.5 children each family in the U.S. has is WAY more dangerous to the resources of the planet than a third world family with 12 kids. How many of us have christmas lights running all night for christ sake?
The west is causing a strain on resources because western countries have more, if we consumed less, and everyone pretty much consumed the same amount would the planet still be overpopulated? I know that’s a fantasy question, but I am curious if all resources were about equal, wouldn’t the planet be lower middle class? That’s livable and all that’s required to raise children.
@Jackie
I agree. I confess I get very frustrated with the over the top liberalism in my own state, then I visit my friend in the south and can’t get a radio station that isn’t fire and brimstone. It’s all about sins of the flesh. It’s very disturbing, at least to my sensibilities.
@Jackie
I grew up with two cats very much like you describe beta cat. They consistently demonstrated affection. As an adult I rescued two cats and they were never really able to interact with people very well. Then I moved on to dogs, who are reliably more like sweet kitties, even when they’re rescued. It’s a great thing to rescue an animal, but it can be a challenge as well.
@Iggles
Many Boomers are about to find that out. I recently heard someone in his 50s say that his retirement plan is to get hit by a bus or move to a country with free health care. He was 100% serious.
This article by Ross Douthat where he called childlessness decadence has caused quite a stir:
“The retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion — a decadence that first arose in the West but now haunts rich societies around the globe. It’s a spirit that privileges the present over the future, chooses stagnation over innovation, prefers what already exists over what might be. It embraces the comforts and pleasures of modernity, while shrugging off the basic sacrifices that built our civilization in the first place.
Such decadence need not be permanent, but neither can it be undone by political willpower alone. It can only be reversed by the slow accumulation of individual choices, which is how all social and cultural recoveries are ultimately made.”
More Babies, Please
It is the case that the low birthrate in Italy is largely driven by consumerism and a desire for nice cars, expensive clothing, etc.
I believe the term originated in the gay male community. I recall being referred to this way even as a single woman by gay men. Ironically, in the time since they have fought hard for the right to adopt and of course some use surrogates to have children.
Douthat’s right, but decadence is just cultural winter.
Things change only with impulses from spiritual awakenings, which *then* drive the individual choices.
In any event, this is tied into consumer capitalism/secular humanism, and it’s just a phase because it’s essentially self-liquidating.
I suppose the best way of looking at these eras is in sets of four “generational cycles” as set forth in Stauss and Howe. I’d have to think about this much more carefully to even begin to take a stab at the cultural map going forward.
From a personal standpoint, I have a hard time looking at any longer periods than the standard issue 20 year projection.
I was making merry yesterday, I’m afraid, and therefore did not see Race Realist’s comment until this morning. I have deleted it, as I found it offensive for its personal attacks on Jackie.
I’ll let the various responses stand, though.
Def not Plain Jane, BTW.
“This article by Ross Douthat where he called childlessness decadence has caused quite a stir”
Wow, that article really opened my eyes. Definitely a really good critique of the selfishness that has overtaken Gen X/Y, self included.
“Finally, there’s been a broader cultural shift away from a child-centric understanding of romance and marriage. In 1990, 65 percent of Americans told Pew that children were “very important” to a successful marriage; in 2007, just before the current baby bust, only 41 percent agreed.”
Damn
@Jseliger
I wrote a post on Lori Gottleib, here’s an excerpt:
She does have good advice, but it doesn’t go down particularly well. She admits to ultimately falling for a Wallace Shawn lookalike – making clear his SMV was way below hers – and later he gave interviews stating that the dumped her because she was a total shrew and not at all loving.
@NK
sorry, I only just saw your comment, I wasn’t ignoring you.
yes it is sad for the kid (i.e. parent), her kid and society. I have heard girls from broken homes express the opinion that if they have a kid, “it will have to love me”. which is another whole level of sadness, as well as not being true as it grows up.
perhaps saddest of all is that for some of these women, it is objectively true that this is their best option in life. it tends (or used to) correllate with the old mining / industrial / ship building heartlands in the UK. these areas have never recovered from the pits closing and smelters being shutdown. South Wales (the Valleys), the north east of England, Scotland were all hard hit and have never really bounced back. after three generations of some families being unemployed, it is an ingrained way of life to live of benefits.
@Mike C
Not to me.
There are certain phrases that are triggers for contentious debate. Your introducing Rollo TM terms here is problematic, as he takes the concept well beyond concerns about the rise of feminism and its effect on males in society. He applies it primarily to female sexuality – I am not aware that Rollo writes posts unrelated to sexuality, in fact. I could be wrong, I haven’t read most of his posts.
Passer By and Bro Hamlet are both examples of men who disagree with me on some occasions without resorting to that adversarial dynamic I feel that you often introduce. It may seem to you like I am nitpicking but I believe you demonize female sexuality unduly and tend to take a defensive stand on the inequality of things like male status, i.e. there “has to be” more to that than a hot wife.” You’re intensely preoccupied with what you appear to perceive as an unfairness in the way the sexes have evolved.
If you want to discuss society’s view of males, that’s never a problem. For example, you recently opined that society does not tolerate men dating twelve years down, and we discussed that here rationally.
I request that you do not discuss female sexuality as “flawed,” as it inevitably leads to the same old same old unproductive debate.
@Mike C
He invented it. Google it and see what you get.
I have requested that you do not link, nor introduce blog posts of others into discussion threads here, nor bolster your arguments with what Rollo, Badger et al think.
I reward civility. Civil comments from Rollo are rare, but he did appear earnest in trying to make his points about the attractiveness of 40-50 year old men, lol. (With links to his own blog!) I responded to his comments in kind, which is when you noticed and I said that we were “playing nice.” If he showed up here right now and was civil I would be responsive. I think I’d have to hit him where it hurts, i.e. male mid-life crisis, for that to happen again, but I keep an open mind.
My second LTR mate had many gay friends, and I remember hearing them call hetero couples “breeders” all the way back in the early 90′s. I remember commenting on how rude a term it was, and they looked at me like I had farted in Church!
I don’t like the term for many reasons, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least that it has been adopted by the “fabulously married without kids” crowd at all. We spend far more time bashing each other with slurs than working together to get stuff done. And that is largely why we are in such a sad state here in the U.S.
For a country that seems to be very stuck on “rugged individualism”, we spend much of our time playing group politics.
“I request that you do not discuss female sexuality as “flawed,” as it inevitably leads to the same old same old unproductive debate.”
This may be some of the problem here, historically and culturally speaking. A fascinating portrait of some of Saint Augustine’s thoughts. He seems to have been a bit unhappy that he has a high sex drive:
From Wikipedia:
“Augustine of Hippo ( /ɒˈɡʌstɨn/[1][2] or /ˈɔːɡəstɪn/;[2] Latin: Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis;[3] 13 November 354 – 28 August 430), also known as St. Augustine, St. Austin,[4] or St. Augoustinos, was bishop of Hippo Regius (present-day Annaba, Algeria). He was a Latin philosopher and theologian from the Africa Province of the Roman Empire and is generally considered as one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time. His writings were very influential in the development of Western Christianity and translations remain in print.
…
Lust
Here we can see the theoretical resolution of the struggle documented in Confessions: that proper love exercises a denial of selfish pleasure and the subjugation of corporeal desire to God.
To the pious virgins raped during the sack of Rome, he writes, “Truth, another’s lust cannot pollute thee.” Chastity is “a virtue of the mind, and is not lost by rape, but is lost by the intention of sin, even if unperformed.”[130][131]
Augustine viewed erections themselves as involuntary: at times, without intention, the body stirs on its own, insistent; at other times, it leaves a straining lover in the lurch.[132]
In short, Augustine’s life experience led him to consider lust to be one of the most grievous sins, and a serious obstacle to the virtuous life.
Views on Women
Augustine’s view of sexual feelings as sinful impacted his view of women. For example he considered a man’s erection to be sinful because it did not take place under his conscious control. His solution was to place controls on women to limit their ability to influence men: “Thus the woman, but not the man, should veil herself to prevent her from causing this sinful response in the male.”[133]
Augustine viewed women not only as threatening to men, but also as intellectually and morally inferior:
“It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater . . . This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power.”[134]
“Flesh stands for the woman,” he said, “and the spirit for the husband…”[135]
“He concluded that ‘the serpent, which represents the enticement to disobedience to God and the preference for selfish desires, first approached Eve, because as a woman she had less rationality and self-control and was closer to the ‘lower’ or female part of the soul…”[136]
“Adam, on the other hand, was equated with the higher, superior part of the human soul. In fact, his choice to eat the forbidden fruit along with his wife was viewed by Augustine as “an act of kindly companionship, lest she be left alone outside paradise”[137]
“In other words, Augustine believed that sin entered the world because man—the spirit—did not exercise proper authority over the woman—the flesh.”[138]
…
Augustine balanced his teaching philosophy with the traditional Bible-based practice of strict discipline. For example, he agreed with using punishment as an incentive for children to learn. He believed all people tend toward evil, and students must therefore be physically punished when they allow their evil desires to direct their actions
I seem to recall that one of the issues in the Roman world was that of control.
That is to say, that the ideal was to be in complete control of yourself at all times.
I really don’t have time to dig it up, though.
Susan – I think perhaps the problem is that most of us that read Rollo and other ‘sphere blogs but comment here are NOT the hardline guys you think we are. Since we are using words here that aren’t “legit” (meaning no definition in a dictionary to be found) the problem is interpretation. Just because Mike C thinks the word “dork” means one thing, doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with his view. I might agree to the premise of what a “dork” is, but perhaps I disagree with the exact details of what makes one a “dork”.
The same can be said for FI, in that I firmly believe there IS indeed a very female outlook driving much of our society, I don’t know for sure that it is due to “flawed” female nature in the least. There is no “flaw” if it is natural, it simply exists to be managed like any other biological need. (Need to eat, sleep, breath, etc.) But simply bring it to light should NOT be seen as an attack on women, any more than men should feel attacked when the subject of “sexual variety” comes up.
Thing is, most men seem to be aware of this, yet most women are not. I don’t take it personally if someone cracks a Polish joke. I don’t take offense when I hear “men are pigs” come from some womans mouth. In fact, it usually causes me to chuckle.
There is nothing wrong with looking at what drives you with an objective view, and admit that in some cases your biology is less than optimum for a good long-term outcome. In fact, if you WANT a good long-term outcome, I’d say it depends largely on your ability to identify those traits and nullify them somehow. That is, as a man, I need to know that my body craves sexual variety, and if I have any hope of staying faithful in marriage, I will need to actively find ways to either control it, or to vent it within the rules of our relationship.
Susan:
I think you’re incorrect in claiming Rollo or his blog advocates the position that female sexuality is flawed or defective. Rather, female sexuality is what it is. It seeks the best man for reproduction and provision and marriage. Hypergamy (whatever anyone defines it to be) is a defining feature of female sexuality. And no one seriously argues there are any effective restraints on female sexuality other than those women place on themselves. The point is that many men don’t understand what female sexuality really is or how it works, or even that it currently has primacy in our culture.
What’s routinely addressed in the more serious manosphere blogs, leaving aside MRA blogs, is not trying to change female sexuality; but rather learning the truth about it. Once truths about female sexuality are learned, a man can learn to live with a woman (women) and better manage his love life, sex life and/or marriage. I think what you’re objecting to is that those truths (which are also exposited on widely at Vox’s AlphaGame) don’t always paint women in the most flattering light, but this is to be expected as the less seemly sides of sexuality of both men and women are discussed candidly.
More to the point:
Female sexuality is not flawed or defective. The females in which it resides are imperfect human beings who make mistakes along the way.
The society in which female sexuality expresses itself and manifests itself is flawed, defective and dysfunctional. That society has allowed female sexuality to run rampant with no restraints whatever, while simultaneously hamstringing, restraining and penalizing male sexuality.
That’s what is being pointed out, I think.
@ HanSolo @ Olive
phys.org/news/2012-12-pair-global.html
@deti
WADR, I think your own views on female sexuality are extremely inaccurate and appear to be based on ignorant internet rantings of disappointed males rather than real understanding or scientific knowledge. Much of what you claim regularly can easily be disproved. The “alpha widow” and “carousel watcher” memes are two such examples.
Uh-oh, the gender-war trio is back.
*sigh*
It has been
30 days since last accident.@deti
@deti
This is worthy of debate certainly. What is unacceptable, in my view, and therefore on my blog, is any suggestion that provoking anxiety and jealousy in a loving relationship is appropriate or helpful, for example. Or that a man should DQ a woman who doesn’t put out by date 3. Or that it is selfish of a woman to wear her hair short or present herself in a way that makes her feel sexy without regard to how males feel about her appearance.
Re the demonization of male sexuality, I agree that there are examples of this in society, including a presumed guilty culture on college campuses re sexual assault. At the same time, we have frats chanting “No means yes! Yes means anal!” in front of the Yale Women’s Center. In truth, male sexuality is as out of control today as female sexuality is, it’s just that most men don’t benefit. And that’s what I think drives most of the male resentment – as Mule and Slumlord have pointed out.
@SayWhaat
Thank you for sounding the alarm. I will disallow any further comments on the issue, and will refrain from further comments myself.
I think you think that.
I view all guys commenting here (with the exception of Megaman, David Foster, and JP) as de facto ‘spherists.
Haha, whoops, just as I was adding more fuel to the fire!
No worries, I need to return to reviewing my firm’s contributions to my 401K plan anyhow.
“I think your own views on female sexuality are extremely inaccurate and appear to be based on ignorant internet rantings of disappointed males rather than real understanding or scientific knowledge. Much of what you claim regularly can easily be disproved. The “alpha widow” and “carousel watcher” memes are two such examples.”
You’re trying to deflect the communication from the issue we’re talking about to my credibility, or more accurately, your beliefs and opinions about my credibility, both of which are irrelevant.
I can just as easily question your credibility by pointing out your views are being presented through the prism of a 57 year old married mother of two grown children who was educated at the toniest schools, was raised on the coasts, and who now lives in the posh suburbs of a major New England city. That’s not the point.
Do you disagree that hypergamy is a defining feature of female sexuality? Do you disagree that women seek the best men for mating and provisioning? Do you disagree that female sexuality really has no effective cultural or legal restraints? Do you disagree that unleashed female sexuality has presented problems in this SMP, for both men and the women you’re trying to help?
Let’s address the issues
SayWhat – “I view all guys commenting here (with the exception of Megaman, David Foster, and JP) as de facto ‘spherists”
And I would counter that this is a VERY short sighted outlook. No different than many men are accused of by placing women in the “casual sex” vs. “marriage” pile without consideration for individual nuance.
If you really think the guys commenting here are hard liners, I’d suggest you spend a week or so reading other ‘sphere blogs. It will piss you off, depress you, and make you think we are doomed as a species, but I think you will also find that most of the male posters here are FAR more reasonable.
But, if you insist on catagorizing male regulars here as White Knight or ‘sphere douchbag, by all means put me in the douchebag catagory. I’d rather be an asshole than a well walked on doormat.
@Saywhaat
“I view all guys commenting here (with the exception of Megaman, David Foster, and JP) as de facto ‘spherists.”
Curious as to why? Me specifically, don’t care much for others.
Not trying to be condescending, but I’ve been posting at HUS longer than you, and I was here when those attitudes were *very* prevalent in these very threads. Also, just because I consider you a “‘spherist” doesn’t mean I think of you negatively. There is variation of beliefs, but you are part of a contingent, no doubt.
Props to Susan for successfully pushing for more civil dialogue. I find HUS much more enjoyable recently.
@deti
In answer to the questions you pose, I will simply say that I have written posts and many comments in the affirmative. The difference is the AWALT problem – which you appear to subscribe to. In fact, you have generalized and used the “all women” label regularly.
My position is that all sexuality must be expressed within constraints that serve to keep society running smoothly. I agree that female hypergamy has been effectively unleashed – I see enormous variation among women in terms of how far they have run with that, with the vast majority happily pairing (or willing to pair) with men of equal status. The problem you perceive is observable in 15-20% of the female population*, and their male counterparts display unleashed gluttony for sexual variety.
The exception fallacy, or perhaps we could call it the Minority Fallacy, is where you go off track. This leads to the arrival of conclusions that are erroneous, and which can produce no improvement to the SMP, as that 15-20% has no incentive to change its behavior. Meanwhile, you ignore the 80-85%, who are the people who need strategic support to change the SMP, at least for themselves.
*Those with more than HS education.
LL, my response to Ted will suffice for you as well.
I just want to point out: My comments at 394 and 395 were very civil and I attacked no one. In return I’m finding myself under personal attack now merely for pointing out my opinion. Disappointing, really.
““No means yes! Yes means anal!” in front of the Yale Women’s Center”.
Oh boy….Really?
Reminds me of what the radical feminists used to chant: “There are no frigid women, only bad male lovers.”
If those two groups were the only representatives of both sexes, then the entire human race would quickly vanish amidst the flames.
@Ted
I agree with you, in fact I think almost all of the male posters here are very reasonable. However, comparison to commenters on other blogs is not valid. If HUS commenters are even 10% as rabid, well that’s still fatal, ASFAIC.
The most important point is that HUS is not a manosphere blog. What’s really happening is that some guys here cannot stand the male bloggers, and they see HUS as manosphere lite. That is not accurate, as I do not do the Red Pill here. This is why some recommended you and other guys start a new blog – because the gap between me and those men is a Grand Canyon of opportunity for voices of reason.
I need some more terms defined:
“Red Pill” (got the Matrix reference. all women aren’t sugar and spice? Strippers can’t necessarily be trusted to be good mothers? Girls can be mean and nasty?)
“Pedestaling” (what is this? ignoring flaws and declaring your girlfriend the “Most Awesome Wonderful Girl Ever and agreeing to serve them for All Eternity because they are the Embodiment of Human Perfection” or something?)
SayWhaat – “Not trying to be condescending, but I’ve been posting at HUS longer than you, and I was here when those attitudes were *very* prevalent in these very threads.”
Oh I’ve seen it myself, and depending on the subject I’ve BEEN that view.
“Also, just because I consider you a “‘spherist” doesn’t mean I think of you negatively. There is variation of beliefs, but you are part of a contingent, no doubt.”
Fair enough. But realize that your schema puts me and Doug1 in the same group, and although I may agree with some of the same ideas Doug1 does, we are practically polar opposites in terms of exactly HOW those ideas should be put to use.
I’ll admit to a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from the original statement, but only because ‘sphere is a four letter word in these parts.
Also keep in mind, that although I believe in Karma (what comes around, goes around) I am in no way a Buddhist. When it comes to such things, I usually don’t consider myself a member of any particular group just because I agree with some of their points. It isn’t that I am for/against the group, but I much prefer to pick and choose when it comes to ideas and form my own opinions. There are very few “identity groups” that I can get on board with, because to do so means adopting their views in entirety, and more often than not I have more differences with any particular group than similarities in ideas and thoughts.
@deti
How are you under personal attack? Is it your personal choices being criticized? Or the lens through which you view women and the SMP?
The Red Pill is the very black-and-white, good-vs.-evil simple world view from the first Matrix. It has instant appeal and sets up the conflict.
The philosophy in the subsequent Matrix is deeper and more complex. Check this out:
http://www.wylfing.net/essays/matrix_revolutions.html
@Damien
Exactly, that’s a great metaphor! We can talk about extremists but it’s not helpful or relevant to the vast majority who are really looking for something not much different than their parents have (assuming their parents are happy and together). When we describe males of good character as would-be rapists and virgin females as wannabe riders on the cock carousel we really do a great disservice to everyone but those groups, who benefit from us tarring everyone else with the same brush and normalizing their behavior.
@JP
Very good on the definitions! I feel like we’re playing Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me! That would actually be a great idea for a post. The only thing I would point out is that Pedestaling can and does occur long before girls become girlfriends.
Susan – “This is why some recommended you and other guys start a new blog – because the gap between me and those men is a Grand Canyon of opportunity for voices of reason.”
It is being discussed, but at this point it is far too early to tell what will become of it. I agree that there is a chasm between HUS and most of the ‘sphere, and perhaps there is a niche there that needs to be filled. My primary concern is such a blog would not likely generate much traffic from women, and without their participation the entire thing is destined to become an echo chamber. I’m not sure how such a blog could be created that would promote the kind of mixed gender conversation we have here at HUS. I’m not sure its even possible, as the communication style of the average “male oriented” blog is rather hostile to female audiences.
I’m unsure if anything like this would work. MMSL has a large female audience, but many of those are built in because they are “first officers” themselves. Do you think your target audience would be interested in participating in such an endeavor? If not, then the exercise may be completely pointless.
This is exactly why I refuse to settle. He could tell that she felt “meh” about him. If I have to choose between being single and coupling up with a man that I feel “meh” about, I’ll choose being single. I’m not surprised that she was an unloving shrew towards him. She forced herself into a situation that she didn’t really want in order to not be alone.
>> “I view all guys commenting here (with the exception of Megaman, David Foster, and JP) as de facto ‘spherists.”
Don’t forget Cooper, INTJ and HanSolo!!!! (And I’m probably forgetting somebody else, so my apologies to you, whoever you are!)
>> “Props to Susan for successfully pushing for more civil dialogue. I find HUS much more enjoyable recently.”
Co-signed.
“Don’t forget Cooper, INTJ and HanSolo”
Wait, so I am a ‘spherian but Cooper, INTH, and HanSolo aren’t?!
Is it an age thing?
@ted
“Is it an age thing?”
Probably, since I’m in there too. Or maybe it’s an asshole thing.
@ Susan
Semantics really. “How are you under personal attack? I’m not attacking you personally. I’m just saying you have crazy views.”
“I view all guys commenting here (with the exception of Megaman, David Foster, and JP) as de facto ‘spherists.”
…
“Haha, whoops, just as I was adding more fuel to the fire! ”
Wow…Plain Jane could never compete with this level of performance art
Passer_by – “Or maybe it’s an asshole thing”
Well hell! Put me in the asshole camp for sure. I wouldn’t even try to deny it!
I just find this amusing. Cooper and I have very similar outlooks as far as I can tell. INTJ is pretty close, with HanSolo probably being the most “moderate” of the three. What people don’t seem to realize is we arne’t different, we simply communicate our similarities in a different manner. I think the younger guys are far more polite, but I was more polite as a young man myself. At this point in my life, I’m about done with politeness for the sake of it.
@sassy, Susan
It seems to me that there are a sea of men between Gottlieb’s Mr. Perfect, on the one hand, and a Wallace Shawn lookalike, on the other. If that’s how far she had stoop (without falling in love with him for other reasons), then I’m guessing she’s just a naturally unpleasant woman whom even average guys couldn’t stand to be around.
Re: Gottlieb. I’ve actually heard about SMV differential being used more and more as a deliberate LTR strategy by exhausted and fatalistic 30something women. The women in question are now operating from the assumption that good-looking hetero single guys are either players or extraordinarily difficult and prone to micromanagement (“heterosexual male divas”, or “HMDs”), so the solution is apparently to insist on some kind of safe buffer zone between the female’s SMV and male’s SMV. This supposedly makes the guy more appreciative, causes him to try harder, etc.
The woman who does this obviously risks being caught on the horns of a dilemma.
@yorick
“I also don’t understand why the poster known as “deti” goes and on about . . .”
I don’t understnad why the poster known as yorick needs to refer to other posters as “the poster known as ___”
“Children according to my married friends are also meh.”
Oh, yeah? Well, your married friends suck. My kids RULE!
@Ted
Well duh! What you want is HUS! There’s no way around it – if the communication style is hostile or even too direct, women will not stick around. That means Playing Nice. If you want a male locker room, I do think there’s a real need for such a blog that does not have strong misogynist leanings.
Yorick – “Sex with a beautiful, young woman is Nice, not gonna lie, but its not worth all the hassle.”
For many men, it isn’t about sex or lack there of. For me, it has far more to do with moral and ethical issues than whether or not I’m getting my sexual needs fullfilled. As much as I may have been a blue pill guy, I really never spent much time in my life completely without sex. In fact, I went without sex for longer AFTER I got married than before.
And, like children or not, they are mostly the only thing a person can leave behind that will last. (barring any major world disaster or something.) It is through children that you pass on a legacy. Businesses change hands, money gets spent, but kids keep on having kids, and through that process you get as close as we can to immortality.
“Children according to my married friends are also meh.”
Well that certainly settles that.
“alpha widow” and “carousel watcher”
Does those coincide with “slut paradox?”
Susan – “If you want a male locker room, I do think there’s a real need for such a blog that does not have strong misogynist leanings.”
Well this is why I believe it will need a variety of input. Obviously I’m not in any way a great embassator to bridge male/female relations. They do exist though.
I simply don’t know if a “male locker room” would do much good. I’d be much more interested in something that promoted great intergender discussion. But it seems pretty clear from the reactions here that such an environment may be impossible to manage. More than anyone you should know that.
I have no interest in being just another take on the same old same. But by and large women don’t want to step into this, and without them all we are is a group of men grumbling about how life sucks. You can’t have a debate if only one side shows up. And to be frank, none of this can be solved unless women participate. It seems the only way to get that is to figure out how to “sell” it to them as something that is good for them, which I find intellectually dishonest. Surely it WOULD benefit women, but the truth is much of what is necessary would look very much like a negative when compared to the current scheme we have.
Women will have to want to help make these changes because they are the right thing to do, not because they feel good or serve their own interests. That is a tough sale for anyone.
@Sassy
Well, the response to Gottlieb’s advice was a big No Thank You! A woman today derives zero advantage from being with a man she feels meh about. Why on earth would she do that? It doesn’t make sense, there’s nothing to gain by it.
@Yorick
“but these mansphere fellas seem to have gotten stuck in their early 20′s”.
They’re not stuck in their 20′s, they just don’t understand how they all of a sudden find themselves, in their late 30′s being, among other things, sexually short changed with their wives, or whoever. There is one female biological logic in the long term, and a male one which is often quite different, and plenty other male/female contradictions. They failed to realize this early on, and are now stuck with it, hence the long rantings about women’s sexuality that should be the way THEY want it. It’s a bit as if they obstinately tried to put the last piece missing in the almost finished puzzle, only to find that they have the wrong piece. They can’t find the right piece missing, they’ve looked everywhere, so they want to “force in” the wrong piece they’re left with.
Mmmh, I’m not making myself clear anymore, here.
“A woman today derives zero advantage from being with a man she feels meh about.”
Similarly, these millennials derive zero advantage letting men know that for every meh there are hundreds of wows. There is no substitute for a change of scenery and the grass, in this case, really is much much greener on the other side…
@INTJ
What is the correct way to suggest that someone’s views are unfounded? I don’t recall using the word crazy.
Susan – “A woman today derives zero advantage from being with a man she feels meh about. ”
True. The problem arises when said women feels “meh” about 99% of the men she meets daily. I would say that perhaps the problem isn’t the lack of quality men, but an unreasonable expectation of what a “perfect” man should be.
That is exactly the impression I got. Here’s the interview I recall reading:
http://jezebel.com/5467630/email-interview-with-lori-gottliebs-ex-tim
Yorick = feelist = Michael = i don’t even remember all the names.
It’s interesting, I just saw (on TV) Lori Gottlieb give a speech at the Aspen Ideas Festival and she seemed fairly reasonable. Granted, that does not really mean anything.
Bastiat, I had trouble understanding what you were saying here (which is unusual), could you rephrase it or dumb it down?
@Ted
LOL, that’s my whole approach to blogging!
I think the debate can happen if people are civil and respectful to one another. Jimmy H is doing it in this thread. No snark, no condemnation or condescension.
I would also point out, as I have before, that the most volatile and accusatory speech tends to come from men of advancing years who have a major relationship trauma in their past. As deti has pointed out before, young women don’t want to hear advice that sounds like it’s coming from Mr. Deti who lives next door and drives a minivan. They also don’t want to hear advice from those who have love and lost. You can’t blame them.
“The problem arises when said women feels “meh” about 99% of the men she meets daily.”
Do any of these men care? These women are more likely than other women to carry a host of traits unworthy for commitment. Relishes in emotional porn, consumes multi penis belonging to “qualified” bidders and marinates in feminism. Any takers? Hmmm? Who exactly is driving the bus here?
Another brilliant metaphor! Damien, this is your gift!
Ted D, perhaps this is where confusion comes in?
” But realize that your schema puts me and Doug1 in the same group, and although I may agree with some of the same ideas Doug1 does, we are practically polar opposites in terms of exactly HOW those ideas should be put to use.”
How do you feel about women embracing *some* ideals of radical feminism and disagreeing only on semantics?
I don’t care if radfems vaguely agree about some topics (the end of domestic violence and sex trafficking). Because I actively choose to distance myself from these women.
Starting off with “radical feminists are definitely correct about most things, I only disagree with them on where society should go” automatically puts me in the group with radical feminists. Since I disagree with their core mission, and most of their issues, I seek out other allies instead.
Okay I’m in need of a serious global warming break, but just wanted to respond to this:
Yeah a lot of environmentalists are like hypocritical blind sheep; they detest anything that looks remotely “scary and polluting,” while simultaneously listening to their iPods and enjoying their air conditioning.
But this global warming believer definitely supports nuclear. The way I see it, we can’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels in a timely fashion without it.
Ion,
Oh yeah, totally agree. As I pointed out to INTJ, carrying capacity is a function of both the number of individuals in a population AND the average rate of consumption of each individual. Plus, Kenya has a much higher infant mortality rate than the U.S., so it’s silly to just look at birth rate and freak out about overpopulation.
I love it.
Agreed, which is why I’m always saying throw away the stupid checklist. Has to know about wine? No denim couch? No pleated pants? No American car? Really?
And live in the suburbs where they HAVE to drive everywhere, and buy new construction (which is eco friendly of course), and they would never eat tripe and trotters (while they support the idea of utilizing the whole animal, organ meats and other “off” cuts are just icky), and, as you said, they own tons of stuff manufactured in China in the worst factories, etc. etc.
While I believe that their is a lot of value in understanding and improving our environment, “Environmentalism” all too often acts as one more modern religion for the left. A modern religion that enables them to feel morally superior.
« 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 »
{ 2 trackbacks }