It is good to see we are impacting the larger conversation. Here is the article:
Why women lose the dating game
The quote:
But there is another conversation going on – a fascinating exchange about what is happening from the male point of view. Much of it thrives on the internet, in the so-called ”manosphere”. Here you will find men cheerfully, even triumphantly, blogging about their experience. They have cause for celebration, you see. They’ve discovered a profound change has taken place in the mating game and, to their surprise, they are the winners.
Dalrock (dalrock.wordpress.com) is typical: ”Today’s unmarried twentysomething women have given men an ultimatum: I’ll marry when I’m ready, take it or leave it. This is, of course, their right. But ultimatums are a risky thing, because there is always a possibility the other side will decide to leave it. In the next decade we will witness the end result of this game of marriage chicken.”
The endgame Dalrock warns about is already in play for hordes of unmarried professional women – the well-coiffed lawyers, bankers and other success stories. Many thought they could put off marriage and families until their 30s, having devoted their 20s to education, establishing careers and playing the field. But was their decade of dating a strategic mistake?
The post she is quoting is Supply and demand in the marriage market. H/T Lavazza, and thanks to Ferdinand for getting the word out.
Edit: Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart and Whiskey were also quoted in the piece.
Edit 2: Thanks to Captain Capitalism for the kind words and the linkage.
I would hardly describe the current situation as being advantageous to men. With the rare exception of the super Alphas who get a new girl every weekend and are fortunate enough to avoid false rape accusations, we are certainly not “the winners.”
This article is yet another example of a woman minimizing male suffering while making women out to be the victims of a situation they created.
COngratulations, Dalrock!
It’s a testament to the quality of the writing, I think.
I am sure journalists look for some bite, or some well written paragraph or snippet of a paragraph, that they can cut out and block quote to make their point quickly and succinctly, mainly due to time and space limitations.
Reading the comments for that article, there are quite a few rationalization hamsters running themselves ragged. Women these days don’t understand just how badly they have destroyed themselves. From upper crust alphas to the bitter bottom omegas, a lot of men these days simply do not care for women. At all. They have no sympathy nor empathy for them. Women have managed to help create an entire generation of men who try their damnedest to reach the tip top of the dark triad test rates (I’m 99th percentile on everything baby, woo hoo!). That’s going to cost them, big time.
I myself was even quoted.
[D: I had missed that. I just searched for it and it was a comment on the same supply and demand post of mine, and the one Kathy had responded so strongly to.]
Many of the comments on the article are indeed female hamsterwheeling. It’s almost tragic but not for the pure entertainment value. The Manosphere is a spreading meme and that’s always a good thing.
The sad, cold truth is that women will not adapt or change to the market. They will not, on a large scale at least, start behaving better and more appropriately. They will simply keep hitting that wall and revving up their hamsters to lessen the fallout; until such a stage that society stops rewarding them for their bad decisions. Women don’t need protection anymore, what they need is consequences. They must realise the futility of their feminist mantra of careers and grrrrl power.
It’s funny, when I didn’t know sites like these even existed and I was rather young, I mistook the constant whining from, what we call, ‘ou tannies,’ as just bad experiences that they couldn’t help. Now, looking back, it’s quite apparent that these women chose and keep choosing to get involved in these relationships. That’s the reason they’re single, old and have lots of cats. They like the drama and the impact of the devastation of the relationship on those around them. Some of these women are truly addicts.
You’re either lucky enough to find a woman who was actually raised properly with a loving father, mother and other family members, who told her to search for a husband from an early age and not an Alpha, or you get to deal with the vaginal whinging from the career, working gal, harlot. It’s not much of a choice I’m afraid.
And, as said so many times before but it always needs to be repeated. Getting married has never, in my opinion, stopped a woman obtaining a degree and having a career. It just takes sacrifice. Wow, what a novel concept…having to sacrifice for your marriage and children, who would have thunk?!
Well, now that’s a spot of good news.
Well done, Dalrock!
I congratulate that the manosphere is getting some recognition. But it will all be vain until everyone acknowledges the 600 pound gorilla in the room.
These women are indignant that they are at peak of career and self-esteem in regards to looks. They probably have adorned themselves with designer clothes, nice cars, and trappings of an independent successful woman. Deny it all you want, but if they were doing the right thing there wouldn’t be a story. So until women are willing to connect their actions with their expectations, there is nothing to talk about.
The (predictable) response from a female med student in her twenties in an opinion piece from the same paper is priceless:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/women-arent–fruit-and-men-arent-accessories-20120423-1xg94.html
Wheels at warp speed !!
It’s endlessly entertaining for me to read Kate Bolicks’ quotes knowing that her professional career, TV options and million dollar book deal are all dependent upon her staying a frustrated, regretful, aging spinster into her 50s.
It is often the unintended juxtaposition that is most telling. Here, I see, above the article a banner Ad – ‘Beautiful girls from Kiev. Browse thousands of on-line Profiles. Find your soul mate and be happy’. Rather reveals why the sluts in the article are unmarried – too old, too ugly, too bitchy.
I was however shocked to read later on in the article that the Manosphere is ‘not a place for the faint-hearted’ being ‘Crude and Misogynistic’ – and it is Greenlander who gets the blame for that! Wherever this Manosphere is, I and my Hamster are certainly not going there!
Congratulations Dalrock!
@gritartisan
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that little development.
Women in Kate Bolick’s place are stupid and clueless about themselves and there own ginatingle. They spend their whole lives living for status in the herd. Chasing men that the other bitches say they should get. They have a blue pill good man and notice the gina tingle isn’t there. They can’t explain why so they come up with the hamster tale and write a book. Dalrock even had an article about women wishing the good man they had would’ve cheated on them so as to feed there hamster. If it was just the dumb bitch being a spinster there would be no MRM or even a Dalrock. Men, children,and constitutional law is sacrificed for these ungrateful cunts. One thing I will give Bolick she didn’t sacrifice a mans future and his children to feed her herd status whore and hamster like 99 percent of the rest of western women. She is stupid and will be lonely as she ages out but i will give her credit.
the big mistake these women in general make is they have so regulated life with real penalties with out constitutional checks for men that men in the fields these women are in are full of supplicating men. They would otherwise be normal but are castrated just to survive. Those guys do everything “right” (blue pill style and are good at it, because you don’t get there with out being expert at blue pill supplication) But guess what, no gina tingle. Kate can have some dick if she ask for some. But you single mom by choice, restraining order divorce cunts, hold your husband hostage no sex and i’ll take your kids, well fuck you bitch.
@Rollo
Hilarious observation on Bolicks. She’s written her way into the spinsterhood corner. I see a small, yappy dog in her future or maybe several cats.
I amazed that the comment section to the rebuttal of Bettina Ardnts article was closed after 3 comments. I also wanted to go put my 2cents worth over there. Congratulations Dalrock, thanks to you and many others as has been mentioned here, the word is getting out.
When the wave shows up, you must be prepared to stand up and surf.
Are you ready, gentlemen?
Ms Arndt has her own website listing a number of prwviously written ‘controversial’ articles. By manosphere standards, they are pretty tame.
Having read her columns for years, i know some of her background and it makes for interesting reading. Widowed as a youngish woman, she described being back in the dating market with some bemusement. Pregnant for the first time at forty, she eventually had a couple of boys whom she describes as being concerned for their future.
Given the gynocentric, nofault divorce culture we live in, unsurprising.
I have not seen her writing much these last few years, but whenever she does the misandrists come out. In response to the recent column, the furious ideologues even declared she was mentally ill and needs to go to hospital.
As i have said before, i have little sympathy for aging single women. They chose their lives by adhering to hypergamy and overvaluing their smv. A little schaudenfreude at their predicament is to be expected.
OT, but of interest: hypergamy is wrecking China, says “Foreign Policy” (not with these words, of course). Imagine that! And in a country with an enormous surplus of men…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_startling_plight_of_china_s_leftover_ladies
And congrats, Dalrock!
What’s the surprise here? Dalrock has always been big down under.
Grats Dalrock!
It only took 76 comments for the princesses at SMH to panic and close commenting.
Love that they’re starting talk about this kind of thing more and more in the mainstream. It gives me hope.
Not for the current 30’s and upper 20’s women. Those boats have sailed off into cat-lady land. I doubt you’ll ever see a woman who actually accepts the consequences of her actions. In their minds, it will always be men that aren’t doing their job to man up and marry her wonderful snowflake princess career girl who is the center of the universe.
I think the message will get out real quick to those women just getting out of college though. When they see their sisters, their older friends, and other women get passed up, pumped and dumped, and then approached by the older men for relationships…. They’ll see the lies they’ve been fed and that people like Kate Bolick aren’t happy and never will be.
It is no coincidence that the pet chosen is a cat, rather that a pet that would not be a natural predator of a hamster.
A rat would be a better analogy, because rats catch toxoplasmosis, which..
(a) makes rats less cautious, and thus more likely to be eaten by a cat (toxo. reproduces in cats).
(b) makes women more promiscious (which also. in the long run, makes them likely to be old, alone, and eaten by their cats, once again enabling toxo. to complete its lifecycle… ),
and
(c) makes men into jerks…
Hmm… Toxoplasmosis and the manosphere?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0023277
http://www.wired.com/table_of_malcontents/2006/12/the_rise_of_tox/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/8873/
being mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald.
is worth almost 3.2 mentions by
the SPLC
Cool!!! What great news! Interesting though that you were not hyperlinked in the article, but rather url just mention. I was wondering what kind of traffic you were getting from there….guess you won’t know.
unmarried professional women – the well-coiffed lawyers, bankers and other success stories
But how successful are they really? How much is in their mind? Is it self-esteem run amok?
It’s not karma, but it works out to be the same.
Beta men in the 20s got to “talk to the hand”, and there was no compassion nor pity for them.
Now these women are getting what they dished out, and it isn’t just hubris that has 30+ men doing this. One of the defining characteristics of the Beta is a sense of Justice. It is Justice that these women are treated as disposables and seconds. These women deserve all the compassion that they showed: none.
What is more difficult for me to deal with is their appeals to my mercy, because as a Beta I have mercy, too. They were mistreated again and again by the worthless Alphas they chose. What hardens my heart now is that for every blissful moment they had, however infrequent, I had even less. I paid for their misjudgments even more than they. At least they were getting laid.
My daughters are in their early 20s now. As I love them, please, show their older “sisters” no pity. Change the dynamic now and forever. Let them “talk to the hand”.
Love that they’re starting talk about this kind of thing more and more in the mainstream.
It will leak out more and more, eventually becoming a gusher. Who are you going to believe, feminists, or your lying eyes?
Beta men in the 20s got to “talk to the hand”, and there was no compassion nor pity for them.
The big benefit there is that the hand does not talk back
Sigh…I really don’t know any of those types of woman that are described in these articles. Most of my friends are married with young babies, and they’re in their late 20s. I’m basically the only one who’s still single. It didn’t have anything to do with careerism, or princess syndrome, or the aforementioned things. I was married at 25, and divorced at 28. It hurt like hell. I wish I’d never married, and spent more time figuring out who I was and developed a better sense of what is good character. I’m envious of those women who have done that, and married later when they’ve developed a better sense of character. I’m 30 now, but I feel like I’m 21 at times.
My story:
I met a guy who was in his third year of law school when I was 23. He was 25. We met through a mutual friend. I really liked him, and thought he was a good guy. He was quiet and reserved for someone who was going to be an attorney. He had several heartbreaks in the past, and he told me that he wanted someone who was more stable and nice. We dated for 2 years, then got married. I didn’t think too much about it, I simply liked him and thought we worked well together.
Note to women in their early 20s….DO NOT get married UNLESS you have figured out who you are, and developed yourself emotionally, mentally, spiritually.
Back to the story. My ex started a new job working for the government after finishing law school. I was making more money than he was as a software engineer since I’ve been working a little longer.
Year 1 of marriage:
He was finally starting his career and happy initially. However, he started to complain everyday about his job, and about whether or not he made the right decision to become an attorney. He said he just wanted a simpler life and not have to deal with people everyday. I told him, well, why don’t we move out of state to somewhere less expensive, and live a simpler life? He considered it, but not seriously.
Year 2 of marriage:
He decided he wanted to buy a huge house which was going to cost an entire person’s income every month. I suggested that we buy a smaller, less expensive house and upgrade later. But, he wanted this particular house, he said he’s doing it because we’re going to start having kids, and he wants three. So, we get the house but most of the rooms stay empty because we have no money left over to buy furniture.
Year 3 of marriage
His mom started complaining about me, how I’m disrespectful. I don’t want to visit them that often (they call my ex at least 2-4 times a week), and want him to visit at least 1-2 times a month. I don’t even talk to my own parents nor see them that often, and they live an hour away. Anyway, his mom was the undoing of an already crumbling marriage. He was dissatisfied with his life, and he blamed it on me. His mom further aggravated the situation by telling him that he should’ve met more people before committing to me. Finally, he told me that it’s not working for him, and he wants to meet more women. I find out through a friend that he started dating a few weeks after he had ended it with me. He refused to see me or talk to me about the end. The worst thing is the broken dreams. We were planning to have three kids, we were planning the nursery rooms.
I was 28 when I got divorced. More than a year later, I’m still dealing with the repercussions of that divorce. Did I see it coming? There were signs before the marriage, like how his parents would be really clingy with him, how they dictated many things he did, how they overruled my suggestions.
I don’t know if I want to get married again. I am much happier being single. Were there happy moments during that marriage? Yes, but not enough to make up for all the heartache and lost time. Did I like being married? It was nice to come home to him, and I did enjoy taking care of him. However, he didn’t appreciate it. Even after the whole thing ended, I still wanted him to be happy and taken care of, because I loved him.
Through that whole mess, I think it basically comes down to this. Marriage is NOT for making you happy. Your spouse is NOT responsible for your happiness. Marriage is to teach you how to be selfless, to be considerate, patient, understanding, and to learn how to get along with another person. The only requirement that your spouse needs to fulfill is to be faithful and committed.
So Aunt Giggles is an ‘analyst’ now? heheh,.. All she did was quote a study she picked up from one of Roissy’s links about 20% of men banging 80% of women.
Many really struggle with the fact that they aren’t in a position to be too choosy. American author Lori Gottlieb gives a painfully honest account of that process in her book Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr Good Enough.
Back in my mother’s day, this was beaten into women. If he had a job, and was a nice guy, then grab him. And happy the women would be.
But now all women are special. Got to have the best. Are women as a herd really as stupid as they act?
”Maybe we need to get over ourselves,” she writes.
By far the most sage advice in the article
”I’m lucky,” he says, ”to be in a buyer’s market.”
Just wait until you get married, then watch the power shift.
Women don’t grasp cause and effect very well.
So weird. Even dogs can figure out cause and effect.
@Terse_man.
In your mother’s day, there was accumulated and recounted wisdom on HOW to recognize a “nice man”. Today, women have only one metric: money. They have no idea how to assess character, and there is no one to tell them anymore either. Your grandmother and mine are long gone.
Leave a $50 on the dresser, and smile.
Actually, according to current popular culture, men don’t have “character” and it is pointless to look for it. That’s why they focus on money.
Today, women have only one metric: money
Not totally true. I was a tall, good looking, very nice beta with high intelligence and a very well paying job back in the day. Women never paid attention to me. Now, with game — no problem. Tingle comes first, money second with the modern woman.
Actually, according to current popular culture, men don’t have “character”
I was a product of the old culture where men did have character. I developed in spades. Did not do me any good. Game did me lots of good. For clarity, I practice a moral “intellectual” game along the lines of Athol Kay. Anyway you want to look at it, the tingle is what matters.
“This is why women view the role of government very differently than men do, and why democracy eventually devolves into misandry.”
While I agree women’s suffrage intensifies misandry, feminism was marching long before it was granted, or it never would have been granted. Read E. Belford Bax.
Does a rationalization hamster in full flight give a woman any tingle?
@Terse_man,
You’re right, of course, and I projected my own self-criticism in error. Game then, but it’s still not paying off for them.
“While I agree women’s suffrage intensifies misandry, feminism was marching long before it was granted, or it never would have been granted.”
Watch “Mary Poppins”. The wife is busy being a suffragette. She can’t be bothered to be a mother, the husband has to hire Mary Poppins to do that. Then the husband has to work very hard at the bank under great stress to earn his pay.
As a little kid I thought the wife was an abomination. It is hard to argue with that me thinks.
Hamster don’t give tingle, hamster assist in rationalizing any and all actions of hypergamy herd status or any misguided pursuit of happiness. And tingle itself. Example A 32 year old female teacher is arrested for a sexual relationship with a 13 year old boy. The hamster will allow her to say and believe the relationship was and is one of love and later on will even enable the woman to in her own mind rationally say and believe she was taken advantage of by that alpha stud.
@george
“What hardens my heart now is that for every blissful moment they had, however infrequent, I had even less. I paid for their misjudgments even more than they. At least they were getting laid.”
You must have getting something at some point.
“My daughters are in their early 20s now.”
Terse_man
The big benefit there is that the hand does not talk back
Nor does it bite….
@Crank,
My youngest was born in ’91. My wife divorced me because, despite being separated, she couldn’t really find herself as long as we were married. That was in ’93.
I strove to be the kind of man that I wanted my daughters to marry. That’s not “Alpha”. By ’95, all my children were living with me. That’s not “Alpha”. They remained with me, with almost no interruption, until ’09. That’s not “Alpha”.
I’m Beta. Alphas slink from beneath my gaze. I’ve actually frozen one stiff in a shopping mall with a word. He had made my daughter cry.
But they aren’t less manly than I. They just have a different focus. I’ve been friend-zoned over a dozen times and watched as those women happily gave themselves over to Alphas. I admire their skills of attraction, of seduction. I hope to learn some of those skills while there is still time to use them.
I’ve had one “successful” relationship since my divorce- in ’10 -, and when I learned that my honesty and integrity played no part in attracting her, I was pretty much done with compassion for carousel riders.
Nothing I’ve seen in the past couple of years has argued against that decision.
@Jennifer ( April 23 @ 7:08 )
If you want the advice i gave my daughters on determining if a man is ‘good’, contact me.
I’m thrilled to see the article, Dalrock – congratulations!
Congrats Dalrock and thank you for all the good work.
Jennifer – I couldn’t read past your first paragraph – I tried but as I read my eyes glazed over and I lost interest because I knew you were never going to write anything even remotely similar to the slavery and fascism I have experienced in my lifetime…
I have lived all my life in a world shaped by female’s presumed supremacy, at the mercy of women’s political attack dogs who enslave, devalued and criminalized men, forcing us to pay for your choices, privilege and status…
I know that any experience even remotely similar to the slavery and fascism that men experience is alien to you. I am not happy to say that I take pleasure in watching this society crumble as my world was torn apart so long ago…
Until women are held accountable and responsible for their choices and behaviors – until then – I can’t even take you seriously enough to read your post because I know that you don’t know.
Gee George – does that qualify me as ‘one of the good ones’?
Congrats
@highwasp
Yeah, I had pretty much the same reaction. I just sort of rolled my eyes reading Jennifer’s story, and didn’t really even feel like it was noteworthy enough to comment on.
@deti
I understand your sentiment. But this is not going to happen.
I am reffering to a situation which has to come. It’s harems. The man from SMH article could have all the women. Shared expenses but 3 to 4 incomes. Plus state benefits (easy-work heavy-salary state jobs, maternity leave, etc.). As a woman you can have your alpha and he is even financialy awarded just for being an alpha. As an alpha you can have a harem plus wealth coming from it. Which will attract more women.
Such situation is not sustainable even in mid term but you can bet some supporting legislation is being passed soon.
BTW, it is already happening in England. Some muslims have one official woman and several unofficial who gather state benefits. And I suppose similar settings among white trash.
@TFH
I would construct it a little bit differently but it depends on society you live in.
“Fame > Game > Looks > Humor > Wealth”
You should read Jennifer’s story. It’s textbook. No wonder every comment makes her cry NAWALT: she’s A Woman Like That.
“We dated for 2 years, then got married. I didn’t think too much about it, I simply liked him and thought we worked well together.”
How do you date for 2 years and not think about it too much; unless you’re only concerned with how you feel, and not what you’re doing, or what you’ll need to do?
“Note to women in their early 20s….DO NOT get married UNLESS you have figured out who you are, and developed yourself emotionally, mentally, spiritually.”
EPL it; carousel it; etc.
“I was making more money than he was…”
Lack of respect for his income (bad match), and why wasn’t she making the home, instead?
(Series of bad choices by the man; particularly concerning money.)
Perhaps 2 years spent in investigation and earnest discussion might have sussed this out…
“His mom started complaining about me, how I’m disrespectful.”
Woman invested in her son’s well-being–from birth–is disapproving of wife’s behavior.
“I don’t want to visit them that often (they call my ex at least 2-4 times a week), and want him to visit at least 1-2 times a month.”
1) Blatant attempts to isolate him from those that love him.
2) STILL annoyed that people who love other people want to be around them.
“I don’t even talk to my own parents nor see them that often, and they live an hour away.”
1) Doesn’t get along with her own family. That’s a bad sign.
2) The whole story is filled with parenthetical descriptions of motivations, rationale, and others’ failings. This one is oddly silent on the other party’s problem; which suggests that the author has some shame about this.
“Anyway, his mom was the undoing of an already crumbling marriage. He was dissatisfied with his life, and he blamed it on me. His mom further aggravated the situation by telling him that he should’ve met more people before committing to me. Finally, he told me that it’s not working for him, and he wants to meet more women. I find out through a friend that he started dating a few weeks after he had ended it with me. He refused to see me or talk to me about the end. The worst thing is the broken dreams. We were planning to have three kids, we were planning the nursery rooms.”
This paragraph is important for what it doesn’t say. If a man had written this, I’d bet money that he’d include at least one thing he’d done wrong; even if just as a throw-away to lend credence to the overall story. From the entitled woman’s perspective there’s no need for this. Who could possibly assume she’d done anything wrong anyway?
“Did I see it coming? There were signs before the marriage, like how his parents would be really clingy with him, how they dictated many things he did, how they overruled my suggestions.”
They dared to want the best for their son. Unfathomable to her, considering he was born male.
“I don’t know if I want to get married again. I am much happier being single.”
Denial.
“Were there happy moments during that marriage? Yes, but not enough to make up for all the heartache and lost time. Did I like being married? It was nice to come home to him, and I did enjoy taking care of him. However, he didn’t appreciate it. Even after the whole thing ended, I still wanted him to be happy and taken care of, because I loved him.”
This strikes me as female revisionist history. One time, while looking back over the wreckage, she accidentally realized that when she was playing the role of helpmate she actually enjoyed their marriage. Now, all she remembers is that she took care of him, and she enjoyed it. How could he be so cruel to leave her after all she’s done to re-remember herself as a dutiful wife?
“Through that whole mess, I think it basically comes down to this. Marriage is NOT for making you happy. Your spouse is NOT responsible for your happiness. Marriage is to teach you how to be selfless, to be considerate, patient, understanding, and to learn how to get along with another person. The only requirement that your spouse needs to fulfill is to be faithful and committed.”
Bafflingly, this is true, but never factored into her story.
———-
I want to say that I felt slightly cruel as I wrote this out, and several times considered deleting it. Each time, though, I would remember things she’s written that were utterly heartless from a compassionate person’s perspective that I found the will to kill my inner white-knight and keep going.
But more importantly, I decided that Jennifer wrote that because she wants us to understand her. I honestly have tried to do just that. I bear her no malice, and in fact have suffered some slights (very small) on her behalf.
Judging by the Womens comments in that article, that message is not one that Women want to hear.
Lol, they want to hear the lies that they’re still as attractive a prospect for marriage at age 35 that they were at 22. Delusions and mighty rodent hamsters on hamster wheels that if attached to an electric grid could power entire countries. This is exactly what EPL is made of, grrrrl power/moxie with a dash of careerism, man bashing and narcissism. The belief that they can go through entire football teams (janitors included) and come out clean and tight on the other side. They really do believe there will be literally thousands of men fighting over their hand.
Entitlement laden, Promiscuous Slutty Whores of Australia! Are you happy with the new description Smyrna? I even changed the place name to be more inline with the modern world!
@Leap of a Beta 5:05 pm
Yeah right. Young college-educated Western single women will objectively assess the visible long-term repercussions of unrestrained female hypergamy, correctly deduce that feminist social policies are responsible and will reject anti-male lies accordingly. And pigs fly.
A far more likely possibility is that they will want to blame men for all the female misfortune they see and experience, politicians and journalists will obviously take notice and thus rachet up misandrist propaganda in order to exploit the overflowing frustration of single women. Anti-male legal and media bias will just keep getting worse as a result. That’s the ingenuity of feminism – it creates more and more problems for women, then blames them on men, women approve and demand even more feminist policies. It thus feeds on itself.
The fact is that no amount of cautionary tales about bitter spinsters will scare young women into marrying early if there are no commitment-minded young alphas around them. As we all know, there won’t be. And Bolick is hardly a cautionary tale. If anything, she presents spinsterhood in an unrealistically good light by giving the impression that spinsters can become wealthy and famous.
I live in Sydney and use the Fast Impressions speed dating that they mentioned. They have so many women that they often offer me to go for free just to fill the spaces.
It amazes me, you look around at the women at speed dating and they are just average girls, nothing wrong with that, I’m an average guy and I would be happy with any of them. I always tick yes on every girl, then I get the results to find not one of those average girls wanted to meet an average guy. They cry and moan that they want a good man but their actions prove otherwise.
Additionally, there are 2 girls in my group of friends, both 39 and talking about being artificially inseminated. I have seen both of them crying because they “never had a chance to meet a nice guy”. I know thats bullshit because they both LJBFed me 10 years earlier.
KARMA!!!!!!!!
[D: Welcome.]
Congrats from Australia. Australian newspapers/news services (The Age, The Punch, the SMH) are incredibly feminist, with most having a stable of writers spewing out the party line every day.
In Australia we are probably five years behind the US in terms of feminist penetration and trends, but RAPIDLY gathering pace and catching up with you quite quickly. Congratulations on assisting the penetration of the mainstream media of the manosphere/MRM and jamming the gears of the feminist juggernaut.
Bettina Arndt is very much the black sheep in Australia – the fear is very strong strong and hence the ‘sisters’ continual attempts to shame her and attack her. She is a reasonably well credentialed researcher. For example, last year she outlined that in the past ten years, women on average are only working one more hour per week: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/combating-myths-of-womens-work-is-a-fulltime-job-20111122-1nsqm.html.
The bile continued today in this blog:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/blogs/life-etc/does-bettina-arndt-even-like-women-20120423-1xguz.html
Here’s hoping the efforts of Heartiste, yourself and others contribute to us reaching the tipping point sooner rather than later.
Höllenhund: “Yeah right. Young college-educated Western single women will objectively assess the visible long-term repercussions of unrestrained female hypergamy, correctly deduce that feminist social policies are responsible and will reject anti-male lies accordingly. And pigs fly.”
Yeah, even women who were wise enought to settle in their early to mid twenties and who are still together with their partners 20-25 years later are not (vocal and strong) anti-feminists. Most of the time they will share mainstream feminist thoughts, even if they behaved wisely in their private life.
Additionally to my comment about speed dating in sydney.
My friend (female) did it and she was friends with the women running it. Afterwards she stayed around to see you picked who.
To her shock all the women only ticked yes on 1 hot guy, they didn’t want any other guy, just the hot one!
The best part was he didn’t want ant of them!!!
Not a single match happened because they were all too fussy!
I think there is a rule for comments: that they should have beginning, middle and end, (not ramble) and should be a lot shorter than the article, so when I see some screed going on for ever, then unless I am already a fan of that commenter I tend not to read: so I omitted reading Jennifer at 7.08. Commenting on others misfortune especially when one cannot question the writer to probe deeper, in any event tends to be rather unsatisfactory, but given the perceptive bashing that she has received from Canecaldo (which I did read) I then read Jennifer and feel in this instance that I may be able to shed a little light (given my legal background) on matters that Canecaldo did not touch.
Jennifer met a third year law student. Would I be correct in suspecting she saw – even unconsciously – $$$. She says she was surprised he was quiet. That does not tie in with the image of a lawyer does it? In fact many male lawyers are just like that, but the fantasy of the overbearing charismatic young legal eagle (when in reality they are still wet behind the ears) is otherwise. They marry, but she earns more than him – to her surprise. I am afraid it is just another myth that lawyers are all fabulously wealthy with a machine in the back room that prints money. He, is not really sure that law is his thing – again the script says that as there can be nothing better than practising law – so Jennifer realises that she hitched her wagon to the wrong man and I am guessing never in their two year court-ship ever spent any time trying to understand her future husbands motivation or who he was.
I once worked with a lawyer who approaching the age of thirty decided to Marry. To impress his intended into marrying him he bought a large house. They married and shortly thereafter divorced – she walked of course – a pity as he was an interesting kind-hearted Oxbridge graduate – a man I much like in fact – and I would have said a good lawyer. I am guessing that Jennifer’s husband was intending similarily to impress when he decided to buy a large house. I am not trying to be unfairly critical of Jennifer – for a failed marriage is never a good thing – and who of us fully understand our motives; but I detect disappointed Hypergamy.
Congrats Dalrock.
The amount of denial in the article comments was hilarious and sad. I’m not sure how they can stick their fingers in the ears, muttering “no, no, no…”, and rocking back and forth while at the same time type out a response. Must take practice.
Reminds me of a similar joke…
An experienced trial lawyer says to the young protege, “If you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts. If the law, pound on the law. If neither, pound on the table.”
The one thing a young husband has to be? Arrogant.
I get that from my wife: “You used to be so arrogant and horrible”. And I say, “Still arrogant, still horrible”.
As Sam Goldwyn would have said: “The secret is arrogance. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made”.
@Highwasp,
Sorry, but no. None of that marks you as being ‘good’. Nothing that is *said* can do that.
I’m inclined to give Jennifer a clue, first because her last paragraph indicates she’s grown up and second because carousel rider couldn’t grasp it anyway.
My comments here rephrased this, from ’06: http://passionatewisdom.blogspot.com/2006/03/forgiving-feminists.html
Mrs. Parker was an MRA, at least at the time. I haven’t read her lately.
@ Jennifer (April 23, 2012 at 7:08 pm)
I suggest you comment using a different handle to avoid confusion with another infamous Jennifer in the manosphere.
Read and reflect. We all have our tragic stories and many get numb to hearing them although there may be aspects that are pertinent. This applies to both men and women. (I have learned this lesson).
Stick around but make very brief comments for the next few weeks as you learn and earn the respect from the main male commenters. (Suz is a woman that has accomplished this.)
Yes, Jennifer. Please call yourself something slightly different. The original Jennifer is a pest.
I, too, had to re-check to make sure that this Jennifer wasn’t the previous.
I have the handle Ecclesiastes on blogspot, but I wasn’t able to get it on wordpress. Having to rename oneself *is* annoying. Oh well.
@Terse_man,
Note: “talk to the hand” was an expression in the 90s : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_to_the_hand_(expression)
@ canecaldo
“Did I see it coming? There were signs before the marriage, like how his parents would be really clingy with him, how they dictated many things he did, how they overruled my suggestions.”
They dared to want the best for their son. Unfathomable to her, considering he was born male.
Are you seriously defending a meddling mother-in-law? Shouldn’t the son tell his mother to stop sticking her nose into his marriage?
Yes, mothers-in-law should stay out. Nobody should interfere in a marriage.
@CL
Insufficient data regarding the mother-in-law, but my inclination is to agree with you. On the other hand, parents are … parents. They screw up sometimes. I do.
According to Jennifer’s account, the husband didn’t leave his parents and cleave only to his wife. That would certainly be a failure on his part. I know that the day I told my mother that she was out of line to criticize my wife and to get lost was a red letter day for what marriage I did have.
Hell, I chewed my mother’s rear clean off for criticizing my EX-wife after hurricane Katrina ( it was no small criticism and intolerably unjust), and that smoothed my relations with the ex far more than I would have ever suspected.
@CL
“Are you seriously defending a meddling mother-in-law? Shouldn’t the son tell his mother to stop sticking her nose into his marriage?”
and @DC
“Yes, mothers-in-law should stay out. Nobody should interfere in a marriage.
There may be more, but here are two reason I disagree.
1) It very often matters whether the MIL in question is the mother of the husband or the wife. In my experience, mothers of husbands aren’t a cause of tension in a marriage where the husband is respected. I didn’t detect any respect for her ex-husband at all in her story. At every point where there should have been some, there was instead derision, apathy, or mere “like”. Even taking into consideration the hardness that divorce will give a retrospective, I think an element of that would seep through. If not, as I said above, there would be a small recognition of her faults in the divorce. A man looking back might at least say, “I can see now that I wasn’t Alpha enough.”, or, “I should have stood up to her.” In her narrative, she’s completely passive figure, and it never enters into her revelation that she should have been any different. In that light, I can see a husband’s mother being concerned. Talking on the phone to parents 2-4 times a week, and visiting them once or twice a month, is not excessive.
To go back to my first sentence: On the other hand, I’ve witnessed many occasions where the wife’s mother caused problems; princesses reaffirming each others entitlement. I can imagine an over-bearing MIL who wrecks a son’s marriage, but I’ve only seen it in movies. Form follows function, so those cases probably do exist, but the rarity of them causes them to be of sufficient interest that they are, in fact, fictionalized. Notably, those cases often involve the son living with the mother, or having a sinister relationship with her. Neither were indicated. Point of fact, Jennifer and her ex lived closer to her parents than his. Another point: she doesn’t want much contact with her family, either. That suggests to me a desire for a lack of accountability. If one were to find oneself in a marriage with a true momma’s-boy, then we have to wonder why in the world that wasn’t discovered and avoided during two years of dating?
2) A marriage cannot exist outside of a society, or culture. There is no such thing as a private marriage. Several marriages that I know of could do with a good dose of interference by a loving parent on the husband’s behalf. That being said, the interference should be given with the intent to heal the marriage; provoking the husband and the wife to assuming their God-given roles and responsibilities. Speaking as a Christian, I will say that scripture is clear we are accountable one to another, even in marital matters. A non-Christian might respond, “Well, good for you, but what about the rest of us?” to which I can only say that Scripture is right on all counts, and that there is no other way.
Marriages are more private and personal now than they’ve ever been historically recorded. Coincidentally, marriage is in an abysmal state. These things aren’t unrelated. It’s a recipe to divide and conquer Christian society…which is what we’re living through.
@”Jennifer”
Your story is not that uncommon, unfortunately, for both sexes.
Note to women in their early 20s….DO NOT get married UNLESS you have figured out who you are, and developed yourself emotionally, mentally, spiritually.
This is very true, and something that isn’t a very popular meme in the manosphere/androsphere. For women who have themselves figured out in their early 20s, marriage is fine. For women who are going to be changing quite a bit in terms of who they are and what they want between their early 20s and late 20s/30ish, it’s a mistake, and a big one. When I married, my ex was 23 and I was 28. Her goals, focus, orientation and life plan changed a lot between the time she was 23 and the time she was ~30, to the point where it’s fairly certain that had we met once these factors in her were more “set”, we would never have decided to marry each other due to divergences in many of these areas. That doesn’t make her “evil”, it just means that like many people, she wasn’t “baked” in terms of her life goals, focus and plan in her early 20s, and that once these were baked, the person she was with (me) was not compatible with those. Again, if people are fully “baked” in these key areas in their early 20s, fine, but quite a few people are not, and that is probably the reason why marriages involving people in their early 20s have pretty significant divorce rates.
However, he started to complain everyday about his job, and about whether or not he made the right decision to become an attorney. He said he just wanted a simpler life and not have to deal with people everyday.
This is not an uncommon sentiment for a young lawyer. Practicing law has many very shitty aspects to it, and especially at the beginning, when you are being given the crappiest of the work, it can well and truly suck. At the very best, it’s a slog. Most lawyers get past that phase and get to a place where they either accept it as a job, and deal with it like everyone else has to deal with their jobs, or they move on and decide to do something else (I’ve known a LOT of lawyers who have done that). The moral of the story is that too many people attend law school, but that’s a digression. It *can* however, relevant to this post, increase marital dissatisfaction to a significant degree when one person thinks their job sucks.
His mom started complaining about me, how I’m disrespectful. I don’t want to visit them that often (they call my ex at least 2-4 times a week), and want him to visit at least 1-2 times a month. I don’t even talk to my own parents nor see them that often, and they live an hour away. Anyway, his mom was the undoing of an already crumbling marriage. He was dissatisfied with his life, and he blamed it on me.
This is also very, very common. Parents in law fall into two varieties: supporters and meddlers. It rarely changes. That is, meddlers rarely morph into supporters. What can happen with meddlers is that the couple just distances themselves from the meddlers in order to prevent damage to the marriage. But that’s far from ideal, because it separates one of the spouses from their parents and family, and when there are kids in the picture that *will* be a big deal at some stage. The best practice here is, again, sussing this out up front and avoiding situations where you can see that the relationship between parent and your prospective spouse is the kind that will involve meddling — and if it is, drop the relationship. It sounds harsh, but the meddling in-laws create years and years and years worth of real, hardcore marital strife in many, many cases, and cutting them off is a solution that also creates its own problems as well. It’s just a bad situation. In my marriage, both sets of inlaws were meddlers, so it was a mess as well. We tried the cutoff approach for a while, and that created other problems.
I was 28 when I got divorced. More than a year later, I’m still dealing with the repercussions of that divorce. Did I see it coming? There were signs before the marriage, like how his parents would be really clingy with him, how they dictated many things he did, how they overruled my suggestions.
Yeah. It’s definitely something that’s easier to see in hindsight than it is the first time around, but these are really red flags. Many/(most?) people blow through them, because the idea of not marrying someone because of their relationship with their parents is not a popular one, but it can be the best decision for everyone really.
I don’t know if I want to get married again. I am much happier being single.
A common sentiment among the divorced. For most of us, it’s simply true that we *are* happier now than we were when we were married to our exes. The key comparison, however, is whether we are happier now than we could be if we were married to someone other than our exes. That’s not an easy question to answer, I think, but it’s the real question.
The other key point is that some marriages just need to end, really. If you have a spouse who is immature, not really committed to his/her present situation, and subject to outside manipulation (parents, family, friends) in this regard, it’s a toxic situation and it will be subject to a lot of difficulty. It’s particularly the case when the couple is young at marriage, really. The best case scenario is when both parties know what they want, have firm goals which they share and are committed to, and have “gotten out of their system” whatever doubts/unturned-rocks and the like they need to in order to feel secure in these commitments, goals and plans. Sometimes people are just more mature at 23 than others are, and if they are, that’s fine. There are other people who still don’t have this sorted out at 30 and beyond. But the key is, regardless of the age, the person needs to be fairly “baked” in terms of what their life expectations, goals, and life plans are so that they can be committed to those plans, which includes the commitment to their marriage as a key part of these plans. What often happens is that the lifeplan, goals and so on change, and there isn’t a place for the marriage in the revised plans — that happens when the plans and goals aren’t “baked” up front, before the marriage, and it’s really a question of maturity and personal development more than anything else.
@Dalrock,
I can’t find any contact info on your site, so I’ll just put this here. It definitely seems relevant to other things you’ve posted.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for–280–the-return-of-debtors–prisons.html
Putting men in jail for being unable to pay child support and alimony that exceeds their net income for years is no big deal. But put a woman in jail over debt and now it’s news.
“According to Jennifer’s account, the husband didn’t leave his parents and cleave only to his wife. That would certainly be a failure on his part. I know that the day I told my mother that she was out of line to criticize my wife and to get lost was a red letter day for what marriage I did have.
Hell, I chewed my mother’s rear clean off for criticizing my EX-wife after hurricane Katrina ( it was no small criticism and intolerably unjust), and that smoothed my relations with the ex far more than I would have ever suspected.
Not to be insensitive, but after those actions you were still rewarded with divorce. This seems like terrible advice based on a confusion of causation and correlation: You sided with your ex-wife over your mother, and so ex-wife showed you favor; not because she reasoned that you acted wisely, but because you validated her feelings. Ex-wife might even have been right, but my suspicion is that right and wrong didn’t really factor into her decision-making process.
Canecaldo, just my own experience. My mother interferes (a lot of dislike between my wife and mother) and my mother-in-law does not. The latter seems the better approach. As old Mrs Corleone says in The Godfather, “Don’t come between husband and wife”.
@ canecaldo
You seem determined to find fault with Jennifer when there is not enough information to go on, although she clearly said too much for an unknown in this venue. There is no basis for so much assumption here and your attempt at reading between the lines is strained.
A man who is still attached to his mother’s apron strings is less likely to garner respect from a woman. I dated someone like that once and he was embarrassingly pathetic, like a little boy. There are weak men as well as weak women.
I am not coming down on one side or the other in Jennifer’s story because I don’t know enough of it, but you are reading a lot into it so that you can come up with a ‘typical woman’ story here. An overbearing MIL can have a deleterious effect and it’s more common than you’d think. English mothers are notorious for this, for example. I don’t think it makes much difference whose mother it is, honestly, if the spouse in question is taking her words to heart.
I can’t get over how women don’t worry about having children after the age of 35. I can’t get over their lack of panic in the dating market and how they still have a 100 point bullet list for a partner. It’s almost comical.
Say you’re 35 years old. You’d have to meet a guy on your birthday, click with him, he has to want marriage and committment, you then have to click sexually and financially, you then have to date for probably a minimum of 10 months…then you get engaged…. probably takes at the earliest six months to get to a wedding date since this is yoru first marriage and your family is going to want to be invovled. So say ALL of that happens and you get marred 16 months after your 35th birthday – so that puts you at 36 1/2. Then say you get pregnant on your wedding night and are able to carry a healthy baby with no miscarriage or health issues then you can have your FIRST child at the age of 37 1/2.
hahahahah. It’s comical. You would essentially have to hit the proverbial Royal Flush to get one child by the age of 37 1/2 and yet women every day all day are out there in the dating market at the age of 35 being picky and choosy about a partner and still chasing the proverbial Alpha.
It’s really at a core level pretty comical. I think if you aren’t married by 35, you’re in deep shit.
My MIL is a gem. She has put my wife straight more than once.
A man has to eventually make it clear that his wife comes first now.
Something I meant to mention, but forgot: At nearly every instance, Jennifer’s Ex was a family man; if a badly reasoned one. From her description of how they married (he seems to be the instigator in that undertaking); to desiring to be the provider (foolishly animated as jealousy of her salary, but even so); to wanting to have kids (three being considered a good-sized family in our times); to wanting a good house for them (again, foolishly acquired, but an understandable desire); to keeping a good relationship with his parents (I don’t know how people have children without a strong extended family to help). Everything tells me that this fellow was, by nature, a decent beta, with good provider instincts, but lousy execution. It seems to me he could have used MORE intervention, and sooner.
Jennifer’s post reflects what a lot of women do when faced with hard truths and I agree with CaneCaldo’s breakdown of what she said. On a larger scale though, she does something that I see a lot of women do when faced with hard truths:
1) They feel the need to point out that “I am not like that” or “my girlfriends are not like that”. Why, when speaking in a generalities, do many women lose focus and talk about their personal experience, and vice versa. I know they can speak generally because when it comes time to criticize men they can criticize, generally and personally, well and often.
2) They share a sob story as if knowing how miserable they feel/felt means something to others. I can see sharing sadness to gain others’ insight but too many women treat sharing their misery as a preemptive subtle manipulation to avoid criticism or as a kind of emotional masturbation.
3) They exhibit a total lack of the understanding of cause/effect and logic when faced with themselves and their shortcomings. She says “Did I like being married? It was nice to come home to him, and I did enjoy taking care of him. However, he didn’t appreciate it.” Maybe he did appreciate what she did but couldn’t deal with her as a person? I know from experience that women will often leave out their own destructive behaviors and paint themselves is the best possible light when telling their stories.
4) They blame others, first and forever, instead of looking at themselves. She says “his mom was the undoing of an already crumbling marriage. He was dissatisfied with his life, and he blamed it on me”. No, your crumbling marriage was its own undoing and his mom was looking out for him as a mom should. Just like we often use a petroleum based cleaner to remove oil or how you get a spy to hunt down another spy, moms are probably the best tool to sniff out unhealthy women for their sons (and dads for sniffing out unhealthy men for their daughters). Can parents become part of the problem? Yup. But, more often than not, there is truth in their criticism.
I could go on all day breaking this post (and women’s behavior) down but I wish someone would put together a guidebook of women’s behavior to avoid, a “The Tao of the Hamster” so that men could refer to it.
canecaldo – ”In her narrative, she’s completely passive figure…”
In case anyone is not already aware of the concept of female hypoagency http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE – the tyranny of female hypoagency, by girlwriteswhat & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwXhpS8xak – Vleaks1.0 : Female Submission as Emotional Dominance, by Typhon Blue
@ DC
My MIL is a gem. She has put my wife straight more than once.
That’s the kind of MIL I aspire to be. Why on earth do mothers want to poison their kids’ marriages? It’s disgusting.
Also I’ll just say that little contact with parents isn’t necessarily a bad sign. What if you happen to have a-holes for parents? Sometimes the healthiest choice IS to limit contact. (Again, don’t know about Jennifer’s case specifically, just that it’s possible to assume too much).
@CL
I’ll respond in reverse order.
“I am not coming down on one side or the other in Jennifer’s story because I don’t know enough of it, but you are reading a lot into it so that you can come up with a ‘typical woman’ story here. An overbearing MIL can have a deleterious effect and it’s more common than you’d think. English mothers are notorious for this, for example. I don’t think it makes much difference whose mother it is, honestly, if the spouse in question is taking her words to heart.”
You might be right. However; that’s not my experience, and it’s so far tilted in the direction I’ve laid out that I am convinced.
“A man who is still attached to his mother’s apron strings is less likely to garner respect from a woman. I dated someone like that once and he was embarrassingly pathetic, like a little boy. There are weak men as well as weak women.”
Absolutely true, and I should say that this sentence is downright evil: “His mom further aggravated the situation by telling him that he should’ve met more people before committing to me.”, but I’m wondering if it should be unexpected from a mother whose son is not being respected? Instinctively, she’ll know respect for the husband is the wife’s basis for a good marriage.
You seem determined to find fault with Jennifer when there is not enough information to go on, although she clearly said too much for an unknown in this venue. There is no basis for so much assumption here and your attempt at reading between the lines is strained.
Re-read her first sentence. This is a woman who has carefully considered her surroundings? “Sigh…I really don’t know any of those types of woman that are described in these articles.” Yes, women trading-up, delaying marriage, and riding the carousel is all fantasy–something that happens on the outer-edge of civilization. I’m ready to believe that she never considered the wide-ranging aspects of hypergamy (and very likely never that word), but is it really likely that she’s that so insulated from the rest of society that she doesn’t know of these women? I doubt that. The much more likely explanation is that it’s uncomfortable to consider; that entitlement is the order of the day.
I think that, to our detriment, this culture often confuses parental input/advice as parental control. It seems to me that our society has developed this idea of a married couple as “alone, against the world”, yet all throughout history, until very recently, married couples stayed in close contact with, and benefitted from the wisdom of, their parents and marriages were more stable. Correlation or causation, I don’t know.
It seems to me that the avoidance of parental input and the whole “marriage only for love” idea sprung up around the same time. As if some wanted to remove any and all oversight and stability from marriage.
@Brendan
Being married itself is a big life change, and takes a large adjustment. I would argue that women shouldn’t marry until they find a man they are 1) Head over heels in love with (Paul might say burn with passion over) and 2) Are prepared to submit to (follow his leadership). People will change in their 20s, but if the above two are genuine the change shouldn’t be in a different direction (by definition). What I advise women is if they want to marry to start the process of looking for a husband in earnest as soon as they possibly can. However, they shouldn’t marry until/unless they satisfy 1 & 2 above.
There is a reason the military prefers young recruits. They are easier to mold into soldiers/sailers, etc. They don’t wait for potential recruits to turn 27 and see who is physically fit and gung ho.
If her priorities, etc diverged after marriage isn’t it fair to assume that either you weren’t leading or she wasn’t following? I don’t mean this as a personal criticism, but the fatalism I’m reading from your message troubles me.
An early marriage is exposed to many more years of high divorce risk than a later marriage, and it is exposed to more years of divorce risk overall. This would seem sufficient to explain the much higher divorce risk associated with young marriage. From looking at the data, I think the simplest explanation is that women are most likely to divorce when they feel confident they can remarry. This fits with the academic view I referenced in Threatpoint. What I don’t see from the data is a sudden drop in divorce risk associated with wives suddenly “getting it together”. In the UK data the divorce rates for wives aged 20-24 is essentially the same as wives 30-34. Grated the UK data is strange on the very young side, but the slope of the curve doesn’t get any steeper until women reach around 50. There is no late 20s early 30s big drop, just a straight line until around menopause. The US data is similar but less clear due to the longer age brackets. But married women 25 to 34 divorce at a very similar rate (31 per 1,000 per year) as married women 15-24 (33 per 1,000 per year). I simply don’t see the commonly held assumption that there is a phase women grow out of while still youthful looking. The change is far better explained by their changing attractiveness/remarriage prospects.
Admittedly the data I have isn’t sorted by age at time of marriage, just the prevalence of divorce in any given year based on the age of the wife. However, since early marriages tend to divorce out quickly, very young marriages shouldn’t be impacting say the late 20s early 30s age bracket as much.
Edit: For those wanting to discuss this I think I’ll flesh it out into a post. I’ll use the generic assertion since it is so common instead of referencing Brendan’s comment in the post however. I just wanted to give a heads up for those who want to discuss this. There will be a thread up shortly, perhaps this evening or tomorrow.
@canecaldo,
I’m divorced despite my being loyal, quite true. Further, I agree that my ex-wife now shows less disfavor more because I validated her feelings than any particular bit of wisdom. She’s never in any hurry to say I’m right about anything.
I *think* it was an action which showed that her suspicions of my being spiteful towards her were unfounded, and after an August week of no power, no fuel, and no running water it would have been easy to be spiteful. I was angry for years, even to periodic rage, but that act showed I didn’t hate her. It knocked the legs from under the “He’s evil” charge.
Yes, I only have my own experience but my wife was keen to have sex with me and showed signs of being submissive. It is really all the same package.
Some of this is just biology. I read an analysis years ago that went through human courtship, and included a phase in which the woman acts profoundly submissive. If a man doesn’t get that signal, he should wonder why not.
“A man has to eventually make it clear that his wife comes first now.”
Of course. But look at this bit: ” I don’t want to visit them that often (they call my ex at least 2-4 times a week), and (they)want him to visit at least 1-2 times a month. I don’t even talk to my own parents nor see them that often, and they live an hour away.”
If the situation had been described as too much contact with mother alone, I would be more suspicious of Mom’s involvement. That’s not the case: he’s in regular contact with both his parents. His mother encouraging him to “look around” (a bit of hypergamous projection from Mom, there) was awful, but this isn’t a picture of a son with an unhealthy attachment to Mom. Rather, a son highly invested in the idea of family. I’m having trouble finding fault with that. Again, she describes this atrocious behavior as 2-4 calls a week (combined from both parents), and a desire to visit 1-2 times a month. I find that unremarkable.
@SC
I think that, to our detriment, this culture often confuses parental input/advice as parental control. It seems to me that our society has developed this idea of a married couple as “alone, against the world”, yet all throughout history, until very recently, married couples stayed in close contact with, and benefitted from the wisdom of, their parents and marriages were more stable. Correlation or causation, I don’t know.
Yes, exactly. What I was trying to say, but you said much more succinctly.
Congrats, Dalrock! And this is just the beginning . . .
@George:
There is a difference between a High Functioning Beta and a Wolf Alpha. A HFB is a passive player in his own life’s story who reacts to his situation, but who doesn’t proactively pursue a goal, be it business, family, love, etc.
A Wolf Alpha is a man who has gone his own way but who has made the decision to focus his life on the raising of high-quality children, preferably with the help of a suitable mother. You, Sir, are no Beta. You are a Wolf Alpha, and if your ex doesn’t realize that, then you are far, far better off without her.
Alpha comes in many flavors. Don’t think that Bull Alpha is the only one.
@ canecaldo
Absolutely true, and I should say that this sentence is downright evil: “His mom further aggravated the situation by telling him that he should’ve met more people before committing to me.”, but I’m wondering if it should be unexpected from a mother whose son is not being respected? Instinctively, she’ll know respect for the husband is the wife’s basis for a good marriage.
Well, since she said his parents were like that from the start, it’s possible that the lack of respect came from the dynamic between him and his parents. Unfortunately, she didn’t take that as a warning sign and hoped it would get better I suppose. If the mother herself had any respect for her son, she would butt out of his life. Perhaps I am also making an assumption here, but I am sort of playing devil’s advocate for the sake of discussion too. It’s also possible, given her lack of relationship with her parents, that she misunderstood his relationship with his. There may even be some envy of that coming into play.
Re-read her first sentence. This is a woman who has carefully considered her surroundings? “Sigh…I really don’t know any of those types of woman that are described in these articles.” Yes, women trading-up, delaying marriage, and riding the carousel is all fantasy–something that happens on the outer-edge of civilization.
I can concede that point – it takes living under a rock to not see that. Of course, the default of the culture is to delay marriage, so mostly women will do that because it’s expected or they think they have to do something else first in order to be ‘ready’. Obviously not everyone rides the alpha carousel but it’s actually mind boggling to realise how many do because it’s not the circles I run in either.
But I see what you mean. Although I don’t associate with sluts, I have seen and known of plenty. On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a true player. Alphas yes; players not so much. (And please, when I say ‘encounter’, I don’t mean ‘got screwed by’, just to be clear). The true player seems to be more of a myth than the proliferation of sluts.
If her priorities, etc diverged after marriage isn’t it fair to assume that either you weren’t leading or she wasn’t following? I don’t mean this as a personal criticism, but the fatalism I’m reading from your message troubles me.
I can understand why you would say that, but it’s far too simplistic, really. The dynamic of each marriage is different. In my case, one way to describe it is that she decided not to want to be led at some stage, and that she wanted something different (still leading that life, really, where *she* is in charge — of her house, her family (our son), her career (where she is in charge of about 25 people now as an SVP dept head) and so on). So, sure, there was a conflict there, and it pushed things over the brink because what I (we) had signed up for when she was 23 was not what she wanted when she was 30. Heck we even did the, popular in these parts, approach of not delaying the marriage until her (higher) education was finished, and doing that while we were married. Didn’t make much of a difference, other than the fact that what she wanted out of life for herself after that was finished was different than what it was before she went into it. What she wanted at 23 wasn’t what she wanted at 30. People do change, you know.
I know that in the manosphere it’s popular to say “follow this formula, and it will work”, but the reality is that people can and do change, and in the 20s these kinds of changes are much more common than they are later in life, generally. It’s also the case for men, too, it’s just that due to the normal age gap between men and women in relationships, the guys are usually in the mid to late 20s at least when they are marrying, with the women younger, so even though women are generally thought to “mature more quickly” than men are, in specific cases they can still change quite a bit during their 20s.
It isn’t about being “fatalistic” as much as it is about being realistic. If you are going to marry someone who is in their early 20s, you need to be very sure that they are certain that this is what they want out of *life*. I wouldn’t say that it’s a terrible idea to marry someone at that age necessarily, but it isn’t a silver bullet either. Remember, there are folks also are recruited into the military at that age who decide that they do not want that life for themselves and muster out before the late 20s, too.
Well, maybe if you stuck her in the oven at 200 degree Celsius for 30 minutes, she would have been fully ‘baked’ before marriage. /sarcasm
Seriously Brendan, that sounds more like an excuse to divorce than anything meaningful. People grow up and grow old, however, our commitments should take priority. When you marry someone, you should have a good knowledge of who that person is and where they want to go in life. Why would you marry someone you can’t trust? There are of course going to be set backs, sometimes big ones, like being on the street or losing your house or your spouse being in a major accident and needing rehabilitation. This doesn’t mean they weren’t ‘baked’ yet, it simply is a part of life.
When I was young, not so much now, I really hoped to build a life with my future wife. I did not want to start the marriage with my entire life expectations fulfilled. I wanted to do it with a wife and family. No chance of that I’m afraid and now that I’ve become far more realistic, I’ve had to rethink my objectives. I’ve now got a career, got my degrees and some manner of independence. Now my search for a suitable wife is not going to be a woman who is similar to my bracket of income but rather a young woman who has the same outlook to her life as me. A proper conservative woman, one who sticks by her convictions and sticks by me and is willing to actually have a family life. If I could find a woman like that I think I would be a rather happy man.
Bear in mind, that I would be fully willing to help her obtain her education as long as her family commitments come first. I’ve never been against a woman having an education but I’ve always been against women putting their education and careers above their family and the formation of their families. That’s just selfish and cruel and society is actively suffering for it.
@feministhater
Me too. I might even let her use my toilet made out of solid gold or take a ride on my pet flying pig.
@GB
“I *think* it was an action which showed that her suspicions of my being spiteful towards her were unfounded, and after an August week of no power, no fuel, and no running water it would have been easy to be spiteful. I was angry for years, even to periodic rage, but that act showed I didn’t hate her. It knocked the legs from under the “He’s evil” charge.”
Is it your experience that the sort of woman who frivolously divorces, i.e., in the absence of infidelity, or prolonged physical abuse, is very concerned with discerning evil? I think that one of the defining traits of the entitlement sophistry is that actions are determined to be liked or disliked first, and only then–some time later–disliked behavior will be almost always be classified as evil.
Case in point: http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-teacher-cathy-samford-fired-unwed-pregnancy-offered/story?id=16115051#.T5bSz454Wlw
This woman was fired from a Christian school ministry for having extra-marital sex. In the video, she accuses the school of being un-Christian (therefore sinful, therefore evil) for firing her–because, you know, everybody has their own interpretations…
I’m sure she’s quite normal in her perspective. And from that perspective, whether you were evil or not is totally irrelevant. You made her feel bad, therefore you’re evil. You seem to have bought into her (very childish) moral code by saying you “knocked the legs out from under the ‘he’s evil’ charge”. That’s not healthy. In the same way, my children think I’m bad when I discipline them.
Again, both to you and Jennifer, I don’t know you, and can only reply to what is written; caricatures, really.
Apart from the comments regarding the female SMH commenters sticking their heads in the sand are also the numerous male commenters who vouched for their description of their luck with females once they reached their thirties. A couple of blokes were even gay but that didn’t stop the chicks hitting on them.
They seemed to pretty much back up the experience of many in the manosphere. BTW has anyone seen the show lately on ABC called “Agony Uncle”? Its a great watch for blokes.
Brendan – ”For women who have themselves figured out in their early 20s, marriage is fine. For women who are going to be changing quite a bit in terms of who they are and what they want between their early 20s and late 20s/30ish, it’s a mistake, and a big one.”
Dalrock, in response – ”People will change in their 20s, but if the above two are genuine the change shouldn’t be in a different direction (by definition). What I advise women is if they want to marry to start the process of looking for a husband in earnest as soon as they possibly can.”
“looking in earnest>” [as opposed to either acting out of a sense of desperation, or just looking for provision]
I think this is key. The younger women who is earnest in her consideration of potential husbands is more likely to be the young women who “figures herself out”.
If she carefully and honestly reflects on what she desires in a (long-term) husband, she will better come to grips with what it is that she wants of herself for that same long-term.
The women who marries carelessly – with regard more for immediate gains than long-term goals – hasn’t had any need to bother considering what she feels will make for a long-term relationship with a potential husband. She has been able to more narrowly focus on those things which will seem to improve her situation for the short-term, but might not last, or might have less value to her after a few years.
It is (or at least, it was) often said that (older) happy couples “grew-up together” over the course of the early years of their marriages. What might explain the difference between growing together vs. growing apart during the inevitable growing that the individuals will experience would be that they have already envisioned more than the temporal aspects, and actually considered what/where they would like to find themselves 10+ years later. To me, having at least some idea of what you hope for long-term is a matter of “figuring oneself out”.
bskillet81
Haha, yeah I know. One can still dream though.
@slwerner
This is it. I’ll detail this in my upcoming post, but if she starts looking not for a boyfriend but for a husband, with the expectation that she will follow his lead, it quite naturally raises a number of very valid fears. These fears are in fact all of the right fears, and should focus her mind in a very different direction than the modern see who I fall madly in love with and then force him in the direction I want him to go. The modern paradigm doesn’t work not because men are unwilling to bend, but because when they bend they become unattractive to their wives, who then quite predictably become unhaaaaapy.
“The modern paradigm doesn’t work not because men are unwilling to bend, but because when they bend they become unattractive to their wives, who then quite predictably become unhaaaaapy.”
The other problem is that, because so many boys have grown (or are growing) up without fathers, far too many men have never learned how to be unbending. Therefore the modern paradigm creates its own self-fulfilling prophecy.
Saw this when it popped up in the comments. It’s a nice start over not really being acknowledged to exist, hehe.
I think TFH is onto something about 2020 range. The concepts of Alpha & Beta are getting *dead* set among the computer type guys. It’s really the Roissy-type message, but even the terminology is getting used all of the time now among the computer/game types. It’s really been exploding over the last 6 months. Expect more of this type of story crop up. It’ll take time, but the reality will eventually sink into everyone. Or at least enough of the younger set to start getting around the college scene. Armies of IT students with basic Game-skills will be… interesting.
“If the mother herself had any respect for her son, she would butt out of his life. ”
Well, that may be culturally determined, and I don’t think it can be reckoned an additional reason to the others for getting a divorce. People (and their parents) are imperfect and they may not live up to my standards, but we all have to deal for the sake of making things work.
Retsie: …there are 2 girls in my group of friends, both 39/// I have seen both of them crying because they “never had a chance to meet a nice guy”. I know thats bullshit because they both LJBFed me 10 years earlier.
I hope you said so. Twice I’ve had that exquisite pleasure, and by that time I was old/angry/jaded enough to actually do it.
After I was engaged, a hot hypergamist redhead of my acquaintance, complained to me (yet again) that she couldn’t find a guy to marry because none of the guys in our church, “had good jobs”. It was a gift from Heaven, and I took it: “But that’s not true, Lisa — I have a good job and I asked you out once”. She had nothing to say.
Pure joy!
Looks like David French over at National Review might just be reading your blog to, Dalrock:
Everthing But Sex; Everything But Divorce
[D: Thanks. Great link.]
blogster: “In Australia we are probably five years behind the US in terms of feminist penetration and trends, but RAPIDLY gathering pace and catching up with you quite quickly. Congratulations on assisting the penetration of the mainstream media of the manosphere/MRM and jamming the gears of the feminist juggernaut.
“Bettina Arndt is very much the black sheep in Australia – the fear is very strong strong and hence the ‘sisters’ continual attempts to shame her and attack her.”
as you point out, the SMH, like all MSM outlets, have been propagandizing the world for forty years with their feminist/matriarchal lies — so this is v strange water for them
females are ruled by herd/social acceptance and status, so when Bettina (or any female) questions the Perfect Wisdom of Womanism that controls western cultures, it stings the author as much as the Sisterhood Readership
a note to Bettina and/or SMH in support of this piece couldnt hurt, and she might feel a bit less pack-isolated
b/c i often criticise modern females and their feminist churchstates of the West, i’ll add another kudo here, something i ran across on youtube
“Christy Misty”
here’s a young, unmarried christian woman who clearly denounces feminism, declares her obedience to her father while defending fatherhood generally, and seeks to submit her will to that of God, instead of herself and her gyno-nation
only in our psychotic modern time/place could such a young woman have remained single (due to feminism, as she well-understands)
her willingness to submit to her father’s authority means that upon marriage, this virgin WILL submit to her husband’s authority, bond fully spiritually and physically, and v likely will make a faithful bride and wife
every little reversal of Eden Evil helps — female disobedience initated the fall, and female obedience helps initiate the restoration
that God will provide a good man (in His own time and way) for this woman is virtually certain — not b/c i know something you dont, but b/c our Father is just and loving, rewarding patience, faith, obedience, and trust, and does not change
He wants v much to see us fuflilled and joyful, and is only too happy to facilitate that when we strive in accord with His will (i.e., our best interests)
Bettina Arndt. Interesting woman. Daughter of Professor Heinz Arndt, noted scholar at the Australian National University, on the Indonesian economy if I recall correctly. She was a pretty girl, with a feminine face. She set up as a sex therapist, counselling male clients. She was also part of the establishment of Forum, a glossy, small format, sex advice magazine, now defunct.
She was one of those sex-positive, male-friendly libertarian feminists. A bit like Camille Paglia, only much cuter. I think having sons made her even more aware of male issues. She wrote something sensible recently against the myths that feminists have promulgated on the nature of the female sexual response.
The problem for the feminists is that she is from their crowd, but a maverick.
I hope I have my facts straight. Open to correction, but she has been a feature of the Australian cultural landscape for years, and a pleasant one on the whole.
BTW, the current female Australian Prime Minister has turned out to be a monumental fuck-up. It is like watching a train wreck. The latest: the Speaker she appointed (he tweets – I am sure there is a joke in there somewhere about speakers and tweeters and woofers) has turned out to be a free-spending homosexual, now accused of sexual harrassment.
van Rooinek says:
April 23, 2012 at 5:08 pm
“(c) makes men into jerks… ”
Priceless.
I think Bettina did Psychology at the ANU. So, she had some quals.
Bettina is also getting some wisdom as she grows older, David. I’ve noted that women tend to get angry when they find their sons are discriminated againts.
I dunno, Chris. She was never much of a feminist. But, yes, mothers do love their sons still.
I’m from down under, know plenty of those women Bettina wrote about. They are still delusional and their hypergamy is out of control. My male friends and I (late 20s mid 30s) are mostly aware of the Red Pill and we love paying lip service to keep their hamsters running e.g praising how awesome they are with their two socialist degrees, even flirting with them to get their hopes up while knowing how desperate they are to find a man.
Of course, more than a few women still live in their little fantasy world, trying to deny that men can start a new family as long as he’s able to walk. And that actually goes to the heart of the issue – older women become bitter that they were sold a bill-of-good which is worthless. They find themselves old, with no family and no prospects, so when they see a man older than them, with a sweet-young-thing on his arm – or worse, with a young child and a beautiful young wife, the older woman is consumed with hatred of the man. That hatred cannot be over-come and every man can sense that palpable anger, over the fact that he can “have it all” and she cannot, no matter what she was taught and accepted.
Today, more and more women are seeing they have to choose – career or family, and regardless of what they choose, there may be no man around to make it happen. That just tends to make them more bitter – which is a vicious circle. Fortunately, there are lot of young women who are still enjoying their “freedom”, and as long as there are young women who are available, there is no incentive for a man to settle down with only one woman, when he can have many.
This is why, I love feminism – it has given men all of the cards – at least if you don’t want to settle down with an American woman. I always figure that when I’m ready, I’ll sell everything, move to another country, and take up with a woman (or two) less than half my age, and raise a brood of kids, careful to come back to the US for their birth – so they have the choice of being an American, or not… The nice thing about that is you still hold all of the cards – which is how I like it…
David Collard — I think having sons made her even more aware of male issues
no doubt that sons, and usually ONLY sons — motivates females to care about (much less advocate for) mere males
similar reason fathers of daughters are usually staunch feminists, in all except name
i didnt appreciate the “misogynist” comment but overall liked the piece and of course the pointer to PD (which he called a “mention” but was more like “featured,” good upon good)
i’m a lot more interested in Bettina’s present and future than her past
@ Candide.
Agree and can relate. I’m appreciative of exposure to the US manosphere. While you may have a few friends who are consciously aware of the red pill truth, most men generally in Australia are not.
I have similar female ‘friends’ in their late 20s, early 30s and I can only laugh now with the knowledge I possess. Working with some of them, they would be polite and friendly and innocent behaving during the day – at night I’d see them out on the town hooking up with multiple indie-rock band members, not understanding they were a disposable commodity and hardly being ’empowered’. Just simply moving closer to the long term trash heap.
A handful of them now continue to hint at drinks and catching up etc. but safe in the knowledge I possess I politely fob them off. Just last weekend, one, who has been pretty persistent of late, was in a group of mutual friends having drinks and got annoyed that I refused to flirt with her, cuddle her or pay her attention.
Apparently because of this, I am “unreliable”. Ha.
We are in the early stages of an increasingly PC/feminist-centric environment in Australia, where anything that even hints at female criticism is contorted into sexism or discrimination. It is crucial that reality continues to counterbalance this crap if we in Australia are to head off this nonsense.
@ Chris 8.19pm.
That is a crucial point. This has the potential to be a powerful tool to use. There is a certain demographic of women (say mid 30s to 40s) who this could be used on. Won’t go into the details, but a mother I know has a son with a disorder prevalent in males. Boy is she on the front foot as a result – on local committee to raise funding, getting exposure in city papers etc. She realises the implications it has for her son, particularly socially, where no doubt he will be subject to much isolation and ridicule (and females will find him ‘creepy’).
Women may learn best from example. A Manosphere bloke is just a creepy nerd who can’t get any, but seeing a nice aunt become a sad spinster would be an object lesson.
It is awfully Antipodean around here. Suddenly, Australians …
I have always felt pretty comfortable as an Australian man. Maybe that will change. Maybe not.
The other thing that works on women is the verbal strike. That is why I think blunt, offensive language may help. “Slut” is a good start.
Women probably have more rhetorical advantage in real life (a visual medium), and men on the Internet (a verbal medium). It probably helps to think of any female commentator as a bit of an old bag.
Blogster:
“While you may have a few friends who are consciously aware of the red pill truth, most men generally in Australia are not.”
I don’t know, Blogster. I remember blokes in college in about 1980 had a saying: “Treat ’em mean to keep ’em keen.”
I didn’t understand the message until later with my first fiancee. Then I saw it in action.
Light at the end of the tunnel? Maybe… but probably not. I went out with a 37 year old lawyer in DC 3 nights ago. She had lived in Chicago, moved to NYC at a much younger age to bankroll an uber alpha male that wasn’t as established as she was in Law. She gave some of her fortune to him and he became established and a partner. You can guess the next part, right? Sorry, but thanks for the help. Distraught, she sought solace here, near me, in DC. She found another high 6 figure earner in DC that liked her flying in for the weekends “to find common interests”. This worked for many months. She eventually decided to start suing the US Gov’t instead of it’s opposers which required her to move to DC. Within a few months DC Uber 6 Figure Alpha Male told her “this is too close for me”, “I feel constricted”. She was cut loose straight away. I’m guessing he was banging his 30K a year 25 yo secretary to great effect. Apparently, and I say this in a most positive fashion, she may have caught our message in MRA. She has been holding out for a 6 figure buy but after half a decade of pump and dumps at 37 the cold and bitter reality of it all is setting in. Her quote to me with no coercion- “I think maybe I set my sights to high, and at 37 I may just end up having cats.”
This woman is a 7 figure a year lawyer, yeah. She seriously, is Googleable because she has an absurdly specialized field of law which few people in the US do. I dare not reveal her name here because I am a low alpha fairly decent earner in DC, but I earn a 10th of what she can make in one year. So perhaps I shall be the stay at home dad, while she earns us a cool million per year. She is “semi-awakened” and for me, this is a bit of hope.
@Rollo Tomassi 7:11 pm
I guess it’s just the reality of societal gynocentrism displayed. Smart men have been strenuously analizing and describing the sexual marketplace and gender dynamics for years without pretty much anyone taking notice. Only from a small minority of men do they get recognition and praise. From women, manginas and mainstream society in general they normally get contempt, scorn, derision and even hatred. But then a woman like Bolick steals some of their insights via HUS, rehashes them with zero intellectual input of her own, and voilá, she’s an analyst, she’s hot shit, getting invited to speak her nonsense on TV, getting book deals and her own TV show etc.
Speaking of HUS, I find it comical that Manosphere dwellers like Brendan still spend a considerable amount of time patiently, calmly and rationally debunking the nonsense, half-truths, distortions, lies and prejudices posted by the female commenters, only to see the same nonsense, half-truths, distortions, lies and prejudices get posted over and over and over, the other female commenters nodding their heads in agreement. It’s such a mess, no wonder men started leaving that place.
Congratulations on your mention, Dalrock!
And it looks like the racism (against Africans, Asians, Arab men), double-standards and entitled attitudes of Australian (and by extension – NZ) women are coming home to roost.
New Scientist in 2007 predicted that of the women in those countries, 30% born since 1975 WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND A PARTNER.
Of course when I brought that up at university, I was pooh-poohed by the women who obviously knew what the future held.
Well, I guess they’re finding out they’re wrong 🙂
RE: “Jennifer”‘s post
All I can add to the already excellent dissections is:
Your marriage failed because you were not in love with your husband. A woman should not marry a man because she likes him and thinks she and he work well together. Those are criteria for hiring an employee, not for marrying a man.
Your marriage failed because you and he were not prepared to do whatever it took to make it work. You lacked the requisite commitment.
Your marriage failed because you and he allowed his mother to interfere and meddle and whisper.
I hope you have learned from your experience; but I don’t know if you have.
ray
“no doubt that sons, and usually ONLY sons — motivates females to care about (much less advocate for) mere males
similar reason fathers of daughters are usually staunch feminists, in all except name”
Actually, I have often made the observation that women (here in North America) with sons, including those with only sons, while perhaps caring more for things that might affect their sons directly (i.e. why did you at the school decide to give lockers to only girls not boys), but absolutely unmoved from their pro-team women stance on any and every issue. I’ve never understood that, it’s almost a complete lack of empathy, I’ve interpreted it as the epitome of the solipsism of the female mind.
But lots of men will either white-knight once they have their own special little snowflake princess daughter, or be very utilitarian and encourage their daughters to use all the advantages they have available to maximum effect.
If there is one thing every woman believes, it is that women get a raw deal. Humans are not really built for happiness, and this applies especially to women. People who are unhappy look for someone to blame. Men are convenient.
But lots of men will either white-knight once they have their own special little snowflake princess daughter, or be very utilitarian and encourage their daughters to use all the advantages they have available to maximum effect.
Indeed, and this is what I have come to think of as the “engine of feminism”. Daddies. It was this sentiment that caused the men in power during the mid 20th Century to back feminism the way they did — they wanted it for their daughters. This is still the case today, for the most part, among “mainstream” men of all political persuasions (including, as everyone here knows, our social conservative friends). At some point mid-to-second-half-Century the mainstream agenda of American fathers of daughters flipped from being primarily oriented toward marrying them well towards being primarily oriented toward equipping them to be maximally viably independent. Without this massive flip by most mainstream fathers of daughters, feminism would have fizzled to a large degree. It is sustained largely by this, precisely because any real criticism of the new system runs headlong into an army of mainstream fathers who are very protective of their daughters, and exercise this protection in terms of encouraging maximal viable independence (from men, of course). This is both the engine of feminism and the main obstacle to any serious reform of any of the things we discuss on these blogs, really.
@David Collard 12:37 am
Cautionary tales aren’t terribly effective if the female audience has no idea how to draw the correct, rational conclusions from them.
Höllenhund: Yeah, that would be an interesting study. Matching questionnaires about age, civil status, education, employment, number of partners and so on with questionnaires about the moral of a number of folk tales.
Indeed, if I recall correctly the fables of Aesop almost always explicitly spelled out the moral of the story. One of the things we learn from instructing others is this: you can’t overstate the obvious.
Brendan, Steve Sailer suggested something along the lines that generally smaller families meant that, for many men, ambition for daughters had to supplement ambition for sons. Especially if their few kids were female.
Hollenhund, my point was that women talk among themselves a lot, and a sad maiden aunt will point an obvious moral.
“OT, but of interest: hypergamy is wrecking China, says “Foreign Policy” (not with these words, of course). Imagine that! And in a country with an enormous surplus of men…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_startling_plight_of_china_s_leftover_ladies”
There has got to be a lot of research being done on what is happening in the Chinese SMP by Chinese researchers. It should be possible to build some bridges between them and the manosphere. They should find the manosphere analysis highly interesting. The same goes for Japan that struggles with young men dropping out from the SMP completely and stating they have zero interest in sex /something like 20% I think the number was). Both Japanese researchers and Japanese PUAs would find the manosphere interesting. If someone speeks Japanese or Chinese they should go to PUA boards there and link to key manosphere articles and if anyone comes across names of researchers in those countries that study these problems they should email them with links.
TFH:
“Why is abortion so important to feminists, particularly *late term abortion*? It does not take 8.5 months to decide if the conception was due to rape or incest, so why late term abortion? Because women want to be able to abort a pregnancy if the man’s fortunes change (job loss, etc.), or if he turns out to be beta. Women want a longer window in which to ‘undo’ the conception. Feminists are even pushing for ‘post-birth abortion’, otherwise known as infanticide.”
Can you provide links to sources for this. Statements by feminists supporting these positions are great for slandering them in debates. Most people will be shocked.
David Collard: IDK. If the lessons learned from one’s own and other’s experiences is measured as change in beviour there is little obvious moral in anything. Integration is difficult, and seemingly impossible for some. Death or socio-economic irrelevance will come earlier than wisdom for most people.
@Brendan 9:50 am
Someone should gently inform those lame-ass daddies that being a completely dependent young SAHM and being an über-independent careerist ball-buster aren’t the only two options available to their daughters.
@David Collard 10:05 am
So the moral is ‘don’t be a sad spinster’. Fair enough. But do you think young women have any idea about the true reasons why sad spinsters are made in the first place? Uncontrolled hypergamy, feminist lies etc? Besides, for every sad spinster they see, they probably see 3 older single women bragging in the media about their fabulous independence, boy toys, wealth, how they shit on despicable beta chumps etc.
@wudang:
Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” (Journal of Medical Ethics, 23 February 2012)
An article discussing that paper: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
“Terse_ man says:
For clarity, I practice a moral “intellectual” game along the lines of Athol Kay. ”
Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?
“Why, among all areas of justice, are rape laws the only ones where the accuser gets to remain anonymous, and many other aspects of due process are bypassed? Because women want the right to ‘undo’ a one night stand they later regret. That is why the law allows a lengthy period for a woman to ‘decide’ if she was raped. Feminist law allows regret to become rape.”
A new Norwegian police report/study written by a female criminologist has found that women who a large part of women who considered themselves raped admitted that the sex was consensual and even often that they initiated it but because they felt during the sex or after that they stepped above their own boundaries they felt it was legitimate to charge the man with rape to mark a personal boundary or similar reasons. The author argues that this happens especially when the sex is kinky and rough although that at the time was accepted by or initiated by the woman. The report is in Norwegian so someone would have to translate it but it is absolutely golden when it comes to backing up claims of false rape charges because women “feel” violated even when they clearly have been not and that this feeling of having been violated is enough to make her feel he deserves to be punished even though she logically understand he did not do anything wrong. I have been trying to find it again after reading it the first time but haven`t been able to. If someone is really interested they should be able to get hold of it by contacting the Norwegian justice department or police.
@P Ray
It’s amazing that, the more women become “empowered” that abortion and the murder of newborns become more mainstream. I’ve read about some women talk about being able to selectively abort male fetuses because they only want girls. Yet infanticide of girls in China or pre-Islamic Arabia are evil. Sounds like Grrrl Power “logic” to me.
@wudang:
“Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” (Journal of Medical Ethics, 23 February 2012)
An article discussing that paper: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html”
Thanks a lot. There are men participating in it though and the most useful source would be self proclaimed feminists claiming it as a right for women or something like that.
I have read that in Roman times women eventually argued their way to be aloved to kill new born babies they did not want. Don`t know if that is true though.
Speaking of useful studies. I also read about a study done in England that found at age 4 the girls had already internalized that they were better than boys and that in the first years of school the more messages a boy where exposed to about boys being lesser than girls the worse the boy did in school. I haven`t been able to dig it up through google but I am probably just not using the right search words
@Wudang- Thanks for that link about the Chinese women, fascinating stuff! They are hitting “The Wall” by 30, hard. Wow… methinks I need to start learning Cantonese I could do magical things in a land full of desperate late 20s Chinese women.
Someone should gently inform those lame-ass daddies that being a completely dependent young SAHM and being an über-independent careerist ball-buster aren’t the only two options available to their daughters.
If they are like most Americans, viewing umpty-dozen hours of TV per week, they only know those options, and they don’t know how deep their own ignorance is. Seriously. Cutting the cord between the TV cable and your head is not easy, and yet it likely is required to really learn anything about the current SMP / MMP. If I had care of a child under 10, I’d not let them watch much of anything on TV.
I think that Sailer is onto something. Look at a family with two or three girls and no boys – what’s a father to do in that situation? Likely at least one of them will be a tomboy from early on. And look at the mother’s persepective – if she’s a modern woman, then she’ll teach her daughters “you can’t rely on men to provide, you need to have your own career first…”. So how will that work out, in the modern SMP, which runs parallel to the MMP?
And people can’t figure out why poll after poll shows women are less and less happy, either.
We are beyond “elephant in the room” stage, here. The elephant has been in the room a long time.
What’s that smell, eh? What’s gone wrong with the carpet? What’s that, we are not supposed to talk about the side effects of an elephant in the room, either? Sorry, it’s long past time to open a window up…
absolutely, Paul
mothers dont advocate for their sons anywhere near what men do for daughters — overturning our entire God-given and bio-social natures so Their Snowflake can be First in Everything (education, rights, “equality” before the “law,” employment, access to social services, protection from poverty and homelessness, and on and on)
the Homeland Security state is the Gynogulag is the Dotter Daddy state
shit the last time they let a son in the White House, they murdered his father in public (and there have been nothing but Daughter Administrations since)
but no doubt that’s just silly Conspiracy Theory! :O)
our anti-God matriarchies are Fat City for Dotter Daddies — her State is the Second Daddy, who picks up much of the associated costs of raising grrls — set-aside educations, financial aid, scholarships, internships, preferred hiring and placement, feminist workplaces, free abortions, . . . it’s endless
that’s GREAT for Dotter Daddy’s chunky checkbook, esp when Wifey is pulling in a thick gyno-government two-fer paycheck — but a disaster for boys, men, and the nation as a whole
as you point out, even when moms do advocate for sons, it’s almost always ONLY for their son’s individual situation — not to improve the second-class citizenship status of other sons (for, after all, the rest are merely Other Males, and thus not only not her responsibility, but in most senses (to her mind) the Enemy
Brendan — “This is both the engine of feminism and the main obstacle to any serious reform of any of the things we discuss on these blogs, really.”
spot-on — your entire comment
NOBODY wants to talk about this issue, but it IS the hidden-driver of feminism and our western matriarchal societies
it was the Dotter Daddies (individually and collectively) who ran interference for the “radical” fem-takeover, acting (usually) behind-the-scenes as the financier, enabler, and enforcer of our feminist societies, esp in the u.s.
w/o the DDs, the takeover couldnt have occurred with such speed, ease, and breadth
MANY of these pseudo-men are church-regulars, and likewise MANY of them are leaders, deacons, pastors, ministers and elders of churches and religious orgs, often blathering on endlessly about “family” as a cover for their self-serving, anti-masculine agendas
the DDs tend toward soft-harems (usually not overtly sexual) both in church and the larger community — they derive tremendous satisfaction and pride from playing Patron Protector not only to their daughters, but to other females in their alpha-field, and to all females generally (chivalry masking idolatry)
one such male can easily “tie up” a dozen females in his orbit, and baby doesn’t The Big Man LOVE the resulting attentions!
females are EXPERTS at using these weak guys as tools — for their personal benefit and/or simply as weapons or threats against other males, enforcing collective female will (e.g., the “law”)
of course, this Paleolithic/late-Neolithic arrangement isn’t so great for other males, who are forced aside (legally and otherwise) so DD and the Soft Harem can run the show — while the de-educated, de-employed, disenfranchised Other Males look on from the outside (while being lectured to Man-Up in a society that gleefully emasculates them)
“At some point mid-to-second-half-Century the mainstream agenda of American fathers of daughters flipped from being primarily oriented toward marrying them well towards being primarily oriented toward equipping them to be maximally viably independent. Without this massive flip by most mainstream fathers of daughters, feminism would have fizzled to a large degree”
bingo, the hidden key alrightee
add the highly motivated DD demographic to an already extant political majority of females, toss in the full support of the monetary/political elite (female OR male) plus the male mangina factor . . . and you are locked-in to a gynocracy w/o any political recourse or hope, that can only grow increasingly totalitarian, anti-male, and anti-God
I remember a man on an anthropology discussion list who used to constantly tout his daughter’s groundbreaking career. Apparently she was a beautiful Navy helicopter pilot (US). He seemed quite unconcerned about her marriage prospects or grandchildren.
Some of this is PC status games (read Sailer again) and some of it is displaced male competitiveness. This man had failed to get academic tenure and I think he was living through his daughter to some extent.
The hamster doeth spinz…
Twas introduced to the “manosphere” back in Dec-2011. Shortly after sobering up to reflect on my life’s course. The organs did more flips that first week of reading associated blogs than my last bout of delirium tremens that i thought a bender had ensued. for this I am thankful (thnx Dalrock +).
Curious about the exploration of misguided direction through the public education system, entertainment, fashion, and music industry, and my mother’s own persuasion to be independent, I reached out to my lady friends only to be immediately smacked down with cold rejection and out-right passivity. heart broken. without a numbing agent.
I recently crawled out from the dark to preform a ‘litmus test’ by forwarding this Aussie article – which REALLY should read “Why Women IN THEIR THIRTIES Lose the Dating Game” to four female “friends”.
1. a mother – 29 – married, psychologist in training
2. american, extreme feminist – 28 – working on a “screenplay”
3. scottish femme – 28 – single, sassy and entrenched in the american entertainment media
4. russian femme – 31 – psychologist in training, nails deep in a male 26YO
# 2 wrote immediately screaming “so the moral of the story is to settle for a Beta?”
# 4 replied “This article made me angry! it feels like some sort of fear-mongering or something (keep the female gender “in line” and, therefore, subservient). I think it perpetuates negative attitudes toward women… why don’t we consider that we are “training” men in the other direction — to desire more interesting, intelligent, successful, experienced women?”
# 1 called to discuss the topic on her drive home to breastfeed… like a human being… and was ecstatic to talk about an issue that is a touchy -underground- subject with her patients.
# 3 never replied.
Responses (and lack thereof) were expected. The most important one was the aftershock response. You know… the one that comes out of desperation and fear.
A day later # 2 sent me a link to a hilarious ‘article’ from the Huffington Post (lifted from Glamour Magazine): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/turning-30-30-things-every-woman-should-have-and-should-know_n_1447368.html.
Meanwhile, why I care about anything, knowing there are jams like this on youtube, one will never know: http://youtu.be/UYh_6ow20WI ?!?!
Oddly enough, Glenn Reynolds linked to a Vox Day post mostly containing a Deti post. Maybe we’re getting more reach than we realized, faster.
@Jay in DC:
Valentine’s in Hong Kong:
http://ihatehongkong2.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/desperately-seeking-your-credit-card/
@hesaidhe:
It’s starting to prove a point:
‘Single’ (as in not married) men are labelled terrorists and troublemakers
I’d say they left out ‘single’ women. Judging from the responses that you got, and the marital status of those women.
After all, men and women are equal. 🙂
The Manosphere will get attention. People are always more interested in the crowing of roosters than the clucking of hens.
Doc, better do some checking into immigration law before you choose to come back to the US to birth your kids. You cannot simply waltz in with a wife nor a ‘wife’. Whatever they call INS now views your wife or ‘wife’ as having immigration status of a fiancee, or wife, and she cannot apply for tourist papers at the same time.
On the other hand, unless they have changed the laws I believe they can be born in that nation, and if you register the birth in the US Embassy they can at age 18 choose to be US citizens by also going to the Embassy.
As I said, laws can change, but it is not as easy as you imply.
####
On killing babies after birth there is a story in the Bible. When the Hebrews conquered a certain country, they were instructed to kill every living thing. All men; women; and children. Also the canary birds; the cows; the camels; literally every living thing.
I asked my son what that was all about. As a sacrifice to Ba’al, they would take their unwanted babies, make a giant, very hot fire, and toss the babies on the hot coals. The Hebrews were so offended by this they wiped out every living thing. Pretty much what should happen to the US and UK.
###
You guys keep saying fathers of daughters are always feminist enablers. Maybe it’s geographic or social class based. I have never personally met such men at work or socially. The fathers I have known raised their daughters to function as wifes and mothers. I realize national leaders are different, but not the ordinary men I have known.
Pingback: The Engine Of Feminism » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology
Pingback: How Patriarchy Crumbled: Silent Assent « Patriactionary
Pingback: O motor do feminismo | Canal do Búfalo