When preparing for my last post I came across an interview of Kate Bolick by Edith Zimmerman at The Hairpin: Kate Bolick on Refusing to Settle (Part One). Zimmerman describes two options for dating and family formation (emphasis mine):
…for people who want to have kids and raise them with someone else, I wonder what the next alternative for love/sex/reproduction is. Because it seems like for women there’s currently two options: Option A, which is dating, marriage, kids (and divorce and remarriage, etc.), or Option B, which is every other nontraditional alternative, where it’s everyone for him/herself, trying to figure out what fits. Option A being pretty clear, and Option B being wide open.
Zimmerman gives away a great deal in framing her question, because in option A men are operating under the old constraints while women aren’t bound to anything. Option A is women go feral while men play by the rules and pick up the tab. She seems to want to rebel from the ostensible constraints of this model, but she can’t even imagine what an alternative might look like. She frames it as if option B would be liberating for women, but she can’t imagine a model which doesn’t lead up to marriage (and then divorce and remarriage).
For all people under the age of 45, they have never known a point in their own short history on this planet where marriage was meant to last a lifetime. For all of their lives, they have had access to (or have known people who had access to) no-fault-divorce. So of course, this is the way it is with option A because (as Ayn rand put it) A is A.
There is no alternative. This is the soup we have put ourselves in with no-fault.
Dalrock, while I believe you value option C (both men and women assume responsibility for each other and adhere to lifelong marriage), I prefer option D (interested men get access to artificial wombs and reproduce without women at their own discretion and form their own male-specific family units). Option D seems very plausible, as it takes no social engineering to create – just hard science, a bit of marketing for the final product and a demographic that were happy to buy it. It would probably also help make option C more palatable to women, as they would actually have something to compete against in the “marriage marketplace”.
I read it differently, as Option A meaning “women with men” and Option B meaning “women with women.”
Later in the interview … “… one more-solidified version of that Option B that you present is of some women having their most meaningful, lasting relationships with other women.”
So I think she was just using the question as a set-up to get some salacious stuff going.
“I read it differently, as Option A meaning “women with men” and Option B meaning “women with women.”
The whole point of feminism is to turn us all into lesbians.
For all people under the age of 45, they have never known a point in their own short history on this planet where marriage
This isn’t true I celebrated my grandparents 60th wedding anniversary when I was 8 or 9. My wife’s grandparents made it 68 years, and her parents went just under 40 when her dad died. I will agree that society isn’t teaching it even if you can find it in many families still.
As for option B, in the lower class they use natural sperm donors with no father identification and get their government sugar daddy. In the upper class they hit up sperm banks ala Jodie Foster where they pick the best sperm resume they find and the result there are some guys running around with 20-150 biological children with no connection to him who start running into non-zero chances of inbreeding.
Glad you found this Dalrock. I’ll pass this to some of my nice guy, successful friends that are confused about why women are not seeking anything traditional.The Edith Zimmerman interview begins with a quote from Kate Bolick’s article that proves your point.
“Recent years have seen an explosion of male joblessness and a steep decline in men’s life prospects that have disrupted the ‘romantic market’ in ways that narrow a marriage-minded woman’s options: increasingly, her choice is between deadbeats (whose numbers are rising) and playboys (whose power is growing). But this strange state of affairs also presents an opportunity: as the economy evolves, it’s time to embrace new ideas about romance and family — and to acknowledge the end of ‘traditional’ marriage as society’s highest ideal.”
The words should be read a few times. She calls it an opportunity perhaps in the joyful assumption that she will not have to opt for the rising numbers of deadbeats, maybe, in her high profile role, though the Telegraphs states that ‘she insists that she is no Carrie Bradshaw’ … she might marry a playboy instead (for as long as it lasts since it’s the end of “traditional” marriage).
Well actually, yes it is true. I’m happy for your grandparents but their situation doesn’t disprove my point. Maybe I didn’t word things properly. Let me try again:
For all people under the age of 45, they have never known a point in their own short history on this planet where a marriage couldn’t be terminated for any reason, or no reason, with or without the consent of their spouse.
I think we’ve had no-fault in every single state (to some degree or another) since the late 1960s. Even in New York where you were required (by law) to have a one-year-separation before a legal divorce, it was still pretty easy to get around that and you didn’t need both spouses to agree to irreconcilable differences.
Prior to the 1960s, it was actually HARD to get a divorce. It was basically IMPOSSIBLE to frivorce in many states not named Nevada. No-fault has really only been with us (part of our culture) for the last 50 years.
A new idea opportunity?
Obviously the deadbeats are OUT. So, Polygamy with the alpha-playboys? Is that the new idea opportunity? Sounds more like an old opportunity to me.
Apologies for the long link, Georgia Boy made a pertinent observation of what ‘option B’ might look like. Boston Marriage and Ersatz family units.
Georgia Boy
https://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/guys-opting-out-of-the-game/#comments
“For now the unmarried women stay single. The next step comes once same-sex marriage is fully legalized. It will lead to a whole class of Boston marriages, where single moms/women join to become an ersatz family unit. Thus they take advantage of any benefits intended for families (tax benefits, government-directed private sector benefits like you get at your job, etc.) This cuts betas out completely and then the women go outside the marriage to cads when they want fun and sex.
Leaving more and more not-charismatic men simply with single celibate lives until much later in life. They are on their way to simply becoming packhorses. Go to work, run the machines that make a high-tech society function, pay the government auto-deducts “for the children,” and go home with enough of your own income for beer and Internet surfing. If you are attractive enough to join in the fun after hours, great. If you’re not, well get better game or get lost. LTRs are so 1950s (unless you’re gay).
To pay for it all, we have more creeping socialism to provide for women and children’s needs broadly, through government or government edict, instead of through a nuclear relationship. Government mandated health care, preferences in college admissions and hiring for them, next up the liberals are building the case for housing in a good neighborhood to be their next human right.”
I think single parent households pretty much look like this already.
In view of 1 Cor 7:11 is it morally wrong for a Christian man to marry a women who has left her husband and divorced him?
Kate Bolick appears to be an unmarriageable former carousel rider: overeducated, feminist and arrogant. Option C for women like this is polygyny. They aren’t worth monogamy, and only polygyny is the form of marriage that they’d be comfortable with because they’ve already had years of experience sharing their favorite alpha with other women.
Kate Bollick’s entire career legitimacy (including her still upcoming after 3 years TV show option) is based on her not finding love, not being marriageable, nor in anyway affirming of any lifestyle that may be contradictory to it. The moment she find’s her Post-Wall Mr. Right is the moment her gravy train is over.
Miley Cyrus chooses option A, B, C and D!
@Christopher
simple answer is yes. A Christian woman is commanded to stay with her unbelieving husband if he is willing to live with her. See 1st Corinthians 7:12-17. She is only Biblically allowed to divorce him if he is unwilling to live with her. Regardless of whether he cheats on her (c.f. 1st Peter 3:1), she’s married to him. If he’s willing to stay, she’s married to him. Same goes for a Christian man who’s Christian wife plays the whore. He’s married to her and not allowed to divorce her.
Edith Zimmerman essentially asks Kate Bolick about options, and Kate’s response sums up with one word:
More! MORE! MOAR OPTIONS!
That’s far beyond “choice addiction”…
@Rollo
I couldn’t find a contact email on your website. Would you visit my blog and provide me one? I’d like reprint permission on something you wrote.
@Earl said The whole point of feminism is to turn us all into lesbians.
To clarify, the point of feminism is to turn us all into
womenlittle girls. Whether we have penises or not really only matters for harvesting half the genetic material to cook up anotherwomanlittle girl.“Option B, which is every other nontraditional alternative, where it’s everyone for him/herself”
What is the “himself” option?
Option B includes: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2012/07/minimalism-threat.html
Which is an option women dare not consider.
“Option B, which is every other nontraditional alternative”
Like this?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/here-come-woman-fathers-and-male-mothers
Truly sick…
I’m reasonably confident she won’t have to worry her sweet widdle head, because her decision, and that of her future peers, is already made for her.
She has seen the enemy, and it is her. Men are waking up, and even if only 30% of us take the red pill and walk, the rest of the world will have no choice but to adapt; yet how will they placate and trap us? Feral, and even tyrannically more draconian laws? Like a woman able to just choose a man, and say “By this law or that law, I claim all that you have as my own, now impregnate me slave?” You could not even force a draft to get enough women to be trained by their future slaves to declare war like that on men. We would kick their arse!
Not going to happen. All over, women from India to the US, are passing severe and drastically sweeping legislation declaring open season on men and employers everywhere to enforce their paying for the convenience of subsidizing their healthcare, alternative family options, and subsequent “discovering themselves” when work gets too hard.
In the next ten years, and for all of us red pill types keep your head down, you would have to be the most extreme dummy of a beta male to not notice that something is severely wrong in five-ten years. Once the 10-20% of women who are truly feral make a martyr of several men politicians everywhere will fear for their lives if men choose in solidarity to walk away.
@John
That article reminds me of the latest Superman movie, where the Kryptonians were shocked that Superman’s parents conceived “Ol’natural” and gave a live birth. Pretty soon, like the matrix, all of our descendents will be test tube babies, and they will bang each other like wild mice.
God help us all.
@Toad
rollotomassi@charter.net
A “catch” like Bolick can distill down the choices of the Strong Independent Woman to either a “deadbeat” or a “player” and the media, ever horny to press more ink about the failings of men, employ their best efforts to draw in a few tangible economic points – colored of course by examples of men pulled from the shallows of [her] selective memories to cure the statement in concrete “facts”. Fine. Us deadbeats and players (the fact that those two conditions often embody the same man being lost on them) have our own distillations, e.g. slut or reformed slut; attractive slut or unattractive cold fish; the princess or the succubus; the pre-wall feral female or the post-wall eat-pray-love; the career woman or the baby-rabies; the alpha chaser or the alpha widow; the self-absorbed yoga waif or the reality-TV obsessed land whale.
Yeah we can long for the third door, option “C” (TBD) as well. And frankly since women make the market and I’m going to be placed in one of two categories, then damn right I’m going to be the Player or maybe the deadbeat (player) or maybe I will shift between as I see fit. The fact that their blind spot is so big that they can’t even see that they are playing right into it is even more reason to find the whole discourse suspect at best.
The problem for women like Bolick isn’t the choice between those two limiting options, it is that they drink so much optionality moonshine that they become blind to the men who comprise the bulk of their realistic options. Post wall may bring back their sight, but never their vision.
Where is C:MGTOW? The presumption is that women get what they want no matter what?
Any thoughts on this blog post making its way through my facebook?
http://jamesrusselllingerfelt.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/beautiful-advice-from-a-divorced-man-after-16-years-of-marriage/
Mark – I predict the author will marry again and divorce again and will be just as puzzled that time around, too. A few short years ago I would have nodded my head in agreement to just about all of those 20 points. Now? I can call BS on most of them (and know why they are so) off the top of my head. I credit Dalrock, Rollo, and the rest of the Manosphere for opening my eyes.
Best comment I found: “A woman wrote this. Or else she made him write this.”
@Rollo
“”Kate Bollick’s entire career legitimacy (including her still upcoming after 3 years TV show option) is based on her not finding love, not being marriageable,””
Agreed!……..this is the way I see it also. Here is another “Kate Bollick” for you.The “Bitter Babe”….L*
http://thebitterbabe.wordpress.com/
@johnnycomelately
Thank you for the link.A very good read…and comments.I am going to re-post it over at…..
http://rmaxgenactivepua.wordpress.com/
Georgia Boy is right. We will probably see the appearance of isolated, female-only communities of spinsters and single mothers, mostly lower-class. By “communities” I mean districts, streets etc. Only two types of men will be invited for temporary stay: alphas for casual sex and beta chumps, mostly beta relatives of the women, to basically function as eunuchs. The poorer women will probably also get involved in some type of agriculture, growing vegetables etc., in order to become less dependent on food purchases. Only in areas where the weather is suitable for that, of course.
“Any thoughts on this blog post making its way through my facebook?”
He’s a run-of-the-mill, Blue Pill beta.
“…We will probably see the appearance of isolated, female-only communities of spinsters and single mothers, mostly lower-class. By “communities” I mean districts, streets etc.
It seems so tribal and backward… However, that is what happens when the pagan doctrines of Political Correctness are implemented.
A.J.P.
I think I prefer option Z. This is where the power and scope of the government basically erodes to the point of farce due to overspending and overextension, leaving only people locally to sort out the mess. Here if your wife attempts to throw you out of your own home you box her ears, throw her out in the dead of winter, and after an hour or more of chill therapy she is reminded that men are the stronger and that there is no more blue gun thug army paid and standing by to cater to her childish whims.
This was actually the case for all of human history right up until about 60 years ago and the world kept spinning just fine. I can imagine the shock and horror on modern woman’s face the first time she smugly points at the door, orders the man to leave his own house, and he simply grabs her arm and with a vicious back hand shows her the door. Suddenly the hamster flies off its wheel and the woman is *forced* to plead and be pleasant rather than being a demanding cunt.
The hamster is strong in the force – but madam winter and her elder brothers starvation and exposure are much MUCH worse companions.
Fairy nuff Hoellenhund, but how do these “communities” cope when a band of marauding (sigma? omega?? I don’t know how this fancy letter stuff grades) Pirates/Vikings/Cossacks/Nazis/Gangbangers decides to take a random tour through their shtetl just for the lulz?
They got five hundred alpha gorillaz on speed-dial? Or is it back to “gated communities”, like Joburg and Baghdad?
lol @Remo. “Blue buns therapy”
Kate Bollick is forty-one years old and happily single – are you listening – ‘happily single’. When ever did you hear a man shouting that he was forty-one – or any other age – and ‘happily single’, and like all women Ms Bollick demands endless choice and wants it now. Not the kind of choice that Odysseus had caught between Scylla and Charybdis, of course, nor the sort of choice that (fictionally) was offered to Sophie, nor even the choice that was Hobson’s, but more like the choice that came the way of Burrian’s Ass, endlessly tempted between two equally desirable carrots. Not, of course, that any carrot – I mean Man – is good enough for Bollick, as she and her ilk swing between gross promiscuity and man-free all-female enclaves where the bitchiness drives them back into the arms of men. I once lived in a commune and I can tell you that the idea that it is all peace and love is simply not the case. A family has a command structure and disagreements are resolved and resolvable – partly and simply by reason of scale – and interest; such is not the case with a commune, which is what seems to be the undescribable Plan B; not so much non-traditional as non-workable.
Perhaps Bollick would be wise to consider the possibility that what she might actually get is Plan 9 – that is more like the Pirates/Vikings/Nazis/Grave-robbers that Tam the Bam refers to, forcing themselves on the women, converting the hot ones in to more or less (in the circumstances) willing mates, and the aging ones like Bollick into scrubbers/cleaners/beasts of burden. Whenever people aske me ‘Opus, do you believe in traditional relationships?’, I always ask in reply ‘To which particular tradition are you referring?’
Women today do more to promote MGTOW than men themselves could ever hope to. No marriage = no divorce = no slavery.
“We will probably see the appearance of isolated, female-only communities of spinsters and single mothers, mostly lower-class. By “communities” I mean districts, streets etc. Only two types of men will be invited for temporary stay: alphas for casual sex and beta chumps, mostly beta relatives of the women, to basically function as eunuchs. The poorer women will probably also get involved in some type of agriculture, growing vegetables etc., in order to become less dependent on food purchases. Only in areas where the weather is suitable for that, of course.”
Heh…they did an episode that was similar to that on a show called The Outer Limits. Although it was a “peaceful” society of women living together that got all chaotic when the man was introduced.
And all he was trying to do was help them out of their miserable state.
I could barely read it. The hatred and contempt radiated off of every sentence in it. I suppose Dalrock must have rock solid self confidence to go through that sewage.
In any case, I noticed this line:
“A darker aspect is that this new power balance/imbalance means men are having to grapple with feelings of inferiority that they’re not quite accustomed to, and this can be hard on couples, particularly in a world that almost presumes women will have inferiority complex”
It’s darkly amusing how she frames even the simplest things in omission. The omission here being “men”. It’s not “men” who are having to grapple with anything. It is “men who buy into her insane paradigm” that have to grapple with feelings of inferiority.
I suppose this kind of degenerate thinking is taking place in many other failing industries/movements. I imagine there are churchians who say how “the kids just aren’t interested in God anymore”. Or, if you’ve been following voxday, I imagine some gay scifi authors convention, where the writers bitch about how “no one wants to read sci fi anymore”
In both cases they leave out critical qualifiers. The Churchian doesn’t point out that it’s his corrupt FEMINIZED reading of God’s will that YOUNG MEN are losing interest in. The homosexual sci fi author doesn’t point out, that it’s FEMINIZED sci fi that YOUNG MEN have no interest in.
This is the problem with the O’Briens of the world, contrary to what he forced Winston to believe, Winston actually had it right, the society of OBrien will simply die of it’s own corruption. There is no need to break that society, it kills itself. Just as the bodies of men physicallly decay with age, so too societies socially decay and become corrupt, eventually the corruption breaks down the system and the society collapses.
Anyway, is it just me, or did the photo of the woman seem to be someone who is empty, bitter and dark of soul?
Disgusting.
So they admit that women intend to go through divorce and remarriage. When modern woman says, “To death do we part,” she means, “Until I don’t feel like playing house anymore.”
Höllenhund says:
August 27, 2013 at 3:05 am
“The poorer women will probably also get involved in some type of agriculture…”
I could make a fortune if I could develop a Cheetos seed.
‘Option A meaning “women with men” and Option B meaning “women with women.” ‘
I would say there is an option B for men as well which is “Man with many women” where he takes no responsibility for any, and enjoys all of them. That is a man’s choice – if he should decide not to play the game of women, and one which a lot of men are choosing.
I regularly travel out of the US, and most of the women I see in other countries have no way to track me down. They can “contact” me via throwaways, and such, but I take no responsibility. I do that in the US too – she’s in CA, or NV, or UT, or any other state – she doesn’t you, other than what you tell her. And if you met her in a bar – and banged her, what happens is up to her – she wants me to pay? Well she has to find me, and that is HER problem – not mine. So, why would I care what she does? Women have created option B for men, so why shouldn’t I choose it as Option A is so unattractive to me?
Hey, I didn’t create this mess – but I have to find a way to navigate my way through it. It is a LOT easier for me to do it my way… So I choose my own option – C, if you will… “You pay for your own f**kups that effect you, I pay for the ones that effect me. We are both adults responsible for our actions.”
So I choose C – you pay for the things that effect you, I pay for what effects me and take ownership of those results… If we do something that effects you – well you pay since it was your choice as much as mine. I’ll pay for the things we did, that effects me… Simple…
So they have “No Fault” divorce, but it’s somehow my fault in that I pay? Um… no… I don’t think so… You left – it’s not my fault – you pay… But they don’t do it that way – so I make it work that way. Hard for you to find me, is you’re looking for “Joe Blow” that lives in Chicago…
I really feel bad for chicks like this. Spouting and blabbering on about this and that… when in reality you know deep down they are in a lot of pain because they have failed in life’s ultimate goal…which is reproduction and the passing on of your geneic lineage.
I wonder what it feels like for a woman who had all full healthy body willing to reproduce but failed to secure a quality mate. What it must be like to be 45 and childless and probably mateless. I can’t imagine the sadness that she feels if she would only admit it.
What’s even sadder is that there are literally millions of women behind her making the same idiotic mistakes.
Three doors down from the first townhouse I ever bought, another alpha male lived with (and f-cked) 3 strippers. I would hang out with him and his 3 girlfriends all the time, particularly during football season. I remember they described the relationship(s):
#1) his 3 girlfriends could not save a penny from their paychecks. Just couldn’t do it. They lived for the day. If they made $1000 in a week, they spent the whole $1000 and had nothing to show for it. They spent every cent they had so he could not count on them to chip in for anything
#2) under no circumstances would he give them any money for anything. He gave them housing, shelter. He did not give them food. Since he already had to pay the mortgage and utilities, they’re living with him did not increase his personal expenses in anyway
#3) he had ground rules, no guys over the house. I was the only exception since I knew of their living situation and he knew of my character. He had this ground rule because he KNEW that any guys these girls would meet at work, they would either be drug dealers or drug users and he wanted none of that in his life. He had too much to lose
#4) the girls loved their living situation. They didn’t mind sharing him polygamously because they KNEW that he was the only stable thing in their lives. You have to remember, these girls are used to hanging out with drug dealers and/or drug users and they all had seriously messed up family situations. And because he was alpha (tall, good looking, offered them a place to live for free without ANY form of commitment on their part) all three of them wanted a part of that
…I could see more situations like the above happening with the alphamales. The more and more that MGTOW, the few men that don’t go their own way (because they don’t have to because they get ALL the milk for free and have to beat women off with a stick) they will just gather more and more women. Harem. GREED.
“Fairy nuff Hoellenhund, but how do these “communities” cope when a band of marauding (sigma? omega?? I don’t know how this fancy letter stuff grades) Pirates/Vikings/Cossacks/Nazis/Gangbangers decides to take a random tour through their shtetl just for the lulz?”
By submitting sexually to their new overlords and generally volunteering to be slaves. You must keep in mind that women, unlike men, are never seen as a threat to be subdued through violence, because they don’t assert themselves through physical violence in the first place.
@Vektor
“”Women today do more to promote MGTOW than men themselves could ever hope to.””
Truer words have never been spoken……….Bravo!
@Tampa
“”What it must be like to be 45 and childless and probably mateless.””
I work in an office tower full of women like this.How do they cope? Easy, they spend more money than they make…..haven’t got a pot to piss in and drink like fish….Vodka being the choice is Spinsters!
@TFH
“”3) Yet, public schools are terrible. Women clearly don’t care about children’s education””
I posted this before,but,I think it needs re-posting!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/17/shock-claim-40000-public-school-teachers-moonlight-on-sugar-daddy-website/#ixzz2cO2wZXg9
@Tampa
“”in reality you know deep down they are in a lot of pain because they have failed in life’s ultimate goal””
Down on the 10th floor in our office tower(I am on the 35th)…….there is a “matchmaking business”.Anyhoo,about 2 months ago they had a singles night for all the single people.105 single women showed up……and 3 men!…….L*. 3 spineless manginas! It was a disaster. I was asked about 20 times that week why I did not show up.My response…”Why?….I’m not looking for a relationship or contracting any STD’s””………Oh! ….the looks that I got……L*……..But,it was the truth!
@Mark
Did any of the women date any of the 3 men that showed up? If not, that’s just dumb. Complain about no good men, presumably good men show up (although you called them “spineless manginas”) and they still leave empty handed. Pitiful.
@TFH
“”To understand what women truly are about, just look at the state of present society, vs. decades ago (when women were still relatively new to voting rights).””
I hear you!…..Just since leaving high school I have noticed a huge change……and I am only 48! I have a fem-tard sister that I observe…..her and her friends are pathetic!
@Hopeful
Good question!…..I really don’t know. I do know that most of the women were very disappointed. The woman than runs the matchmaking agency is always calling myself and associates to say “Hey,I have a profile of a very nice woman that I want to send you”…..We look at it…and then Reply……”Thanks………But,No Thanks”. I do know that she has a lot of women as clients….in fact, about 85% of her clients are women.She has told me and my friends many times that the hardest part is finding the men to “sign up”.In fact,men get to join for free as of 2 months ago.She has asked myself and associates and friends to sign up many times…..practically begging us to sign up….No thanks! She always wants to know “what the hell is wrong with you guys?…it is free”……My response….”It is not FREE…believe me!…also sweetheart there is saying in the business world maybe you have never heard….it goes like this…’if it flies,floats or fucks…it is always cheaper to rent’..”….That sent her back a few steps!….L*
Women haven’t been caring about their children since 1973.
This is a striking example of how most men are invisible to women. She looks around and all she sees are deadbeats (men who make her tingle, but can’t support a wife) and players (men who make her tingle but would never commit to her). The 80% or so who don’t make her tingle, but many of whom would love to commit to a woman and have the income to support her? They don’t exist.
She is only Biblically allowed to divorce him if he is unwilling to live with her. Regardless of whether he cheats on her (c.f. 1st Peter 3:1), she’s married to him. If he’s willing to stay, she’s married to him. Same goes for a Christian man who’s Christian wife plays the whore. He’s married to her and not allowed to divorce her.
I don’t see how the referenced Scripture states or implies this .
The verses you quote say that a wife must submit to her husband and that he cannot leave her husband if he is not a believer. It says nothing about infidelity.
As a matter of fact, does not Christ in the Gospels explicitly state that infidelity was a valid cause for divorce. (At least for a man to divorce a woman.)?
>> how easily Mark Minter caved when a single mother agreed to let him be her provider
He was dead broke. We don’t know and will probably never know, what her parents may have thrown into the package-deal to increase the value of the package.
Given his prior posting record, it is quite likely that he played the hand that life dealt him – not all that bad. There is certainly not prima facie reason to suppose it’s impossible.
I think Bolick is just still angling to be America’s Spinster in the fem-media — a very niche position — now that Maureen Dowd has simultaneously aged out of the position and become irrelevant about since her last (confused) book. Bolick hasn’t even come out with her book yet, so her claim to fame is some magazine opinion pieces and other chit-chatty lifestyle fluff. The sooner people stop feeding the troll by taking her seriously the better.
Pingback: As Good As It Gets |
I think the solution is the continuing growth of Islam in the West and the return of polygyny. Islam’s regulated polygyny where a man can have up to 4 wives works better than the West’s unrealistic ideal of monogamy. Muslim polygyny is being practiced openly in the UK right now. In the US, it is still practiced quietly but is spreading and will eventually become an acknowledged social phenomenon that can provide an alternative to the post-feminist collapse of marriage as an institution.
I didn’t get this post until Rollo weighed in on it this morning at his place:
“From the Jezebel / Bollick side of the equation, the SMV navigation plan is no longer in need of any pretense or concealment; women are now comfortable in admitting the plan actually is to cash out of the SMP casino between 27-28 years of age and to take the beta provider schlub to the cleaners for future cash & prizes.”
That’s it, in a nutshell. When laid bare, there’s no longer any hiding the plan. Cutting edge sex pozzies are now ADMITTING in print what they really want and what they are really doing.
Maybe we should take a page out of the 60’s handbook which said “never trust anyone over 30.”
A plethora of arguments (not all valid, btw) about what was wrong with American society was summed up in that one statement. People didn’t need to make long winded discussions. One simple statement encapsulated the ideology.
Never marry a woman over 30.
One simple statement could come to encapsulate all of the manosphere thought about what is wrong about marriage today.
If the MGTOW movement (as small as it is) has caused both feminist and SoCons to howl in consternation, think what the phrase “never marry a woman over 30” would cause them to do. It would be condemned from on high and from every quarter, but every time it was condemned some curious soul would ask themselves “Why? why are people saying never marry a woman over 30?” And, one more person will be exposed to the manosphere perspective on marriage.
@Deti
Funny that: only as recently as yesterday I was saying to my friend, that women over Thirty are largely invisible to me – bar the odd outlier. Were I to marry, I would have to date and as I do not date women much over thirty it follows that I could not marry them either. This is how the marriage strike occurs.
On Tuesday I came across a blog which I won’t name but apart from being full of lots of recipes and photos of the writer looking smitten, concerned a forty year old Californian (because apparently dating there is like root-canal treatment) who having moved across the Atlantic promptly met has fallen in love with and married a native. She is almost petite but otherwise nothing to look at (4 I’d say) and one wonders how much baggage she left behind in America. She has the well paid corporate-cubicle job but her hapless geek of a husband (as I take him to be) has lost the best twenty years of her, and will they ever reproduce even once? – as she settles into her new and travel necessary job? Her predecessor surely shagged every thing that moved as took her fancy whilst travelling so if I were her husband any signs of pregnancy should be a worrying sign to him.
I construct a square: Let A B be the base – say 20 – 40 and A C a vertical line indicating the level of sexual behaviour. I then join up ABCD to make a square and that is what a man marries if he marries a woman like the one I described. Still, older marriages tend to be more stable and doubtless the woman has found herself. Who am I to deny them happiness as she careers towards the wall?
@Deti
It really is a stunning quote. I don’t think she intended to admit anything by it though. She was focused on the next phase and inadvertently spoke the truth about the current one. I think you can chalk it up to solipsism, because to her men playing by the rules and women doing what they want is only fair.
Another interesting fact is that when she did that interview she was 28, and from this article she wrote a month later for the NY Times I would say her aloneness was seriously creeping in: Dealing With Your Own Cultural Irrelevance (at Age 28)
I can’t find any reference to her ever marrying, which if she hasn’t makes this piece she wrote back in 2009 quite sad: How To Make Your Husband A Nice Dinner It features the author drinking large amounts of wine, pouring a separate wine glass for someone who isn’t really there (to seem like she isn’t alone), becoming afraid of a potential intruder, and anticipating the arrival of the husband. It closes with:
@How To Make Your Husband A Nice Dinner
Wow, that’s pretty sad. Part of me thinks it’s just a joke, but another knows that some women make so-called “cries for help” when they realize they’re done for life.
Interesting comments, too.
Regarding not marrying women over 30,
Maybe this is a cultural thing, but I have heard older men advice younger men to not even think about marriage until at least 30. The more I read this site, I’ve come to understand that you guys would think that is horrible advice. I’m not sure why men said this; maybe it had to do with finding oneself, getting out of school and settled into a career and because women don’t think about it until then anyway.
@8to12
The mormon morons believe any unmarried men beyond the age of 27 are a menace to society. The manospherian version of this might be more that it’s women, and at just about any age, take your pick, and the more ’empowered’ they are the greater the menace. AWALT, more or less.
I don’t know about that so much. I don’t think they regard them as a menace, more that they regard them as “odd” or just “weird.” A “menace” is dangerous but “odd” or “weird”, might be harmless. If you talk to Mormons (and out West, there are Mormons everywhere) the concept of bachelors are that if they are over 27 or 30 or 33 or whatever, that they are just “weird” and they aren’t married because no woman would have them. Ultimately, it is the bachelor’s fault that he isn’t married because he is “weird” and he needs to “change” or else no woman would have him.
@Hopeful,
For a man, waiting till he is 30 to marry makes sense. His fertility rate doesn’t go down at all. He should be more stable and in an established career, which means he can support a better environment for a family. But, those are the primary things a man brings to a marriage: stability and support for the family he is hoping to establish.
The primary thing a woman brings to a marriage is her ability to have children and establish a family. By 30 that ability is severely diminished in a woman, and it’s going down like a rock thrown off a cliff.
There’s nothing wrong with a MAN waiting till he is 30 (or later) to marry, but he needs to choose a woman in her 20’s (preferably early 20’s) if wants to establish a family with children. It may not be fair, but that’s the facts of biology.
The combination of an older, established man and a younger, and a still in her prime fertility wise woman gives the best odds of establishing a family. So yes, there are benefits if a MAN waits till 30 to marry, but very little benefit if a woman waits till 30 to marry (particularly to the man she marries).
Which is why a man should never marry a woman over 30.
@Martian Bachelor,
The Morman idea that any man not married before 27 is a menace grew out of their practice of polygamy.
In any society where men have multiple wives, there will be men that get left out in the cold without any wife. By 27 their thinking the system is unfair and rigged, and are angry about it. Of course they are dangerous–they have nots are always dangerous to the haves.
@8to12
Makes sense. Not sure if they included the “find a younger woman” part.
@Hopeful,
Traditionally (as in all of human history until the present day) the marriage combination of an older-man/younger-woman has not only been acceptable, it was the norm. It was rare to the point of being peculiar for an older-woman to marry a younger man.
It would be interesting to hear from someone familiar with a culture where arranged marriages are still common to see how often the various combinations (older-man/younger-woman, same-age, older-woman/younger-man) are chosen by the people arranging the marriage.
@Hopeful,
The point I was trying to make was that if an older-man is giving marriage advice to a young-man he probably has a traditional mindset. If he’s telling the young-man to wait till 30 to marry, he probably assumes the young-man will marry a younger woman, as the idea of marrying an older woman would be foreign to his mindset.
@8to12
Good point.
8-to-12
I have a confession.
As an alphamale, I am a little bit grossed out by this. When I meet a man in his early to mid 40s and he introduces me to his wife (and she is in her mid to late 20s) I immediately lose all respect for that man. Gone. And that respect will not be coming back. And why?
All I see is a man who is either a sexual deviant (most likely), a man who isn’t mature enough to have a marriage to woman his own age, a man who doesn’t value communication with women because I can’t see anything that the two of them could talk about, OR (most likely) a gold-digging woman who married for money (and all my respect for her is gone as well.) Seriously. That is all see. And no matter which of these are the case (maybe it is a combination) I’m not going to like it or value it. I don’t.
I understand the point you are making, and I even see the purpose behind it. That doesn’t mean that your point is a good one. I don’t like it. And I don’t have to respect those May-December marriages because I regard them as nothing but bullshit. Sorry.
@ Hopeful
The truth of the matter is that the feminist movement has re-stated women’s priorities all ass-
backwards. It puts the primary important item that MOST women do desire (marriage, children, family) DEAD LAST!.
Men cannot reveal the flaws in the behavior patterns of women, because they simply WILL NOT hear it. They have to cluster-fuck their way through it, and come to that conclusion themselves (always too late).
Sooner or later we’ll return to what actually worked (probably later). A young woman in her early 20s marrying a man in his late 20s who is established is a WIN-WIN for both parties.
Not withstanding, here is the current construct (doomed to fail).
1) Do not commit to any man before age 30
2) Go have the college/university experience
3) Lay as many men as possible while you are there……in the vain hopes of finding ‘the one’.
4) Build a career in whatever discipline you studied (or for _____ology majors go straight to the nearest Circle K or Piggly Wiggly for a job application form)
5) Travel and experience all life has to offer…..marriage & a family will always be there waiting for you.
6) Establish yourself in your career…..this should take you into your early 30’s
7) Begin a frantic search for an acceptable mate. Be as picky & choosy as you like……after all, you are a GIRRRLLL POWER go-getter.
8) After sampling many more men, settle for whatever chump will marry you , impregnate you, and stupidly pay child support to you when you inevitably show him the door.
9) For the growing list of you who CANNOT accompish Step # 8……go buy your 1st cat.
BRAVO!!
This is why, the world over, women are deciding on just 1 or 2 children, rather than any number more than that. Children are not useful as social status props or magically recharged debit cards, after 1 or 2.
It’s all the average woman today with even one child can stand to “care for” (i.e., put up with) that child (the business suit-clad “power mom” dragging her hapless toddler off to kiddie prison [a.k.a. “day care”], face scowling at the inconvenience of it all, screaming at the child as if was a painful cancerous tumor rather than a human being, is one of the more stomach-turning and ubiquitous sites in Amerika today). As soon as women can find an easier way to consistently milk cash and prizes out of men that doesn’t involve popping out crotch fruit, children will become as rare as full-service gas stations outside of Oregon and New Jersey. You think the population decline is steep now? Just wait till the law and/or technology renders them obsolete.
@IBB
I don’t want to speak for 8to12, but I didn’t take his older man marrying younger woman comment as advocating May-December relationships necessarily. Most men tend to marry women either the same age of a few years younger.
@Casey
Yes, that’s the idea circulating in the culture now.
Oh I understand. But I still don’t have to like or respect those marriages.
They may be lawful Hopeful, but that doesn’t necessarily make them good.
Admiral Benbow says: So they admit that women intend to go through divorce and remarriage. When modern woman says, “To death do we part,” she means, “Until I don’t feel like playing house anymore.”
I would LOVE to see a man stupid enough to marry in this day and age demand that the wedding vows for his ceremony be changed to reflect this reality.
@IBB
Sure, you’re entitled to your own opinion.
@feeriker
Certainly feeds into the mantra of “one shouldn’t have more children than one has hands.” Although I’ve heard after 3, parenting gets much easier. And then there’s this http://www.today.com/moms/mom-survey-says-three-most-stressful-number-kids-6C9774150.
This afternoon I attended my Dental Surgeon for a filling. The practise is headed by a man and he has four female dentists including my Dentist in his Harem – sorry Surgery. She has been my Dentist for ten years and is thus in her early thirties. ‘You have beautiful teeth’, I told her; a compliment she clearly relished. I enjoy lying back as she leans over me and I am sure she touches me in unnecessary ways. As I eschew injections she considers me to be pretty macho. Women have their uses and we must therefore tolerate the fact that they seek Alpha studs in tandem with the establishing of their careers.
What a waste of a life and what a waste otherwise of a fine body; the hygienist is younger and thus cuter though I have yet to examine her teeth.
’if it flies,floats or fucks…it is always cheaper to rent’..”
PRICELESS, Mark! Print that up on a t-shirt or bumper sticker, and you’ll be earning a steady stream of cash on the side.
Earl said: Women haven’t been caring about their children since 1973.
If the contents of this site are an accurate indicator, the trend is MUCH older than that.
@IBB
I’m not a promoter of large age gap marriages, but getting worked up over them makes no sense. Either way, I suspect the man with the hot young wife will figure out a way to console himself over the loss of your respect.
The deviant claim is just dumb. Healthy men are attracted to women in their 20s. You have swallowed the feminist programming here whole. There is always a risk that she is a gold digger, but also keep in mind that women are legitimately attracted to men with power and wealth. The gold digger risk comes mostly with having wealth and marrying, aside from the fact that young women are far more prone to divorce across the board. Marrying a 25 year old attractive woman carries extra risk for a man whether he is in his 20s, 30s or 40s. It is also a risk which is compensated.
@IBB,
The situation you are describing ( a 45 year old man marrying a 25 year old woman) has always been outside the norm. A 20 year age difference has always been considered an extreme case, ans there has always been a social stigma where there was a large difference in age (society accepted it, but didn’t approve of it). To point to the extreme case to invalidate an argument is using the tail to wag the dog.
Part of the problem is that the industrial age has pushed back the age of adulthood for both men and women. 100 years ago the typical man didn’t finish high school, much less college. By his mid-teens he was working and by the time he was 21 he had established himself–certainly by 25–and the majority of men had married by the time they were 25.
The “younger-woman” that 20-25 year old male of a century ago married was probably in her mid to late teens or early 20’s (15 to 22). I would ballpark the average age difference to be about 5 years (with anything over 10 being an outlier, simply because of the passed down social stigma attached to May/December marriages).
Today, it takes more preparation in the form of education to get a man ready for the modern workplace. Whereas a century ago the typical man finished his education and started working in his mid teens, today men finish their education at 18 (high school), 23 (college), 25 (masters), or even later. And then they have to go on to establish themselves in a career.
When it comes to establishing himself so he’ll be ready for marriage, the schedule for modern males is about a decade longer than it was for males a century ago (35 vs 25). But, if he follows the social norm of the past, and marries a woman who is 5 years younger than him, then he is marrying a 30 year old woman.
The age it takes for a man to establish himself has changed (to 35), but biology hasn’t. The fertility level of a 30 year old woman is significantly lower than a 20 year old. Low enough that it makes her a dangerous bet motherhood wise.
If your goals as a man includes having children and a family, then it makes no sense to marry a woman over 30, as the odds that she will be able to provide you with that as low. If your goals as a man does not include having children and a family, then it’s hard to come up with reasons why you should marry period.
In either case, marrying a woman over 30 doesn’t make logical sense.
welp, I don’t like it. I have explained why. I think its gross, sexual deviancy.
Most of history disagrees with you IBB. Men marry and have children with women younger than them. There is nothing wrong with this.
And women prefer men older and wealthier than them.
Townsend, John Marshall, and Gary D. Levy. “Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 19.2 (1990): 149-164.
Buss, David M. “Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.” Behavioral and brain sciences 12.1 (1989): 1-49.
Wiederman, Michael W., and Elizabeth Rice Allgeier. “Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation?.” Ethology and Sociobiology 13.2 (1992): 115-124.
Puts, David A. “Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans.” Evolution and Human Behavior 31.3 (2010): 157-175.
DelPriore, Danielle J., Sarah E. Hill, and David M. Buss. “Envy: Functional specificity and sex-differentiated design features.” Personality and Individual Differences 53.3 (2012): 317-322.
@feeriker
“”PRICELESS, Mark! Print that up on a t-shirt or bumper sticker, and you’ll be earning a steady stream of cash on the side””
Thank you.I assure you that is a very common saying in the business world……L*. Actually,you are correct…I should get that saying patented….L*
In “Emma” by Jane Austen (published 1815) Emma Woodhouse (20 years old in the book) marries George Knightley (37 years old), and it is treated as being perfectly normal. It probably represents what was considered acceptable within the social norms of the time.
@Dalrock
“”I’m not a promoter of large age gap marriages, but getting worked up over them makes no sense.””
Good call!………I have dated many women that are 15 to 20 years younger than myself….(I am 48)….actually,besides the difference in age….they listen to different music….they have different likes as movies…etc…etc. But,they are not as controlling or manipulative versus the 45 year old.The 45 year old wants a commitment…NOW! If you look at quite a few famous people….Donald Trump(his 3rd wife is 30 years younger. Geraldo Riveria(his 5th wife is over 30 years younger)…..I have to agree with IBB though.I do not look for women that are 20 years younger…they just kind of fall into my lap.Again,some are really nice,and some are really screwed up…..but,for the price of dinner…and maybe some nookie they are nice to hangout with.Again,a word of caution….they will like different music,movies..etc..etc..than you do.
That’s fine Dalrock, but nothing of what you have said necessarily makes your scenario right. My sexual deviant claim is not dumb, it is entirely justified. This…
…is wrong. That is a sexual deviancy Dalrock. I have NO respect for that and neither should you, to think that this could have been our First Family is even more disgusting.
Yhis has nothing to do with swallowing feminist propoganda. It has everything to do with men staying away from women that much younger than they are. When you have 8-to-12 making this statement….
…you better hear a follow up from 8-to-12 something along these lines….
I don’t hear him saying that.
Dalrock, I have in my above post the HTML for an image of Fred Thompson and his wife. But I can not edit that post. Can you edit it to make that image available? Thank you.
[D: I would but the link isn’t there. I’m not sure what WP did to it.]
@IBB said: When you have 8-to-12 making this statement….
a man should never marry a woman over 30.
…you better hear a follow up from 8-to-12 something along these lines….
a single man should never-EVER marry if he is over 35.
So, by your definition the only acceptable “younger” woman for a 35 year old man is one that is 35, 34, 33, 32, or 31. If a 35 year old male marries a 25 year old woman then he is in your eyes a sexual deviant. Really, you’re actually standing by THAT argument?
Of course, this has nothing to do with my original point (great job derailing my argument and diverting into another direction, btw). My original point was that it was POINTLESS for a man to many a woman over 30, because she is such a poor candidate for having children (and thus building a family) from a strictly biological point of view.
And yes, I’ll say it again: never marry a woman over 30. Unless you can provide evidence as to why it’s wise for a man to do so, I’ll stick with that statement (but we both know you won’t).
Mark,
Exactly. That is my whole point. You have absolutely nothing to talk about, nothing. Call those relationships whatever you want, just don’t call the relationship that Trump is currently in, marriage. It most certainly ISN’T marriage. It’s deviant.
@innocentbystanderboston said: Dalrock, I have in my above post the HTML for an image of Fred Thompson and his wife. But I can not edit that post. Can you edit it to make that image available? Thank you.
A 71 year old man marrying a 46 year old woman is the reason a 35 year old man shouldn’t marry a woman younger than 30. Sure, that’s a logical point.
.they will like different music,movies..etc..etc..than you do.
I don’t know how universal this is (I’ve been out of the dating scene for over two decades), but just in the course of casual conversation with many women, of all age ranges, it seems to me that if you express the fact that your tastes in music, film, art, etc., are eclectic (otherwise described as “all over the place”), it’s a real turn-off, as if it makes you some kind of “weirdo.” Is it the fact that they can’t “pigeon-hole” you that scares them?
Theirs is an exageration, but it still happened (is reality) and it should sicken you. You think that this is good? You think that makes this man Presidential?
If he’s 34 and she’s 28 and they get married, then… okay fine. That is okay (the same way if he’s 23 and she’s 29, that too is okay.) I don’t have a problem with that.
But if he’s 38 and she’s 24? No. No I don’t like that. It may be legal, but no, don’t ask me to call that marriage, there is probably some sexual deviancy there and most certainly some gold-digging on her part. Their relationship (if marriage) makes a mockery of marriage. No I don’t have to like it and you are not going to convince me otherwise.
You are also forgetting something that neither the men’s movement nor feminism cares one bit about, something that exists in the world of reality that neither you not I can change: women out live men. That is an absolute fact. And if you are like me and believe that marriage should last a lifetime, then we should probably try to culturally encourage marriages that last as much of a lifetime (for both parties, depending on how much LIFE each one has left) as humanly possible.
@feeriker
I think this is a YMMV situations. If a woman is eclectic herself, I think she would appreciate a man with eclectic tastes.
@IBB said: If he’s 34 and she’s 28 and they get married, then… okay fine. That is okay (the same way if he’s 23 and she’s 29, that too is okay.) I don’t have a problem with that.
But if he’s 38 and she’s 24? No. No I don’t like that.
Interesting how you slid the man’s age up in the second comparison to increase the age gap.
34, 28 = 6 year difference.
38, 24 = 14 year difference.
But 34, 24 is only a 10 year difference. Would you be OK with a 34 year old marrying a 24 year old?
Of course, you are still dodging my core question: why is it wise for a man to marry a woman over 30.
Not acceptable, but wise? That’s the real debate I’d like to get started. In modern America, are there any reasons for a man to marry a woman that is over 30? Any reasons that are wise?
I don’t comment on every thread here at D’s, but I usually read them all. I’ve been watching a particular poster with interest… Mr. Admiral Blow Job who’s wife doesn’t let him eat ketchup in the car.
I have a confession.
As an alphamale, I am a little bit grossed out by this.
lozlzolzolzozlzolzozlzolzozlzolzol
Do tell!
While we may quibble over what defines an “alpha male,” I’m pretty sure one who lets his wife lay down the law on what he may or may not in his car is not it.
Nor is pathetically begging a wife for a blow job to relieve your tension.
When I meet a man in his early to mid 40s and he introduces me to his wife (and she is in her mid to late 20s) I immediately lose all respect for that man.
All I see is a man who is either a sexual deviant (most likely),
Here’s where I think IBB’s trolling efforts to feign authenticity have jumped the shark.
Why yes, because male interest in fertile, young females is just so deviant….
When I meet an older man with a young wife, I don’t think the older man is a deviant. My first thought is “is she a gold digger, or does she genuinely love him?” Watching her interact with him for even a few short minutes usually reveals which, if you know what to look for in her body language. But to call a man deviant for having a normal, male attraction to youthful, feminine fertility? lzolzolzolzozlol. Sure thing “alphamale.”
In the other thread, someone else thought IBB was a woman trolling. I disagreed and stated that I thought IBB was a typical White Knight Churchian mangina.
I take it back.
IBB is a troll…perhaps even a cognitive infiltrator.
What do you say, D?
She’s rich and you are not?
I think he’d probably say that you GBFM, have entirely too many aliasses. He’d also probably say, go away kid and let the adults talk.
I take the radically opposed view to self-professed Alpha male IBB. There is nothing worse, in my view, than seeing (say) a forty year old man marrying a woman of the same age, or worse, even older – that is like marrying your mother. All my friends are married to women where the age gap is about the size of the one that so horrifies IBB. I dare hardly mention my own track-record.
I always heard that the rule of thumb was that ones new wife should be half ones age plus seven years. At the extremes this breaks down, of course.
@innocentbystanderboston says:
In modern America, are there any reasons for a man to marry a woman that is over 30? Any reasons that are wise?
She’s rich and you are not?
Great. Nice to have you on record stating the one and only reason to marry a woman over 30 is because she is rich (and the man is not). At least I assume you meant it that way, since it’s the only one you provided. I’ll glady modify my statement:
Never marry a woman over 30 unless she’s rich and you’re not (italicized portion per advice of @IBB).
@8to12 at 4:36PM:
I applaud you for responding to IBB in such a polite and restrained manner. My fingers furiously ginned up a response to his latest round of angry and baseless judgmentalism that wasn’t very civil, but which the cooler side of my head decided shouldn’t be posted.
IBB, let me just offer you this little piece of practical advice.
When you make statements like the following
Call those relationships whatever you want, just don’t call the relationship that Trump is currently in, marriage. It most certainly ISN’T marriage. It’s deviant.
you should preface them with “It’s none of my damned business, but in my opinion, if you don’t want to come across as an angry, judgmental, pedantic prick. If coming across as such is your intention, then belay my last. Otherwise, don’t be surprised at any sudden lack of gravitas or otherwise positive attention accorded to your posts.
Just a helpful hint.
Just out of curiosity, IBB, have you been burned by a relationship with younger woman in the past? I cannot fathom any other reason for your raging hostility toward the “older man/younger woman” relationship dynamic. Admittedly, it’s a very unwise move for any man in the western, developed world (especially the Anglosphere) to make, for very obvious reasons. But these guys are big boys, grownups who are most certainly aware of these risks and have the right to live their lives as they see fit just as long as they don’t hurt anyone else (and we can certainly assume that the objects of their affection are ALSO ADULTS who know what they’re doing). Unless you’ve personally been hurt by this, I cannot understand: why such venom?
“Fr. McNellis said his motivation to address the male response to the hook-up culture stemmed from his observations of student life: “the thing that struck me as a difference from when I was in college was how little women now expect of men” (Morrison, 2010). What he sees as “women’s dwindling faith in male behavior” may have been caused by the rise in the divorce rate, the spike in births out of wedlock, and the collapse of the dating culture.”
Dunn, Nicholas, and Anne Hendershott. “The “Hook-Up” Culture on Catholic Campuses: A Review of the Literature.” The Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education and the Cardinal Newman Society (2011).
See, people can believe whatever they want to believe…
It doesn’t matter if I’m okay with it. It’s lawful. So my opinion here doesn’t matter. Whether or not I have any respect for the marriage (or even regard it as marriage) is altogether different.
Opus, it doesn’t horrify me. I just don’t like it. I don’t have any respect for that kind of a marriage. 14 years is too much. You are more than a half-a-generation apart, not likely that you have much to talk about and will have a hard time growing old together. What, the 40 year old wants to start having kids with 26 year old girl? I’m kind of creeped out by that Opus, I don’t see that as natural or right.
Young women probably aren’t worth marrying in the Anglosphere perhaps, but your average educated Russian woman in her mid 20’s is far more mature and worthy than her American counterpart, in addition to being superior to most age appropriate women.
women are not lenient with us so if we are in a position of power to secure commitment from a younger woman why would we be bothered with our gae equivalent?
Women don’t care about equivalency so neither should we.
No.
It isn’t raging hostility. I just don’t approve of it. I find it dreepy and downright deviant. I don’t think its appropriate. It’s legal, that is the best thing I can say about it.
Culturally, I think we should encourage marriage where people are close to the same age. Because we should be marrying for a lifetime and such large age disparities…. those tend to exaserbate early widowhood.
@Keoni Galt:
“I don’t comment on every thread here at D’s, but I usually read them all. I’ve been watching a particular poster with interest… ”
IBB: “I have a confession.
As an alphamale, I am a little bit grossed out by this.”
lozlzolzolzozlzolzozlzolzozlzolzol
agreed – IBB is a woman trolling or something deviant like that… perhaps even a cognitive infiltrator. Paraphrased: “I confess, I am alpha and I’m a bit grossed out” – [applause all around]. IBB is grossed out, eww – gag me with a spoon! like totally! AS IF,
… just one more example of so much BS coming from IBB.
It isn’t raging hostility. I just don’t approve of it. I find it dreepy and downright deviant. I don’t think its appropriate. It’s legal, that is the best thing I can say about it.h
All right, fair enough. I’m certainly not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, or to express it. If you do choose to express it (and this goes for anyone else, of any race, sex, ethnicity, or religious/philosophical persuasion who decides to voice a controversial, judgmental, or unpopular opinion in front of a potentially hostile audience), just be prepared to absorb multiple “FOADs,” “MYFOBs”, or other expressions of opposition from those who do not share your (perhaps unsolicited) opinions. I will say that it helps one develop a particularly thick skin, which is certainly a blessing.
Concerning this statement:
Culturally, I think we should encourage marriage where people are close to the same age. Because we should be marrying for a lifetime and such large age disparities…. those tend to exaserbate [sic]early widowhood.
First, who is “we?” Second, what do you mean by “encourage?”
Personally, I disapprove of humans (or large numbers of them who collude into entities called “governments” or “religions[TM]”, or the churchian synthesis of the two) who try to “socially engineer” human relationships in directions that they approve of and discourage/prevent/break up, often with acts of violence, those they disapprove of. Such measures all too often eventually result in things like this, this, or this.
highwasp says: ozlzolzolzozlzolzozlzolzozlzolzol
agreed – IBB is a woman trolling or something deviant like that… perhaps even a cognitive infiltrator.
Y’know, I think you’re onto something there, highwasp (and Keoni Galt). I didn’t notice it at first, but in skimming back over some of the previous posts, this caught my eye:
IBB said, in his(?) post of August 28th @5:13PM:
I’m kind of creeped out by that Opus…
“Creeped out”? From an “alphamale” [sic], in reference to older man/younger woman pairings?
Not a chance.
Thank you. Yes I am blessed with a thick skin.
Well, I think there has to be some standards. If we didn’t have that (didn’t have some legal parameters to “socially engineer” human relationships), incest and polygamy would be not only be tolerated (which it isn’t), it would be accepted (which should never happen.)
Right now, in our society in the United States, I am forced to tolerate sexual relations between two men. That I must tolerate. There is nothing I can do about it. But I don’t have to accept it. And (as a Christian) I’m not going to accept it. I find that behavior deviant. And I’m not sure the manosphere is going to be all that upset with me having that kind of an opinion, but it is what it is.
You and I both could say that society does socially engineer human relationships from both a tolerance and acceptance standpoint. If my 22 year old daughter is being chased by a nice 19 year old boy (or 26 year old boy), fine. No problem. To me that is right and just. Marry my daughter, give me 12 grand-children, and spend the next 80 years on this planet together. But if he’s 34, no. No I don’t want him anywhere near her, she’s too young for him. Its different. And although society tolerates that type of behavior, I don’t have to accept it. And I’m not going to accept it.
“We” could be anyone. Could be a church (at a very local level) or the nation state (at the highest level.) Right now, far too many churches do not discourage frivorce. I’m saying that they should, but they don’t. Again, not much they can do about that, but I am allowed an opinion.
Do you believe in marriage? I do. I understand why men would want to go their own way (and I don’t blame them, they have so much to LOSE) but I like marriage more. And I have a bias because I have a daughter and I want her married (eventually.) I’m greedy, I want lots of grandkids. So if I had things entirely my way (which I don’t) I would ask that society spend more time encouraging marriage. This can be partially accomplished by DIScouraging frivorce and single-mom-dom, but we are a long way away from that ever happening.
Oh dearie me. I ‘d hoped to rise above it, and all that (it’s Dalrock’s blog, and therefore a very mature and quiet place) .. but.
Either IBB is quite literally The Strangest Man I Have Ever Encountered (you lot have no idea lol), or Ms. Ellie and so on have sniffed the bugger out.
I must admit my thoughts after the first 3 or so posts, ages ago (possibly In Another Place?? ) were “IBB, are you .. a woman?”
“As an alphamale” .. harhar di haaaaarhar! You have an old car? How’d that work out for you?
OK, describe your first fight (that you won).
Instigation (why?), weapons, tactics, “feeeeewingzes”, results and so on.
I smell .. fish.
Fishy fishy wishy fish.
Spelled eff-you-deee.
Obviously that means I must have teh ghey (standard fem shaming riposte).
“Y’know, I think you’re onto something there, highwasp (and Keoni Galt). I didn’t notice it at first, but in skimming back over some of the previous posts, this caught my eye:”
“IBB is a woman trolling or something deviant like that… perhaps even a cognitive infiltrator.”
I did some semantic analysis on everything he wrote in this thread. Since tonality is informal, there is a ~70% chance that he is female. There is a ~65% chance that he is 51-70 years old. Overall negative sentiment.
The Internet is a strange place, and IBB could be on the level, but I won’t say either way.
And now for something completely different:
Since it would benefit (and entertain) many, I think I should reveal the source of some anecdotes (from the “Advice to a woman in her 30s looking to marry” post):
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6905236167079601771&postID=324729681082154036&page=1&token=1377757914239&isPopup=true
I don’t remember who first directed me to that blog, but I wish I could (in order to thank them). Whenever I need an example for a point, I can just look there.
IBB said: Well, I think there has to be some standards.
“Standards” imposed by whom? Under what moral authority (think: natural law here)? To what extent will said standards impinge upon the right of free and sovereign individuals to make their own decisions about interpersonal relationships, one of the most fundamental natural law rights conferred by God upon man?
When groups of people, under whatever self-conferred color of authoriteh they chose operate, decide to impose their “standards” upon others, the three examples of ugliness I cited in my previous response to you tend to become the most common result. See how slippery a slope this is?
If we didn’t have that (didn’t have some legal parameters to “socially engineer” human relationships), incest and polygamy would be not only be tolerated (which it isn’t), it would be accepted (which should never happen.)
Are you serious? This is what is known as “jumping to illogical conclusions.” (“Let the doctor remove my appendix? No way! Next thing you know, he’ll be cutting out my spleen, liver, and heart!”)
Ask yourself this: has the absence of a specific law against people consuming more than x calories or x grams of fat each day (the People’s Socialist Democratic Republik of New York City excepted) resulted in huge numbers of people eating themselves to death on a daily basis? No? Why not?
Very simple: because people don’t need “laws,” “standards,” ordnances,” or other positivist legal shackles to keep them from doing what is clearly NOT in their own best interests. Polygamy is economically, logistically, and sexually untenable for most people* and the very idea of copulating with one’s parents, siblings, or offspring is repulsive to normal (i.e., almost all) human beings. Sure, there are exceptions to and deviations (“deviants”?) from the norm, always have been, and always will be. But such aberrations DO NOT warrant the systematic intrusion of the collective upon the rights of the individual. Slippery slope, again.
Right now, in our society in the United States, I am forced to tolerate sexual relations between two men. That I must tolerate. There is nothing I can do about it. But I don’t have to accept it. And (as a Christian) I’m not going to accept it. I find that behavior deviant. And I’m not sure the manosphere is going to be all that upset with me having that kind of an opinion, but it is what it is.
I agree with you here. I too, personally, find homosexual relations and behavior unacceptable. However, the respect for the natural law rights of two consenting adults, individuals with free will and full agency, to engage in behavior that they find acceptable, so long as it does not directly harm me or my property (or any third parties or their properties), takes primacy over my (or anyone else’s) opinions of their behavior. It’s called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), the Golden Rule, or a half-dozen other names.
You don’t like homosexuals or their behavior? Fine. Don’t associate with them and don’t participate in their lifestyle. Conversely, they have no right to force their behavior or lifestyle upon you (and no, contrary to what authoritarian collectivists of all stripes would have you believe, the very existence of their behavior and your knowledge of it that makes you so uncomfortable is NOT them “forcing” it on you).
Bottom line: the power you would give to the collective to force your beliefs and preferences upon someone else could be –and very likely will be– at some future point used to force the beliefs of others upon you. As political activist Paul Weyrich has been frequently quoted as saying “never give to your friends any power that can be used by your enemies in the future.”
You and I both could say that society does socially engineer human relationships from both a tolerance and acceptance standpoint.
Maybe, but that does not, a priori, make it moral, lawful, or biblically sound.
Case in point: If I had been born one hundred years earlier than I was, my wife and I would not be married – because my wife has black skin and I have white skin. Because of that one fact alone, the “standards” of an earlier age would have resulted in the use force to prevent the two of us from even seeing each other, much less marrying each other (unless I simply chose to abduct and rape her as I would a chattel slave, which many people of the time would probably have had no issue with).
Would that kind of “social engineering” have been kosher with you?
If my 22 year old daughter is being chased by a nice 19 year old boy (or 26 year old boy), fine. No problem. To me that is right and just. Marry my daughter, give me 12 grand-children, and spend the next 80 years on this planet together. But if he’s 34, no. No I don’t want him anywhere near her, she’s too young for him.
1. Your daughter is over 18 and legally an adult. You have ze-ro say, legally (I could also argue morally), over whom she dates and/or marries – as well it should be. Fathers with your attitude merely perpetuate the pernicious myth that women have no agency.
2. Your age difference hang-ups, as others here such as 8to12 have pointed out, are irrational to the point of indicating some type of obsession or neurosis. I’m thinking that there is something in your past about this subject that really burned you and traumatized you, but I’ll let that go. Further speculation is pointless at this stage.
Its different. And although society tolerates that type of behavior, I don’t have to accept it. And I’m not going to accept it.
Again, NO ONE can force you to “accept” anything you don’t want to, even if they wanted to, if by “accept” you mean lending sincere approval to something out of your own free will. On the other hand, if by “accept” you mean “tolerate” or “live and let live,” then I hope you’ll rethink your position. Again, using coercion against others with whom you disagree, those who have not done any actual harm to you, in order to force them to accept and practice your beliefs (i.e., “tyranny of the majority”) merely invites the same to be done to you when you and yours are no longer in the majority.
“We” could be anyone. Could be a church (at a very local level) or the nation state (at the highest level.) Right now, far too many churches do not discourage frivorce. I’m saying that they should, but they don’t. Again, not much they can do about that, but I am allowed an opinion.
You’re casually conflating two collectivist concepts here, submission to one of which is voluntary (church) and one to which is not (government/nation state). This is dangerous because the distinction between these two is very important. Churches, for example, can either encourage or discourage frivorce, but cannot use the coercion of the collective to impose their decisions/standards/morals upon anyone, for good or bad. Government, on the other hand, can. Do you really want to give free rein (reign?) to either of these two bodies? Remember what I said about giving power to your friends that can fall into your enemy’s hands.
Second, what do you mean by “encourage?”
Do you believe in marriage? I do. I understand why men would want to go their own way (and I don’t blame them, they have so much to LOSE) but I like marriage more. And I have a bias because I have a daughter and I want her married (eventually.) I’m greedy, I want lots of grandkids. So if I had things entirely my way (which I don’t) I would ask that society spend more time encouraging marriage. This can be partially accomplished by DIScouraging frivorce and single-mom-dom, but we are a long way away from that ever happening.
You didn’t answer my question by asking me a question. Again, what exactly, in terms of actions by the collective, in whatever form it might take, do you mean by the word “encourage” when you apply it to marriage between people of the same age? Forced courtship/betrothal? Shotgun marriages? Public shaming? Civil lawsuits? Marriage taxes on couples of sufficiently disparate ages (aw, shit – I probably just gave some politician an idea)? Do tell…
(*The fact that polygamy has been practiced for most of human history in so many human cultures probably indicates that, while it certainly isn’t necessarily practical or ideal, it isn’t a form of human degradation and indecency on the level of rape, child molestation, or slavery. Morsels for thought…)
IBB an “alpha male”?
haha, funniest thing I’ve seen in this thread…
at least you have “thick” skin.
or is that your pms coming on?
No.
You could say that but you’d be wrong.
Legally, there is not much I can do. Morally, there are few things I can do to discourage behavior that I would tend to think might be determental on her part. It kind of like when I was growing up, at 19 I made a rash decision. Before I acted upon it, my father found out and had a little talk with me. Legally, I could take the action that I was about to take. Morally, the was much my father could do that stopped me. And as it turns out, I listened to what he was saying and it saved me a lot of money and even more heartache.
Hmmmmm, no this is the manosphere. Feminism isn’t welcome here feeriker. I have my attitude because I agree with the manosphere that women do NOT have moral agency. Women aren’t accountable. That is not a myth. If you get the idea that they do have moral agency, why are you posting here? Is your name Matt King? That is a serious question, what are you doing here?
Are you a troll?
Ask any number of posters here at Dalrock’s blog if they think that women are moral agents and I’ll bet you’ll get less five men to say that they are.
Its not an obsession. I just don’t think such large age differences are appropriate. I have my reasons but I’m not obsessed about it. It occurs to me that quite a few people here at Dalrock’s blog ARE obsessed about it and when I raised my hand and said “…I don’t accept this because…” far too many people who ARE obsessed flew off the handle and have started to jump to conclusions about me (one of which is SO OBSESSED he wants Dalrock to ban me!)
Not smart guys. Try not to show your poker hand that quickly.
I don’t think most girls dream of growing up and having multiple meaningless sexual encounters (Option A, B, C, etc.) and the risks associated with serial sex partners – which are much higher for females. In fact, sexual activity and self-esteem are inversely related in females – something not often discussed; it conflicts with the narrative of cultural suicide espoused in the West. Girls engaging in ONS with “alphas” have low-self esteem which declines with each unfulfilling sexual encounter with another nameless loser or “alpha” or whatever you choose to call them. Very sad. No wonder some females choose to veer off to the sidelines with a nice fluffy cat (child substitute).
Welcome Jen.
I would agree. I don’t think they dream of it. But it happens. And the guys here who live a virtuous life who want to be with a woman who have had fewer (or NO) sexual partners tend to hold these actions against women when it comes time for matrimony.
Would you say that the females that wind up on the sidelines with the cat are doing so of their own choosing (ie: they could be married but opt not to) OR are these choices being made for them? I am curious to hear your opinion on that.
I really don’t care what you think alpha is. All I know is that I didn’t have any of the trouble with women that so many here on Dalrock’s blog have had (and continue to have.) And I can guess why they have so many problems. I have seen those same problems in many other men.
Moreover, I really don’t care what women think is right or not or what women think men are allowed to do. I know what women want. I know what men are allowed to do. And I know why women are attracted to certain kinds of men. If you want to call those qualities alpha, fine. If you don’t, fine. I’ll call them alpha. And because I’m alpha, I don’t have to sell my credibility to you.
Ask yourself this TFH, if I wasn’t alpha (mainly because you don’t think I even know what alpha is), why did you just waste the time to make that post to tell me about it? Do you think I would ever create a post telling people that they don’t know what they are talking about?
IBB
Moreover, I really don’t care what women think is right or not or what women think men are allowed to do.
Ketchup…
Jen
Would you say that the females that wind up on the sidelines with the cat are doing so of their own choosing (ie: they could be married but opt not to) OR are these choices being made for them?
Oh, any time any bad thing happens to any women, it is surely the fault of some man.
It could never, ever, be the result of her own choices. Never.
The cover of the Atlantic is a little bit sad. Kate Bolick is 39, and is not good-looking for her age. Imagine running the same story when she is 49. The cover would invite the comment “who would want you, except for your money?”
She is living the “Sex and the City” dream, and will find that, unlike in the show, you don’t get to marry an alpha male at the precise moment that your declining looks make you unsuitable for a role on network TV.
The article itself is part of the dream. Bolick is in denial, and within a few years she will get a rude awakening.
Pingback: the curse of the alpha women | House-Wife Sexuality
We talk a good deal on the net as if all desirable women are ball-busting employees of global corporations, but this is not really true. Around here there are a lot of Yummy Mummy’s, women in their early thirties who do nothing all day except ferry their brood to the local private school in their Range Rovers (bull-bars have been banned over here as too dangerous and frankly rather unnecessary in rural Surrey). Their husbands are probably ten years older and earn £xoo,ooo a year in The City. The women are, of course, good looking (if not especially intelligent) which is why their Beta husbands married them, but these men are not really Beta either. They are Captain’s of Industry who get used to having their last word obeyed at work and this bleeds over into the same authority and obedience at home. My theory is that these men are serviced by the Mistresses whose wares are traded on the cards left in telephone Kiosks in London, where for £150 these men can relieve themselves of the burden or responsibility for an hour or so and pretend to be disobedient school-boys or whatever submissive fantasy then amuses them. There seems to be a lot of that about if the cards are anything to go by. These women are not to be confused with prostitutes and are very clear that they do NOT provide sexual services, even if you might have thought that was what it was about.
I am guessing this will shock IBB, who is surely none other than Sir Rolf of Harris – I claim my £5.00 prize.
@Jen said: “I don’t think most girls dream of growing up and having multiple meaningless sexual encounters (Option A, B, C, etc.)…”
Girls may not dream of it growing up, but the nonetheless grow up and do it.
People like Kate Bolick (the subject of the Atlantic story referred to) and he ilk advise and encourage young women to do exactly that–have multiple meaningless sexual partners–as a means of growing and finding themselves.
The result as been a disaster for marriage. Which is one of the reasons I was advising earlier in the thread that a man should never marry a woman over 30, because it’s not in his best interest to do so–it’s not wise.
She is living the “Sex and the City” dream, and will find that, unlike in the show, you don’t get to marry an alpha male at the precise moment that your declining looks make you unsuitable for a role on network TV. From commenter “James K”.
What a good and very cogent line! Yes, this really describes the irresponsible quality of women, that same reason why I don’t hold out hope for women who are full-bore into modernity. Please, keep writing “James K”!
Best regards,
A.J.P.
@AJP – thanks!
@Opus – last time I used a phone box in London (some years ago now), the cards were openly advertising prostitution. If nowadays they pretend otherwise, it is probably only so that the authorities are under less pressure to remove the cards.
@James K
The cards are placed there specifically for the use of visitors. Officially the authorities are opposed to the cards but as soon as they are removed they are replaced. In practise the authorities condone in their placement as they are part of the tourist attraction which is London. One might have supposed that in these days of the internet and cell-phones the boxes and the cards would have disappeared but this does not seem to be the case. The boxes (appropriately red-light in colour so that you cannot miss them and with a door to ensure privacy) are surely only used by those seeking sexual services. Officially there is no prostitution: unofficially we draw your attention to it. I trust you found our girls up to your required standard.
@Opus
I can see it now.
A bit later, following a change in lighting:
I fear my post was slightly lost on my American cousins. The important thing when visiting London is not to complain that the picture on the card bears no resemblance to the woman who greets you but should that happen to resolve in the future to appoint a better occulist. Given that many of these phone boxes (in Charing X Road) are only fifty yards away from the walk-ups in Soho one wonders what their purpose can be. These cards are now collectors items and change hands for large sums much as cigarette cards once did, and it is their popularity which gives rise to the belief that they are removed by the police. There are two police forces in London (The Met and The City – not to mention the Transport Police) and it is inconceivable that they have either the will or intelligence to synchronise their card-removing operations. The only conclusion must be that the cards are spirited away by punters who salivate over the seemingly endless choice.
Opus, if those cards are collectors items then surely there is a market for the cards themselves? And therefore there should be futures traded somewhere? Or would this be a cash-only market?
Wow. My opinion really bothers you doesn’t it Dalrock?
Get over it.
Somehow this thread is becoming derailed by an in depth study of cash for sex in London. The British are truly hypocritical, thus: it is illegal to solicit for sex (which is why the Dominatrixes specifically deny that they offer any sexual services); curb-crawling was outlawed in the late nineteen-fifties such that you won’t see any street-walkers – thus property values are not affected; Brothels are illegal. This has the effect that all the prostitutes (who don’t exist) never have to leave their premises; working alone they do not need pimps, and thus they keep all the money for themselves and merely hire individual rooms which they all separately rent – this is feminist heaven. These are business women; Britain has long encouraged empowered-women and that is what these women are. The self-starting entrepreneurial nature of their operations ensures that the men, their customers are not embarrassed by having to meet each other, who are thus are perfectly correct to deny that they have ever even seen a brothel. Perhaps this was what Adam Smith really meant when he wrote of the market’s invisible hand.
Selling sexual services is however not illegal for although there is judicial authority that a common-prostitute (which is illegal) is a woman who will have sex with any man for a fee she is differentiated from a woman who is more selective but still gets cash and prizes i.e. a wife.
Its extremely sad. Kate and her ilk have made a series of horrible choices and now, they are forced to live with the circumstances of those choices. In the not too distant past, a man would typically make a woman whole on many of her horrible, amoral choices. Alas, this is no longer the case because men have largely decided that women like Kate aren’t worth it. So they make no effort in trying to pursue her for anything other than a quick f-ck.
Its like what I said to feeriker yesterday, women are not moral agents. And they start running on that hamster wheel to justify any behavior (on their part) that can somehow help them avoid all acoountability. Okay so what do I mean by that?
example #1) “Its not my fault I had an affair. My husband worked so much, had two full-time jobs, he was never home. And I needed a man in the afternoon to make me feel special. I fell in love, my husband should have worked harder to prevent this from happening!” She is not a moral agent.
example #2) “Its not my fault that I have $120K in student loans that I can’t pay. Nobody told me that my International Relations Degree with my minor in Gender Studies was’t marketable. I didn’t figure I’d ever have to actually work?!?! I just figured I would meet a man in college who would keep chasing me for the 5 years after I graduated and would marry me after I had my 5 years of flings while trying to find myself.” She is not a moral agent.
example #3) “It’s not my fault that my credit rating is 410. I really needed to have to hose two bankruptcies. You should have seen my credit card bills. I never could have imagined that buying all those shoes and all those clothes would run up bills that high! It’s not my fault, they credit card companies shouldn’t have given me the cards, I mean COME ON! What was I supposed to do?” She is not a moral agent.
All of the above behavior are things that you and I would expect of Kate Bolicks and her ilk. But we would not expect these decisions made by men because men understand cause-and-effect. Women can’t get that because of their hard-wiring so if they want to go have the life that Kate is having… well, that’s fine…. but they are going to be all alone later in life and they will be miserable and they will have no one to blame bu themselves.
Opus, help me out here.
I’ve never been to England, let alone London. Was that Irina Palm movie all just bullsh-t?
@IBB
I see that Irina Palm (a film I had never previously heard of) is written by a Belgian, which is perhaps why the events as described in the film (beyond their sentimentality) do not seem to me to reflect anything I have ever seen or heard of concerning London – sorry. Allow me to recommend Bridget Jones and her diary for a more accurate view of London, and it has the type of age gap you approve of as both Hugh Grant and Colin Firth are only nine years older than Miss Zellweger.
@IBB
While I agree that Kate’s situation is sad, it is worth noting that nearly all of Kate’s cohort and demographic married. If we look at the stats in 2009 when she would have been age 37 (to center her in the 35-39 year old cohort) we see that 88% of White women aged 35-39 had ever married. Kate is part of the 11.8% of her peers who hadn’t already married, and that figure had been remarkably stable in the decade prior. I only have figures going back to 1999, when 11% of that demographic had never married. Kate’s cohort didn’t have a different outcome than the women who proceeded them. It is the women born a few years after Kate who started to see a change in outcomes, such that 15.4% of White 35-39 year old women in 2011 had never married. This is important because the real panic over declining ever married rates is yet to come.
That is what I thought. I thought it was complete nonsense. Thank you for confirming. I mean I can imagine red light districts in London where shadier things happen, but I would figure anything structrured and organized like men lining up for paid hand-jobs, that British law-enforcement would have eventually shut all that down…
Dalrock,
I think you are right.
I told my wife earlier this year that I expected 2013 to be the first time in our nation’s short history where less than half the number of people over the age of 18 would be married. If we drop to that point, we might not ever recover. And a lot of these discrepencies are quite often based on those whose lives are the most promising. Its getting to the point now (and Charles Murray said it best) that marriage is increasingly only for the intelligent. Those with an IQ below 95, no marriage for you.
Only a matter of time until someone would publish something like this:
http://www.catholicmatch.com/institute/2012/08/greg-lost-everything-and-became-a-modern-day-hero/
@ MarcusD
I’ll put that article in the ’round filing cabinet’ under the title “Feminist christian campaign”.
Perhaps Greg is a better man for rising above the situation.
However, I can’t help but feel this article is just another ‘Man Up’ article of how men are supposed to smile while their ex-wives screw them over for all they are worth.
“Man Up” & get married
“Man Up” while you are being forcibly divorced.
Meh……marriage strike produces better results.
I know it isn’t popular to say this on a manospheric blog like Dalrock’s but I just have to say after reading things like that link, I am so lucky God introduced me to such a great wife. There are so many things I don’t have to worry about being happily married. And it pains me to see so many men in absolute misery (a misery for some that never ends as they cut that check each month.)
If I could guys, if it were up to me, I would give every single one of you a loving, caring, submissive wife that respected you, put you first, and tended to your every need that would never f-ck you over or frivorce you. But I can’t do that. I wish I could.
Or perhaps Greg is preparing himself for the day he might reenter the dating world. Have to remember carrying a bitter attitude into this environment is often a turnoff to women. They detect that a mile off and it is not attractive. I should know, I allowed my anger at my ex to seep over into my earliest post-marriage dating life. A mistake I’ve not repeated since. The important thing for Greg once he is past mourning the death of his marriage would to get to a red pill understanding of the nature of women *before* he starts dating again. The article doesn’t say if he does or doesn’t, but that’s what I would want to know about him.
Back on topic, I can now see TFH’s thesis about 2020 as extrapolated from Dalrock’s data gathering. Dalrock is saying the tide turned only very recently and it will probably be another couple of years before the Bolicks of the country really start screeching en masse. Might we see a “bachelor” tax then?
I’m surprised the hero wouldn’t want his picture up.
@Random Angeleno
I don’t see a bachelor tax being imposed for a number of strong reasons. The first is that it would fall disproportionately on minorities, specifically Black men. It would be both racist and regressive. If you tried to exempt Black men, then you would be accused of suggesting that Black men weren’t good enough to marry, and that more Black men marrying wouldn’t benefit society. After all, why else would you exempt them from a tax designed to benefit society by encouraging men to marry? Add to this the official stands by feminists that:
1) They are for equality of the sexes. (stop laughing)
2) Marriage is bad for women. (Feminists know this first hand because nearly all of them still choose to marry)
That’s easy to get around. Don’t call it a tax.
Just for giggles, check out the profiles on ‘Be Naughty.com’
http://www.benaughty.com
This is a singles site for people 40+.
The popup ads are presumably some of the ‘best’ that the site has to offer……..what a joke.
This is just further proof that a woman’s sexual capital is predominantly her 20’s, with a steep decline thereafter.
This doesn’t fool anyone though. Either way, it wouldn’t fly. Lets say to be pragmatic they raise everyone’s taxes and then offer exemptions/offsets for custodial parents (see, they are being fair!) and those who are married. You could leave the bottom income brackets untouched, so it wouldn’t be regressive. Very few would argue that the “custodial” parent rule was unfair because that would mean they hate heroic single mothers, and besides we all know men sometimes get custody too. But you still would end up socking it to unmarried childless career women and nearly all productive unmarried men. After all of the feminist progress, now we are penalizing women for not being wives and mothers! Oh the evil patriarchy!
Plus, someone would no doubt go look at the latest Census data and point out that White men making $40k-$74k are much more likely to be married (69.3% in 2012) than Black men making the same amount (56.6% in 2012). This is a tax that targets minorities! Game, set, match.
Well the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) IS a bachelor tax specifically because he forces bachelors to buy something that they would not buy, otherwise. The only way AFA could become law by the Supreme Court was to call it something that the Democratic Party can’t call it if they want to be re-elected, a tax. So it is a tax. Why do I say it targets bachelors?
It’s a bachelor tax because single men don’t go to the doctor. So you say well isn’t that all singles? No. Single women put in health insurance claims for breast exams, pap smears, oral contraceptives, etc. Single men don’t typically put in any health insurance claims. So single men are not the reason why health insurance rates are so high, it is women and elderly. To get the rates down for women and elderly, force men to buy insurance that they will not use. So of course, the AFA IS a bachelor tax.
@Dalrock
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the bachelor tax out of hand. To get around the racist aspect of it, they could very well put an income floor on it, say $45k AGI, to make a wild guess to start a discussion. Then given the income demographics of black men vs non-black men, it would actually be discriminatory against non-black men. Further, it wouldn’t have to be big amount of money to start. Take an inch today, take more down the road. Or they could rejigger the exemptions in the tax code…. recall the marriage penalty, anyone?
Equality of the sexes to feminists really means put more burden on single men with income because they won’t use that income to benefit society by “manning up and supporting those sluts”. Have to remember the government will be looking for more sources of taxation in order to keep the single woman/mother demographic firmly in its grip as it did in the 2012 presidential election.
> I know it isn’t popular to say this on a manospheric blog like Dalrock’s
> but I just have to say after reading things like that link, I am so lucky
> God introduced me to such a great wife.
“A Guide to Birdwatching in the Manosphere”, or it’s gender-neutral equivalent, anyone?
@IBB
I see the logic, but this isn’t what Random Angeleno was talking about. He was talking about a change in tax or related policy which would create an incentive for men to marry by punishing them if they don’t. Obamacare doesn’t create an incentive for men to marry, so it fails by that definition of bachelor tax.
@Random Angelino
I think we cross posted. I agree that they would want to set an income floor on it, but even if they do the tax would still disproportionately fall on black men compared to white men in the same income bracket. The same would almost certainly be true (likely worse) of Black women without children in that bracket compared to White women without children in that bracket.
I see I cross posted with Dalrock
@Dalrock: your point about how much it’s a nonstarter today is a valid one, but I think the picture will change in a few years when the demographic changes you’ve documented lead to a roaring wave of screechtards, a fair number of whom will have considerable influence on the legislative processes at the federal and state levels. I wouldn’t bet against the government’s creativity in the taxation realm in the long run …
See, you guys can see through this argument because you’re intellectuals. How many people do you think are going to research taxes? Just make some nice commercials with celebrity endorsers and you can pretty much say and institute anything, including taxes.
arrgh, need to hit refresh before posting…
The basic point I’m making is that the single man with income and no dependents will get targeted somehow. Regardless of race. If the feminists have to run roughshod over black and hispanic men, they’re capable of that. Per Hopeful, they’ll call it Social Justice or some such slogan. Witness what they did to Obama’s original infrastructure stimulus proposals, how they reduced the mostly male-oriented jobs in favor of the mostly female-oriented jobs. Slipped that one right by us over 4 years ago.
@Random Angeleno
I don’t see the problems of race and accusations of a “war on women” going away, and I don’t see where they could legally exempt women from such a tax as a class. So even if they exempt “custodial parents” (read “single mothers”) they would still be seen as punishing women for not getting married or having babies. But just as problematic, if you set a $45k floor on the tax to the extent that such a tax is a meaningful incentive it would be as likely (if not more so) to encourage single men to earn less money than it would be to encourage men to marry. Marriage places significant financial burdens on men (not a complaint, simply stating the facts). If you are using fiscal policy to change men’s behavior regarding marriage, the punishment/incentive would have to be larger than the burden.
The mechanics would make this even worse, because nearly all young men would start off making under $45k. As their earnings grow they would eventually approach a bracket where they would suddenly be penalized so strongly that the incentive overcame the financial burden of marrying. But before they get to that point, it would seem most would choose to simply work a little less (or less hard) and get by on that smaller amount. And now with Obamacare, living well on a smaller salary is even easier for a single man.
@Hopeful
The problem is the objections to the tax would be perfectly tuned to the kinds of emotional slogans which are so powerful. Just like giving young people some alternatives to 100% social security became “Bush is throwing grandma off the cliff!” such a tax would be “An assault on the Black man!” and “A war against women!”.
Well the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) IS a bachelor tax
Got it. And I see your logic. Right it doesn’t create an incentive for men to marry. In that sense it isn’t a bachelor tax.
True, but that doesn’t mean that it wont happen. If there are just enough manginas and white knights available to change the narrative such that it is right and just that single men should be guilted into marrying the sluts (or else, pay a “freedom to f-ck freely fine”) then… now you are in an appropriate place for taxation reform to create the bachelor tax. And at this point, we may already be there.
They just haven’t been able to figure out the narrative yet, to reframe it in such a way that everyone buys in on it (to think otherwise would be racist, such as it is with Civil Rights legislation.)
@Dalrock
That’s my point. Many debates in this country are arguments over semantics. It’s an effective way to keep every quibbling over definitions while the real “powers that be” are hard at work.
Hopeful,
Well said. And this is the main reason why the GOP suffers so much in reaching to enough voters to win elections, too many voters aren’t intellectuals (who have thought things through.)
Part of what drives me crazy about the GOP and its narrative is they harp on things that don’t matter to so many voters. The $17 trillion dollar debt is an incomprehensibly large number, so large people are too lazy to type all those zeros. I personally think that debt number creates a national security threat (for a variety of reasons I will not currently discuss here.) But it does no good for the GOP to keep harping on it because 40-45% of the electorate of this country aren’t credit worthy, have never paid a significant bill in their life (not for a mortgage, a car payment, or college tuition), and don’t believe for one second that the federal debt is ANY of their responsibility. They don’t care if the country bankrupts as long as they continue to get theirs. Such as it is right now in the city of Detroit.
You think the average Detroit citizen cares about the Federal Debt? Not even close. There is no way the GOP could ever appeal to any significant number of those citizens using that narrative.
We don’t have enough intellectuals voting Hopeful. Yes, the people on this forum can see through this. But we are few and THEY are LEGION. This is one of the many reasons why I think the manosphere needs an outstanding speaker in the public forum to best illustrate OUR narrative.
@IBB
“”You think the average Detroit citizen cares about the Federal Debt?””
I live 3 1/2 hours from Detroit……there are 2 ways into Detroit from here….the bridge or the tunnel. When I take the bridge I step into a third world country…..burned out buildings from the 60’s……the tunnel?…..the same thing………I have been doing a lot of research on real estate in Detroit….70,000 abandoned buildings….wow!……that is not good! I like Detroit….Motown…the Detroit Red Wings…the people…..Detroit is a “MAJOR AMERICAN ICON” ……can it come back?….I hope so!!!!!
@IBB
“”40-45% of the electorate of this country aren’t credit worthy, have never paid a significant bill in their life””
Sooooooo True my friend!……..this brings me back to the speech JFK gave…”ask not what your country can do for you….but what you can do for your country”……..Unfortunately, the populace you are speaking of believes that their country owes them a living!…..it does not!…..people are forgetting the fact about what a privilege it is to be born in North America!
@IBB
“”Well the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) IS a bachelor tax””
Want to see what ObamaCare is about?……..Look at OHIP(Ontario Hospitalization Insurance Plan)……that is what we have here in Ontario……….and it is not FREE!
Visualization of debt (one of the better ones): http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html
From: http://www.wtfnoway.com/
@MarcusD
Good visualization. I’m guessing the woman sitting on a couch made of money was intentional? Making a subtle statement?
I don’t think it was accidental. 🙂
Marcus, that link on the $122,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities, was awesome… and frigtening.
@innocentbystanderboston,
Would you say that the females that wind up on the sidelines with the cat are doing so of their own choosing (ie: they could be married but opt not to) OR are these choices being made for them?
The females choose this, one way or another. (Let’s be honest, unless you are an extremely overweight female, you can find a man if you are truly motivated.):
1. They become repelled/overwhelmed by what is required of a female to make a relationship work (i.e. – figuring out whether or not or when to have sex with a guy). The current dating culture does not have much reward, as these (mostly younger) women see it. These young women tend to be invisible to society because they are not out there “twerking” like Miley Cyrus….
2. They are dissatisfied with the quality of males available to them.
3. They are divorcees/widows who tend to be traumatized by the loss/death of their husband (although, I am not certain that they are aware that this is the case; they tend to say things like, ” I loved my husband but do not want to take care of another man….”)
This is just my personal opinion based on what i have observed….
Dating is tough. Get married. All women have to do to make the marriage work is three things:
#1) don’t eat too much
#2) smile
#3) do absolutely EVERYTHING your husband tells you to do (in church, at work, in home, and most importantly in the bedroom.) I can not over-empisize this. You want a happy marriage, have a happy husband. You want him happy, make him your owner and he will take total pride of ownership.
That’s it. If you are a woman and you do those three things, I’d say you are in pretty good shape.
@innocentbystanderboston-
Dating is tough. Get married. All women have to do to make the marriage work is three things:
#1) don’t eat too much
#2) smile
#3) do absolutely EVERYTHING your husband tells you to do (in church, at work, in home, and most importantly in the bedroom.) I can not over-empisize this. You want a happy marriage, have a happy husband. You want him happy, make him your owner and he will take total pride of ownership.
Sounds pretty simple – with some qualifications to #3…. Western society is way past that point, though. Although most women do not identify with feminism, they have internalized the general theme of feminism which boils down to women expending much effort to be inferior versions of men. Feminists are misogynists (maybe “self-hating women” is a more accurate term) more than they are misandrists – although they probably don’t see it that way. So, too late – and, here is where I do blame men – they have remained passive while this has happened. Here is a not so big secret – most women want to please men, and would listen to what they perceive as “what men want”.
At this point, just check out, sit back and watch “The Collapse”.
Jen —
So you’re saying that feminism is driving women to become sad, pathetic caricatures of men, with jobs, etc. instead of their traditional role of wife/mother? I pretty-much agree.
The women will end-up as barren spinsters with nice jobs, good pensions, big empty houses, and lots of cats. Equally sad, the guys will end-up in the same boat (but with a big dopey dog instead of the horde of cats).
You say that men have “…remained passive while this deterioration of the culture has occurred”. WTH? What could men (or women for that matter) have done to arrest this societal decay? This is being pushed by Hollywood, the mainstream media, et cetera. It seems that women would prefer to try to conform to these artificial societal norms rather than attempting to satisfy the needs of real-world, flesh-and-blood men by adhering to the traditional norms that are no longer fashionable.
Intelligent women can meet their men’s needs (pretty simple needs actually — appreciation, acknowledgement, and affection) without much effort or hardship. By meeting these basic needs, the women may seem to be subservient, but they’ll actually be able to get their men to do almost anything that they ask for.
Really, it’s all about mutual respect and trying to anticipate and meet each-others’ needs.
Updated Weekly Spinster Report:
Good Morning this is Michael with your updated Spinster report coming to you live from the Spinster capital of the US, Los Angeles, CA.
1) Late 30’s spinster follows me around and “plants” herself next to me at Costco. This isn’t actually “hitting on anyone” however when the same women with no wedding ring and a “desperate for dick” look stands next to you for 4 times in four different places pretending to look at the same thing 4 different times WITHOUT GRABBING ANYTHING FROM THE SHELF I would consider that her way of waiting for a guy to talk to her.
2) Pasty Fatty Confident 5 gets dejected when I display irritation to her annoying flirty advances. Ok seriously why do I go to the gym? Why do I spend $$$ on organic food? Why do I dress well and take care of myself? Why did I get good grades? Why did I go to Lawschool? Why did I start my own practice? Why did I work my ass off all these years? Oh that’s right…
TO HOLD HANDS IN PUBLIC WITH A FAT CONFIDENT FIVE.
l@#$KJMW#@%$K@#$KL K@#$K#@%$K@#$ K@#$K@#%$K !@K@#K$
Still, I’m sure you liked that she found you attractive even if you didn’t find her attractive. It’s flattering isn’t it? I’m glad you don’t feel guilty for not giving her the time of day.
@ innocentbystanderboston
I do not find it flattering I find it irritating and frustrating.
Yet another feminist slob expecting men to behave like gentlemen straight out of a Regency novelette, while holding herself to standards lower than those of a prostitute. That being said, it’s nearly impossible to achieve either option without a girl slutting it up. I mean, to get a man to marry you nowadays, you have to demonstrate the finesse of a porn star in bed, while somehow simultaneously giving off the impression that you’re as pure as driven snow. Feminism has turned dating into a game where it’s pretty much impossible to win for either sex.
Ouch: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=818007
Every reply I read there was hard core beta chump advice.
Damn MarcusD, such a slut and if ‘Matt’ is a good boy he will accept and forgive her sluttiness, riiiiiightm even though nothing they ever do will be new to her…
Fucking slut bag hoe tits! Dump her ‘Matt’, let Joe pick up the tab. Yea, she ‘fell’ for his bad boy antics, haahahahahahahahahaha! Fucking slut.
Michael, IBB was trying to draw a desperate comparison between you being followed and asked out by unattractive women and complaining about it and women who supposedly suffer the same quandary all the time.
Hell, I posted a couple comments in that thread above telling her to tell him the truth and I’m banned permanently for trolling…
Ouch, Round 2: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=821637
Someone called the Onion, I think: http://www.theonion.com/articles/teen-wastes-prime-childbearing-years-going-to-high,33891/
Hey Dalrock,
I conducted the interview you linked to (months ago), and I’m enjoying the comments on this post, which I just stumbled across. But I would like to clarify that in no way did I mean that my or anyone’s goal is to get divorced, and I’m a little surprised that you read it that way, and wish I could have clarified the text earlier. I guess I can now understand how it could possibly come across that way, although it makes me sad and frustrated, and it never occurred to me until now — what I meant is that Option A is each woman’s personal combination of all the traditional options (which include divorce, sometimes — just being realistic), and definitely NOT that Option A is one straight shot through each of those phases. The parenthetical was to acknowledge that the traditional doesn’t always end the same way. Put another way, I meant that some combination of those traditional (or, pseudo-traditional, given that divorce is forbidden in some circles) is more or less the modern beaten path, for better and worse, and we aren’t exposed to too many alternatives. And maybe alternatives don’t even exist, yet! Or ever? I have no idea. But I certainly don’t want or intend to get divorced. (I’m not entirely sure I want to get married, either, but I think I do, and that might be a whole other thing.) And I’m happy earning my own money & don’t think I’d enjoy the feeling of relying on anyone else for it.
I do think there’s something to be said about the dynamism of traditional gender roles, though — problematic as they might be in, say, the professional realm. I could probably talk about this for a very long time! About the problems that financial independence both solve and create. I’ll sort of drizzle off that thread for now, though…
While running The Hairpin — a site aimed at women, where I ran the Kate Bolick interview — for three years (I left in June), I picked up a lot of surprising (to me) things about how men and women relate to each other. And I have a few ideas about ways we can all be better (or, ways I hope to try to be better) with and for one another, but my overarching takeaway from the experience is that there’s no one-size-fits-all, easy, or perfect answer, as far as gender relations go. It’s all just a mess, but an often really fun mess, and the closest I’ve come to an “answer” is to just enjoy the mess and be kind to everyone, and to try to think carefully about why people do and say what they do. And laugh.
Reading the comments on this post, it seems like Kate Bolick and I come across as miserable, frigid witches (doh!), and although I can’t speak for Kate, I certainly do have my moments of miserable-frigid-witchiness, but I’m also generally really enjoying myself. And I’d like to believe I also have non-miserable moments too. For what it’s worth.
And what the Atlantic article was getting across, I think, is the difficulty surrounding the idea that it’s not that life & marriage/reproduction should go *back* to more-traditional models, because that’s probably not going to happen (or should happen), but that this is how things are now, and what’s the way forward? And that acknowledging the difficulty, even if that’s all that can be done at the moment, is maybe one of the first steps. And hopefully it can/will be beneficial for both men and women. And kids. And everyone.
More and more it seems to me like professional ambition and personal ambition — for women, at least, especially — are gently at odds with each other. And when it seems like you have to give up one for the other (and this is obviously a generalization), there’s this “… well shoot” moment. Because if you really want both … yeah, I don’t know. It’s tricky. Again, I don’t have a lot of answers.
What I enjoyed about Kate Bolick’s piece in The Atlantic, and the interview we did on The Hairpin, was that it seems useful to acknowledge the mess, instead of pretending that there’s a tidy option for everyone. I love the mess.
Okay, this is getting way longer & more rambling than I intended — mostly I just wanted to clarify that I truly, truly did not mean to imply I or anyone would ever go into marriage plotting for divorce! My own family has been through a number of divorces, and they’ve been devastating for everyone involved. I wouldn’t wish divorce on anyone.
So, anyway. This post and the comments have been really interesting. I value moments of not preaching to the choir. Running a feminist website meant there were lots of moments where it felt like that, and from what I’ve seen of your site (and I apologize if this is too broad a generalization), you might be in the same boat, but on on the vaguely opposite side of the spectrum. And it can get so tiring. Or at least it can make me wish we all had more access to the non-choir. And I appreciate that in your “about” section you said you learn the most from people who disagree.
Thanks for reading, if you get here so many months late…
-Edith