Forbes: Will the recession end gold-digging? (via Hot Air):
The author of the Forbes article suggests that women seek artists, academics, coaches and teachers instead of men who have "made income their life's goal." I recommend choosing someone you actually connect with and get along with on a number of levels, not just by his career choice. For choosing a man because of his career is about as deep as a man choosing a woman because she has a good ass. Neither one is the best way to keep a relationship going.
It looks like the economic downturn is producing a dating downturn too. At least this is true in financial centers like New York, where an unhealthily intimate bond between mating and money has persisted down the decades, from Edith Wharton through Candace Bushnell.
Maybe, finally, this recession will cut that bond, or at any rate do it some damage. ...
Just as that friend didn't need the money but felt her tab should be covered anyway, a male New York friend of middling income, an academic, told me that he gave up on online dating because it just got too expensive. On every first date, he offered to pay, as he felt was expected of him; usually, he was taken up on his offer. That adds up quickly.
The author of the Forbes article suggests that women seek artists, academics, coaches and teachers instead of men who have "made income their life's goal." I recommend choosing someone you actually connect with and get along with on a number of levels, not just by his career choice. For choosing a man because of his career is about as deep as a man choosing a woman because she has a good ass. Neither one is the best way to keep a relationship going.
posted by Helen at 4:53 AM
78 Comments:
"For choosing a man because of his career is about as deep as a man choosing a woman because she has a good ass."
Not at all, for a good ass can greatly reduce the labor involved in tilling the fields and toting firewood from the forest to the hearth. Also, an ass can go where a horse cannot. Had Victor McLaglen included a good ass in Maureen O'Hara's dowry, he would have had a lot less trouble from John Wayne over the long haul.
What? You meant the other sort of ass? Oh. Never mind!
According to a very interesting book, called "First Comes Marriage," by Reva Seth, a woman could do a lot worse than choosing a husband on a basis similar to that which her parents would use for choosing a husband for her in an arranged marriage. The "career choice" of the man actually should factor into it. This is so, because, for most women, at least, they sooner or later realize that what they want is a husband. And, by husband, I mean a husband in the traditional sense of the word. Most women, all feminist BS to the contrary notwithstanding, when it comes to choosing a mate (as opposed to a boyfriend), want a man who will be the primary wage earner, which will allow her to be what she wants to be, namely, the primary house and child care worker. To make this work, a woman needs a man who is emotionally, financially, and pychologically strong and stable. So, contrary to what Dr. Helen says (sorry), the husband's career choice is important. A starving artist, a professional student, a save the planet type, even an unemployed/criminal bad boy type might be OK as a boyfriend, but not as a husband.
Also, and, again, sorry Dr. Helen, "connecting" and "getting along with on several levels" is not that important. This is the mistake of the "shared interests" criteria. According to Seth, the woman should forget about liking the same kind of music or movies or whatever as her prospective husband, and focus on the big stuff. Do they feel the same way about religion? Does the guy want to make a commitment to one woman? Is he really looking for a wife, and not just a sex partner and/or girlfriend? Does he genuinely want children? Will he be a good husband and father, emotionally and financially? In short, will he be the "Daddy" so that she can be the "Mommy."
What Seth doesn't stress, but what would make her case actually more persuasive, is that arranged marriages often occur when both parties are very young. This strenghtens the marriage in several ways. First of all, it harnesses the wife's curiosity and desire for sex to her her husband, not to a series of "Mr Wrongs." Couples who were married while still teens often talk about the unbelievable excitement of their early years together. Literally overninght, they go from rigid households where, as children, they are denied almost all forms of interaction with the opposite sex, to one in which they are allowed, even encouraged, to do everything. It's like playing "house," but for real, and not only with your parents' permission but with their approval! These erotically charged years create a bond between the man and the woman that is not easily broken. In addition, the woman gives her "best" years, in terms of her attractiveness (not to mention her virginity) to her husband, not to a half dozen to two dozen Mr. Wrongs, like most Western women do. And, she provides a real home, with home cooked meals, clean clothes and so on for the husband, and takes care of the kids, who come early, while he is building his career. The husband gives her money which makes all this, having a home and children, and being a SAHM, possible. The wife gives him the home and the children. They give each other love, sex and affection. A real symbiotic relationship is formed, and is formed early in the lives of both parties to the marriage.
In other words, husband and wife build their lives and their marriage together, from the start of their adulthood. Later on, when the wife's physical attractiveness fades, and the husband might be inclined to wander, and when the wife becomes less enchanted with having sex with her husband and might look for excitement outside the marriage, those early times, those shared experiences of discovery and mutual affection, of working together and sleeping togehter, and of raising children togehter, act as a glue to counteract those feelings and hold the couple togehter.
All of that is a lot more important than having a dozen "shared interests," and, even more so, than the man meeting the hundred or so unrealistic criteria that many women set for their "eventual" husband (which the author calls the "Prince Charming" syndrome). I agree with Dr. Helen that academics, coaches and teachers (but probably not "artists") can easily fit this bill, and that "big earnings" are not necessary. What's important is the shared committment to the same answers to the major questions in life (monogamy, children, religion, home) and the emotional and psychological stablity, and, yes, the income, to make those answers realizable.
I don't see any of that as "golddigging." I see it as the proper field of inquiry that a young woman should make. We live in a society in which it is not accpetable for a girl's (or a boy's) parents to choose her (or his) spouse. But, neither have the spouse selection criteria that parents have used for millenia been made irrelevant by our modern world. A "golddigger," to me, conjurs up images of a sexually sophisticated women consciously "selling" her charms to a much older, wealthy man. Not a young, innocent woman seeking to give her youth and beauty, and her fertility, and her homemaking skills, to a man more or less her own age, just starting out in the world, who will in turn give her protection, shelter, food, clothing and so on. And each giving each other love and affection and their first real sexual experiences.
Ruddyturnstone:
You're making a lot of assumptions in your post. I don't think that all women want to sit home and play Suzie Homemaker and I don't think that all men want to take over absolute responsibility (financially and otherwise) for a woman who is going to remain a child because she has never worked or taken care of herself.
Keep blogging.
Good luck.
花蓮入口網|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮美食|花蓮消費券|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮電影|花蓮|花蓮海洋公園|花蓮遠來飯店|花蓮提拉米蘇|花蓮客運|蜂膠|花蓮太魯閣|花蓮廣告|花蓮地圖|花蓮旅遊|花蓮民宿|花蓮房屋|花蓮租車|花蓮汽車|花蓮餐廳|花蓮旅館|花蓮瑞穗牧場|花蓮名產|花蓮3600|花蓮租屋|花蓮理想大地|大月映|花蓮廣告|花蓮租車旅遊-TTA租車公司|花蓮餐廳|花蓮租車旅遊網|花蓮入口網|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮
Golddigging is the thrill that particular types of women feel in manipulating money out of a man using sex, the promise of sex or other machinations.
It doesn't really matter if Heather is getting millions out of Paul, or if a post-apocalyptic Mary is getting several potatoes away from Farmer Bill by flirting with him.
And, because of that, a recession would only have an effect on the magnitude, not the frequency, of golddigging.
Ruddy wrote: "Also, and, again, sorry Dr. Helen, "connecting" and "getting along with on several levels" is not that important."
I must disagree. The interpersonal connection is like the oil that lubricates the motor. Without it, you can have a partnership, but not a marriage.
Trey
Doc,
Your last paragraph NAILED it! What gets my goat is that women will endlessly kvetch about men seeking out women with nice faces & bodies; yet, when women do the equivalent, i.e. seek a man out because he has a bigger wallet, why that's okay. You try to pin women down on this, they get real uncomfortable, real quick like; they know that they're wrong, but they'd rather DIE than admit it. I despise the hypocrisy of it all.
BTW, I live in NJ, though cheaper than NYC, is still expensive. One reason I don't date is because I can't AFFORD to. If I could afford to, I wouldn't WANT to, because 99.99% of the women here are materialistic, gold digging whores who only want a man with a big wallet and prestigious career. The 0.01% of women who aren't like that are happily married. Guess that means I'll be single for the foreseeable future...
MarkyMark
,,,and then when the economy picks up again...?
The well molded and well cared for female frame is a breath taking sight to behold. Add to that a Helen of Troy face (nothing inferred) and I'm in deep doo-doo.
My daughters are beautiful, my son is a handsome lad. So there was benefit to it.
For a me, two heads were not better than one. And of the two, size makes a difference. The bigger one contains more brains.
For choosing a man because of his career is about as deep as a man choosing a woman because she has a good ass.
Wait...you say that like it is a bad thing? Now that's not the, ummm, end of the list of qualities, but it is a nice start.
Golddigging is the thrill that particular types of women
In it's most basic form, golddigging is a survival skill. It is one way a woman can make sure her (and her children, if any) basic needs are met: sustanence, shelter, clothing. Now, if she gets a thrill out of pulling one over on Paul or Bill, that could be considered a bonus.
For a me, two heads were not better than one.
That reminds me of a joke. Stop me if you've heard it. G*d and Adam are conversing in the Garden:
G*d Adam, I have good news and bad news.
Adam Ok, give me the good news first.
G*d I gave you a penis and a brain!
Adam Excellent! Wait...what's the bad news?
G*d I only gave you enough blood to operate one at a time.
The best advice to you ladies out there is to choose a man by his occupation. Especially you supermodels. What you need is a smokin' hot Database Administrator.
Have a look at what happened with the Roaring Twenties turning into the Great Depression.
The Twenties was known for women being rambuncious. Women's suffrage was in, and women's cigarette smoking was marketed as a "feminist advance" and the women, relishing in their "feminist equality," jumped right on board the herd mentality train.
During the Twenties, women were known for being much more sexually loose (in public - of course, women have always had their mercenary sexuality remain constant - how society viewed it is all that changed).
Anyway, you get the idea. Read some of the articles on the Men's Tribune (http://www.menstribune.com/) from the 1920's era, and you will see what I mean. You could transplant half of the news articles from then into the modern day and not bat an eye.
It didn't carry through to the thirties though, did it?
Nope. Wonder what happened there?
Suddenly when the wagons needed circling, the women calmed down and, gasp, became downright responsible again.
And... after "emergency" was over (the 1930's, WWII, and Post WWII/Recovery), it took only one generation, and women were back at men's throats again.
You can follow these things throughout history.
Weinenger mentions in "Sex and Character" about the rise of feminism in the 16th or 17th Century - and during these times you can find lots of record of anti-maleness - for example, women demanding that male-only tea houses be abolished, because they were certain the men were plotting against them. (Lol! It never occured to the ladies that the men were merely trying to escape their shrewish, demanding wives).
Anyway... follow the money. Anyone who has studied gender relations in any non-feminist related form, will understand the PUA's "game," and as insulting as it is to BOTH genders that life must be so, when one examines the evidence, it is very hard to deny... follow the money/resources/dominance.
In rough times, a roof over your head and a meal in your belly is the same as money.
Why, if there is only one job between four adults, you (either gender) might even humbly agree to get down on your knees and scrub the floor, to ensure that you have a warm place to sleep and food in your belly.
And you'd be glad about it!
Are these attacks on female gold diggers based on hate, or on the idea that women know how to pull off gold digging better than men?
JG:
"You're making a lot of assumptions in your post."
No, I'm not actually.
"I don't think that all women want to sit home and play Suzie Homemaker. . ."
I know they don't. That's why I wrote "Most women. . ." not "All women. . ."
". . .and I don't think that all men want to take over absolute responsibility (financially and otherwise) for a woman. . ."
I never said anything at all about what men want. Let alone what "all" men want. You are the one making assumptions, and eroneous ones at that.
I will say, however, now that you mention it, that MOST men do want a feminine women, and do prefer a young, beutiful innocent woman for their wife, as opposed to a jaded, 35 year old or older "career woman" with a "thousand cock stare" on her face. Not that men necessarily want to take "absolute responsibility" for their wives, but that, when they come at night "from the wars," they don't want to walk right into another battle with a "liberated" woman who is hell bent for leather on proving her "equality" by acting like a dictater.
". . .who is going to remain a child because she has never worked or taken care of herself. . ."
Wow, you really know absolutely nothing whatsoever about what a real SAHM, a good SAHM can do, do you? Being a real SAHM is like running a small business. It takes hours and hours of work, of all different kinds. It involves child care, cooking, cleaning, shopping, doing the bills, being a chauffer, being a "handywoman," dealing with contractors, and, if we're talking about a really good SAHM, it also involves making and mending clothes, gardening, jarring and canning food, home schooling, and on and on.
No "child" could do this. It involves tons and tons of "work." And it precisely consists of being able to "take care" of oneself, and others too.
Just to give you an example, a cousin of mine had three children with her husband, a very proficient dry waller who made good pay with good benefits. My cousin was basically a SAHM (with some part time work) until her husband decided to crawl into a bottle of whiskey and not come out.
They got divorced, and the drunk didn't pay his child support. My cousin didn't go after him for it, because she did not want the kids to see their father in jail. Still, he basically blew off the kids, hardly ever visiting them. (By the way, I know this part of the story goes against the grain here, but such things do happen some times.)
Anyway, with three young kids, and no education beyond high school, my cousin went into business for herself. Basically, she became a SAHM not only for her kids, but for other people's kids too. She took care of children from as young as three months to as old as sixth grade for families in which both parents worked. While she never made a fortune, my cousin was hugely successful. She had a waiting list of clients, with people practically begging her to take care of their kids. So, she could charge top dollar. She was able to raise her own kids comfortably in a middle class lifstyle, and even to afford some luxories, with no help whatsoever from the ex-husband. You know why she was able to do that, JG? Because taking care of kids is actually a marketable skill. It's work, and work that people are quite willing to pay for. Throw in housework (which my cousin didn't do for pay) and it's worth even more. If you don't think so, go and try to hire a governess/housekeeper for free and let me know how that works out.
That's why the kind of marriage I'm talking about, the kind that resulted from arranged marriages, and the kind not too dissimilar from that which the last successful generation of Western couples (say, those who married in the 1940's and 50's) had, worked. Because it involved a reciprocal trade. The woman traded her beauty, youth, innocence, home making skills, and fertility and child care for a home, security, food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, protection and so forth. At the outset of the marriage, when the woman was a hot property and the man had yet to establish himself in the world, the deal seemed to favor the man--he got regular sex with a young, desirable woman, and housekeeping and child care services, all for the price of room and board. On the "open market," the woman could have gotten more than just that for her sexual favors alone, never mind having children and taking care of them and a home too. Later on, when the worm turned, the woman's looks faded, and her child care skills and work were not needed (or less so), the woman seemed to have the better part of the deal--she was "taken care of" without having to "work" by a man who could have done "better" than her on the open market for women, if he wasn't already married.
That's what makes any long term relationship work--reciprocity. Give and take. The husband gives the wife what she wants and needs and she give him what he wants and needs. They build a life together. They "owe" each other. They each "stuck" by the other when they could have done "better," and vice versa. So that, in the long run, divorce becomes unthinkable. And then they reach old age together, after the children are gone, wage work is over, sex is not so important, as affectionate, loving companions.
I think it is way too idealistic to expect a woman to marry without any consideration of the husband's ability, including his financial ability, to keep up his end of this kind of deal. I just don't see that as "golddigging." Just as I don't see a man as a "shallow," "exploitive," "objectifying" asshole for not wanting to marry a woman he does not find physically attrractive. There is nothing wrong with self-interest, particularly of the enlightened kind. For a given relationship (like a marriage) or an institution (like marriage in general) to last, it had better work with, and harness, human nature, including a reasaonable measure of selfishness, rather than work against it in the name of some unobtainable purity.
And that's why I think so many Western marriages fail. Instead of a frank evaluation of what each person can do for each other, of explicit rights and duties, we have all of this hazy, nebulous talk about "soul mates" and other such nonsense. It wouldn't be "romantic" to spell out, at the beginning, what each party can expect from the other. Oh no. But, at the same time, because the marriages occur later in life, rather than two people starting from scratch, throwing everything they have into a communal pot, and each working hard with both hands to build a life, a home, and a family together, the marriage is more like the merger of two business corporations or law firms. There remains a strong "his" and "hers," a "yours" and "mine," instead of an "ours."
T'Mink:
"Ruddy wrote: 'Also, and, again, sorry Dr. Helen, "connecting" and "getting along with on several levels" is not that important.'
"I must disagree. The interpersonal connection is like the oil that lubricates the motor. Without it, you can have a partnership, but not a marriage."
According to Seth, and, from what I have gathered from couples who had arranged marriages, and from couples whose marriages are similar to arranged marriages, even a general overlap of shared interests at the outset of the marriage is just not that important. What happens is that shared interests develop over time. Even if the "personality types" of the husband and wife seem totally opposite, even if one likes "high culture" and the other "low," no matter how dissimilar they seem at first, they find things they both enjoy over time. What starts out as a "partnership" becomes a "marriage" as the years go by. That's the whole "genius" of arranged marriages, and the point of the book, that marriage comes "first," and the interpersonal bond is then formed, and forged, by the experience of the marriage itself.
Moreover, if both persons are totally committed to the marriage, and if both are in agreement over the long-term goals of the marriage and the other "important" things (ie general lifestyle, religion, having children, the importance of home and family), then these things, rather than the more superficial ones relating to tastes in entertainment and so forth, are the "connections," are the "levels" in which agreement is reached.
Again, I realize that arranged marriages are not in the cards in the West any time soon. But, the same principles are applicable to "love" marriages too. Women, and men, should figure out what is really important to them, and then look for a partner who feels the same way about the same things. Not go on an endless, futile quest for a "Prince Charming" or a "Miss Perfect," or even a "soulmate."
Ruddy, thanks for taking the time to respond. I missed that you were talking about arranged marriages, and now that you clued me in, I get it!
The bottom line in arranged marriages is where you spoke about the commitment to the relationship and taking the time to allow the common interests to develop.
I think that is kind of what dating used to be for!
Trey
a "thousand cock stare" on her face
Best comment EVER. I'm going to use that quote a lot.
I'm just happy I found my trophy wife on the first try (although I almost married the wrong woman before her!). Smart, beautiful, compassionate, and discreet. My question is: How did I ever pull that one off?
MarkyMark:
First, picture the women around you, the women you were trying to date, and then try to mentally take away any sex drive on your part.
You are left with someone smaller, weaker, stupider, and more manipulative. Someone not worth much. Not at all. You wouldn't even want her as a roommate if she were a small man.
OK, reinsert your sex drive and carry on with being pathetic.
Most men want sex and companionship - not from a prostitute, but kind of like they experienced in their youth - but they don't really want to listen to hours and hours and hours about how Mrs. Meier is having an affair behind her husband's back and I want some green drapes to replace the other ones and Oprah said ...
So realize it and do what you have to do to bring about the former. Look up "seduction" in Google, quit putting her up on a pedestal - believe me, she doesn't belong there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
T'Mink:
Yeah, dating, in the West, used to be the time that a man and a woman got to know each other, developed common interests, and determined if they shared life goals. Now, though, it seems as if dating is really just about finding sex partners. A couple of generations ago, men and women in their late teens to mid 20's dated as a means of finding a suitable spouse. Now, very few people, least of all women, are looking to get married until they're in their late 20's, or even older. And, many people, again, particularly the women, when they do start searching for a spouse, make the mistake of looking for a "soulmate" who shares all of their "interests" and/or a unicorn-like in his rarity "Prince Charming," who meets a list of literally hundreds of exacting criteria. Instead, according to the author (and I agree), they should be looking for someone who shares their life goals, and someone who has demonstrated the emotional, psychological and financial stability to stick to those goals. Find that person, who is on the same page as you on the "big stuff," forget all that romantic, Hollywood/Madison Avenue crap and fairy tale prince BS, and the shared interests will take care of themselves. In this way, dating could serve (as it once did) many of the same functions as arranged marriages do in other cultures.
chardin:
I wish I could claim authorship for that phrase ("thousand cock stare"), but, alas, I can't. According to Marky Mark, it was a poster on the Mancoat forum who came up with the expression.
...as a man choosing a woman because she has a good ass.
Huh? Sorry, didn't hear what you said, still thinking about how Jessica Biel looked in last night's movie.
Wowza.
Ruddyturnstone:
I have no interest at all in getting married. I'm in a society now where I can live with a woman without censure, I can have a girlfriend for decades without marrying her, and sex is readily available to a single man.
So why exactly do I want to follow your plan of arranged marriages and strict dating again?
Did I miss something?
Are you and Al Gore both on missions to save the world?
JG:
What you personally do or do not want to do is of absolutely no interest to me. I was commenting on Dr. Helen's post, and on your response to my comment, not on your personal life and preferences.
Unlike you, many men do want to get married, despite all of the factors you mention, and more. Primarily, I think, because they want to have children, and have a home, and have a long term relationship with the mother of those children. In short, they want a family.
In my opionion, actively seeking a women who shares these life goals, rather than looking for a "compatible" woman who shares their "interests," or a "perfect" woman, or a woman who meets some other criterion or critieria, is probably the best way for such a man to attain what he seeks. Again, that you are not one of those men is neither here nor there.
Beyond that, I have nothing to say to you except to advise you to actually read what is posted before responding to it, or you will end up looking stupid, just as you do now.
Ruddyturnstone:
It sounds like you're pining away about a past that maybe never existed, or you want society to go to a system of arranged marriages or strict dating.
On the other hand, I've seen self-righteous, insufferable twits in their 20s and 30s talk about how they are going to have their wife and family and never ever get divorced.
And, now, I see men in their 40s and 50s who are getting drilled or, more likely, they are stuck and will always be stuck in marriages that they no longer want to be in.
So ... like ... I'm just trying to understand where you fit in, Bunky.
Women are human beings.
They are not goddesses up on a pedestal in a white flowing dress.
They are capable of manipulation, deceit and other venal motives, especially when they smell money.
Girls with a "girl next door" look are just as capable of having venal motives when they smell money, and they are very capable of manipulation.
Ummm ... just to set things straight for the self-righteous, know-it-all crowd here.
"My Linda would NEVER be like that," screamed Young Bill with a beet-red face. No one knows how wonderful his fiance is. She is one-in-a-million and she will always follow his self-righteous commands.
... and time keeps moving on ... and Bill is going to get older some day.
JG:
Leaving aside your sarcasm, I will try to answer your question. But, first of all, I am not going to discuss my personal life because (1) I don't want to and I don't have to and (2) I don't think it makes any difference.
That aside, where "I fit in" is in the MGTOW side of the street. I am no advocate of marriage for men in our society, as I think it is a nightmare dealing with entitlement princess Western woman and an even worse nightmare dealing with the governmental, legal and police agencies that these woman can unleash on you at their whim under the marriage/divorce/family court laws that they have had enacted. In my opinion, the benefits of marriage for men have long since been outstripped by the risks and harms associated with it.
Nor am I an advocate for arranged marriages. I know that in our individual rights based culture that just isn't going to happen. Nor do I think it should.
What I am saying, is that, in the limited context of people who DO want to get married (and, if you'll notice, I was primarily addressing women, who were the topic of the original post, not men), that the approach that parents take towards selecting a potential mate for their child in cultures in which arranged marriages are prevalent is probably a better one than that taken by most women in our society. And that the prevailing Western approach, which consists of dating with little or no thought of finding a spouse in their teens, 20's and early 30's, and then fruitlessly and frantically searching for a man who shares all of their "interests," is their "soul mate," or is, even more unlikely, some kind of "Prince Charming," is almost guranteed to fail. It leads to either no marriage, or to a marriage without a strong basis in a shared committment to clearly articulated long-term goals. And that, in turn, contributes to the 50% divorce rate.
That's all I'm sayin'. I'm not trying to save the world. I'm not telling you that you should get married, or how you should live your life. OK, pal?
OK - now I understand it.
My reading comprehension is not always the best on Saturday evening.
I agree with the point about women looking for "Prince Charming" (and most of the rest), but I think, unfortunately, that I'm past the point of really giving a rip what women think.
I think that golddiggers themselves don't think that they are golddiggers.
In Western society today, women grow up just understanding that after they have their fun with bad boys in college and their late 20s, a very wealthy doctor who lives in a castle will marry them so that they can sit home and do whatever they want.
Anything short of that is UNFAIR.
So most women who have to settle for a man who doesn't live in a castle are PISSED. Pissed at the man and pissed at the world. They have every right to take it out on the man, because they (the women) got a raw deal.
That's how it works.
Actually, I agree with BOTH JG and Ruddyturnstone.
The thing is, marriage, relationships, and hell, even working with women is downright hostile.
Even if one studies all of the PUA (Pick Up Artists) games to a "T" and learns how to read female sexuality better than she does herself, it still doesn't change the fact that the entire system is rigged to make you fail 10,000 times over.
Therefore, the only winning move is not to play the game.
PUA's have quite a bit of valuable information on sexuality, actually, and it is REAL information, not this crap that comes from Slackademia.
Where I differ from the PUA's is that I don't think an endless train of women is healthy either personally, nor for society as a whole.
PUA's make up for the innevitable "end" of a relationship which is virtually guaranteed (either legally, or in miserable practice - but still staying together), by ensuring they always "have a few pearls on a string." The reason for this is that it is easier to accept the emotional nonsense that a woman will put you through, if you have the bed of a few other chicks to fall into and ease the pain - while also boosting your self-esteem.
This seems AWFUL to me! And not because I really care about the manipulative females getting manipulated back. I think it is awful for men! Good Grief! What a horrible life, always plotting, playing, and knowing when you are "really good at it, it just comes naturally without thinking." Yes, and so does stealing and killing. Doesn't mean it makes for a better life.
Men DO need women in their life every bit as much as women need men in their life.
You don't think that women have all sorts of emotional/psychological manipulators built in, but that nature wouldn't have also built in opposite but corresponding manipulators into males, would you? It would be a first almost anywhere in nature that such a thing would not exist.
So, men need women as a venue to complete their life as well. If they don't "transmute" thei sexuality into something productive, it will become destructive. Women are the same way, marriage and children "transmute" their sexual energy, and it can be harnessed for good.
Let sexuality run wild - ESPECIALLY female sexuality (males are the sexual servants of females), and you get chaos, violence, crime, and well, destruction.
Civilization cannot/does not exist without such transmutation of sexual energy.
One thing the gender idiots will never release a study on, is how much society decays directly as promiscuity increases.
Even just one simple example between my parent's generation to the modern day: They got married at 19/20 years old. It is doubtful that they were in love with anyone before that, and thus, did not have as many negative feelings about the opposite sex as say, a person who serial dates/marries/divorces several times.
Now, when people like parents married, my Dad no longer needed to "peacock" around, impressing the ladies. He could sell his fancy new car and buy a rusty old stationwagon. The rest of the money is used on a downpayment on a sensible house. Mom, Dad & kids are shopping at Wal-Mart because they are being sensible, and no longer acting like peacocks.
A person who is in serial dating/marriages, however, is constantly peacocking. It never freakin' ends! He gets a job, buys a hot car, meets a hot chick, re-arranges his entire life around her (as her sexuality demands), she drains his resources and turns him into a beta (compared to her), she starts looking elsewhere - see's Alpha male with THIS year's hot car... starts being aggressively hostile to current beta, making his life miserable... he tries harder to please her/buy her things/kiss her ass... she gets disgusted, goes to see lawyer... beta gets strapped into the legal stirrups and has his balls removed and his wallet extracted through his ass...
And, then what happens? Well, he has to attract another woman again! So, off he goes, working like an idiot to come up with the downpayment on a new car so he can attract another chick to suck him dry.
He never gets ahead - and a nation of these people doesn't get ahead either.
In fact, this situation even directly increases the crime rate, as more and more men will become desperate to achieve an attractive social status that becomes ever more fleeting and difficult to achieve.
This is arrested development, and society cannot survive - and indeed, history if full of examples of this. Check into JD Unwin's book "Sex and Culture," where he has documented over 80 past cultures and societies and their decline in regard to female sexuality. His conclusion (not to his liking), was that civilization and unregulated female sexuality simply cannot exist together. Sorry, but female sexuality is naturally hostile to both men and civilization - unless you want to live off of grass on the plains of Africa, like those Marilyn French-Kate Millet idiots want us to.
So, the thing is, even though the "winning move" is not to play... overall, marriage must continue to exist.
And it will.
Surely we don't think we are the first people in human existence to attempt to form different types of child-rearing practices than marriage.
The fact is that marriage is THE best and most efficient way to raise children.
And marriage is THE best way to achieve a low crime, stable society for those children to inherit.
And because marriage is SO superior to any other method of procreation and further, wealth building, those societies who don't practice marriage will ALWAYS get swallowed up by those societies who DO practice it - eventually.
So, believe it or not folks, the more marriage declines, the more sure it is that it will reappear soon. Those fembots didn't exactly leave a large brood behind... neither have the gay rights crowd. Yes, who will inherit their "altered" earth? People who will change it back to the old way, that's who.
So, it is becoming MY view that possibly the best way for men to begin to "pass on" information is to develop, how would you say, "the masculine mystique."
Look, women's sexuality is wide out there to be studied. It is not hidden. It is just that women will screech at you if they find you studying it. And if you swallow your PCness, and study some PUA techniques (go online - don't buy those crappy dating books, LOL!), you will see that women's sexuality is not REALLY so mysterious as it appears. It only appears mysterious because 1). A woman's love is contradictory (She seeks Alpha qualities, but her love parasitically destroys Alpha naturally (ball & chain), creating an undesireable Beta which she wants to discard). And 2). Men actually believe what women say more than watching what she actually does. Weininger says that ultimately, the blame lies with men because their sexual ego causes them to see women as they WISH them to be, rather than as they actually are. (Just like a woman sees her own child as the perfect angel she WISHES him to be - not as the little urchin he really is - Thus goes the natural hierarchy: Men --> Women --> Children).
So, it seems to me that where men ought to be heading is developing the "masculine mystique." By which I mean PUA techniques - except, this knowledge does not need to be abused to see if you can score 2,000 women in your lifetime. It could also be used to strengthen a traditional relationship much more favourably for the male(if marriage laws were not so hostile).
I think this may happen naturally anyways because of the laws and such.
Men are already moving towards traditionally female role of "sexual gatekeeper" Hostile laws will ensure that keeps happening.
Plus, PUA techniques are becoming more and more mainstream. It was fairly easy for women to hide the brutal facts of their sexuality when it was cloaked in marriage, making them miserable... but, now that marriage no longer constrains women to only one mate, female sexuality has suddenly become everywhere, and, more and more people are fast waking up to how it works.
PUA's emulating "alpha" to dominate and manipulate women is scant different than what the "female mystique" has been doing by manipulating men through sexual rationing & marriage for thousands of years.
Women seek alpha with the same intense irrationalness that men seek T & A. They drool for it. They betray for it. They masturbate to it.
Wives have long manipulated husbands as sexual mercenaries. Lingerie, "you've been a good boy blowjobs," you're sleeping on the couch, only I decide when we have sex etc. etc.
The thing is, when a woman is able to manipulate a man in this manner, she despises him for it. (Her sexuality is contradictory - it seeks to destroy that which it is attracted to).
A male is in a much better position to be the one who manipulates the woman into sexual frenzy in order to maintain the cohesiveness of the marriage. His love for her is not contradictory - he wants to keep her around. (Just like a child's love for a parent is contradictory - he has to leave one day - but a parent is NOT contradictory - a parent will not abandon the child, even in adulthood).
Ah yes! My first bestseller! "The Male Mystique."
Ruddy,
You should really be running a blog. I can't remember reading a comment of yours that I didn't think was dead-on. Thanks, and keep 'em coming!
JG:
No worries mate.
When you say this:
"In Western society today, women grow up just understanding that after they have their fun with bad boys in college and their late 20s, a very wealthy doctor who lives in a castle will marry them so that they can sit home and do whatever they want. Anything short of that is UNFAIR. So most women who have to settle for a man who doesn't live in a castle are PISSED. . .at the man and. . .at the world. . . "
I couldn't agree more. And that's where I think the author of "First Comes Marriage" falls flat. She is less than explicit about the fact that most women figure out that what they want (the doctor/Prince Charming who will come and "take them away from all this"--ie from the "career" that the feminists told them was going to be so "fulfilling," and let them live like princesses in a castle) way, way too late. Some women, at least, really are so beautiful and desirable that they could "land" a husband somewhere near that ideal when they are in their prime years of attractiveness and fertility (their late teens and early 20's). Many, if not all, of the rest could obtain some pretty reasonable facsimile of the above if, again, they would only "cash in" earlier. If the laws of marriage and divorce were halfway decent, men of this generation (much like the ones before them) would be happy to marry beautiful, young, virginal, innocent women when they are both in the early 20's. And support them as SAHMs while the kids were young.
But, and, from the woman's point of view, this is the real tragedy, by the time the women figure out what they want, it is no longer easy, or, in some cases, even possible, for them to get it, or anything like it. Why would Dr. Wonderful want to marry a 35 year old "career" woman with a thousand cock stare? Surely, he would rather marry a pretty, young, fertile 25 year old. Wow, at age 35 you finally figured out you would rather have the doctor (or the dentist, accountant, lawyer, or teacher, professor, or even steadily employed blue collar worker) than the bad boy, the "artist," the perpetual student, the punk (or "goth" or whatever they are calling them now), the drummer in a rock band, the "activist," the biker, or the upper class equivalents of these types. Good for you. Too bad all of those guys are now taken, or are divorced already, or have learned that it is crazy for them to marry at all.
Women should figure it out sooner, when their bargaining position is better. But, they don't. Reva Seth blames Hollywood and Madison Avenue for this, and that makes some sense. But, she doesn't mention feminism, which is the real culprit. Feminism is what convinces most young women, who would otherwise obey their bodies and their hormones and have husbands and children much sooner, to wait. To have their precious "careers," while dating the bad boys.
I think Rob Fedders nails a lot of this down. Most men, all things being equal, want to have families. So do most women. It's not like there is anything new or better on offer. Men such as myself and Marky Mark and, if I may be so bold, JG, are shunning marriage and family not because we inherently don't want them, because we have found something better, but because women have made them impossible, by their behaviors and their laws. And the result is not only the trashing of our individual lives, but of our whole society. So, while I sympathize with what JG and MM say about letting women stew in their own vile juices, that, unfortunately, is not a satisfactory solution to the wider problem.
Rob Fedders:
"Even just one simple example between my parent's generation to the modern day: They got married at 19/20 years old. It is doubtful that they were in love with anyone before that, and thus, did not have as many negative feelings about the opposite sex as say, a person who serial dates/marries/divorces several times.
"Now, when people like parents married, my Dad no longer needed to 'peacock' around, impressing the ladies. He could sell his fancy new car and buy a rusty old stationwagon. The rest of the money is used on a downpayment on a sensible house. Mom, Dad & kids are shopping at Wal-Mart because they are being sensible, and no longer acting like peacocks."
And that's exactly the way it was for my parents generation too. They got married young. The women were virgins. They were also young, beautiful and, well, just flat out HOT when they got married. When I look at the wedding pictures of folks my parents' age, I am always struck by how attractive the brides were. Not like the hags that one can see on the bridal page of the New York Times today.
Just as in arranged marriages, the men initially got a great deal--an incredibly alluring young women to have regular, steady sex with. These women also came with training on how to cook, clean, take care of kids, and so forth. And they had the kids, which they shared with their husbands. As time went on, the women got the better part of the deal. The kids got older and didn't need so much care. The women got less and less attractive. The men became better and better "cathches" as they moved up the economic ladder. The reciprocity of the relationship existed not only at any particular time (with both spouses giving love and affection, and other things, to each other) but over time too, with first the husband, and then the wife, having the better of the deal.
And, of course, the kids prospered as well, having two parents their whole lives, having an anchor, a place of security that they could turn to and rely even as they became adults. People who grew up in these circumstances sometimes underrate how important, how beneficial this sense of "home," this confidence that one's parents will always be there, together, is. And this had a beneficial effect on society.
What do we have now, instead?
Rob Fetters:
"A person who is in serial dating/marriages, however, is constantly peacocking. It never freakin' ends! He gets a job, buys a hot car, meets a hot chick, re-arranges his entire life around her (as her sexuality demands), she drains his resources and turns him into a beta (compared to her), she starts looking elsewhere - see's Alpha male with THIS year's hot car... starts being aggressively hostile to current beta, making his life miserable... he tries harder to please her/buy her things/kiss her ass... she gets disgusted, goes to see lawyer... beta gets strapped into the legal stirrups and has his balls removed and his wallet extracted through his ass...And, then what happens? Well, he has to attract another woman again! So, off he goes, working like an idiot to come up with the downpayment on a new car so he can attract another chick to suck him dry.
"He never gets ahead - and a nation of these people doesn't get ahead either."
Which is why I don't see PUA as the answer either. It's an answer for an individual man (maybe), but not for society.
Clearly, the laws of marriage and divorce need to be changed. But the attitude of women towards dating and marriage, and its timing, needs to change too. I think, on balance, Reva Seth is on to something. I am also not such a jingoist that I can't learn something from the practices of other, non-Western culures.
Finally, to Jesse, thanks man!
"Why would Dr. Wonderful want to marry a 35 year old "career" woman with a thousand cock stare? Surely, he would rather marry a pretty, young, fertile 25 year old."
---
The problem is, 20 years down the road Dr. Wonderful is not going to be married to a pretty, young, fertile 25 year old.
He's going to either be divorced from a pushy, demanding sit-at-home pig, or (even worse) he's going to still be married to one.
I'm usually amazed that men don't seem to be able to look forward that far.
The nagging question I have is: Are women really worth all this money that flows to them from men?
Apparently it's heresy to even think about something like that.
I was one of those naive guys who wanted to marry the girl of my dreams and have a family. Nothing wrong with that. I still believe it can happen for some. My parents pulled it off rather well.
My problem was I chose a wife with the body of Jolene Blalock, face like Sophie Marceau(green eyes and all), and (didn't find out until 20 + years later) the minds of Roseanne and Sybil mixed together.
I've been meaning to write Meatloaf for a discussion on "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad".
MB:
"The problem is, 20 years down the road Dr. Wonderful is not going to be married to a pretty, young, fertile 25 year old. He's going to either be divorced from a pushy, demanding sit-at-home pig, or (even worse) he's going to still be married to one."
Does it have to be that way? Is that the way men thought of their 45 year old wives a generation or two ago? Instead of being a "pushy, demanding sit-at-home pig," couldn't she instead be an accomplished homemaker, a gracious, grateful, faithful, loving wife and a good mother of their children? Before feminism, it seems to me, the latter outcome was at least possible. Before girls were brought up to believe that they were morally, spiritually, intellectually, and sexualy superior beings merely because of their gender, and that the world revolved around them, their selfish wants, their "dreams," and their feeeEEEEEeeeeEEEeeelings, not EVERY beautiful young girl grew into a middle-aged women who was a disgusting, selfish, tyranical, an bitter sow.
"The nagging question I have is: Are women really worth all this money that flows to them from men?
Apparently it's heresy to even think about something like that."
I thought that was one of the questions we were discussing. If the money is flowing from the man to the woman, and the woman is using that money to run the household and raise the kids, then, yeah, it's probably worth it. If the money is instead being used by the woman to pay for her life of luxory while the man breaks his back working for it, which is too often the case today, then, no, it's not worth it.
I find it interesting that most people in society - men and woman - and a lot of people here as well - just consider it a given that a man's intrinsic worth is what he can offer a woman (mostly money, but also some other attributes).
Perpetual students and people like that are sneered at.
As an example, a man working on an idea, who is supporting himself on a minimum-wage job, has no money or other characteristics that women want, so he is a loser, and thus his intrinsic value as a man is zero.
Now if the idea is developed to fruition, and he gets a patent on it and either sells the patent or starts producing with the help of others, his financial worth has just shot up and hence he is VERY valuable to a woman and his intrinsic value as a man is very high.
But it's the same person.
I frankly think that men may be happier if they decouple themselves from what women think. Especially from the point of view of "who the hell are women?". If you look carefully at what a lot of women really ARE, you find it almost incomprehensible that men base their worth on people like that.
MG:
"Perpetual students and people like that are sneered at."
I'm not sneering at them, I just think that a women who wants a husband to play the role of breadwinner, so that she can play the role of SAHM (which, in my experience, is most women) is wasting her time, and her prime years of attractiveness, dating such men in her 20's.
"As an example, a man working on an idea, who is supporting himself on a minimum-wage job, has no money or other characteristics that women want, so he is a loser, and thus his intrinsic value as a man is zero. Now if the idea is developed to fruition, and he gets a patent on it. . .his financial worth has just shot up and hence he is VERY valuable to a woman and his intrinsic value as a man is very high."
First of all, what percentage of these cases turn out this way? Not a very high one, I imagine. So, while the risk of failure may very well be acceptable to the man himself, it's probably not for a woman looking for a breadwinner husband.
Secondly, I think you have it exactly backwards. The man with the idea that turned out to be successful is materially rewarded, and that's why women now want him. His worth to women is dependent on his material success. Just as the man still working on the idea is not necessarily a "loser," he just is not, at the present time, attractive to women seeking a breadwinning spouse, because he is not materially successful.
Thirdly, "what women want," in this context, exactly mirrors the dominant notion of "keeping score" in our society. We live in a capitalist society--material wealth is the most prevalent, the surest, indicator of success. It's not like "what women want" in this respect is some bizarre, unfathomable, capricious whim.
"But it's the same person."
Of course it is, so what? A guy looking for a goldmine, but not yet having found one, is the "same person" if and when he does find one. But, obviously, after he finds it, his material worth will have increased immeasurably, and, consequently, so will his value as seen by women. What's the big mystery or contradiction here?
A thirteen year girl with acne, braces, and no figure, is not worth much to men or boys. They see her as a "loser," to the extent they notice her at all. But, 5 years later, when her teeth are straight, and if her skin clears up and she develops a womanly figure, she is worth quite a lot to men and boys. She's still the same person, it's just that now she has what they want.
"I frankly think that men may be happier if they decouple themselves from what women think."
I think this is true for at least some men. Some men have no desire to ever marry or have kids, and that is not just because of what feminism has done to women and to the law. They just don't want a family. And that's fine. And there doesn't even need to be the notion that they are working on some "big idea" which might pay off in the end. There is nothing wrong with being a surfer all your life, if that's what you want. Our society is built on individualism and free choice. Follow your own star, go your own way, and don't worry about what women, or anyone else, thinks.
On the other hand, I still think it is dumb for a woman who wants to be a SAHM to spend her prime years in terms of attractiveness dating surfers who have no intention of ever getting married or of having a job which can support themselves, and kids, and a SAHM.
"Especially from the point of view of 'who the hell are women?'"
But, the average man does want a home, a family, and children, and, from that perspective, "who the hell women are" are the only persons that they can make that happen.
"If you look carefully at what a lot of women really ARE, you find it almost incomprehensible that men base their worth on people like that."
There is no question that the state of Western wonmanhood is pretty miserable. Still, though, just writing them off and leaving them to stew in their own bilious juices won't get a man a home or a family, and it won't help our society recover from feminism either.
Ruddyturnstone:
This is basically just idle curiosity, but why are you so concerned about a SAHM finding the right guy?
It seems kind of odd to me that you focus on that.
Maybe it's just our different points of view (you seem to respect stay-at-home women, whether moms or not; I have no respect for them), but if you are a man it's still a bit strange to be so worried about the welfare of a group you aren't even in.
I assume you'll say that you are not focusing on them at all, but I'm hoping for a more insightful answer.
"First of all, what percentage of these cases turn out this way? Not a very high one, I imagine. So, while the risk of failure may very well be acceptable to the man himself, it's probably not for a woman looking for a breadwinner husband."
--
What level of risk is acceptable? Starting a business on your own?
It sounds like the proper gentlemen should have a reliable drudge job that pays well - most likely in a big company, but he could also be in a large law firm or medical practice with others - and he should simply carry out that function - regardless of his own hopes, dreams, wishes - to the end of his days, whether he hates the job and his life or not.
THAT, apparently, is what the proper young lady who plans on sitting on her ever-widening ass for the next 60 years should look for.
Bejeezus.
No wonder the suicide rate of men is 3 or 4 times that of women.
A lot of men probably believe all this crap.
MB:
I guess its because I see the nuclear family as the bedrock of society. And I think that MOST men and women, both, really do desire marriage,family, home, and children. I think that children, on average, do much better living with their natural, biological parents, than under any other arrangement. And I think that parents make better child care providers, on average, than hired workers. I also think that, except for the very few couples lucky enough that they are both able to work for wages from home, the best arrangement for all concerned is the breadwinner/homemaker-childcare provider one. Furthermore, I think that there is, again, in the typical, average case, a biological, and not just a social or cultural (as the feminists would have it), basis for the woman to play the role of homemaker/childcare provider and for the man to be the breadwinner. In other words, in my opinion, the best thing possible for men, women, and children, and society in general, is for men and women to marry at a relatively young age, for the women to make and keep a home, for the man to earn the wages, and for the woman to have children, which she, primarily, raises.
It's not that I am so concerned about the would-be SAHMs achieving their hearts' desires, it's that I think that their hearts' desires, properly, and timely, understood, and acted upon, can create the optimal achievable situation for all the individuals concerned (the man, the woman, and the children), and for society in general. And, I see feminism and its indoctrination of women to reject all of the above (which, as has been pointed out, is really only a restatement of the way that men and women have been living, and how families have been formed, throughout the world for centuries, if not millenia) as working against this optimal solution in the name of either some spurious "fulfillment" that is supposed to come from wage, as opposed to child and house, work, and/or the allure of a sterile, Sex in the City, Cary Bradshaw lifestyle.
MB:
"What level of risk is acceptable? Starting a business on your own?"
A woman who wants to be a SAHM, like everyone else, only has one life to lead. It's her decision as to what level of risk is acceptable to her. It's her life, her call, and her funeral if it turns out badly. What is your gripe here, exactly? Don't men have the option of not marrying a particular woman if they don't want to? Why don't women have the same right? Is some woman in particular, or in general, obligated to marry every would-be Bill Gates tinkering in the garage on the off chance that he might hit it big?
"It sounds like the proper gentlemen should have a reliable drudge job that pays well - most likely in a big company, but he could also be in a large law firm or medical practice with others - and he should simply carry out that function - regardless of his own hopes, dreams, wishes - to the end of his days, whether he hates the job and his life or not."
The "proper gentleman," as far as I'm concerned, can do whatever he wants. He can follow his hopes and dreams and wishes. I thought I made that clear. But, if the gentleman in question seeks a wife, then what women want plays a factor as well. Just as 40-something "career" women who have lost their looks, their fertility, their innocence, and, in general, their desirability, have no "right" to a husband, a gentleman who chooses to not pursue a real career or job, who lives only for himself, who wants to spend his life as a surfer or a scrounger or whatever, has no "right" to a wife either.
"THAT, apparently, is what the proper young lady who plans on sitting on her ever-widening ass for the next 60 years should look for."
That's not what I said. I specifically stated that men who have shown the psychological and emotional stability to be husbands and fathers are what a woman who hopes to be a SAHM should look for. I also said that blue collar workers can fit this bill.
I don't know if the man as breadwinner / woman as sit-at-home WAS the predominant situation in the past. Maybe since industrialization, when men went away to work in factories, or maybe not. I think the truth is that most people lived in a rural/farm setting in the past, and both people had to bust their butts.
My impression is that you are taking an idealized past - that may never have existed in the form you think it did - and stretching that out to prescriptive advice for how everyone in society *should* act. You are also not taking technological advances into consideration that may well change the situation and, in fact, in a radical way.
Your rebuttal, I'm sure, will be that you are just innocently describing what's best for society.
You are also contradicting yourself, though, when you state in detail what a SAHM wants (" ... But, if the gentleman in question seeks a wife, then what women want plays a factor as well." - and you go on to assume it's the reliable earner), but in other places you bemoan the sluttiness of modern women, who don't choose the reliable twit, but instead a different type of guy.
I guess, in summary, being a sit-at-home today is not what it used to be 100 years ago (because of technological advances) and the risk that men take is also far different today (not just because of no-fault divorce and the increasing willingness of family courts to put all the burden on men). Your prescription of what you think is best for society may well be wrong. Not that I'll be paying for a sit-at-home to watch Oprah, anyway, but this kind of commentary nevertheless makes me grind my teeth.
Here's my one prescription for society:
People *should* tell wanna-be social engineers, who have a model of how people should act, to go to hell.
"... a gentleman who chooses to not pursue a real career or job, who lives only for himself, who wants to spend his life as a surfer or a scrounger or whatever, has no "right" to a wife either."
---
He's got a "right" to enter into any relationship he wants, including that of having a wife.
You are implying that women only want a reliable earner as a husband; that is clearly not the case.
I'm not a surfer or scrounger, and I find it odd to be on the side of defending surfers or scroungers, but you are simply offensive.
I think that if people are not leaning on my pocketbook via public assistance / welfare, and if they're not committing crimes (which also affects me), I'm pretty slow to tell people how they should act.
MB:
"My impression is that you are taking an idealized past - that may never have existed in the form you think it did - and stretching that out to prescriptive advice for how everyone in society *should* act."
It did exist in the past, and the not too distant past at that. And I am not telling people how they should act. I am merely saying that if a woman wants to be a SAHM, course of conduct A is more likely to achieve that goal than course of conduct B.
I have also stated, repeatedly, that I have no interest in telling other people what to do or how to live their lives. I do think it would be better for society if one course of conduct was followed, rather than another, but I am not trying to dictate that anyone follow that course of conduct. I don't know how I can be any more clear than that.
"Your rebuttal, I'm sure, will be that you are just innocently describing what's best for society."
I do think it's best for society. What's wrong with that? You explicitly asked me why I was going on and on about this, so I told you. Now, you have some sort of problem with that answer. Is it so unusual for people to frame issues here in terms of what's best for society? Again, I am not trying to dictate, only to express my opinion. I don't see why that bothers you.
"You are also contradicting yourself, though, when you state in detail what a SAHM wants (" ... But, if the gentleman in question seeks a wife, then what women want plays a factor as well." - and you go on to assume it's the reliable earner), but in other places you bemoan the sluttiness of modern women, who don't choose the reliable twit, but instead a different type of guy."
It's not me who is contradicting himself, but the women themselves. They spend their 20's dating Mr. Wrongs, and then are unpleasantly surprized that Mr. Right is not around to date, afiance, marry, impregnate, and support them as SAHMs when they reach their mid-30s. They complain about a situation that they themselves created.
"Your prescription of what you think is best for society may well be wrong. Not that I'll be paying for a sit-at-home to watch Oprah, anyway, but this kind of commentary nevertheless makes me grind my teeth."
OK, I may be wrong. But why does that make you grind your teeth? You don't want a SAHM, and won't marry one. Who is trying to make you do otherwise? I have my ideas about what would make society better, as most people do. Do they all make you grind your teeth? In her original post, Dr. Helen expressed her opinion that society would be better if women stopped "golddigging?" Did that make your teeth grind too?
"He's got a 'right' to enter into any relationship he wants, including that of having a wife."
Um. . .no he doesn't. No one does. No one has the "right" to a spouse, because marriage requires the consent of both parties.
"You are implying that women only want a reliable earner as a husband; that is clearly not the case."
It's true in most cases.
"I'm not a surfer or scrounger, and I find it odd to be on the side of defending surfers or scroungers, but you are simply offensive."
Look, it's OK to be a surfer or a scrounger. Or a freelance philosopher or garage inventor, or a hermit, a wilderness travelor, a spiritual seeker, a poet, or whatever. I'm not trying to judge or denigrate anyone, and I don't care one little bit what you, personally, are or aren't. The point is that almost all women want a man with a real, paying job as their husband. In my experience, this is almost universally true.
"I think that if people are not leaning on my pocketbook via public assistance / welfare, and if they're not committing crimes (which also affects me), I'm pretty slow to tell people how they should act."
So am I.
"Here's my one prescription for society: People *should* tell wanna-be social engineers, who have a model of how people should act, to go to hell."
You are just a stupid and angry person. I have done nothing to warrant this response. I have repeatedly said that I have no desrire to dictate to anyone or force my "model" of behavior on them. I am only expressing my opinion. Just like everyone does on an internet discussion board.
Tough shit if you don't like it.
Ruddyturnstone:
One of the basic things you seem to be trying to hammer home is that women will not go for a man without a reliable job.
You say that you don't care if men work on some hairbrain idea in their garage or go surfing all day ... they just won't get a woman. If you dispute that, I'd be glad to point out several places where you imply that and also directly say it (for instance: "Look, it's OK to be a surfer or a scrounger. Or a freelance philosopher or garage inventor, or a hermit, a wilderness travelor, a spiritual seeker, a poet, or whatever. I'm not trying to judge or denigrate anyone, and I don't care one little bit what you, personally, are or aren't. The point is that almost all women want a man with a real, paying job as their husband.").
The joke is that I'll bet Jacques the Surfer Dude probably has more women around (and probably better-looking women around) than Ed the Boring Accountant at Coca-Cola, and Jacques could also marry one of them if he felt that way.
When I point that out, and when I point out that you yourself have made a bit of a reference to the sluttiness of modern women, you then say it's because of the women. They aren't doing it right. They aren't acting like they "should" (which is to reject men except those who have reliable jobs).
And then you go right back to saying that men without reliable jobs won't be able to get women.
I frankly don't know WHAT your point is.
Frankly, Harvey (with a bad combover) who has worked in the Accounts Receivable Department for the last 20 years is not going to be the chick magnet you seem to think he will be.
Ruddyturnstone sez:
"But why does that make you grind your teeth?"
-------
Because modern-day chivalry is usually misplaced and not good for men today. Your brave defense of sit-at-homes and your warnings to men who don't have reliable jobs that they will never get a wife sound a lot like chivalry and "I'm a real man".
That, more than anything, is what is kicking men's butt in family court and society.
And, on a side note, with regard to sit-at-home women: I will exclude the cases in which there are small children at home (not yet in school) and in which the mother home-schools.
Otherwise ...
Centuries ago, there was a ton of work to do. There isn't really today if kids aren't in the picture (see above). The woman who sits home despite that is milking the old notions that society still carries. Those notions no longer hold true, and the woman sitting at home is putting the whole burden on her husband and doesn't really care, she is lazy, she is a user, she is a parasite, and she is childish once you get through the sophisticated outward appearance that some of them have.
And men who try to chivalrously prop them up kind of bug me.
Men taking risks, and not just depending on a reliable job in a large company or the government, have been the engine of progress over a big chunk of time.
Men who are out doing odd things are much more interesting than twits with a comfortable, protected job in the government or large company.
They also have a much higher chance of "striking it rich" than someone plodding away in a reliable job.
MB:
"One of the basic things you seem to be trying to hammer home is that women will not go for a man without a reliable job."
No. Women may "go" for such a man. My point is that they won't marry him.
"You say that you don't care if men work on some hairbrain idea in their garage or go surfing all day ... they just won't get a woman."
No, they may very well get a woman, but they won't get a wife.
"If you dispute that, I'd be glad to point out several places where you imply that and also directly say it (for instance: 'Look, it's OK to be a surfer or a scrounger. Or a freelance philosopher or garage inventor, or a hermit, a wilderness travelor, a spiritual seeker, a poet, or whatever. I'm not trying to judge or denigrate anyone, and I don't care one little bit what you, personally, are or aren't. The point is that almost all women want a man with a real, paying job as their husband.'"
Yes. . ."as their HUSBAND." Not as their boyfriend or fuck buddy. Women want men with real jobs AS THEIR HUSBANDS. I put in all caps so that you will see it.
"Frankly, Harvey (with a bad combover) who has worked in the Accounts Receivable Department for the last 20 years is not going to be the chick magnet you seem to think he will be."
He's not a "chick magnet," and I never said he was. But he is a guy that a woman may want as a husband, as opposed to the perpetual student, unpublished poet, and so on.
"The joke is that I'll bet Jacques the Surfer Dude probably has more women around (and probably better-looking women around) than Ed the Boring Accountant at Coca-Cola, and Jacques could also marry one of them if he felt that way."
Yes, Jacques gets more girls, but Ed is much more likely to get a wife. Women typically don't want to marry the sexy surfer or rock band drummer or skateboarder or snowboarder or whatever (unless they are among the few of such men who are "stars" at these endeavors and actually make money from them). They want to screw them, yes, but that's not the same thing. I find it amazing that you don't understand the difference.
"When I point that out, and when I point out that you yourself have made a bit of a reference to the sluttiness of modern women, you then say it's because of the women. They aren't doing it right. They aren't acting like they 'should' (which is to reject men except those who have reliable jobs)."
Wow, you are really dense. Women, when they are young and desirable, and could easily land "Ed the accountant" as a husband, waste their youth and beauty and fertile years screwing "Jacques the surfer." Then, when they hit 35, they wonder why Ed is not around to marry, impregnate, and support them as SAHMs. Women want to be SAHMs, but follow a course of conduct that diminishes drastically the likelihood of that outcome. That's what I'm saying that women "aren't doing right."
"And then you go right back to saying that men without reliable jobs won't be able to get women."
No. They won't get wives.
"I frankly don't know WHAT your point is."
Maybe because you either don't read what I write or because you are too stupid to understand the difference between "getting a WOMAN" and "getting a WIFE."
". . .modern-day chivalry is usually misplaced and not good for men today. . . your warnings to men who don't have reliable jobs that they will never get a wife sound a lot like chivalry and 'I'm a real man.'"
It's not "chivalry." A reasonable division of labor in a marriage, along the lines of breadwinner/childcare and houseworker is not "chivalry," it is efficiency and common sense. It makes a whole lot more sense than the breadwinner/breadwinner/paid (or government provided) day care worker paradign favored by the feminists. I'm not in favor of a married woman having a free ride as a princess, but of her and her husband dividing up the necessary work in a way that's fair to both of them, and best for the kids.
As for being a "real man," I don't use that term or concept because I think it is "shaming language." And, as a MGTOW, I have no use for anyone trying to impose rigid notions of masculinity on me or my fellow men.
Nor am I "warning" anyone. I'm just stating the fact that women don't, except in rare cases, want to marry men who don't have jobs. Posters go on and on all the time on boards like this about how men don't want to marry unfertile, no-longer young and pretty, middle-aged career women with thousand cock stares. And those posts are not seen as some sort of unjustified "warnings." Rather, just like my comment, they are seen for what they are: statements of fact.
"And, on a side note, with regard to sit-at-home women: I will exclude the cases in which there are small children at home (not yet in school) and in which the mother home-schools."
Actually, I think the two cases which you exclude right off the bat are the very ones I am talking about. I don't consider a woman whose kids go to school and after school activities almost the whole day to be the kind of SAHM I want to encourage. I am talking precisely about real SAHMs, taking care of a young child, or children, or home schooling school-age children. SAHMs that cook from scratch, that sew, that mend clothes, that garden, etc. In short, SAHMs who WORK, who hold up their end of the deal. Not "ladies who lunch" while the nannies take care of the kids and the maids do the housework, and the men break their backs earning the money to pay for all of that. Again, if you had actually read my posts, you would see that this is what I had in mind.
Anyway, what's your solution? What's your ideal situation? That both parents work outside the home and some paid "day care" worker looks after the kids, like the feminists want? That "shit 'em and leave 'em" approach to parenting sure is working out great, isn't it?
"Men taking risks, and not just depending on a reliable job in a large company or the government, have been the engine of progress over a big chunk of time."
OK, assuming that's true, what's your point? The fact remains that they are not attractive to women as husband material unless and until the risks pay off.
Take Bill Gates as an example. His wife didn't marry him when he was tinkering in the garage in the 1970's. She married him in 1994 when he was almost 40 years old and already the richest man in the world. An extreme example, OK, but you get(I hope!) the point.
"Men who are out doing odd things are much more interesting than twits with a comfortable, protected job in the government or large company."
Yes, they are more "interesting" than those other fellows, but that doesn't make them more "eligible" as potential husbands in the eyes of women.
"They also have a much higher chance of 'striking it rich' than someone plodding away in a reliable job."
Of course they do, and some women may feel that they can evaluate that possibility and take a chance on such a man as a husband. However, most women are not keen to bet their future on the possible success of what, at the present time, is just a mass of wires and whatnot in the garage or basement.
In any event, I think you are focusing too much on the inventor/big idea guys. The point is that men without steady paying jobs, or a real prospect of one in the not too distant future (like, say, a top MBA or law student nearing graduation) are not seen as good husband material by single women. Your would-be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates types are just a small subset of such men. Most men not working at a good job or profession are not in this category, but are either unemployed, or barely employed, and/or focusing on fun and leisure activities instead (such as the much maligned surfers) or are "party animals" or sports fanatics or whatever.
Overall, you seem to be unable to grasp the points that I am making, and responding to ones of your own imagination instead. In addition, you are just repeating yourself about things that are not in dispute (like the worth of independent inventors to society) and are not relevant to the discussion. Do you have any real dispute with me? If so, please try to spell it out, because all I'm hearing out of you now is a lot of senseless noise.
Well, I guess where we differ is that I think a man in a non-traditional area of life (i.e. not in a reliable government or big-company job) can also attract a wife. Not all women are hookers out for money (not even reliable "security"). We truly differ in that, but look around and you may see examples of it. I do.
The second area where we disagree is with regard to a "traditional split" of duties. People change over decades, and I think a flexible arrangement where the wife is a true partner to the husband - and covers for him while he takes a risk in starting a business, for instance - sounds more mentally healthy than a relationship in which both are locked in - the husband having to bread-win in the same old job, and the wife always sitting home, both possibly with growing resentment. Ya know, the man drinks and the woman takes tranquilizers because they are both unhappy.
But, this conversation has kind of hit a dead end for me, so I'm just going to give up.
Re: Bill Gates.
I assume, and readily agree, that his SECOND wife married him for his money. Your analogy kind of falls apart when you consider that he was married when he was young (and - LOL - a "non-traditional" entrepreneur who dropped out of college [Harvard]).
The non-traditional dufus found a wife before he was a billionaire.
Ya, bill was only a multi-millionare at the time. Gates family wasnt exactly a bunch of poor sharecroppers.
I remember one place I worked at several years ago when I was in my late 20's. Back when I was only just emerging from the fog and realizing how toxic it is to date.
We had a really hot divorced receptionist.
There was a "thing" that was going on between us (basically, I was being used), and she strung me along for a while, manipulating me into doing all kinds of things for her.
Her father knew my parents - in fact, her father did business with my parents, so she knew that my family had a few bucks to their name (but I didn't). I am pretty sure this is the only thing what made me worthy of even being used by this inflated ego Princess.
Anywho, one day I worked up the courage to invite her out to some event - I forget what for - but, basically a "date."
I'll never forget her reply to me.
"I only date men who earn at least $100,000/yr."
So, she blew me off because of my income alone. (At least she was honest - she gets 5 bonus points for that, at least, leaving her with a total of, well, 5pts).
With a very serious look on her face, she also informed me that she would consider a date when I achieved that kind of income - so, I should ask again if I get to that level.
While I still was looking at her incredulously, she went on to inform me: "First marriages are for love, second marriages are for money, and third marriages are for companionship."
It was all pretty matter of fact to her, but at least by this time I was able to regain my composure and reply, "and what makes you think that when I am earning $100,000/yr, that I will wish to treat you any better than what you have just described yourself as..." (ie. A whore) and I walked away and never bothered with her again. She became a fish without my bicycle.
But, I've never forgotten that mercenary statement. First marriages are for love, second marriage are for money, and third marriages are for companionship.
I haven't seen her in a while, but, last I seen of her, she was well past 35, hadn't had a real boyfriend in all the time since she turned me down, and was still unsuccessfully chasing after millionaires.
Her ass sure did winter well over the years.
I guess all of the millionaires out there think the same way as me (hey, cool!), and figure if they have to pay for sex, it will be with a hot little 22 year old rather than with a late 30's, mercenary bitch with 2 kids in tow, and who thinks her pussy is still the golden fleece.
I hope she finds some companionship from her cats. Cause it won't be coming from guys like me.
Rob:
Remember - that that does not kill you makes you stronger. Keep the good fight.
MB:
"Re: Bill Gates.
I assume, and readily agree, that his SECOND wife married him for his money. Your analogy kind of falls apart when you consider that he was married when he was young (and - LOL - a 'non-traditional' entrepreneur who dropped out of college [Harvard]). The non-traditional dufus found a wife before he was a billionaire."
First of all, Gates was only an example, not an "analogy." Secondly, as vivictius mentioned, Gates was hardly poor when he dropped out from Harvard, so he may not have been the best example. Thirdly, I have looked at a bunch of on-line biographies of Gates and I have found no confirmation of your claim that he ever had a wife before his current one, who indeed married him only after he struck it rich.
"Well, I guess where we differ is that I think a man in a non-traditional area of life. . .look around and you may see examples of it. . . "
Look, it's not really a difference of opionion that women, for the most part, "marry up." Nor is it a particularly controversial proposition that single women are not looking for unemployed or underemployed men to be their husbands. I really don't even no why you arguing the point. I suggest that you take your own advice, and inventory the garage tinkerers, lifelong surfers, unpublished poets, non-performing comedians, and so forth that you know and determine what percentage of them are married.
"The second area where we disagree is with regard to a 'traditional split' of duties. People change over decades, and I think a flexible arrangement where the wife is a true partner to the husband - and covers for him while he takes a risk in starting a business, for instance - sounds more mentally healthy than a relationship in which both are locked in - the husband having to bread-win in the same old job, and the wife always sitting home, both possibly with growing resentment. . ."
I actually don't think we are in disagreement here. I am not proposing a one-size fits all arrangement that everyone must rigidly follow. There is nothing at all wrong with a wife working a traditional job (which provides benefits like health insurance for both partners), while the husband starts a business. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a man taking care of the kids while the wife does wage work. Nor with the Stay at Home parent returning to school and/or the workplace once the children get a little older.
Rob Fetters:
Oprah (believe it or not!) once did a show on women who would only "consider" six figure income guys as marriage material. She had a bunch of these women onstage, then brought out some statistics guy who informed them that only 5% or so of American men (including the ones already married and the ones who are gay) made 100k a year or more. Their faces literally dropped when they realized, for the first time, what echelon of women they would have to be in to "land" the rich husband of their dreams!
Ruddyturnstone asserts that women will only marry men with money or with a good, reliable job - unpublished poets need not apply - and it must be true because he is very sure of himself.
So I'm wondering: Where are the women to contest this? It makes women sound like hookers selling love to the highest bidder. Maybe they are.
Usually on mixed Web sites, feminists pop up to explain that it's not true at all because blah, blah, blah.
But if you think about it, feminists pretty much HAVE TO contest that assertion, because otherwise their whole women-as-oppressed-victims thing falls apart. If women are readily able to find male dupes to work their whole lives for them, then their motivation to work themselves is going to be lower in general, and you would suspect they would earn less than men. And they do.
A bachelor does not have the same responsibilities as a married man; therefor, choose a man by his character and he will do what is responsible.
Women who choose men for their wallets or dicks are themselves no more than commodities or objects: for which they need to have fine asses and perform accordingly.
While I still was looking at her incredulously, she went on to inform me: "First marriages are for love, second marriages are for money, and third marriages are for companionship."
When a man reaches the point where he faces the option of being a "companion", he should get a dog or cat. To hell with with it.
Where are the women to contest this? It makes women sound like hookers selling love to the highest bidder. Maybe they are.
Not so much that but if you marry a guy who can't support you and your children if you want to stay at home, don't whine about it. There is nothing wrong with taking a man's income into consideration if you want to be a SAHM. I have at least three friends who would like to stay home with their kids but can't because their husbands don't earn enough money. (And not "not enough that they can't have the expensive cars, vacations or clothes" but "not enough in that the mortgage won't be paid.")
I have no sympathy for them because they knew that's what the husbands earned before they married.
I have no sympathy for women who choose a man for his wallet's sake then ten years down the road with two kids, he is laid off from his high income government sponsored job and now teaches school.
Class-factotum:
If women have the intention of sitting on their fat ass for the rest of their life, I agree, they should look at a man's income.
You are damn lucky that there are so many "chivalrous" men around who were trained that women are useless and should be paid for.
JG, I don't call that man chivalrous, I call him dumb. If a woman is going to stay at home, then her job is to make her husband's life easier by taking care of all of the house, yard, and car issues. He should come home to a clean house, clean clothes, a sweet, welcoming wife and a hot meal on the table. He should not have to find the guy to prune the pear tree, he should not have to find and supervise the guy to rebuild the balcony, he should not have to change a single lightbulb or wash a single sock. He should not have to watch the grocery store sales, shop for old furniture that can be refinished at Goodwill, or clip coupons to make sure his money is being used efficiently.
If a couple does not discuss these things before marriage and a woman thinks staying at home means eating bon-bons and watching TV all day, then her husband did not do a good job vetting, just as the woman who wants to raise her children herself instead of sending them to a minimum-wage daycare employee is at fault for marrying someone who doesn't make enough money to run a thrifty household.
If all the kids are off to school - or, even more glaring, if there are no kids - then a woman sitting at home is exaggerating any "work" she does.
It's almost like an unspoken agreement - the man pretends like the sit-at-home does anything because he wants to keep her sheltered and stupid, and the woman pretends the same because she is lazy.
Each one gets what they want, I guess, but it's odd that neither one will admit the real reason.
One of the reasons I wouldn't want a house-pig is because their brain turns to rot like a termite-infested tree and they also get petty and childish from being the domestic boss all the time. Another reason, today, is that they are also getting pumped up by Oprah & Co. into causing problems.
And yet a man like you sounds like such a prize!
"And yet a man like you sounds like such a prize!"
--
I work. I'm a fair person. I don't exploit others. I'm not greedy beyond what I can buy from my own earnings.
Women, apparently, live in some kind of parallel universe where behavior that would instantly get a man tagged "loser" doesn't apply to them at all. It's because men have a sex drive, so a woman can have a rotten, exploitive personality and he still pursues her because of sex. A lot of women just feel entitled to use men - whether for some spare change or by having him be a lifetime wage slave for them.
Many men, unfortunately, don't know what they're getting into with a permanent housewife. They are pumped up, thumping their chest, about how they support the little woman, how they are such magnanimous guys, but then family court comes like a pail of cold water in the face.
And each chivalrous man will tell you that HE himself is never going to get a divorce (because he picked wisely, he is deeply religious or whatever the reason) ... but divorces happen.
The woman should just be kicked out on her behind and told to finally get a friggin' job, but it doesn't work that way. Her stupidity and lack of skills now work FOR her, because the man has to continue to support her and also give her lots of the assets he earned.
Quite a system!
In the 1950's, almost ALL women were stay at home moms and ALL (not almost - ALL) men were in the workforce.
In the 1950's in the USA, the average worker spent 1.4 months of labour per year to pay his annual income taxes. (In Canada, in the 1950's, our tax rate was even LESS than in the USA, and we had, believe it or not, a massive army for our small population - 3rd Largest Force in the World after the end of WWII).
Divide 1.4 months by TWO people, and you get around only 3 weeks of work per year to pay your annual taxes - per person.
Today, BOTH men and women are in the work place. BOTH spouses are working 4 months per year to pay their income taxes. (over 6 months in Canada now - should we go back to a 50's system now, the one income worker would be working 12months to pay for the family income taxes, and there would be no money for the family - cool!).
Why does all of this just sound like a crappy deal for all of us?
And then some idiot comes along and says, "well, nobody wants to go back to the 50's."
Yes, indeed. And what is it that keeps on affecting this $0.76 "wage gap" crap?
Well, MUCH of it is due to women having a need to do something "socially worthwhile/beneficial" with their labour/careers. Ie.- They will accept lower wages for a job that is more soul-fully satisfying.
I wonder what the SAHM's of the 50's were doing to fullfill this social-serving desire? I mean, what did they spend their time doing after the kids were in school?
Who ran those bake sales that raised money for social programs WHICH WERE NOT financed by the government?
Who volunteered their labour at churches and hospitals? Do girls even Candy Stripe anymore?
Is anyone better off?
Besides the government and big business?
Rob Fetters:
"I wonder what the SAHM's of the 50's were doing to fulfil this social-serving desire? I mean, what did they spend their time doing after the kids were in school? Who ran those bake sales that raised money for social programs WHICH WERE NOT financed by the government? Who volunteered their labour at churches and hospitals? Do girls even Candy Stripe anymore?"
Yeah, and who were the public school "home room mothers" and Cub Scout "den mothers?" And who took care of their parents, and sometimes, their husbands' parents too, when they got sick and died?
Who visited other sick relatives in the hospital? And took care of those relatives' kids then, or when they went on vacation? Who made meals for relatives when they were in mourning or too sick to cook? Who took the children to the beach, to the carnival, and to the zoo in the summer, or to the playground, park, or library after school? Who did all, or most, of the shit for Christmas and the other holidays? Who attended all their nieces' and nephews' birthday parties? And who took the kids to little league practice and piano lessons? And so on and so forth.
There is plenty of work to do that doesn't pay wages, but pays off big time for the family, nuclear and extended, and for the community, local and societal.
"And then some idiot comes along and says, 'well, nobody wants to go back to the 50's.'"
Some go so far as to say that none of this ever even existed. But, I know for a fact that it not only existed in the 1950's, but throughout the 1960's and into the 70's too. It was only in the mid to late 70's that feminism became so widespread as to destroy the world of children and SAHMs described above.
"I only date men who earn at least $100,000/yr."
You know, American women are notorious for such statements - actually so are British women. That's not to say that women in other cultures are not concerned with money, but they seem to recognize that it's demeaning to present themselves in an explicitly mercenary fashion.
It's relatively easy for a woman to determine the financial standing of a man. So I've always wondered what the motivation is to openly declare a requisite income level a/o net worth. Because by doing so, the woman is essentially announcing that she is for sale to the highest bidder.
Men who are wealthy will typically avoid such women, or if they do choose to date them, will treat them like concubines.
What I've noticed is that the guys who accept these conditions typically aren't wealthy. They're often affluent, but depend on an income. Perhaps they're flattered to think that they have a high priced girlfriend - like having an expensive sports car. But unlike a sports car, the woman will become more expensive every year, and you have to pay an extraordinary amount of money to get rid of them ;)
Ruddyturnstone,
Yeah.
Don't get me wrong here, though - I am NOT a huge advocate of marriage overall - except to say that no successful society has ever existed without it. So, feminism, MGTOW, whatever... end marriage, and well, it appears that the only three outcomes will be:
1). Complete Societal Collape, wherein men and women will be forced to be symbiotic again, simply to survive. (Birth Control might be a little pricey when you are living under a bridge too - but, I'll bet people will still bump uglies).
2). We who don't reproduce will simply die out and be replaced by those who ARE practicing marriage. 50 years into the future, they won't even notice there was turmoil back in our time.
3). The New World Order succeeds in its goals of complete destruction of marriage/civilization - WORLD WIDE - through totalitarianism, so that more powerful societies cannot gobble up the weak ones, like ours. I think it would be best to go down swinging in this case - what have you got to lose? Take my guns, and we'll go back to those old fashioned stonings, I guess. That's the best option.
For the rest, having studied an AWFUL lot about this subject, I would like to point out that women have been driving men batshit insane for THOUSANDS OF YEARS! They have NEVER been all that friendly/caring towards men - it is contradictory to their biology, whereas it is not contradictory for males to be friendly/caring towards women. So... well, you get my point, right? I don't think marriage has been all that great for men - ever. It was NOT designed for the specific benefit of men - it is for women and children, wheras the man gets fulfilment from his sacrifices and is honored in society for them.
Women were likely more decent at (certain times) in the past due to socialization - which is what psychologically "reigns women in." (Wheras it is more effective to control men via law). It was the old ladies "tsk, tsking" the pregnant teens, gossiping behind their backs but within earshot of their daughters, that taught women to be scared shitless of pre-marital sex, and so on.
It troubles me.
I have been of the opinion for quite a while now that IF something is going to save us, it will NOT be along the lines what we think it is... because most people don't really understand what is going on (this is all about the MIND and how one percieves the world - ie. Philosophy).
There needs to be a new "age" - and I don't mean one from the Zodiac.
A new age like the Age of Reason or the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the Reformation etc. etc.
There needs to be a "rebirth" of the human mind.
What we are doing now is fighting in a system where fighting in the way we are is actually INTENDED to make us less free... kind of like a spider's web, or quicksand. (Stop moving, and extract yourself slowly - the masses will not be able to do this though, and that's the point).
But, as to my further up comment... it really shows the sheer INSANITY of what has happened.
We were RICHER then than we are now. Look at my example of Canada - if we had a one wage-earner family today, rather than two, it is literally impossible to even survive - LITERALLY. And, between the two people, the extra earner only provides a mere 6 weeks worth of added income per year (as opposed to in the 50's). Take out daycare, two cars, extra work clothes, therapist bills for your feral kids, and so on, and well, it becomes obvious we are MUCH worse off in several areas.
And yet, this period (the 50's) which was LITERALLY the Zenith of Western Civilization, is degraded and spoken of with complete horror.
And now, we are having it shoved down our throats to rearrange the entire friggin work-force so women can still do the things they were once doing for free, (but still with more money in their pockets).
We are forcing businesses (hidden taxation) to provide "flex time" to ease the guilt women feel for abandoning their children for, lets face it, most likely a crap-ass job.
Women are earning less than men, because they have a burning desire to do something socially rewarding with their work... and we are punishing men for their choices... and yet, these dizzy women are WORKING - for SOMEONE ELE - AND WORK SUCKS! - when in the 50's, women, with more money in their pockets, and better behaved children to ease their minds, they were in COMPLETE CONTROL over where they directed their "socially satisfying labour." Your boss won't actually let you do that in 2009, will he Princess?
(Whatever made women think that men don't desire to have a socially rewarding job? We all do, Princess. But, welcome to the world of work. Hmmm... is that a My Little Pony lunch-box next to your hard-hat? Sweet!)
I mean, it is amazing that more people are not clueing into this.
In 50 years time, we are completing a circle to where we started - women are still drawn to the same tasks/rewards - but now they must do it with much less freedom, have less money in their pockets, and have someone dictating their lives for them when they try to do it (bosses).
And the way it was before was "oppressive?"
Insanity.
As a culture, we deserve the death that is coming for us.
What's odd is that I am kind of regressing as I get older.
When I was in my 20s, I had all the answers and was pretty loud about it. I knew what the prescription was for society, for the economy, for gender relations and everything else. You didn't even have to ask me. I would just give long dissertations on it around the dinner table.
Now, approaching 50, I realize that the law of unintended consequences REALLY exists. I realize that I don't really know all that much (even though I took a lot of schoolin').
Maybe I just need a testosterone shot.
Lol! JG.
My father used to say to me, with a cold look in his eyes, letting me know I had crossed a line and it was time to stop talking, and start listening:
"When I was young, my father knew everything. And now that I'm old, my son knows everything... (through gritted teeth), AND APPARENTLY I MISSED MY CHANCE!"
Post a Comment
<< Home