But if you did? talk? about it? would there be question marks? all over everything? you were saying? to each other?
The link goes to a Slate dialogue with lots of female participants, all much younger than I am. I'm not sure if any of them says exactly this, but it seems to me that the shame of admitting to wanting a boyfriend is the concession that you don't have a boyfriend. Pride leads you to act as though what you are doing you are doing intentionally. And if you really do want a boyfriend, you probably also think that revealing that you want what you don't have only makes it harder to get get what you want.
Maybe women are so good at standing proud that men have stopped believing women must really want men.
Late in the conversation, from a participant other than the one quoted above:
What strikes me as weird about this conversation, and why this shift in priorities doesn't seem like a complete feminist victory, is that it discounts the idea that a relationship can be an incredible source of support for career and life goals. Having someone who, say, helps with chores to give you more time to study or work, or who encourages you when you're discouraged, or works in a similar field and helps you with ideas, who backs you publicly, etc? All this stuff can make it much easier to work harder and in a more productive way or to work through difficult challenges. I'm not sure we should get psyched by the idea that young women don't want relationships but rather by the idea that women want more from their relationships or that we view relationships as part of a larger matrix of things that can work well together.Jeez! It's all so much work. The point of love is so you can do even more work. The stereotypical traditional male works so that a woman would have him and he could have love. Love was the end, not the means. If, for the woman, love is the means and the end is career advancement... then what? And why?
পোস্টগুলি
১৮১টি মন্তব্য:
The woman's quest-sending, which works fine with a man, doesn't work without one.
The two dysfunctional forms are
1. Feminism, where it comes out as demands of men in general rather than of a particular one; and
2. Sending yourself on quests.
In neither case do you get to show that you're satisfied with the man, which would have been the finishing move with an actual man, opening the way to a new cycle.
So, you were wrong about feminism. This is the result, not in terms what what you thought would happen ideally, but what happens in light of the reality of human nature.
You're making the same mistake about the gay marriage stuff. You have no idea where this will lead, but you've conned yourself into believing that you understand the issue intellectually.
Have you considered smelling salts? Batting your head vigorously against the wall?
Something is preventing the message from getting through!
It would help to know what their homelifes were like, loving, caring, giving married monogamous parents or not.
I remember feeling bad about not having a girlfriend. It hurts, probably in similar ways to not having a boyfriend. I didn't? talk? about it? though. That would seemed to have made it worse.
This is why it's so wonderful that guys have the idea of pussy as being an end (no pun intended) in itself.
No man ever thinks "Should I feel weird about wanting a girlfriend/wife?" Hell, no, son! It's pussy!
What can easily hide behind that universal macho coinage is all the finer aspects of male/female relationships which need not be expressed. A widower can say to a friend "Man, I'm just dyin' here without any sex. I gotta do something." when what he really means is "I'm so lonesome I could cry."
When I 1st read the exerpts, I thought, "What do they really want," or, "Why do they really want a boyfriend?"
Then I began to think maybe they should really ask, "Why would a guy want them?"
If, for the woman, love is the means and the end is career advancement... then what? And why?
Some women care primarily about what their female friends think about them. So the purpose is to convince others that they have it all.
High maintenance women don't have boyfriends. Men are not stupid.
I think they feel guilty because modern feminism has tried to teach them that they don't need a boyfriend. At least not as much as a fish needs a bicycle.
The guilt they feel is over betraying the movement. It is hard to fight human nature, and most people desire companionship from the opposite sex.
They are relabeling that "Need" as a "want", and further, give goofy reasons why they want a boyfriend. i.e., to help with homework etc.
Why can't people just admit that they are wired to want this?
Women were designed by God, or by nature, or by something, Althouse, to have babies when they are young.
The problem here is the feminist bullshit that somehow convinced everybody that women would be better off incurring $50,000 to $100,000 in debt to eventually have some service or clerical job, instead of rearing a family.
Could it be that the traditional role of gays has meaning and purpose that you just don't understand? Could it be that you are once again throwing a monkey wrench in the system, for your own amusement and profit, with no fucking idea in the world what will happen?
I'm not sure if any of them says exactly this, but it seems to me that the shame of admitting to wanting a boyfriend is the concession that you don't have a boyfriend.
No.
The shame is in admitting you want a man.
When did relationships become so complicated? The outcome of enlightenment is more people acting unreasonably and without reason.
This is just another thread in a progressive dysfunction, which if left uncorrected will converge.
Or, more likely, our civilization will be invaded by reality-affirming legal (i.e. voluntary) and illegal (i.e. involuntary) aliens.
Whether it a dysfunctional convergence, generational genocide (i.e. evolutionary dysfunction), or an alien invasion, it seems that our civilization is marked for a reset.
Seeing Red said...
When I 1st read the exerpts, I thought, "What do they really want," or, "Why do they really want a boyfriend?"
Then I began to think maybe they should really ask, "Why would a guy want them?"
That's a question I doubt many of them ever ask themselves. What do they bring to a relationship?
So how do the fish feel about their lack of bicycles?
So how do the fish feel about their lack of bicycles?
Apparently they whine about it.
Feminism, like all Marxist endeavors that seek to invert the traditional, natural order that has evolved through thousands of years of trial and error, is doomed to lose its struggle against human nature.
Of course these women are ungrounded, neurotic basket cases in varying degrees because they are at war with their very nature.
In the constant intra-female fight for status the woman who admits to being content is dismissed as lacking awareness, intelligence, sophistication. Ergo the endless everything's impossible and I'm more fucked up than thou positioning.
If, for the woman, love is the means and the end is career advancement .... - AH
The "end" of which you speak can be many things other than a career, but the "end" is always about herself. It's the female imperative and it's ever been thus. A woman's love is always conditional.
Serious question: do the lesbians of this demographic feel bad about wanting a girlfriend?
"Serious question: do the lesbians of this demographic feel bad about wanting a girlfriend?"
In my limited experience with them, they fell bad about not havinga male lover.
Woman are kind of dumb.
As for this stereotypical man, the Professor nails it.
It is true that a large support system of friends and church members can add to a balanced life as we get past the children leaving the nest. But a primary intimate love is the end, and not the means.
That thought is a pure scriptural Judeo-Christian concept; to wit, fellowship with God and man is the goal and purpose of life.
Could the Professor's Hussite ancestors (The Moravians) passed that truth down to her soul.
What exactly is the point of career advancement? I can't think of anything other than being able to help other people better that would make it worth the cost of being such jerks to yourselves.
You need to balance two things in life: helping others and enjoying life. The rest is waste and folly.
The statement was always ridiculous--fish NEED motorcycles.
DOH! Headslap.
Is it getting lonely strumming their own vaginas?
That thought is a pure scriptural Judeo-Christian concept; to wit, fellowship with God and man is the goal and purpose of life.
Yes, but the prof missed the other part.
Even if you're "gay," you must marry a person of the opposite sex.
The "closet" is the proper place for gays to be. Even the massive exclamation point of the AIDS epidemic, to my astonishment, has not made this clear to the prof.
Ahhh, the enlightened Europeans:
It's for the vaginas!
MEPs to vote on EU 'ban on all forms of pornography'
MEPs will next week vote on a "ban on all forms of pornography" including censorship of the internet in a bid to "eliminate gender stereotypes" that demean women.
So only dominatrix porn will be allowed?
We poor, poor, females, our big savior men will save us, we can't use guns or view porn.
It would appear that "feminism" is incompatible with evolutionary fitness.
There are two known orders (i.e. causative) in our world: natural and conscious. The latter has a limited ability to influence or override the former. Efforts to deny this reality cause dysfunction and suffer a correction through extinction, but not before an invasion or corruption takes its toll.
In the meantime, women, and men, just want to have fun. They prioritize dreams of material, physical, and ego gratification. They seem blissfully unaware of the inviolable principles of evolution. Perhaps they just don't care.
The irony is that men and women who claim a faith in evolution as description of origin are the most likely to reject evolutionary principles as inconvenient. There is something about men and women embracing their simian heritage which sabotages their appreciation of evolutionary fitness. Perhaps the problem is an aggressive narcissism.
Odd that not one woman has commented yet (including me). That is part of the problem, if in fact there is a problem.
I remember on Nighline, when a female legislator was trying to ban porn in Minnesota--when the guy fighting her ban got her to admit that she would include fashion magazines as porn under her definition. She kept saying that the notion was risiculous and insulting but Ted made her answer the question (after the tenth time it was asked) that the Vogue magazine cover he was holding up with be banned under her law.
@Seeing Red,
MEPs to vote on EU 'ban on all forms of pornography'
I'm glad to see our European brethren have such a deep dedication to free speech.
It's shit like this that makes me lots of fun at DC parties when someone brings up that Europeans get along without 2nd amendment rights, I remind them that Europeans also get along without most of our 1st amendment rights, too. Not to mention 4th & 5th.
I can't think of many things more vapid than reading about some broad bemoaning her inability to find a boyfriend.
Odd that not one woman has commented yet (including me). That is part of the problem, if in fact there is a problem.
We Old Dawgz can speak without fear of retribution. All we have ahead of us is the grave.
The old women, including Althouse, will never eat crow to the extent that they would have to swallow in admitting that they were just wrong.
Althouse thought she experienced the raising of her consciousness when she was young. What she really experienced was the Temptation of Eve.
She's experiencing it again over the gay marriage crap, and her ego is getting in the way again.
Seeing Red said...
Then I began to think maybe they should really ask, "Why would a guy want them?"
This is the right question. Not because men are anti-women or anti-equality, but because even a cursory reading reveals these women believe relationships must conform to a rigid framework defined by the feminist fad of the day.
When you write of the "stereotypical traditional male" you are referring to a much more modern tradition than the one being described in the second quote. Romantic love as a foundation of marriage, at least applied to more than just a small nobility, is a relatively recent phenomenon. The far more stable, durable tradition of the family as the primary human means for the generation, preservation, and transmission of wealth has been around for millennia.
"MEPs will next week vote on a "ban on all forms of pornography" including censorship of the internet in a bid to "eliminate gender stereotypes" that demean women."
The competition must be elimitated. The growth of porn among men who have given up on Western women must be dealt with by limiting free choice for these hapless beta males.
Next up: prostitution. And just wait until the sex robots come.
The left loves to blame the Christianists, but it's women who are leading the charge. Males simply must be forced to serve their needs.
Darrell:
Sexual imagery can have both a stimulative and anesthetizing effect. It also distorts our perspective of a natural relationship. This is most relevant in our formative years, before we develop intellectual discernment (e.g. rationality) and an ability to moderate our behavior.
I suspect these women possess poor sandwich preparation skills.
... these women believe relationships must conform to a rigid framework defined by the feminist fad of the day.
Women are going to swallow the herd indoctrination. Most men, too.
Better that the indoctrination be traditional religion.
The basic problem with feminism is that it is inherently anti-relationship. This sounds a bit harsh, but there are a lot of things coming together here.
First problem is that females are told that they can be like males, have promiscuous sex, etc. But, at some point, it becomes a buyers market, with the guys controlling it a lot more than they would if the women withheld sex until they had a relationship. Esp. at college, and in the young professional work force, there tend these days to be more females than males, and some of the males have opted out, leaving even a worse situation for the females. Many seem to engage in a race to the bottom to get access to the few males who are both qualified and interested. But, many of those guys have little interest in relationships, when they can get plenty of sex with plenty of women w/o the complications.
Then, you have the feminization of K-12, followed by higher education. Males are not as welcome as females, and so enough of them go elsewhere for their jollies. And, since females prefer marrying up, to marrying down, the numbers get even worse.
And, then, because it isn't necessary to be in a relationship to get laid anymore, a lot of males seem to be delaying growing up, playing into their thirties, knowing that they have plenty of time to have their families later in life. Plenty of smart guys out there who would rather work just enough through their 20s to pay for their mountain biking, skiing, etc.
Still, I think that if a female really wants a relationship, she can do what smarter women have done through the eons - hold out for the relationship before having sex with the guy. Maybe not as easy as when most females operated this way, but it still appears to work.
X said...
I suspect these women possess poor sandwich preparation skills.
3/8/13, 11:59 AM
Thread winner?
Marshal:
Exactly. Women and men can have it all; but, they need to get their priorities right. They need to understand that their relationship is not only intended for procreation, but is also the first order of social organization, which confers benefits for its members.
Feminism was a reactive movement to perceived and manufactured issues. As with all reactive (i.e. unprincipled) movements, it suffers a progressive corruption and dysfunction.
In any case, women should be weary of becoming their stereotype of men. They have been mislead by their feminist leaders and should endeavor to independently evaluate the terms and circumstances of reality. They should be careful to not extrapolate from the specific to form general conclusions. Do not judge a man by his gender, but by the content of his character.
Hmmm...I was premature.
This must be the commemorative International Woman's Day post!!
I don't know about you girls, but I know I'm holding out on the sex until I get what I want in a woman.
I suspect these women possess poor sandwich preparation skills.
Clearly the thread winner.
But, we can be proud that they will be $50,000 in debt for a worthless liberal arts degree when they finally receive the proper training in sandwich preparation!
I just got back from a resort vacation. I clicked with a gorgeous woman half my age I met on the transfer from the airport to the resort (how the hell did that happen?). So I was out of the game before I got there. But she and her friends met other women, and their clique of young single women kind of snowballed with me as the one totally smitten male in the group who wasn't trying to pick-up numbers 2 thru n.
So, I got view from behind enemy lines for the better part of a week. Althouse nails it:
I'm not sure if any of them says exactly this, but it seems to me that the shame of admitting to wanting a boyfriend is the concession that you don't have a boyfriend. Pride leads you to act as though what you are doing you are doing intentionally. And if you really do want a boyfriend, you probably also think that revealing that you want what you don't have only makes it harder to get get what you want.
Maybe women are so good at standing proud that men have stopped believing women must really want men.
It's not that they deny wanting men, but denying they truly want to meet "Mr. Right". "Standing proud" is saying that hooking-up up is enough.
While in some cases that might be true, especially about the recently divorced, it would be their closest friends who would reveal that their friend really did hope to meet Mr. Right on this trip.
There's a lot of disappointment out there on both sides. The NYC dating scene stories I heard were especially sad. "Love" has become way too transactional; people commodities.
I realize this post, and the comments thread, isn't really or even necessarily about marriage, but, still the report contained in the following is illuminating and perhaps, for some, surprising in parts:
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-partnership-divorce/fact-sheet-marriage-and-education.html
Shouting Thomas:
Whether it was the inspiration of God or enlightened men and women, traditional religion exhibits a greater compatibility with reality and specifically evolutionary fitness. It recognizes the dignity of both men and women. It is a superior alternative to its hedonistic successor.
Bruce Hayden, I would be interested especially and in particular in your thoughts about the (longitudinal) study and its results as reported at that link, if you have the time to take a look at it.
[T]raditional religion exhibits a greater compatibility with reality and specifically evolutionary fitness. It recognizes the dignity of both men and women. It is a superior alternative to its hedonistic successor.
Unfortunately, there is not much left of "traditional religion." Religion, too, has been corrupted.
Religion, too, has been corrupted.
Catholics and old fashioned Baptists seem to be holding the line.
I have played organ for services at both.
Of course, the left is furious with Catholics for holding the line. Gay marriage will be the opportunity for a full scale attack on the Church in the future. The gay activists will demand access to Church property and a say in Church doctrine. And, they will demand that the State support them.
But if you did? talk? about it? would there be question marks? all over everything? you were saying? to each other?
Sadly, yes. It's a verbal tic that just drives me mad.
I understand that some younger women occasionally go into the Temple Of The Seven Sisters. There's a hushed tone of reverence in there.
Althouse likes to stay informed at the goings on of temple life.
They still make the girls say the chants, put some bread on their tongues, and whisper 'thank you for my freedoms.'
They've got new management now, but there are still some crusty old lesbians roaming around and many grim, self-denying Puritan harpies screaming about men and rape and domestic abuse.
I hear they pay the maintenance men well but don't make eye contact. Many sisters do not know how to change the temple light bulbs.
There's a whole room full of self-promoting scribblers who've turned the temple scrolls into their personal confession journals, and Althouse got into a scuffle with one of the young ones flashing her nubile breasts before the Elder Clinton.
"Don't shame yourself before this cretin!" she admonished. Be skeptical of politics, and use your mind as the elders of the Law have taught me to use mine."
--------------
Next to the temple of the Seven Sisters, are various other temples on the Walk of Freedom, driven by the Logic Of Social Change.
I have seen many older men walking around blinking, as though woken from a slumber.
Many people are restless and wonder what is happening and want to return to the founding scrolls, and question the Logic Of Social Change and the new Temples being built.
chicklit, I opened my shirt and looked down, yup, they're still there! lololol
Sexual imagery can have both a stimulative and anesthetizing effect. It also distorts our perspective of a natural relationship. This is most relevant in our formative years, before we develop intellectual discernment (e.g. rationality) and an ability to moderate our behavior.
Most people see that banning a Vogue magazine is not reasonable. That is how we can establish that someone is extreme.
Perhaps you should become a Muslim. I believe they ban all images of humans and animals--period. That way the wee folk will have nothing to sway their impressionable minds. And for people is the real world? Head-to-toe coverings will take care of that.
I like this response.
"I never understood the idea that I couldn't both have a relationship and go go go at my career. In fact, I probably saved a lot of time in some ways because I didn't have to go out on the hunt."
Darrell,
There's a lot of freedom under those Burqas.
Ever wonder why so many feminists are anaesthetic and humorless?
Even the non-lesbians?
@Darrell
I don't like taking my children grocery shopping, because of the magazines in the check out lane.
But then again we don't have cable, and build robots instead.
I was on my phone, on which it's a pain in the ass to hyperlink. Now that I'm on a platform where it is not, Here is the clickable link to the study I referenced in my 12:19 comment.
It will be interesting to see if the same trend plays out among these twenty-somethings as they move out of their 20s and further into life.
Nomennovum:
Of course it has; but, we must be careful to distinguish between philosophy and principles, and institutions which purport to adhere to them. We are mortal beings who possess imperfect knowledge and an imperfect grasp of our world. This engenders ambition and vulnerability, which are normal, but must also be moderated. Liberty is only suitable for individuals capable of self-moderating behavior.
I describe this phenomenon of progressive corruption and dysfunction as the civilization paradox. It follows from dissociation of risk. This is why consolidation of capital and power (i.e. formation of monopolies or monopolistic practices), especially through a granted or coerced authority, are so undesirable. They engender dissociation of risk for a minority interest. They marginalize or eviscerate the majority, so they are incapable of enforcing accountability with anything short of a revolution.
This is where the traditional religions, especially those with a highly centralized organization went wrong. They denied the terms and circumstances of reality, including human nature, and through their policies sponsored dysfunction and corruption. They elevated their leaders to the status of mortal gods, and the people demanded a "divine" return.
Women, and men, just want to have fun. Women, and men, dream of material, physical, and ego gratification. This can be tolerated, obviously, but it should never be promoted as normal. Otherwise, our enjoyment of the benefits of dissociation of risk will be short-lived as we suffer a decadent decline (only a small minority are ever able to ignore this and then only temporarily).
That said, there are two principles which must be upheld: individual dignity and intrinsic value of human life. When we denigrate the former (e.g. discrimination), and devalue the latter (e.g. elective abortion, or, generally, evolutionary dysfunction), then we will necessarily experience a correction, whether by another population, generational decay, or some combination thereof.
We need to recognize individual dignity. We need to recognize an intrinsic value of human life. We need to acknowledge the inviolable constraints imposed by the natural order. We need to identify reasonable compromises to reconcile these directives.
File this under The Tragedy of the Commons, or What happens when the milk is free.
I don't like taking my children grocery shopping, because of the magazines in the check out lane.
But would you ban them, Renee?
And what then? Adding fabric to women on the street? Making them leave the street?
Darrell:
Did I suggest we should ban Vogue?
I suggest that self-moderation is the proper course of action. In fact, it is the prerequisite for people to enjoy liberty.
I recognize that men and women in their early development lack discernment, which is why fathers and mothers have a role in human development other than conception, nutrition, and protection.
There is no cause for fanaticism. There are readily observed patterns which engender physical, mental, and emotional health.
When we possess imperfect knowledge and control, the key, in all things, is moderation. As we develop the ability to self-moderate our behavior, then we can earn the right to enjoy more degrees of freedom.
X said...
I suspect these women possess poor sandwich preparation skills.
So true.
My Mom made the best sandwiches. People would ooh and aah when I'd unwrap one of those babies.
I searched long and hard for a good looking young lady who made a good sandwich. Found her. Married her.
Worked for me.
Pogo: I'd say there was plenty of free milk being given away in previous decades, too. This stuff didn't start just yesterday. And yet most women ended up marrying, though the timing surely changed, and there are marked differences among various demographics. This is why I'm curious as to whether/how the trends play out going forward.
"But if you did? talk? about it? would there be question marks? all over everything? you were saying? to each other?"
Well! At that! There are worse practices! Including! Putting exclamation points after everything! To show the whole world! How tremendously excited! This topic! Makes the writer!!!
But seriously, that sort of article is pitched to young women who think primarily in question marks and exclamation points. They might not be able to grasp its mind-shattering import without them.
rcommal - Need the link to that logitundal study - have perused the article and comments and can't find such. Could be I am just blind, or am having browser problems. Always interested in improving my knowledge (though, I am sure that some here question that).
n.n.
I don't like vague answers. You leave wiggle room to impose censorship in your answer. The EU will reverse their actions when they find out exactly what constitutes "porn" in the minds of the women that proposed the legislation. I guarantee it.
"There are readily observed patterns which engender physical, mental, and emotional health." That's what it says on the gate of the Hell dimension that imposes fascist control on the populous.
Pseudoscience for the common good.
Bruce Hayden:
Perhaps I misspoke. By longitudinal I meant that the researchers followed those studied over many years, as stated here:
"To show how the education differences in marriage rates vary by age, we have graphed marriage rates separately by age for each of four education groups-those who ultimately finished less than high school, just high school, some college, and four years of college. We show the education-by-age graphs separately for blacks and whites, as well as for all races combined, and separately for men and women. Our data come from a national sample of people who were born between 1958 and 1965 and therefore turned 20 between 1978 and 1985, a period of rapid cultural and socioeconomic change. These individuals were followed for many years, allowing us to know their marital status at every age through 45. Most people who ever marry have done so by age 45, so, roughly speaking, we are able to see what percent of those in each group will ever marry."
Here is the link to what I was referencing (it was not part of what Althouse linked; Althouse's post and the comments here just reminded me of it). It can also be downloaded as a PDF, I now see, by scrolling to the bottom.
Nomennovum:
Something else to consider about principles, and philosophy generally, is that they serve as guides. They cannot guarantee an outcome. They are like laws, which are proscriptive, but lack an intrinsic enforcement mechanism.
The natural order, or evolutionary principles, on the other hand, are causative, and do enforce their directives. This is why any guidance that we conceive should reconcile with this overriding order.
The conscious order is also causative, if subordinate to the natural order. This is why any laws or directives we conceive should reasonably reconcile with a consensus.
Incidentally, we organize by nations, communities, etc., in order to, among other things, negotiate this reasonable reconciliation through a designed consensus.
Then I began to think maybe they should really ask, "Why would a guy want them?"
That's usually the question. And when these women age and gravity plays its cruels tricks on them, it's only going to get worse.
Men will tolerate a surly disposition for a while for a nice set of tits. If you don't have those anymore, our tolerance reduces appreciably. Most of the women in that piece don't bring a lot to the table.
My first fiancee was quite hot and I tolerated her for a while --- but, eventually, the batshit crazy got old and I walked out.
"Feminists" have so utterly screwed women over. The most misogynist man on Earth wouldn't treat women as childishly as "feminists" do (how one can demand equality AND act like a Victorian shrinking violet is lost on me).
Civil rights champions do that quite well.
OTOH, what is the EU really trying to do, ban porn or grab control of the net under the auspices of porn?
Which means a new Department of Porn or Department of Virtue. Wouldn't you like to interview for those jobs? Will that department require specialized degrees?
How are you going to ban porn on the streets? Will they start dictating clothing?
@rcommal "said...there was plenty of free milk being given away in previous decades, too. This stuff didn't start just yesterday."
There is far more free milk since the Pill and Feminism came about then ever before.
And in the past, vice at least had the courtesy of paying homage to virtue.
Now there positions are reversed, and it is feminist hypocrisy to remain a virgin, if not a sign of mental illness.
Darrell:
Not at all. The fact that best practices are observed in context is undeniable. We are incapable of describing universality. I am describing a moderate approach, from which there will be divergence in one direction or another, to one extreme or another, as context changes.
This makes more understandable the firm place that the 4F attitude (find 'em feel 'm, f**K 'em, and forget 'em) has taken among young men. If love isn't offered, why stuck around.
Let me clarify something from my previous post. My belief is that young adult females more than ever are delaying marriage (apparently, until 27?) more than ever before to get educated and build careers. All fine and good. The basic problem, I think, is that women's biological clocks run faster than men's do, and so while females are waiting later to get married and have families, a lot of males are dawdling even more, putting extra pressure on the females when they do want to settle down.
And, for college educated white women, a committed relationship is seen as a necessity for childrearing. Not that there aren't some Julias and Murphy Browns, but rather, they know that the outcomes are much worse for single parenting. Indeed, the higher up the socio-economic scale (except at the pinnacle, or in Holleywood), the incidence of single parenting (and, esp. fatherless children) drops significantly. If you want your kids to be successful, the best thing that you can probably do for them, as a woman, is make sure that their father is significant in raising them. And, if you want your boys in prison, and your girls getting pregnant at 15, then try doing it without the father. While Julia might not know this, smart girls do.
And, yes, there is probably evolutionary pressure being placed on females to find steady mates to help them raise their kids, which may be part of why these young women are so agonized about whether they should be wanting a relationship. For hundreds of thousands of years, if not a couple of million years, females who had the equivalent of a husband to help raise their kids had more descendants after a couple of generations than those who didn't. Probably many more.
Not knowing any better, and hoping to do the right thing, Ibought the cow. No, a real cow. Since then I spend all my time keeping it hidden in the city and feeding it--not to mention cleaning up afetr it. I wish I would have taken the free milk. Which doesn't make sense because I'm lactose intolerant.
I wonder if the reason why successful young men steer clear is because so many of these young ladies have crushing college debt. Self-absorbed, low information but highly opinionated, disdainful of the STEM nerd types, yet already topped out at some job leveraging (but not really requiring) only a liberal arts or soft social science degree and now looking at 20 years of payback. I suspect that women with good prospects and more traditional values aren't the ones having trouble.
@Darrell
No. Just stating my experience, that in the most mundane of tasks the sexual objectation of women is everywhere. I really don't worry when I'm accused of sheltering my children. Isn't that my obligation? It isn't just about we avoid, but what we embrace. Sure and slowly I let my children know what is out there, but I won't celebrate it. No need to.
Who are you to mock the confusion of the twenty-something women? Their mothers' and grandmothers' generations , in other words "we", decided that the traditional male and female roles had to go -- where exactly, we had no clue. Have some compassion for the younger generations; they have been sent into the unknown with a compass that spins in circles.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if after their struggle to make sense of the muddled mess handed down to them from the sometimes drug-addled, often emotionally stunted progressive minds of their elders, that the younger generations come to the conclusion that the traditional roles of men and women existed for thousands of years for the simple reason that they worked best.
30yearProf:
Even unrefined simians are not so narcissistic. They intuitively appreciate the natural order which constrains their lives.
Too many people seem to believe that their extraordinary station grants them privilege to ignore these governing rules. Not reasonably, however, and not between each other. At least until force is brought to bear, which is where self-moderating behavior regains its relevance.
Chickelit, I'm a woman!
I came off as flip and dismissive of these young women, but really I think there isn't a huge problem beyond navel-gazing. People have been telling these women that they should wait, to get married, wait to have kids and they feel weird.because they don't want to do what they were told would be best. In the past, women who wanted to stay single longer probably felt weird about it. This is.just the other side of the pendulum swing. Maybe my daughters can grow up and not really feel.defensive about what age at which they commit to serious relationships.I'm not holding my breath.
During my college days a friend of mine used to insist all women are crazy and I would beg to differ. Experience tells me he was right 99 and 44/100% of the time.
That's usually the question. And when these women age and gravity plays its cruels tricks on them, it's only going to get worse.
Well, maybe or maybe not. It could be that many of them are in the demographic in which, it appears, the issue is WHEN they marry (later, roughly speaking), not if. Or, at least that was the trend (which is why I--boringly at this point, perhaps!--keep wondering aloud here about if and, if so, how it will be different going forward.)
The other thing is, if many young women are in fact privately wishing for a boyfriend etc. (all embarrassment or whatever about talking ab out it aside), that could mean they're coming to the point where they are thinking about marriage and are reading for it. I don't know. But it could be.
***
Disclosure: I met my husband right before my 31st birthday and married right before my 34th birthday. We're still together and in pretty traditional marriage (and I turn 52 tomorrow). There were times in my 20s when I wondered if that were likely, or even desirable--though I certainly was never embarrassed about wanting relationships or talking about that. And perhaps others looked at me and thought: Eh, not likely. But it turns out that I was basically just a pretty classic example (though a little older than the pattern then)among certain demographics as the reality actually played out now that it can be looked at, even studied, retrospectively.
Now, maybe things have changed so profoundly that, 25-30 years from now, it will be clear that everything really WAS profoundly different in 2013. I don't know. But I'm not sure about that. I suspect there will continue to be differences among various demographic characteristics and groups. FWIW. I'm also not sure that 20-something whining, or whatever, will have had much to do with it, either way. Time will tell, I guess.
We are incapable of describing universality. I am describing a moderate approach, from which there will be divergence in one direction or another, to one extreme or another, as context changes.
That's clear. You should get a job in the Obama administration writing the laws that are passed before reading them. Then, even if someone reads it, they won't know what the heck is going to be done. And "heck" was not my first choice in that sentence.
Thanks for the link. One thing that was striking was the Black statistics. College educated Black women seem to have a big problem finding mates, while Black men of similar stature have quite high ultimate marriage rates.
But, what I think must also be kept in mind with this survey is that it is not really looking at the 20 something women that we are talking about here, but rather, looking over a much longer period of time. My guess at the reason behind the dismal prospects for Black women is that they tend to be even better educated than Black men, as compared to non-Black women and men. BUT, white women seem to be following this trend, a bit, now taking more degrees than men in a lot of areas, etc. The basic problem, as I suggested earlier, is the tendency for men to marry across or down, while women tend to marry across or up. We shall see if this trend for non-black women being better educated than their equivalent men ends up with similar results to what happened with blacks.
Love, sex, marriage, companionship, chore-sharing, cohabitation, breeding and joint child-rearing are totally independent concepts.
Any one of them can and does exist between any two people, and you can legally marry without any of the others. But, for immigration purposes, you have to marry for love, else it's considered a sham marriage and the green card will be denied and the pair may even be prosecuted.
Our laws regarding marriage are as silly as marriage itself.
Shouting Thomas @11:16:
"Could it be that the traditional role of gays has meaning and purpose that you just don't understand?"
So, in your opinion, what is the traditional role of gays?
With the rise of antibiotic-resistent STDs, in the short term, being very choosy is a wise course of action.
Renee:
Exactly. Our world is governed by chaos. The behavior is bounded with "random" intermediate behavior. As parents, we make an effort to impart knowledge and skill to avoid the "sinks." That is all we can do, and that effort is guided by precedent (e.g. tradition, history, observation).
In their administrative duty, parents have to act as scientists. They need to observe their environment, the development of their children, and "suggest" corrections as necessary. If we are successful, then our child will evolve to become a "happy", autonomous adult.
Renee--
I just wanted to know where you were willing to go with this. I am a conservative and I do have a problem with promiscuity, with sexual excess, senseless sex, sex as consumer choice, and with a popular culture that forces us to confront our sexual selves every second of the day, in everything we see and everything we hear, and as impetus and decider of every decision we make. And I recognize the difficulty facing parents that would like to maintain some control over what their children are exposed to. You have that right.
I am just not ready to allow anyone to be appointed to make censorship decisions on their own for the Nation or society at large.
Darrell:
We are speaking informally. We are not legislating. We are discussing ideas. This forum clearly does not lend itself to have a conversation.
Still, I do appreciate the cordial, if unproductive atmosphere.
David-2: I'm will to bet that Shouting Thomas committed a typo (something I do all the time, so no [speaking of typos] snark in that regard) there and that what he really meant was "guys."
It's just that he goes on and on about the gays all the time so much anymore, that "gays" is sort of the default when he tries to type a four-letter word that starts with "g" and ends with "s."
(Yeah, that snark I intended.)
Amanda Marcotte?
Wasn't she that disagreeable woman who eviscerated that schlub for his ham-handed approach in the elevator?
Poor technique on his part, but her response explains why she is bereft of male companionship.
No one is good enough for her.
Darrell: I am just not ready to allow anyone ...
So, we do agree in principle. The challenge is to negotiate the details, which is difficult in theory, but is emergent in practice.
Is that sufficiently ambiguous?
This is the same issue as women wanting to have babies, rather than abort them - a la Sarah Palin.
to put it in another light, The SS had the highest suicide, mental crackup, and substance abuse rates of any military or paramilitary outfit of the war. Sooner or later, the natural impulses, including a certain morality or decency, will kick in.
Same here.
We need to recognize individual dignity. We need to recognize an intrinsic value of human life. We need to acknowledge the inviolable constraints imposed by the natural order. We need to identify reasonable compromises to reconcile these directives. -- n.n.
Yes, but, unfortunately, I see none of this happening in my lifetime. In fact, we are getting further and further away from these directives. We won't change until forced to do so by the natural order of things. It won't be pretty.
rcommal: Yes, it's obviously a typo. I'm not sure your analysis of the reason behind it is correct, but still, it's kind of funny? telling? indicative? counter-intuitive? Freudian?
(Just going? along? with? the? question? mark? theme? here ...)
JL (at 1:42) - Whether it will be a hoot or won't be a hoot, it is a certainty that the younger generations will come around to the understanding that the traditional roles for men and women work. Not work best but work. Because it has become crushingly obvious that the great experiment in "liberation" not only doesn't work, it is an experiment that leads to expirement.
Nomennovum:
Yes, we seem to be approaching a dysfunctional convergence. Unfortunately, this is the rule, not the exception, in human societies around the world and throughout history. It happens periodically despite our best intentions and efforts.
The best advice I can offer is to order your actions to correlate with your peace of mind. For me, that means I will avoid becoming part of the problem, to the extent that is possible. I will respond within context to the extent that I am capable.
No, it's not a typo.
Althouse arrived at her feminism, back in her youth, by parading out the "women are the same as blacks under Jim Crow" baloney that you now see Andy R blathering about constantly in relation to gays in these comments.
Althouse lied to herself because she wanted things.
So the gay marriage stuff is part of this same continuum, and Althouse is continuing to lie to herself because she wants things for her son. Blinded all over again by self-interest and greed. The discrimination and bigotry con worked for her and she wants her son to avail himself of it, too.
Althouse is clearly midway through discovering that her feminist youth was just dysfunctional bullshit. But, she's still using the same bullshit arguments to support her equally wrong arguments about gay marriage.
I'm pretty sure that the gay marriage stuff will turn out to be just as disastrous for gays as feminism was for women. Like all world saving ideologies, feminism and gay marriage sound good, but produce negative results because they are opposed to human nature.
Does that explain it?
So, we do agree in principle. The challenge is to negotiate the details, which is difficult in theory, but is emergent in practice.
If this is your normal writing style, you need to seek professional help. But you "sound" like one of our regular jokers playing a character. Hope you are getting off on it. Don't let the whispers under the floor guide you.
Althouse lied to herself because she wanted things.
Don't we all?
Rachmones, a little rachmones.
Don't we all?
Yes, we do. I'm not saying I'm any better.
I fell for the same stupid shit when I was young. I'm as big a sinner as Althouse.
I just don't see any reason to repeat the same stupid mistake.
I stand--well, sit--corrected.
Traditionally, men improved/maintained their station in life by working, and women improved/maintained their station in life by marrying.
Feminism destroyed that.
So now women work to improve their station in life, but they still want a man to improve it even more.
Women always think about someone to help them:
help them keep the house clean, help them raise the kids, help them squash the icky bugs.
Men think about someone to take care of the home so they can go out and slay the dragon.
As with many other things, "Gods of the Copybook Headings" should be the final word on this.
But I do wish that "other participant" that Ann quotes would read what she wrote and asked why any man worth having would want her.
Well, maybe or maybe not. It could be that many of them are in the demographic in which, it appears, the issue is WHEN they marry (later, roughly speaking), not if. Or, at least that was the trend (which is why I--boringly at this point, perhaps!--keep wondering aloud here about if and, if so, how it will be different going forward.)
Many of them want men with no need to change themselves. Men are expected to change, but a lot of younger women are really not on board with that whole "You need to change too" thing.
My wife is awesome...but she didn't go to college, which is likely a big reason why. Far too many collee grads, especially under the age of 30, know far less than they think they know and have an attitude that they are too special to have to change.
As far as outlawing porn --- good luck on that one. "Porn" is a remarkably malleable construct.
I don't like a lot of the culture --- but my wife and I do spend the energy to control what the kids watch and do. I am a gamer, but rest assured, if the kids want to play a game I know way more about it than they do. If they want to watch a movie, same deal.
The society isn't going to help...but asking government to do the job of parents is always a poor idea.
These women need to quit examining their own belly buttons and give that time to someone else. They're self-absorbed. Happy people are generally generous and giving. There's nothing like thinking of someone else to make you forget your own problems. Especially when your own problems aren't problems at all.
Someone must be making a lot of money by catering to self-absorption.
I really don't detect any attitude that a guy interested in more than a one night would find welcoming in any of the young ladies quoted. What a sad and emotionally crippled bunch. It almost seems like slate cherry picked responses from woman who project the best reasons against considering a relationship with them.
My two favorites are:
I could tell if I went on a date with a guy if he just wanted a girlfriend and I was being auditioned. Those guys never got a second date
I suspect that she never got a second call. He's attracted, asks her out and is looking for signals that there's enough to go forward with. She's projecting enjoying dinner and perhaps a shag but for christ sakes don't insult her by thinking she'd ever consider a nascent relationship. Going to be single a long time that one and for the best.
My favorite though is:
Relationships are so romanticized and overvalued in our society! We are plagued by images of them.
A pox on her house. The poor bastard who ever she'd place any value on his investing his emotions and expecting any longevity better have an ironclad prenuptial in place.
pardon:
'The poor bastard who ever thinks she'd..."
I'm always amused when supposedly intelligent individuals that rejected traditional values that are practiced by billions developed through countless generations of trials and errors and replaced these with their assumed enlightened alternative values are now finding that their choice is crap.
They made their bed... you know the rest.
rcommal said... The other thing is, if many young women are in fact privately wishing for a boyfriend etc. (all embarrassment or whatever about talking ab out it aside), that could mean they're coming to the point where they are thinking about marriage and are reading for it. I don't know. But it could be.
And now who is left on the field. There will still be good men and women available at that point. But they will be far outnumbered by the men and women who never wanted more than the one-nighter but are now finding out that the opportunities at 25yo are not there at 35yo.
How's that feminism worked out for you. All that hearing and roaring and stuff? Yeah, not so good right?
Stuff like this always makes me glad I live among the backwater, religious middle class. The women quoted seem like such tiresome people. Thank goodness I know lots of young people who will make fantastic spouses one day. Otherwise, I might worry about our extinction if it was left to the coast-dwelling, careerist, navel gazers who were raised by Oprah.
these women despise the guys who would tolerate their crap. but they don't know that.
I understand the impulse to avoid whining about not having a boyfriend. A girl doesn't want to come across as a needy psycho. Stiff upper lip and all that. But refusing a second date with someone who might actually like you? She is going to end up one lonely woman.
Woman... go make me a sammich.
Shana, I would say these women are already mentally so fucked up they have no chance of finding a good husband.
Feminism has left women with what? Oh, yeah: dead-end jobs that they try to convince themselves are "meaningful and fufilling." Yeesh. What man has ever called a job "meaningful and fulfilling"?
Dead end jobs. And, then, suddenly, there they are: 32 years old, 10 years past their prime, ten years of fucking the guys who won't "commit," and wondering where all the good men are.
Psst: They're the ones you continue to call losers. The schlubs, the boring, the unexciting, the unconfident "losers." The 99%, you could say.
Look at all the 34+ year-old women on Plenty O' Fish and OKCupid: Overwieght, saggy entitled princessess who think they are solid 8s and rate 6'2" charismatic Hedge Fund managers, no more than two years older than they, in great shape, handsome, and attentive.
Women have suffered almost as much as men because of feminism.
Oh, and ladies? No men give a crap about your degrees or your biting sarcastic wit. None. Not even the ones who claim they do.
I would suggest a cat.
Maybe several cats.
I'm glad I'm not dating.
Reading threads like this makes me even more thankful for my husband and my marriage than I usually am, which is very much to begin with. Nothing's perfect because people aren't perfect, but solid is a great good gift, and I never believed in utopia, not even in love, anyway. Maybe that's a key to something or other?
It's been a while since I've dated (15 years+) but it seems like there is a sizable number of people who want a relationship without giving anything up.
Of course their is still plenty of people willing to give up a little freedom for a partner in life but their not wont to complain about it on Slate or whatever.
@SOJO,
I think you misunderstand what nomennovum is complaining about. Ofttimes, it seems as if the women on these sites are writing not to real men, but to a woman's idea of what a man wants (my favorite is "I've got a high-paying career"). They then go on to list what makes them alpha-female go-getters, which is what no man wants.
Men want to know if you're pretty, are fun to be around, are not a high-maintenance PITA, can suck a bowling ball through a garden hose, etc.
Do men do this too? Sure, all the time, the foremost example being the ubiquitous dick photo that so many guys seem to think is on the top of their next girlfriend's wish list.
This makes more understandable the firm place that the 4F attitude (find 'em feel 'm, f**K 'em, and forget 'em) has taken among young men. If love isn't offered, why stuck around.
That was my thought. If you're unwilling to offer anything besides sex in a relationship, who would stay once the sex starts to get routine?
Young Hegelian:
I composed a much longer response to SOJO, but then lost it all because of a bad mouse click, but you got it exactly right.
Women think that because they look for those traits in men, men must value them in women. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this is the tragedy of feminism.
SOJO, men and women are different. By our natures we want fertile mates. That means we first look at your appearance. If you look good enough to fuck, we will want to fuck you. It you are nice and have a joie de vivre, we will want to stay a long time with you and have sex with you for as long as we can. This is called "marriage."
SOJO said...
Feminism did some good. For example, unlike previous generations, I'm not in a marriage to an alcoholic getting my ass kicked putting up with infidelity, subjecting my children to that environment and unable to get out because of financial dependence.
Feminism clearly includes positives, how much those psositves would be considered feminist today is a different question. This comment demonstrates one of the smaller negatives though, the misinformation that everything in life sucked for women before feminism.
Maybe women are so good at standing proud that men have stopped believing women must really want men.
--Ann Althouse
Darn those men! He doesn't woo the woman putting on a show of being indifferent to men and he's oppressing her. He does woo her and he's oppressing her. (Notice the unfalsifiability of the feminist He's Oppressing Her hypothesis.)
The feminist/traditionalist/whatever game women are playing isn't about men but about an intramural female-on-female status competition. The females are just using men and children as objects for female score keeping. Or men and children are bystanders, often injured bystanders.
March 2014 will be the International Month of Atonement for Feminism. Get ready.
I understand the impulse to avoid whining about not having a boyfriend. A girl doesn't want to come across as a needy psycho. Stiff upper lip and all that. But refusing a second date with someone who might actually like you? She is going to end up one lonely woman.
Look at the name. That's Amanda Marcotte. The second date thing is purely hypothetical in her case.
@SOJO,
I honestly avoided such things in my dating years because they deeply depressed me.
I honestly avoided them because they're before my time. That & the fact I've been happily married for 27 years.
But, unlike you, I find the human comedy of errors in some wise entertaining rather than depressing, so I try to keep up with how the youngsters live in their world. It also helps me to understand my fellow (wo)man, something that I was never good at in my youth.
Feminism did some good. For example, unlike previous generations, I'm not in a marriage to an alcoholic getting my ass kicked putting up with infidelity, subjecting my children to that environment and unable to get out because of financial dependence.
Even women of previous generations were able to live out their lives as spinsters, which is where feminism is taking today's young women.
I think you're probably projecting.
SOJO you said this to ST. You called me "bitter."
Stop psycoanalyzing people. Women tend to do this as a way of shaming others when they hear something they don't like. This is not an attractive trait, though it is very common.
And feminism's greatest crime is modern divorce laws. Your abuse example is a straw man. Women could always divorce for that. No-fault divorce is feminism gift to the West. They should burn in Hell for it. It has destroyed too many families and financially devestated too many men.
Stuff like this always makes me glad I live among the backwater, religious middle class.
I hear ya. Since hanging around with the GOP here, I've come across quite a few women who *did* have it all. But they did things in order, got married young, maybe got a teaching or nursing cert, had kids, raised them..went to work. Or worked awhile first, then had the kids. Maybe even ran a business with the husband.
Somehow they did it all but not all at once. But the babies came early on.
"Sure, [men misread what women want from men] all the time, the foremost example being the ubiquitous dick photo that so many guys seem to think is on the top of their next girlfriend's wish list." - Young Hegelian
LOL. That would be a good line for when a guy gets blown off by a woman he's trying to pick up: "I guess a dick picture would be out of the question then?"
Anyone care to explore possible correlations between the fairly recent crisis of heterosexual marriage and the fairly recent fad of SSM?
No?
Afraid of where the logic might lead?
Afraid of where the logic might lead?
Nope. It's just that it's been done here as Casa Althouse more than a few times.
True. Horses can't be forced to drink the water they have been led to.
@nathan,
Anyone care to explore possible correlations between the fairly recent crisis of heterosexual marriage and the fairly recent fad of SSM?
Sorry, nathan. I think we as straights have got to take a long, hard look in the mirror & realize that we've fucked up marriage all by our little, lonesome selves.
We can't go smacking the queers around for this one. It's our het tar-baby.
Yup.
Marriage is a dead institution. Let the gays have it. It can't hurt. Of course there are laws prohibiting the abuse of a corpse.
I think we as straights have got to take a long, hard look in the mirror & realize that we've fucked up marriage all by our little, lonesome selves.
What you mean "we", white man? Certainly there are elements of the culture that have been doing their damnest to destroy marriage, but declaring it "fucked up" is a bit premature.
@Eric,
Divorce (50%) & infidelity rates are awful. That's one thing (actually, divorces are leveling off...).
But, the real marriage tragedy is the marriages that never happen. Like the huge number of out-of-wedlock births. The fact that blue collar marriages of every race are getting the shit kick out of them. And then there is the black lower classes, where marriage has simply disappeared
So, yes, I'd say the state of marriage is fucked-up. As probably you would, too, if you stepped outside of your self-righteousness. I don't think marriage is getting trashed by some lefty cultural conspiracy. I think it's getting trashed by our own unleashed concuspicense.
In regards to marriage, our civil laws have really done some damage to it.
I think a lot of people still value marriage, even though as many have stated it is 'dead'. It isn't that we don't value marriage, rather then don't want to be a victim of divorce.
I can't relate to these 20-somethings. I've really insulated myself from their experiences.
In Massachusetts, after Goodridge the first gay couple to fight for marriage equality got divorced after 800 days. All my progressive friends thought it was great they could be divorces, as well were attorneys who couldn't wait for their first gay divorce case.
What you mean "we", white man? - Eric
YH was being generous to say "we."
He probably meant feminists (many of which -- I know it's hard to believe -- are not lesbians), Leftists, and the hoards of brain-dead citizens who never heard a bad idea come out of the legislature.
And especially all the women who have taken advantage of no-fault divorce when they are unhappy in their lives and need someone to blame. It those cases, watch out! Their little rationalizers go into overdrive and they will chuck their religion, their children's emotional well-being, and their vows. They will justify divorce-raping the men they used to love, the father of their children, and they will get their vengence on him.
SOJO would call me bitter and projecting, but I've seen it happen. A woman's love is conditional, and when she thinks she can do better not married, she will leave. Because she can. This is the gift of feminism. The lie, believed by so many like SOJO, is that feminism allowed women to divorce in the case of abuse, drunkenness, or infidelity. Straw men. A woman can get out of a marriage and half of a man's assets plus an income far in excess of her "needs" for no reason whatsoever and the man has nothing to say about it. In NYS (at least) a woman can start receiving child support and "maintenance" (allimony) even before the divorce -- even when she, her husband, and their children still live under the same roof, with the husband still paying all the costs of the home, cars, education, healtcare, etc.
Feminism is the gift that keeps on giving.
Certainly there are elements of the culture that have been doing their damnest to destroy marriage, but declaring it "fucked up" is a bit premature. - Eric
To say that American marriage is not currently in a fucked up state borders on delusional. YH is being more than fair. Myself, I think it's fucked up like Rachel Corrie. But that's just me, and SOJO says I'm bitter.
It's amazing to me people can be so blind. Is it becasue you are so in love? Are you the Marie Antoinette of Marriage? "Everything can be cured if you just allow yourself to fall in love!"
@ nn "It would appear that "feminism" is incompatible with evolutionary fitness."
Congratulations, you get it! Marxists/liberals/progressives seem to be profoundly ignorant of science,especially evolution.
I'm convinced that religion has been part of the environment that has shaped us as we have evolved into modern humans. One of the reasons that religion fits our nature so well is that we and our religions have evolved together. When the progressives destroy religious belief they are destroying the environment necessary for our survival just as much as those who polute the water or destroy the land.
Illuminati,
Feminism is ultimate expression of unbridled feminine imperative. Being unbridled, it cannot last, because it will destroy civilization.
Everything, every sentence, girls say does end in a question mark. Have you never listened to them talk? I'm like, you know?
I used to teach middle school. Everyone should try it at least a year. It will open your eyes.
Nomennovum said...
It's amazing to me people can be so blind. Is it because you are so in love?
It's because we found good people without the pathologies present in so many others.
Woman... go make me a sammich.
I'm of the age when feminism was roaring. I never fell for the schtick of denigrating men or feeling that you are in competition with men in your relationships. I don't understand this reluctance to admit to these natural biological and psychological needs. Feeling strange etc about wanting a relationship and a committed one at that with the opposite sex is like feeling strange that you want to eat or breath.
These poor girls are self absorbed and are wasting the best years of their lives by trying to live in some dream made up from the lies some withered man hating and self hating old women told themselves and that they can't bring themselves to admit are lies, even to this day.
Speaking of sandwiches and dreams, I dreamed up a sandwich the other night. I mean literally, in a dream. I even gave it a name. Someone go make it an give me a review.
A chibata roll that has been split and grilled, then brushed on the crispy flat sides with a salad dressing vinaigrette. Place in this order a breaded and fried 1/2 inch at least thick slice of eggplant [crispy on the outside and still hot], slice of provolone cheese that will melt slightly on the hot eggplant slice, thin slices of prosciutto, tomato, salt, cracked pepper, lettuce or sprouts [dream got a bit fuzzy here] and maybe some sliced peperoncinis for zip.
Maybe I'll make this for my husband tomorrow :-)
Illuninati:
I disagree. Those ideologies are designed to consolidate capital and power through the establishment of monopolies enforced through granted or coerced authority for the benefit of minority interests. They adhere to a faith which is strictly in compliance with the natural order, but untempered by common morality, and therefore unsuitable for humanity.
I will offer an exception to "progressivism" and "liberalism" in their classical forms, but condemn their generational evolution as sponsors of corruption.
The unstated caveat of evolutionary fitness is that it does not necessarily apply to a species as a whole. It only really apples to select minorities within the population, who exploit leverage (e.g. expressed through the sword, emotional extortion, etc.) to control procreation and development of their competing interests.
As for religion, I appreciate faith in accordance to principles which recognize individual dignity and intrinsic value of human life. I also appreciate a faith that directs submission to a divine God, rather than mortal gods who routinely suffer from delusions of grandeur.
What happens in the post-mortem is anyone's guess. What happens while living should follow with the two principles listed above, and reconciled with the natural order (e.g. evolutionary principles).
It's because we found good people without the pathologies present in so many others.
Makes a good quip, but it is meaningless and empty, because it is far from adequate. Try again, doctor.
Nomennovum said...
Makes a good quip, but it is meaningless and empty, because it is far from adequate.
It may seem so to those without the experience. Similarly a description of a meal isn't satisfying, yet to conclude the meal isn't would be an error.
ken in sc
Been there done that.
I recommend it to anyone trying to understand immature women as well.
rcommal said: "Reading threads like this makes me even more thankful for my husband and my marriage than I usually am, which is very much to begin with. Nothing's perfect because people aren't perfect, but solid is a great good gift, and I never believed in utopia, not even in love, anyway. Maybe that's a key to something or other?"
Perfectly expressing my sentiments on the matter.
Now that we are approaching our 20 year mark in marriage, I am thankful everyday for the loving companionship and the partnership in life that we have. It is utopia. Nope, but it is better....it is real.
@ dbq
"A chibata roll that has been split and grilled, then brushed on the crispy flat sides with a salad dressing vinaigrette. Place in this order a breaded and fried 1/2 inch at least thick slice of eggplant [crispy on the outside and still hot], slice of provolone cheese that will melt slightly on the hot eggplant slice, thin slices of prosciutto, tomato, salt, cracked pepper, lettuce or sprouts [dream got a bit fuzzy here] and maybe some sliced peperoncinis for zip. "
Basically that's an eggplant parm.
Frankly I'd put the vinaigrette on the lettuce after the sandwich is assembled. The only other thing I'd add would be a thin spread of olive tapenade. Or maybe incorporate some of the peperoncini juice into the vinaigrette.
onetermer:
They are conducting an experiment, whose outcome is not judged on merit but by perception. We live in the age of self-esteem, where dreams of instant gratification are only constrained by the "enemy", not the arid climate of reality.
...dreams of instant gratification are only constrained by the "enemy", not the arid climate of reality.
Y'know, this jumped out instantly to me; in the following split-second, my immediate thought was: truly something to that.
r,l wrote: Y'know, this jumped out instantly to me; in the following split-second, my immediate thought was: truly something to that.
My instant thought was being "soaked in Nature's fecund blessings"--but really not: Cold Comfort Farm.
Literary pretensions.
By "literary pretensions," I meant the unfulfilled women subjected to scrutiny here.
Scrutiny On The Bounty
@nn
"I disagree. Those ideologies are designed to consolidate capital and power through the establishment of monopolies enforced through granted or coerced authority for the benefit of minority interests. They adhere to a faith which is strictly in compliance with the natural order, but untempered by common morality, and therefore unsuitable for humanity."
I believe we agree that feminism runs counter to the laws of evolution. Where we might disagree is that I'm prepared to go farther and to generalize to other aspects of Marxism/liberalism. As you point out, totalitarian movements like the Marxists/progressives are inevitable taken over by ruthless individuals who will sometimes kill millions of people to accumulate power and money for themselves, but they work within an intellectual structure which lends moral support to their totalitarian government. People who follow them have to believe that somehow their leaders are doing good. Once that narrative breaks down, the dictator is finished. Marxism/progressive ideology supplies the intellectual justification for mass murder. Practitioners of those ideologies think of themsselves as men and women of reason and science, but their belief system completely ignores laws of science. It turns out that the common morality you mention isn't quite as common as we might wish.
Since religion has been part of the environment in which people have evolved its purpose has always been to make life here on earth more successful. Religion uses the supernatural and the future to change life now in the actual world we live in. It is unclear whether humans societies can function successfully without their religious myths. This is why the irreligious turn to pseudoreligious cults like the Marxists, progressives, Nazis, etc.
Heh. For just a scantily clad second there, I thought you were renewing (reviving?) the Dramatic Chipmunk meme there, which as you know, I'm happy to have owned as a ringtone for a very long while (in fact until I had to revert to factory settings just a couple of weeks ago)--meaning that, a split-second later I started laughing, and knew better... .
*Snort*
That last comment of mine was intended as a response to Chickelit, and obviously not to the comment by Illuninati that happened to fall in between.
Although. Still not.
r,l: I just noticed for the first time that a chicken makes a cameo in that video.
Now I feel exposed. :)
"The stereotypical traditional male works so that a woman would have him and he could have love."
No, just no.
Men work for the same reason that all human beings work, so we don't have to live under a bridge and eat out of garbage can. We work because work is the means through which we achieve so many of life's goals, marriage and children being only two items on a very long list.
When I get my paycheck, I'm not thinking about how impressed my wife is going to be with it. I'm thinking about paying the mortgage.
Men are independent creatures who choose to become inter-dependent when we marry.
Women on the other hand, seem to be dependent creatures whose dependency switches from their parents to their husbands when they marry. Not all women of course, but certainly the ones who would believe that men work for the purpose of attracting a mate. That notion would ONLY make sense to someone who saw marriage as a change in who they were dependent on rather than a partnership of two independent human beings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm9BgmbDiL4
Beauty is desire.
Feminism was fine for getting woman voting rights and better access to jobs and such. But where feminism has failed many women was setting the expectation that not only could you have it all and but you had to have it all. If you're really down with the movement, you have kids and a career and wear the pants in whatever relationship you are in. Women who don't work outside the home are just cornball sisters.
So now women who spend their twenties accumulating degrees and trying to work up the ladder before having a kid and then go right back to work and leave their 3 month old with strangers are feeling overwhelmed and unfulfilled. They are doing a half-ass job at everything in their lives and they hate themselves for it.
Feminism was supposed to liberate women but instead has incarcerated them with hopeless expectations. And their answer is to turn to more government for help.
"When I get my paycheck, I'm not thinking about how impressed my wife is going to be with it. I'm thinking about paying the mortgage."
A man who over impresses with money on a woman, is probably horrible with it and will end up with bankruptcy. It's OK to date a man, who isn't necessarily cheap, but can manage what he has.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন