Saturday, February 13, 2010

Did feminism betray Zoe Lewis?

When Zoe Lewis was a young woman she followed the feminist life path expected of her:

I was part of the 'golden generation' of women who expected to go to university, have careers and enjoy our sexual freedom.

In our 20s, my friends and I pursued casual relationships, thinking all the 'serious stuff' would come along when we'd reached the peak of our success - i.e. in our 30s, when Mr Right would be attracted like a moth to the flame of our blazing glory.

This is what you might describe as a faulty compromise. According to feminism, the highest good in life is autonomy. Therefore, what matters most for a woman is preserving her independence. A woman can achieve this by following a single girl lifestyle based on careers, casual relationships, travel and consumerism.

The instinct to marry and have children, though, runs deep. So most women did not reject marriage and family entirely as life ambitions, even though these require both men and women to sacrifice a degree of autonomy. Instead, marriage was delayed as a life goal and made secondary to other ambitions.

With often disastrous results. It's not so easy for a woman to successfully marry and have children in her 30s - many will miss out. Zoe Lewis is one of those women who left things too late:

My own late 30s have been spent in an inelegant stumble towards validation - quickly trying to do the thing that defines a woman: have a baby.

And I found myself scratching around in the leftovers of my single male peers to find a partner with whom to have a child before it got too late.

It didn't have to be that way. She rejected many men when she was in her 20s:

Had I had this understanding of my inner psyche in my 20s, I would have mentally demoted my writing (and hedonism) and pursued a relationship with vigour.

There were plenty of men and even a marriage offer from someone with whom I would have happily settled down. But no, I wasn't prepared to give up my dreams, the life I had been told was the right and proper one for a modern woman.

She has friends in the same boat:

Sas Taylor, 38, single and childless, runs her own PR company. 'In my 20s, I felt as if I was invincible, unstoppable,' she says. 'Now, I wish I had done it all differently ...'

Nicki P, 35, single and also childless, works in the music industry and adds: 'It was all a game back then. Now, it's serious, and I am panicking. No one told me having fun isn't as much fun as I thought.'

So what has Zoe Lewis decided to do? She reluctantly, as a last resort, went to Denmark to be artificially inseminated. She's now six months pregnant. Her child will never know its father.

She doesn't think of this as a great act of feminist independence. She feels scarred by her experience of being a feminist modern woman, so much so that she didn't want to bring a girl into the world:

I'd convinced myself it was a boy because I felt I'd be better off with a male child. I didn't want my daughter to have to struggle with the pressure of trying to 'have it all' as I have. The sad and uncomfortable truth is that being a woman has often made me unhappy, and I didn't want my daughter to be unhappy either.

She could have done things differently. If she had aimed to marry well in her 20s, she might have had a husband to help support her literary aims - as well as a more fulfilled personal life. She herself seems to recognise this:

I wish I had been given the advice that I am now giving to my sister, who is 22. If you find a great guy, don't be afraid to settle down and have kids because there isn't anything to miss out on that you can't go back and do later - apart from having kids.

In the future, I hope there can be a better understanding of women by women. The past 25 years has been confusing for our sex, and I can't help feeling I've been caught in the crossfire ...

I have always felt an immense pressure to be successful, to show men I am their equal. What a waste of time that was...

And how does Zoe Lewis now feel about feminism? She has rejected the feminism of her mother's generation. She doesn't think that autonomy (choice, sexual liberation, the single girl lifestyle) should always be the overriding aim in life. Love and family are what matter in the end:

My mother - a film-maker - was a hippy who kept a pile of dusty books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bedside. (Like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning.) She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation.

As a result, I fought with my older brother and won, and at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.

But, at nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. Now, I want love and children, but they are nowhere to be seen.

When I was growing up, I was led to believe by my mother and other women of her generation that women could 'have it all', and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end, I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dream of being a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.

Ten years ago, I wrote a play called Paradise Syndrome. It was based on my girlfriends in the music business. All we did was party, work and drink. The play sold out and I thought: 'This is it! I'm going to have it all - success, power - and men are going to adore me for it.'

In reality, it was the beginning of years of hard slog, rejection letters and living on the breadline.

 And this:

I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother hadn't been such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals ...

Increasing numbers of my strongly feminist contemporaries are giving up their careers and opting for love and children and baking instead. Now, I wish I'd had kids ten years ago, when time was on my side. But the essence of the problem, I can see in retrospect, is not so much time as mentality.

It's about understanding what is important in life, and from what I see and feel deep down, loving relationships and children bring more happiness than work ever can.

It's about understanding what is important in life. That does seem to be the crux of it. Is autonomy always what matters most? Or are there other goods in life which deserve our attention and which should be formative in shaping our character and life decisions?

98 comments:

  1. "But, at nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. Now, I want love and children, but they are nowhere to be seen."

    I don't see why at 37 she can't find a guy. She may be getting old for children but she has been artificially inseminated. What it seems to me is this story by her is a catalogue of complaints. I didn't have a marriage so I could pursue a career. My career wasn't as easy as I thought it would be ... Only "leftover" guys are left. Maybe the issue for her is she's a pain. Everything has to be provided and laid out for her. In other words she's incredibly immature and self centred with an unrealistic view of life.

    Personally I think if this woman had spent her 20's being the kind of person who would be "amenable" to a partner, it wouldn't have been such a leap for her when she decided to get one. We don't develop relationship skills overnight it takes a while and work.

    I understand the point that women are more physically attractive in their 20's but I think many would say that the feminine virtues are the most attractive things of all in a woman. If you can't be bothered cultivating those a little and just want to rely on looks and flash I don't think its a surprise that you'll find it difficult having lasting relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I don't see why at 37 she can't find a guy."

    Because a guy who wants to have kids will want a younger woman, and she can't afford to spend the time developing a relationship with a potential father who might pull the plug on her after a couple of years.

    Of course, now she will most likely never find a man, since few men want an aging wife who already has some other (unknown) guy's kid.

    She says, "underneath I wondered if I wanted a child for the wrong reasons. Was I driven solely by selfish motives?" The obvious answer is YES. Me, me, me, it's all about me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Jesse has a point. If we are oriented toward marriage from an early age, we're likely to cultivate the personal qualities that will attract a suitable partner and make us good husbands or wives.

    But if a woman is brought up to treat marriage as a kind of afterthought, one that will simply take care of itself, then this process won't take place.

    Zoe Lewis seems to recognise this. She believes her generation of women never recognised that men:

    "are programmed to like their women soft and feminine. It's not their fault - it's in the genes."

    She recognises too that the impulse toward love is strongest when we are still young:

    "do it early, girls - do it before you get cynical and jaded. Do the whole 'falling in love thing' when you honestly can embrace that joie de vivre."

    ReplyDelete
  4. If they had realised they needed to start 'settling' - "Settling Down" would be a better term, and less derogatory - at 28 not 35, they might have been ok. Or if they had started panicking at 30 not 37 they might still have edged it.

    It's sad, they were sold a pig in a poke. Feminism harmed men too of course, but at least men stay potential husband material a good bit longer, if they're not too weird or dissolute. A successful 35 year old man is potentially attractive to a 25 or 35 year old woman as marriage material, if he's kept his mind right. A 35 year old woman is not generally attractive as a first marriage partner, unless she's somehow (a) stayed very inexperienced (b) stayed attractive and (c) is keen to breed right away; an unlikely combination.

    Men sense the desperation on the typical 35 year old professional woman, it's not attractive on her any more than it is on a 20 year old male.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BTW I'm 37 and lifetime female fertility in my wife and my circle of former schoolfriends and relatives looks like being not much over 0.5, if you count each childless man as generating a childless female.

    My parents had 2 children, their 2 children have a total of 1 child (mine), where replacement fertility would be 4. My 39 year old wife's parents had 2 children, their 2 children have a total of 1 child (mine again). There's a reasonable chance my brother in law could still breed, but the numbers don't look great.

    My wife's schoolfriends are mostly childless, while of the two of mine I keep in touch with, both working-class, 1 is childless and single, the other married a 'single mother' (welfare mom) and has a couple kids by her to add to the couple she already had.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Simon,

    My best friend at school ended up marrying and having two kids. But his four sisters have remained single and childless. The youngest would now be in her late 30s.

    On the upside, I don't think that younger women are delaying as much as the women of my generation did. Maybe a lesson has been learnt. The fertility rate in Australia rose again last year to about 1.9 and if my workplace is anything to go by the figures for this year will further improve.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mark:
    "On the upside, I don't think that younger women are delaying as much as the women of my generation did. Maybe a lesson has been learnt. The fertility rate in Australia rose again last year to about 1.9 and if my workplace is anything to go by the figures for this year will further improve."

    Yes - I don't believe Mark Steyn's view that the post-60s fertility crash necessarily means the Death of the West. In the normal course of events, something that impacts fertility (whether technology like 'The Pill', social mores, a disease, etc) means some lines die out, the population temporarily falls, but those lines least affected replace them, over time the population recovers and life goes on. We see that with eg the rise of Mormons in the USA, or the rise of Christianity in the late Roman empire - Mormonism and Christianity are/were memes that help innoculate against reduced fertility caused by such things as the Pill, abortion, and exposure of infants.

    Mass (im)migration by high fertility groups changes the equation; the population dip in the host population gives the incomers a window of opportunity to replace them before the host population's fertility rate can recover. An example would be the replacement of disease-impacted Amerindian populations by Anglo-Americans in what's now the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Simon wrote:

    "Mass (im)migration by high fertility groups changes the equation; the population dip in the host population gives the incomers a window of opportunity to replace them before the host population's fertility rate can recover."

    However, that supports Steyn's view that we're in strife. If the newly arrived immigrants are the ones having the babies and they're hostile to the West, as the Muslims are, we're in trouble. Even if the growth comes from ethnic groups that aren’t actively hostile, its not a great situation.

    Huntington seems to think that the Muslim fertility rates will ease off. Is that likely?

    It is possible that groups within the West, such as Christians, may grow in prominance to replace other groups. Have their birth rates been surveyed? I have heard it said that having very large catholic familes (ie 7-8+ kids) is on the decline.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jesse - certainly we're in trouble, but Steyn never says that immigration rather than fertility is the problem; the way he tells it the Japanese will go extinct from low fertility, which is nonsense. And he doesn't want to criticise Mestizo immigration into the US. Christopher Caldwell in "Reflection on the Revolution in Europe" follows the Steyn line - immigration of non-Muslims is A-OK, esp in the USA. It's only Muslims that are the problem.

    Pat Buchanan's 2002 'The Death of the West' (which Steyn copied heavily in 'America Alone') is far more realistic, and well worth reading.

    "If the newly arrived immigrants are the ones having the babies and they're hostile to the West, as the Muslims are, we're in trouble. Even if the growth comes from ethnic groups that aren’t actively hostile, its not a great situation."

    Even non-hostile groups replace the host population. At best they adopt elements of the host culture, as eg the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain adopted Christianity. You can also get interbreeding where the female lines of the host population are preserved, as in Latin America. This may be happening here in London where there is a rapidly growing 'Londatto' population with black fathers, white mothers, and a white working class culture with some Afro-Caribbean influence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When I read this article the thought that came to me was: if she hasn't had the time to nurture a proper relationship with an adult man, what makes her think she will have the time to devote to a proper relationship with a child? She observes that her friends who are in relationships/have children also have sacrificed something of their career aspirations in order to have them.

    She wasn't willing to put anything aside before - is she truly ready to do so now?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "A 35 year old woman is not generally attractive as a first marriage partner, unless she's somehow (a) stayed very inexperienced (b) stayed attractive and (c) is keen to breed right away; an unlikely combination."

    She has to be keen to breed right away - and so does her husband, which is doubly unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  12. One of the commenters is right on target:

    This woman will have her daughter and enjoy the novelty of being a mum for awhile, after which I can GUARANTEE that by the time her daughter is about 6mths old (so about the age when the mum has become exhausted and tired of the daily grind that having a baby entails), she will place the baby into a day nursery. The mum will then write another article which fulminates on the benefits of nurseries for young babies, how the babies play together, how the professionally trained staff nurture the babies so well, how much stimulation the babies receive, ad nauseum. The mum will add that having her daughter in nursery has improved the quality of her playwriting no end!

    It is all so depressingly predictable.

    - Trixie Bella, Southampton, 13/2/2010 5:13


    Plus there are the obligatory "no big deal not to have a husband, they do nothing anyway" type comments. Way to encourage men to get married, ladies!

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'This is it! I'm going to have it all - success, power - and men are going to adore me for it.'

    So what is it?

    Success and power

    or

    Adoration of men.

    I have a feeling it is the latter.

    For men, success and power, leads quite naturally to adoration from women.

    For women, success and power does not lead to adoration from men. Maybe even the contrary.

    Nature wins. Boo hoo.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Simon, yes when reading Steyn you have to realise that he is pandering to his audience. For whatever reason the mainline Republican/Conservatives haven't taken a strong line on immigration. It is depressing for someone like Steyn not to take a strong line on the border. He is an evocative writer but his ideal seems to be to that of a large, independent, Christian family living in the mountains. I don't see how that is consistent with large scale Mexican immigration.

    On Japan, if they don't bring in people and their fertility stays low, won't they be in serious trouble? On your point on London doesn't a "Londatto" population undermine Britishness to a degree? I think perhaps working class culture is in confusion and that's why they've been willing to adopt, whether you're white or black, a black "gangsta" culture to a degree. I could be mistaken on that front because maybe the working class may always have been attracted to tough models.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jesse 7:
    "On Japan, if they don't bring in people and their fertility stays low, won't they be in serious trouble?"

    Their population will decline, but the population density of the Japanese home islands is immense. The lines that suffer most from the causes of lowered fertility will die out, to be replaced by those lines that suffer least, for whatever reason (religiosity certainly has an impact). That's how evolution works; that's why even the worst plagues don't wipe out a species without some other factor, usually resource competition from a rival species. If there are no non-Japanese in Japan, Japan won't become empty of people; it will merely have less people for awhile, until the population develops resistance to the causes of below-replacement fertility.

    >> On your point on London doesn't a "Londatto" population undermine Britishness to a degree?<<

    Sure, but not being a native Londoner (or even native English) I'm struck by how very English they are, and how integrated they are with the natives, with little anti-white racial hatred from most - very unlike white/black relations in the USA. The main difference of course is that blacks in London have around 8 times the per capita crime rates as whites, same as in the US and elsewhere, so black males are relatively much more dangerous than whites and we get a lot of home invasions, robberies, stranger rapes and burglaries from them. And unlike the US our criminal justice system has not harshened sentencing to maintain a deterrent effect.

    > I think perhaps working class culture is in confusion and that's why they've been willing to adopt, whether you're white or black, a black "gangsta" culture to a degree<

    I don't know why the gangsta culture is so attractive to such a wide range of people. My expensive health club was playing songs praising gang rape ("I'm gonna strip you naked and give you to my soldiers") in the men's changing room, until I complained...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "My expensive health club was playing songs praising gang rape ... in the men's changing room, until I complained".

    Good call.

    Thanks for that Simon. Do you mind if I ask, as an English person will you be interested in voting for the BNP? You don't have to answer. Thank you.

    DP111 wrote:

    "For women, success and power does not lead to adoration from men. Maybe even the contrary."

    I'm a little surprised that careerist women don't promote the getting of "mail order" husbands. I suppose artificial insemination is along those lines.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The feminist "life path" has damaged or destroyed the lives of millions of woman in Europe and the former British Colonies.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have absolutely no sympathy what so ever for these women. None at all.

    The fact that they constantly harp on about how they have been damaged just shows how narcissistic they truly are.

    It never occurs to them that their lifestyle has damaged a generation of men.

    Here is a case in point: an anonymous reader writing in Lawrence Auster’s View from the Right (“On The Cost of Celibacy”) describes his own anguish at not being able to find a women now as a result of all of this ‘liberation’.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jesse 7:
    "Thanks for that Simon. Do you mind if I ask, as an English person will you be interested in voting for the BNP?"

    I voted for them, somewhat reluctantly, at the last Euro-election to the European Parliament. I felt it was the only effective way to send a message to our elites. I won't be voting for them at the upcoming General election, it would not be an effective way of getting our vile local Labour MP out. If Lord Rannoch had been leading UKIP in 2009 I might have voted UKIP in the euro-election.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It never occurs to them that their lifestyle has damaged a generation of men.

    Good point. Zoe Lewis is one of the better ones. She intelligently reconsiders both feminism and her youthful choices. But it's all in terms of the damage done to herself and her female friends. It doesn't enter her mind that men might have been damaged by the behaviour of her feminist cohort of women.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I voted for them, somewhat reluctantly, at the last Euro-election to the European Parliament. I felt it was the only effective way to send a message to our elites."

    Thanks for that Simon. I too reluctantly preferanced One Nation (our equivalent) last time they were standing. All up I think I'd be far less reluctant now, although I find the party very distasteful.

    So anyway I was talking to my 26 year old sister the older day and said as politely as I could that it might be a good idea if she was married by 28. I have a very good relationship with my sister but she didn't take it very well. She was very offended. It turns out she is very aware but also quite touchy and a little anxious on this issue.

    As the conversation became heated I gave a bit of a spray to her generation (I basically am a part of it too) saying that apart from her they were self indulgent, lifestyle interested, wanted to be young forever etc and these were the people who were her peers so she couldn’t necessarily rely on magic and for it just to happen. I also mentioned in example her boyfriend who was caught on the grounds of Kirribilli house on New Years eve, saying that that was the stunt of a 21 year old. She replied that the security overreacted, he didn't approach the house and was merely on the lawns with his friends trying to get a better look at the fireworks (hmmm).

    So she was offended and it turns out I'm a psychopath. Hmm, that's good thing to know I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jesse 7:
    "Thanks for that Simon. I too reluctantly preferanced One Nation (our equivalent) last time they were standing. All up I think I'd be far less reluctant now, although I find the party very distasteful."

    Well I don't think One Nation have any Neo-Nazi roots, so apart from their being traduced by the media I doubt I'd have any trouble voting for them these days. Same for Vlaams Belang if I were Flemish, and various other ethnonationalist parties. I'm pretty sick of Whig/Right-Liberal Conservatism's failure to deal with what's actually happening these days.

    Despite their roots I decided the BNP had done enough to renounce anti-Semitism and actual racism/race-hatred that I could vote for them, in the absence of anything (a) better and (b) credible. And their getting two MEPS was indeed a wake-up call to the governing class.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jesse 7:
    "So anyway I was talking to my 26 year old sister the older day and said as politely as I could that it might be a good idea if she was married by 28"

    Well done - that will at least have planted the seed of the idea in her! I wish I could have said that to my sister when she was that age, she's 35 now and it looks like she'll be an old maid. She did get engaged to a Sicilian cook, but that didn't work out so she took 6 years doing a PhD, the modern equivalent of entering a nunnery! >:)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just so you know, many of us women in our late twenties would love to have been married by now. Love to have a couple of kids or more by now. But where are the men who are willing to marry such a girl? Where are the men who are willing to marry a girl who doesnt want a full on career and would rather be a stay at home mum? If someone mentioned to me that maybe I should think of marrying soon I'd get touchy too! How about offering to set your sister up with a good marriage minded man? That is more helpful. The thing is, if you are a traditionally minded girl you cannot just go around asking men out. You have to wait.
    And then there are those of us who dated men we thought would marry us only to realise we had wasted years of our lives.

    Women are not the only problem here!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Aussie girl, two things that are just meant to provoke thought:

    (1) Why would a man marry you? What man do you want to ask to marry you? What sort of woman would he be interested in? (Is that you?)

    (2) Be upfront about your expectations in your relationship (ie. you're looking to get married and that's where you want this relationship to head). If they run, they weren't interested in you anyway.

    (3) Someone looking to 'hook-up' isn't interested in getting married.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  26. Aussie girl: “But where are the men who are willing to marry such a girl?

    Sorry to say this but, well, we’re not interested because the so called ‘grrrl power’ female of today is just so unattractive. Simple. I’m in my early thirties and I’ve dated a few of these already; to put it frankly, you can have all that and keep it. I won’t be touching it with a barge pole.

    Aussie girl: “ Where are the men who are willing to marry a girl who doesnt want a full on career and would rather be a stay at home mum?

    Right here sister!

    Aussie girl: “The thing is, if you are a traditionally minded girl you cannot just go around asking men out. You have to wait.

    You can thank your feminist liberators for castrating men today, and modern culture generally for producing a generation of infantilised men whe are far less likely to do what you’re expecting.

    Aussie girl: “Women are not the only problem here!

    On the contrary. It is women who set the agenda and kicked this puppy. Men court women and women reward what they deem appropriate behaviour by positive reinforcement. If you want to change that, become a vocal anti-feminist; if men do that, they get shot down. If you want to change the culture back to what it was, then you have to be the one to do it, just like your sisters were the ones who fanned the flames of revolution in the first place. Yes, it is women who are to blame. Thus, only you can change this.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Aussie girl in Australia said:

    "If someone mentioned to me that maybe I should think of marrying soon I'd get touchy too! How about offering to set your sister up with a good marriage minded man?"

    She is 26, 28 is not soon. I said it really nicely too. If we live in an anything goes culture doesn't family have some role in talking about possible good directions? Are we so touchy that we can't even mention this stuff?

    I have suggested kinds of guys to my sister but I think she might have to be willing to expand her circle just a little. Or at least consider doing do.

    You certainly can't afford to waste time with a non committal guy. You have to have the courage to say up frontish fairly soon that that is what you're looking for. I know girls sometimes find that awkward and guys don‘t always want to hear it. I would say though that it certainly is your right and must ultimately be your responsibility if you want marriage and children. I think almost everyone here would agree that men have a role to play in this. If they're just jerk offs who want to play the field and never settle down they're no good.

    Can't you meet men at church? Or at online dating cites? Just possible suggestions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As far as my sister goes, she only ever went for 'bad boy' types and was wholly uninterested in men who would make good marriage partners.
    As an Ulster Protestant girl, for her that meant (a) Catholic and (b) feckless.

    The Sicilian cook short-circuited her programming, because despite him being Catholic (sorry guys!) >:) and working-class, he was a pretty decent guy and very traditionalist in outlook. He evetually got sick of her though.

    I do think it is necessary for parents, and possibly siblings, to look out for potential marriage partners for children & fellow siblings. The abnegation of that responsibility, the whole 'find your own bliss' approach, is one reason for the mess we're in.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Where are the men who are willing to marry a girl who doesn't want a full on career and would rather be a stay at home mum?

    Aussie girl, I think I can explain. When third wave feminism hit Australia in the late 80s and early 90s, many women decided to do the "sex liberation" thing and defer marriage in favour of a party girl/career girl lifestyle.

    It left more traditional men with nothing to justify the sacrifices they were once called upon to make. A lot of men had to re-envisage their role in life and in relationships.

    Some men opted out. Others became players. But, logically enough, some thought that if they were no longer required to be breadwinners that they could aim at more creative jobs and lifestyles rather than slogging away at a more routine job.

    Then there's the extraordinary rise in the cost of housing in Australia. Some of those "men in the middle" who might once have been persuaded to do the breadwinning now rely on their wife's income to meet mortgage repayments.

    We're at an odd moment in time when the traditional family arrangement is under pressure from all sides.

    We have a section of the men's movement which now argues that men should give up the oppression of breadwinning in order to have more choice in their careers.

    And we have a women's movement which still believes that women are going to get power and status by taking over the kind of hard slogging jobs that breadwinning men once undertook for their families.

    It's led to some really unusual innovations in family life. There are women I know who work hard while their husbands do marginal arty types of work.

    One of these women is pregnant and can only afford to take a month off work when baby arrives but she really believes that it's progressive and superior for her to support her non-working husband who is studying in some arcane field.

    It strikes me as an African style arrangement in which men get it relatively easy while the women do a lot of the work. But the women don't see it that way ... yet.

    I can't see it lasting. What happens when women find out that slogging away at a breadwinning job doesn't bring you social power? And what happens when it no longer becomes a choice for women but a necessity, as men's identity becomes increasingly detached from breadwinning?

    I don't know for sure but I expect that women will at some point in time begin to reward rather than demonise the more traditional kind of men.

    Give it ten years.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm sorry Simon. We can't all find our own bliss or else we're doomed. And people consistently rate things like family and good character far higher than the giddiness of repetitive excitement. I feel bad that women feel they have to do that kind of stuff to be happy. My sister does want children she's just, obviously, touchy on this issue. I really don't think your sister is too old to settle down.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Aussie girl,

    Didn't mean to depress you. I do hope you meet someone who can support you to be a wife and mother. It's not an unreasonable desire on your part.

    Can I offer some advice? Be as proactive as you can at this time in your life. You may not be the one who does the asking out, but you can put yourself in a position to meet men and to make clear your interest.

    Also, it's reasonable at your age to be upfront about what your hopes in a relationship are.

    It's obviously not the first thing you blurt out. But it's normal for such things to come up in a discussion fairly soon.

    There were women I dated when I was in my early 30s (they were aged about 30) who let it be known that they had done the career thing and now wanted to move on to start families. They didn't say it in a desperate, bunny boiling way. It just came up in the conversation.

    I appreciated them being candid about this and because I wanted to start a family too it counted in their favour. And if I hadn't wanted to start a family and had reacted negatively, what would these women have lost out on anyway?

    Please persevere. It really is worth the effort in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks to all who answered me politely and helpfully. I guess I just get a little sick of hearing that "women" collectively are to blame for the state of the world. Feminists claimed to speak for all women but they didn't and they don't.
    I am a vocal anti-feminist. I have always been, even in my teenage years. I do not hook up or go out with guys who want to do that.

    I think this was a hard blog post to read on Valentines Day.

    Oh, and the kind of guy I want to ask me to marry him is a practicing Catholic, socially conservative and intelligent. Also a leader. A man who is not afraid to lead me with love. I man I can look up to. That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mark said:

    "I don't know for sure but I expect that women will at some point in time begin to reward rather than demonise the more traditional kind of men."

    If I can use my sister as an example again (and hope she's not reading this). She does have a boyfriend but she worries that he's not "strong" enough sometimes, (he's quite nice and also quite accommodating). Personally I wouldn't put up with my sister. I think she's great but also has a lot to learn. My sis is "fairly" typical of her generation. She's quite feisty, impressive, admired by men, but also fairly difficult at times and kind of unapologetically self centred. This last point is starting to get to her and she's beginning to realise she must change on that front.

    I think she's not entirely sure what to do. She wants a strong bloke (I think) but also wants to be her own woman. I'm not sure she knows how to go about it. In such an environment I think it can be easier to just chase the next distraction rather than make concrete decisions which was why I felt I should say something.

    If guys her age are kind of lame though I don't think its her fault and nor should she bear the responsibility. I think there are a few things going on here, looking at guys first.

    1. Yes girls can be tough on them and society often pays them off as not important.

    2. They are mothered an awful lot and maybe Dad should show more interest in them.

    3. There are truck loads of distractions for guys and so they don't always develop solid characters.

    4. In the modern world everyone is sort of "juvenilised" to a degree. There aren't hard and fast consequences, there are ways out of everything it seems.

    5. Peoples egos are out of control and their standards are very high. People want the "result" of a good partner rather than seriously trying to be a good person and in that way attract a good partner. Well at least that's what I think I guess.

    On the girls front its a bit harder for me. Here's a couple of guesses.

    1. They're princesses. Whatever they want they should have. It should come to them etc rather than them seriously putting in an effort for it. I'm sorry but I think throwing a serious tantrum because of a discussion about future marriage is a princess act.

    2. They are strongly pushed towards careers because of glamour, status, empowerment. The reality of a career, however, can be like Zoe Lewis realised, living close to the bread line in an uncertain area. Hello she's a writer for crying out loud. I'm not sure its something they're always prepared for. Guys may take pride in doing tough or unplesant jobs, maybe girls don't as much (I'm sure a leftie will step on me for that, eg sweatshops etc).

    3. It isn't easy, I think, for women in the career force because they're new at it. I can look to my Dad as a role model and back through the ages. My sister has my Mum who had a sort of low level career for most of her life and beyond that not too many examples apart from her peers.

    4. They are very touchy about things like looks. She's terrified about gaining weight or getting older.

    5. Yes they're given a script that says any time a guy doesn't do want they want they must be a bad guy. Eg I told her off so I'm a "psychopath". I don't think I am. I was hardly arranging a bride price.

    For both sexes morality has also been cheapened to a degree and its considered reasonable to act like a bastard to the opposite sex.

    Its interesting to know what the way forward should be. I do think an important way is to nurture the gender traits. These aren't always easy to fulfil, eg motherhood or being a tough/handy guy, but I think they're very satisfying when you can pull them off.

    A feminist reading this might say, "Why should she have to "adapt" to motherhood?" Well because that's the way the species/western culture will perpetuate.

    ReplyDelete
  34. When it comes to practical policies to enable traditional families I would have thought income splitting (Sharing one income amongst two so you'll be taxed at a lower rate) would have been screamingly obvious and should have been implemented by now.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jesse 7:
    "I really don't think your sister is too old to settle down."

    Yes, well she did just finally leave Koln, the Lesbian Capital of Germany (slim pickings there!), and move to Glasgow, Scotland. Who knows, she might find a decent guy there. She does maybe still have a couple years, if she puts on a little bit of weight (she's too thin) and gets her act together.

    I see how sad a friend of my wife's is. She's *extremely* successful - an executive for Apple - very presentable, but 39 and completely alone. Her desperation was palpable when we visited her in San Francisco 4 years ago. She had a live-in Chinese boyfriend for a while after that, but they broke up.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Aussie girl: "I think this was a hard blog post to read on Valentines Day."

    On reflection, my reply to you was probably a little harsh. I can see that we're both in the same boat, having had our culture assaulted by modernism. I feel for you that you are lonely on Valentine's Day. I sincerely hope that you find a man who honours you by providing the loving leadership you require in life. Stay strong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. For what it's worth, Jesse, I'd say you did the right thing. Sure, your sister reacted to you, but that's just because you struck a nerve. And that's a good thing: it means that she really does care about getting married, she probably, maybe unconsciously, has worried that she's still single, and your pointing it out embarrassed and panicked her. It was good medicine, and if she has any sense, she'll thank you for it later.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hey Australian girl and any other young ladies reading, I'm going to throw in my two cents and hope it helps:

    1. It isn't all women's fault. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that here anyway--we just get frustrated sometimes. We're men, which means we're supposed to be strong enough to deal with (normal) women. Women infected with feminism are a little more challenging ;)

    2. Stay in shape. Yep, it's awkward when you ask us out; in most cases, I wouldn't recommend it. But you can dramatically increase your chances that a guy will ask you out if you keep yourself fit. And I don't mean unreasonably skinny, etc. Just look normal. I'm amazed how many otherwise eligible girls are too overweight to consider. It's a shame.

    3.We're looking! I'm looking, I have friends who are looking. But the eligible women* I meet are leftist/non-Christian, overweight or already engaged. Had I started looking earlier, I probably wouldn't be in this predicament: I went to a leftist college very close to a Christian one with plenty of decent women and I could and should have looked there. Well, I've learned my lesson now.

    And then there's the other, sound advice everyone else mentioned: go to church regularly, make your intentions clear, etc.

    *"eligible" means women of my own background. I live in a very "enriched" part of town, which cuts down on the number I can consider. Another joy of diversity.

    ReplyDelete
  39. A question to everyone:

    Given that there are Zoe Lewis'/feminists who are now reconsidering their leftism, do you think it's worth the energy to ask a leftist out and try persuading her?

    I haven't so far because I normally consider non-Christianity a deal-breaker. And I've always thought evangelizing the date could be kind of awkward :).

    Is Zoe Lewis an argument to the contrary?

    ReplyDelete
  40. The fact of the matter is, they CAN have it all, but because they froze their social lives with men in the 20s, when they come back as 'degraded goods,' they cannot accept that their standards and expectations HAVE to be lowered. Add in the fact that many of these women are afraid to date 'within' their job CLASS, (not just the place they work, but the entire field is off putting to them) and this also lowers the potential mate field drastically. IF they weren't so selfish, immature, bitchy, demanding, and volatile, they COULD meet and marry many good men around their age limit, perhaps even with many similar interests! As much as they claim to admit it to themselves, in reality they never do, and still hold firm to impossible expectations. And hell, when they DO get the opportunity to marry, they tend to be just as afraid of commitment as the men.
    Because.
    They.
    Never.
    Fucking.
    Grew.
    Up.
    (I myself was dumped twice for 'posing the question,' both got the deer-in-the-headlight looks a man gets when he realises he has a shotgun marriage coming.)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Bartholomew,

    One problem with that option is that the change of heart often seems to come quite late, say mid-30s. It's risky for a man who wants a family to aim for women in that age bracket.

    Why not aim instead for a good-hearted, apolitical, non-practising but still formally believing kind of woman? Over time you could exert a positive influence on such a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Given that there are Zoe Lewis'/feminists who are now reconsidering their leftism, do you think it's worth the energy to ask a leftist out and try persuading her?

    Nah, you'll just wind up arguing about every other bloody thing. Most importantly you will be completely at odds over how the children should be raised and what attitudes the children should have.

    Pump-and-dump the Lefty girls, marry the Righty girls.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Given that there are Zoe Lewis'/feminists who are now reconsidering their leftism, do you think it's worth the energy to ask a leftist out and try persuading her?"

    I'm not sure. Certainly as Mark said you don't want it to go on too long if it isn't going to be successful. Also laying it out straight away is a bit crass. You could be friendly with her first and see how it goes? If you're politics aren't that incompatible you might get on.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon:
    "Pump-and-dump the Lefty girls, marry the Righty girls."

    Hmm, it's not just women who can get shop-soiled, you know! A nice 'Righty' girl may not think too much of a pump-n-dump merchant.

    Personally, I am overall fairly happy that my wife is my first & only. Not saying that's for everyone, but I would advise against serious promiscuity whether you're a man or a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Then there's the extraordinary rise in the cost of housing in Australia. Some of those "men in the middle" who might once have been persuaded to do the breadwinning now rely on their wife's income to meet mortgage repayments."

    Ironically, it was actually easier 40 years ago to 'recreate' yourself than it is in today's supposedly more liberal times.

    Since housing was cheaper and people didn't take out loans for education or use credit cards, they weren't left with a heavy financial burden bearing down on them, hence they could make a quick decision to start taking life seriously, get a regular job and make themselves a viable marriage partner.

    By contrast people today are prisoner's of their bad mistakes in the past. For example, if you've gone to university but haven't scored a degree related job after several years (which I did) you've effectively taken yourself out of the marriage market, since you have unpaid debts yet are only pulling in a low-level wage.

    This applies to both sexes. An indebted woman for example, can't suddenly just decide to be housewife as she has to pay off her debts before she can make herself a desirable partner.

    However, it's very difficult not to get into debt when you are young since those who use loans to splash out of clothes, cars and partying are much more appealing to the opposite sex than the sensible and frugal.

    The liberal idea of recreating yourself had a short window of opportunity (the 60s and 70s)and is now only a viable option for the highly capable, talented and/or well-connected. The baby boomers who enjoyed it pretty much closed it off once they realised that it wasn't finanically possible to extent it succeeding generations and the lower middle class.

    As far as getting educated, upper middle class women to marry earlier and have kids, we need to stop preaching about the blank slate in schools and universities. Intelligent women need to be told up front that they have a responsibilty to get married and have smart kids to carry society forward into the future.

    At the moment they are spending too much educating less intelligent women's kids in the mistaken people they can be taught to do the jobs than only genetically smart, and well-raised kids can do.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mr. Richardson wrote,

    "One problem with that option is that the change of heart often seems to come quite late, say mid-30s."

    Good point, and I think the answer to my question.

    I wonder if this means that Zoe Lewis' awakening is a function of age, rather than an ideological shift?

    I mean, if it were the result of an ideological shift, then we should see more young feminist women forsaking the sisterhood and looking to marry, settle down and have children. But since it's still too much of a gamble to count on that from the average leftist woman, then maybe it's still too early to declare feminism on the decline.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I basically don't even try looking at university anymore (a sandstone institution, I'm in the law faculty). The prevailing orthodoxy here is left-liberalism; even if there are non-political, traditional girls around the atmosphere basically makes one feel very awkward for not subscribing to the dominant politics. Apart from church I can't think of too many other places to consider

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hmm, it's not just women who can get shop-soiled, you know! A nice 'Righty' girl may not think too much of a pump-n-dump merchant.

    Classic beta thinking. The situations are not symmetrical. Sexual experience increases a man's value, and decreases a woman's value.

    Nobody says you've got to tell her exactly how many belt notches you have. Just let your manly confidence speak for itself, and she'll be perfectly happy.

    An indebted woman for example, can't suddenly just decide to be housewife as she has to pay off her debts before she can make herself a desirable partner.

    Heh. Plenty of women I knew in grad school openly said, "my husband will pay off my student loans", and "the man I marry must make enough by himself to support us both."

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anon:
    "Classic beta thinking. The situations are not symmetrical. Sexual experience increases a man's value, and decreases a woman's value."

    I reject your silly PUA definition of Beta. >:)

    Lots of sexual experience may increase a man's value _for sex_. Doesn't necessarily signal that he's good marriage material, which is what we're talking about. Maybe Katy Perry believes that she's alluring enough to keep Russell Brand permanently in check, but most women of good character have a more realistic view of their prospects.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I think Mike Courtman has made some pretty heavy points. I don't meant that as a pejorative. I'll be cracking my economics books.

    George said:

    "even if there are non-political, traditional girls around the atmosphere basically makes one feel very awkward for not subscribing to the dominant politics."

    I'm not sure what the best solution to that is. I'm lucky I'm in the Army often and the prevailing attitude there is much more conservative. I'm also a bit of a snob so I like/liked uni, even if my thinking wasn't dominant. Every once in a while you'd get some proper teaching and it was really fun.

    I remember once I was enrolled in a course called "Law Reform", which as it turned out was a left wing course, how the law should be changed to be more left wing etc. There was enough scope, however, in the course for you to do your own thing and choose your own essay topics. At the start of the course the lecturer went on about why he was interested in law reform. How when he was a student during the Vietnam war he thought the war was wrong and conscription should have been abolished. He was so adamant and forceful about it that it began to be inappropriate and I started to feel irritated.

    We were then each given our turn to talk about why we were interested in law reform. The "usual suspects" answer was given by most students, how the law could be changed to better serve the environment, be more inclusive etc. When it got to me I said that I'm an Army Reservist, with mates in Afghanistan and when they get back its only fair that they return to the most efficient and effective legal system achievable. Then I proceeded to lock him with a death stare. The bloke was a barrister and really didn't like to be challenged. We eyed each other off for several seconds, both pissed, before he backed down. Why was that? Because I wasn't actually being inappropriate and he realised he was. Uni is actually a place, supposed to be a place, of learning not indoctrination. You can remind these guys of that once in a while and its fun, because they do sometimes forget.

    ReplyDelete
  51. A little off the point of feminism but I couldn't help myself.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Lots of sexual experience may increase a man's value _for sex_. Doesn't necessarily signal that he's good marriage material, which is what we're talking about.

    Again you're getting it exactly backwards. It is women whose value for relationships and marriage is diminished by excessive sexual experience, not men.

    I understand why, as a person with limited experience, you have to think what you think, but I suggest your opinion is not fully informed. =)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anon:
    "I understand why, as a person with limited experience, you have to think what you think, but I suggest your opinion is not fully informed. =)"

    Heh heh heh. Damn Roissyites everywhere these days!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Mark Richardson referred to...
    It strikes me as an African style arrangement in which men get it relatively easy while the women do a lot of the work.

    I'm wondering where you came by this impression.

    I know there are "studies" based in African communities where these sorts of observations are made. Some of the more feminist inclined accuse the men of "lying around doing nothing".

    What they don't tell us is that the men in those communities are generally not able bodied. The men and many of the boys in those hugely disadvantaged communities go, either voluntarily or by compulsion, to where there is work. The men remaining in the communities are elderly or disabled, often by the work - or even war - they've been forced to do. Their reward is to be stigmatised and portrayed to the world as useless layabouts.

    The end game in this nasty little political process over time is exemplified in the denial of food aid to Haitian men by official aid agencies. We can expect more of this now that we've been softened up to it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "I know there are "studies" based in African communities where these sorts of observations are made. Some of the more feminist inclined accuse the men of "lying around doing nothing"."

    There was a similar perception in the Solomon Islands. Women do all the work etc men do nothing. There certainly is women's and men's work. Women's includes cleaning, food preperation etc. In a developing country that can be a demanding task. Whilst the men don't do nothing, they build houses, labour and hunt, their work is less continuous than the women and they have more free time in the public spaces.

    I think the issue is exaggerated by feminists but it isn't totally without foundation. It may be different in Africa where as you say many people have to travel for work.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Again you're getting it exactly backwards. It is women whose value for relationships and marriage is diminished by excessive sexual experience, not men.
    -----
    I wouldn't marry a male practioner of the double standard you advocate, simply because of the prevalence of STDs, many of which are life-threatening. Farah Fawcett for example died of anal cancer caused by HPV at only 61. HPV also causes infertility in women.

    Once word gets around about the life-threatening dangers of HPV young women won't go for the STD vectors anymore than young men.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Heh heh heh. Damn Roissyites everywhere these days!
    ---
    This hypocritical kind of thinking is one of the main reasons why feminism arose in the first place. If you men want to get rid of the excesses of feminism you have to bend on something, like the hypocritical double sexual standard advocated by the Roissyites and "traditional" morality.

    And to the anonymous Roissyite who advocates hiding your sexual past from your "pure" wife after "pumping and dumping" what happens if she finds out (as she likely will)? If she's a religious girl, more likely she'll dump YOU.

    In Puritan America BOTH the men and the women who transgressed had to wear the red "A". It doesn't seem to have slowed down their civilization one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Gwallan, yes I've probably been unfair to large numbers of African men in throwing in the term "African style arrangement".

    I did so because it's often said that African men follow a different reproductive strategy to men elsewhere. Whereas other men tend to mate with a small number of women but make a large investment in raising their offspring to successful adulthood, African men seek to mate with a larger number of women but without the paternal investment.

    This is a pattern we do see amongst African men living in the West. The more promiscuous pattern of African men is also suggested by high rates of HIV in many sub-Saharan African countries.

    Nonetheless, I threw in the term "African style arrangement" without a strong knowledge of patterns of family life in Africa. I'm sure there are many men there who do make considerable sacrifices for their families. It's something I need to look into a bit more.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Regarding the discussion of Roissyism in some of the above comments.

    There are many reasons for men to avoid sexual promiscuity. But impressing women is not one of them.

    One of the psychological insights that gamists have is that women see the success men have with other women as a marker of status.

    So it pays in your interaction with women to play up the level of interest other women have in you.

    I don't think it would be wise early on to come across as a man who hasn't had a relationship in a long time.

    I'm not siding with Roissyism in a general sense here - from what I can see the Roissyites don't often end up in successful marriages and what they advocate is adaptation to social decline rather than a more positive attempt to set things right.

    ReplyDelete
  60. What precisely is Roissyism, a sex club? (Haha sorry to jump in on this one).

    ReplyDelete
  61. There are many reasons for men to avoid sexual promiscuity. But impressing women is not one of them.

    I'm not siding with Roissyism in a general sense here--
    ---
    The sexual double standard pushed me toward feminism and many other women I know. It is not an invalid criticism. The unfairness of the sexual double standard makes women very, very angry. Even Queen Victoria, who was no feminist, wrote about it with anger in her diaries more than 130 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  62. What precisely is Roissyism, a sex club?
    ---
    The followers of a deeply misogynist, nasty and hateful whoremonger who have infested many otherwise respectable blogs. "Traditionalists" like his anti-feminism and excuse his whoremongering and his woman-hating because they see him as an ally.

    I am a poltically conservative woman who used to have leanings toward traditionalism, but was cured of them after I saw how people like Mark were partnering up with him and his deeply misogynist followers and ideas. The anonymous Roissy commentator here who sneered at "beta" behavior (i.e. a happily married man who was proud of his chasteness before marriage) is agood example of their mindsent. They hate all women, especially older and educated women, and they respect only accomplished whoremongers among men.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I don't see why at 37 she can't find a guy.

    ---

    One can marry at 37 quite easily. I agree that her self-centeredness is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "She could have done things differently. If she had aimed to marry well in her 20s, she might have had a husband to help support her literary aims - as well as a more fulfilled personal life."
    ---
    Where are those men who would have helped support her literary aims? Isn't that a horrible "feminist" idea? Aren't women just supposed to bear children and concentrate on the domestic arts, and forget all that folderol about trying to "have it all?"

    If she has any talent at all, but had followed the course of wife and motherhood, she would have likely been writing the same column 10 years later, but in the opposite direction. "I wish I had followed my dreams, I had so much talent."

    I am a writer and artist myself, as well as a wife and mother. The course of women who've been cursed with talent and brains is not an easy one, even with the gains of feminism. What is your solution to this dilemma, besides just telling women to forget about it all?

    ReplyDelete
  65. "I understand why, as a person with limited experience, you have to think what you think, but I suggest your opinion is not fully informed. =)"

    ---
    Note to the anonymous Roissyite whoremonger: he is apparently quite happy with his life choices and his marriage and his child. You are not superior to him in any way because you have more "notches" on your bedpost and advocate "pumping and dumping" women you consider to be subhuman. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous wrote,

    "I am a poltically conservative woman who used to have leanings toward traditionalism, but was cured of them after I saw how people like Mark were partnering up with him and his deeply misogynist followers and ideas."

    This is false. Mr. Richardson has never expressed sympathy for Roissy and his ilk. He has expressed sympathy for the reasons young men believe Roissy's garbage. And he's done a great job separating Roissy's often correct observations from his wholly false and evil applications.

    You call yourself a conservative woman, but you are contemptuous of traditional relations between men and women? What, precisely, do you imagine you're conserving?

    And do you seriously imagine that traditional men are Roissyites? Really? Traditional, conservative Christian men are misogynistic, abusive, serial players? Huh?

    Tell me, who is more likely to "pump and dump": the average frat boy at liberal State U. or a Southern Baptist farmer's son?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I saw a friend reading the book "The Game" and I exclaimed:

    "Not the Game! I hate that stuff".

    He replied,

    "Don't worry mate, you'll get to read it after me".

    ... And I probably will.

    The Game pushes a highly noisome ideology. Maleness is defined by "notches" as was mentioned, and successes with otherwise ungettable women. Respectable maleness has historically never rested on such a narrow basis and its an embarrassing diminution to see it defined as such. As a result the people who seriously buy into this are usually IT nerds or chronically vain goons.

    Periods of history when sex was defined as an end in itself were times of luxurious self indulgence. Sodom, Imperial Rome, Aristocratic France before the Revolution, are all periods notable for their decline.

    But ... If women are going to play "next to impossible" to get and keep then its only natural guys will pick this stuff up. You can hardly expect men to be the hapless sucker who is picked and discarded at whim and who lives only to please his partner. The payoff being close proximity to this wonderful thing called woman.

    If you don't mind me saying by the way its good to see another woman's point of view on the site.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Note to the anonymous Roissyite whoremonger: he is apparently quite happy with his life choices and his marriage and his child. You are not superior to him in any way because you have more "notches" on your bedpost and advocate "pumping and dumping" women you consider to be subhuman. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Note to the Vitriolic Virago: I am certainly superior to him in one way - sexual experience - and it was not a personal attack on him to assert that my greater experience leads me to different conclusions about women than his lesser experience. I am sure that Simon is happy with his choices, and I did not wish him otherwise.

    Arguing that men and women obtain their sexual market value in a symmetrical way and from the same factors is manifestly false. It is not hateful to make such an observation, which is easily validated by logic and common sense. I note that you do not attempt to refute this logically, but simply spew highly emotional shaming language. Women are accustomed to "winning" arguments in this fashion, but you can't convince any rational man of the validity of your views with such a childish diatribe.

    I say that a Right-wing man should date Left-wing women, but never marry them. A Right-wing man should only marry a Right-wing woman. This is totally defensible morally. I did not "hate" any of the Lefty women I dated, or consider them subhuman, or I wouldn't have dated them. I liked them very well indeed - but I never would have married them. A man can date any woman he likes without intending to marry her, and it doesn't make him a "Roissyite whoremonger" if he does so.

    By the way, I thank you for the flattery, but I am nowhere near in Roissy's league.

    To the other anon:

    And to the anonymous Roissyite who advocates hiding your sexual past from your "pure" wife after "pumping and dumping" what happens if she finds out (as she likely will)? If she's a religious girl, more likely she'll dump YOU.

    She won't find out exactly how many women you've dated - hell, I don't know myself - all she will know is you are "very experienced". If she is uncomfortable with this, then she will break off the relationship long before it gets to the point of marriage. My experience, however, is that inexperienced women are not at all uncomfortable with a very experienced man. All women, everywhere, admire strength and confidence, it's just that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Let's talk double standards. If a guy dumps a woman, what is he? A bastard. If a woman dumps a man, what is she? Empowered, clearly he had it coming.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The sexual double standard pushed me toward feminism ... The unfairness of the sexual double standard makes women very, very angry.

    But the only reason that feminists don't like the sexual double standard is that it interferes with women choosing to sleep around. Feminists want women to be able to sleep around without any negative effect on their reputation.

    To put this another way, feminists want women to be free to be equally promiscuous not equally chaste.

    And when it comes to marriage is there really a sexual double standard? The expectation is that both the husband and the wife will be monogamous. Some people might not live up to the standard, but the standard itself does not permit men anything more than it permits women.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Mr. Richardson has never expressed sympathy for Roissy and his ilk. He has expressed sympathy for the reasons young men believe Roissy's garbage.

    Bartholomew, thank you. That's pretty much it.

    The Roissyites take the position that relationships between the sexes have gone to hell, that they're not going to get better and so the only thing to do is to accept social decline and adapt to it as an individual.

    Traditionalists do not adapt to social decline. We actively oppose it.

    So we're not in the same army.

    However, the Roissyites have made a serious effort to understand female sexuality. Some of their observations will strike many men who have lived through modern dating conditions as true - which is one reason why the Roissyite sites have a large readership.

    I don't think we'll appeal to young men unless we recognise the difficulties that exist in the dating field today and have a realistic assessment of what really drives women in partner selection.

    At the same time, we can do better than the Roissyites by offering a vision of something more than casual sex to men; most men do want love, marriage and fatherhood and the Roissyites are too jaded to keep these seriously in view.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Lets put it another way. Your average bloke hears messages of female "empowerment" everywhere. He will then see something like the Game and say, "oh wait a minute this is male "empowerment" I want some of that too". So he picks it up and before you know it its "look how many girls I've got, aren't I awesome. Oh look she’s crying, haha".

    I really don't think conservatism is about male empowerment and so I don't have much time for the bloody game or that nonsense.

    What's the best way forward? I can't say I'm really sure. If women jump on men with self righteous fury every time they see a failing or weakness, perceived or real, we're going to be at each other's throats. If men see women as nothing but a resource to build up their experience on, I'm not entirely sure that's better. At the very least the girls should know what they're getting into.

    I will say right know I'm not sure what the best way forward is.

    ReplyDelete
  73. No problem, Mr. Richardson.

    Also, you wrote,

    "To put this another way, feminists want women to be free to be equally promiscuous not equally chaste."

    Very true. In class yesterday, I saw the background shot of a female classmate's laptop: an almost nude male pinup.

    I wonder what my mostly female classmates would think if I made an almost nude female pinup the background of my laptop? Talk about double standards, huh?

    Jesse wrote,

    "I will say right know I'm not sure what the best way forward is."

    Right, and when you see young women like my classmate who are still claiming their "right" to sexual promiscuity, you wonder if it really is getting any better. On the other hand, she's the only one I've seen do something that unwomanly.

    And hey, Anonymous "Conservative" Woman, if you're still reading: do you know what the really ironic thing about this is?

    If feminists or just a sound majority of young women today would become wholesome women again, the Roissyites would melt away into a handful of batchelor libertines.

    Even Roissyite Whoremonger doesn't advocate treating Right-wing women like trash--did you happen to notice that? Why? Because he knows they won't put up with it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Just a comment about how Roissyites "hate" women. The fact of the matter is that genuine hatred of women is the hallmark of the beta, who is not successful with women, not the alpha, who is successful with women. In its most extreme form, beta bitterness at women manifests itself in a Sodini-style rampage.

    If you are truly bitter and hateful, this is very difficult to hide, and these traits will necessarily impede your success with women. There is positive feedback in both directions: success breeds happiness and confidence, which breed more success. Failure breeds bitterness and self-pity, which breeds more failure.

    Action Agenda for Women: Ladies, if you want fewer bitter, angry misogynists in the world, give the poor betas the positive experiences with women they crave. Won't you please help by banging a beta today?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Thanks Bartholomew.

    Just to elaborate my point a little, Aussie girl in Australia, I think a fairly typical example of a conservatively oriented young lady, said she was looking for a guy who was strong, a leader and would inspire her. That sounds great (I wouldn't mind one of those myself ;-)). But what if the guy is only ok or pretty good, strong in certain areas whilst weaker in others. In other words something approaching a normal human being. Should such a guy become undateable? Its great to set high standards for guys but if they don't quite reach them is that grounds for dismissal?

    If conservative women are looking for super strong guys or at least highly devoted guys, whilst left leaning women are looking for guys who are not too strong to dominate them, ie let them live their lives however they wish, and also not too weak to be unexciting or easily pushed over ie an attractive, reliable, background guy. Can I ask where does that leave the rest of us? The guys not quite willing to be doormats and not quite strong enough to be superdudes. Is everyone to become bachelors and single women because we can't bring ourselves to "settle" for less than our ideal?

    Its one thing for a woman to say "I expect this or that" from her partner, but isn't it the case that if a guy says something similar he's considered to be an intolerable and demanding bastard. Forcing women to meet ideals/stereotypes etc.

    I'm all for setting high personal standards and hoping for the best from others but when we demand excellence in others and then berate them subtly or openly if they don‘t meet them, aren't we in practise acting very threateningly to the opp sex? Which can in turn partially explain the venom in people's modern relations?

    I’m not saying the old days were always amazing but there was then a strong social pressure to marry. That would then force people to look for the best in others rather than endlessly focusing on any weaknesses. Well that was the case to a degree at least.

    One more thing. I wouldn’t mind if at the end of a day I could flex out and not have to worry about how I’m perceived by my partner. Not have to entertain, inspire her etc her at the risk of being dropped if I didn‘t. Maybe even let her take care of me once in a while ;-). What?! What?! What?! I hear the argument being raised, men have always been taken care of by women! Well to a degree and vice versa also I’d hope I could add.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Thanks RW I think you just made my point. Those poor sucker betas need charity, or at least to politely just disappear. Leave more free space for the Alpha's huh.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I guess should an Alpha be dumped in an unpleast way, which would then lead to "bitterness", he'd be demoted to a beta.

    ReplyDelete
  78. t left leaning women are looking for guys who are not too strong to dominate them

    Oh, but they are!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anon:
    "The followers of a deeply misogynist, nasty and hateful whoremonger who have infested many otherwise respectable blogs. "Traditionalists" like his anti-feminism and excuse his whoremongering and his woman-hating because they see him as an ally.

    I am a poltically conservative woman who used to have leanings toward traditionalism, but was cured of them after I saw how people like Mark were partnering up with him and his deeply misogynist followers and ideas."

    Well, you can be like me and take a traditionalist outlook while disliking the Roissyites - I think the two views are highly compatible! Roissyism is Pick Up Artist technique aimed at bedding large numbers of single, mostly professional, mostly promiscuous, and mostly left-leaning young women. It's deception technique and is not really aimed at creating the foundation for a stable relationship, never mind marriage and parenting.

    I'm certainly not denying that having lots of experience bedding women, makes a man good at bedding women. Women respond favourably to self confidence (as well as lots of other status markers), and young men without sexual experience often appear non-confident. But women do also pick up on the 'Lothario' vibe - if they're looking for random sex, that may be A-ok with them. If they're looking for a life partner, then no.

    Promiscuous men, like promiscuous women, acquire a 'hard' patina, a kind of shell. Even leaving aside STDs, exes, and other hazards, they do get 'used up'. They do become less suitable as marriage material. Of course, getting all bitter and twisted because you can't get a date can have a similar effect! But that doesn't make my assertion untrue.

    As for myself, I don't think that only having had one sexual partner makes me more attractive to women. I have a pretty good idea what does make me attractive to women and why they sometimes hit on me - it's not my awesome good looks, either. :)

    ReplyDelete
  80. Roissyism is Pick Up Artist technique aimed at bedding large numbers of single, mostly professional, mostly promiscuous, and mostly left-leaning young women. It's deception technique and is not really aimed at creating the foundation for a stable relationship, never mind marriage and parenting.

    Roissy has a post about "deception" (i.e. lying). What he says is as follows:

    "While I have no abstract moral hang-up about lying I don’t recommend it as a seduction tool for three reasons.

    * It’s weak game

    Lying is the cut & paste, band-aid version of game. It’s quick and dirty and often effective, but won’t last. It has no roots, no foundation. It’s better to spend the effort to learn good solid game that will be there for you in any situation than to use the crutch of weak game where you have to waste energy keeping track of all your lies. You will feel a greater sense of accomplishment winning over a woman without resorting to outright lies and this will redound to your self-confidence.

    * It complicates the pursuit of long term relationships

    Lies work well for one night stands and even short term flings if the guy doesn’t contradict himself. But long term relationships — the ones where you go shopping for a condo together or she visits you at the office to drop off your lunch — will crumble under an edifice of lies. If you work at Taco Bell she’ll find out eventually. False advertising moves product only up until the first recall. So if you are looking for lasting love it pays to resist the temptation to lie away perceived flaws.

    * Lying is self-reinforcing

    The big problem with lying is that once you start, you can’t stop. One lie requires two more to sustain, and two lies requires four. You will soon find yourself mired in a fantasy world of talented Mr. Ripley proportions (which isn’t so bad if you have his skills of deception) that will kill any chance at a healthy relationship unless the girl is a complete masochist for your lying bad ass. (Those girls do exist.) Plus, lying encourages reliance on other bad habits to seduce a woman. If you lie to attract a woman then other parts of your game are likely to be equally sloppy."

    ReplyDelete
  81. Lying is, of course, not the only sort of deception. PUA technique per Roissy seems based on the idea of projecting yourself to the target as appearing to be something you don't actually feel yourself to be; ie it's deception technique.

    I guess one could be kind and regard it as a sort of role-play that both parties voluntarily buy into for mutual benefit. The girl who goes home with the computer nerd pretending to be a Roissy-'Alpha' is a lot safer, and will probably be a lot happier, than the girl who goes home with an actual gangsta or somesuch.

    And Roissy's warning against bare-faced lying is of course a sensible admonition.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Roissy seems based on the idea of projecting yourself to the target as appearing to be something you don't actually feel yourself to be"

    I have my doubts that you can successfully pretend to be strong and confident. You can't just "appear" to have alpha attitudes - unless you actually have alpha attitudes, it isn't going to work. There is nothing wrong, or deceptive, about advising men to change their mental attitude in order to be more successful with women. I wish I'd had that advice at an early age myself!

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous quoted Roissey as saying:

    "While I have no abstract moral hang-up about lying I don’t recommend it as a seduction tool for three reasons."

    So lying is impractical but not wrong? I guess if it became more practical go ahead mate.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous said:

    "There is nothing wrong, or deceptive, about advising men to change their mental attitude in order to be more successful with women. I wish I'd had that advice at an early age myself!"

    I agree with that but part of the issue here is how you define success. I don't think too many people on the Roissey site will say "Hey guys look at how happily married I am". As opposed to, "Look at what a bombshell wife/bird I managed to pick up" etc.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous said:

    "I have my doubts that you can successfully pretend to be strong and confident. You can't just "appear" to have alpha attitudes - unless you actually have alpha attitudes, it isn't going to work."

    But then why go on the site? If you're allready an Alpha bloke, not just appearing to be one, whats the benefit of going on such a site? Recognition of how good you are? Also doesn't the idea of "learning" Alpha attributes somewhat undermine Alapha status? Surely its more prestigious if Alpha attributes are innate and then every Tom, Dick and Harry couldn't have them. That view would undermine the sales pitch somewhat though, "Come and learn about something you can't get unless you allready got it". I suppose you could say you're learning about your innate abilites, but then what does that even mean? There's an Einstein/Cassanova lurking in everyone you just have to pull it out?

    "There is nothing wrong, or deceptive, about advising men to change their mental attitude in order to be more successful with women."

    But what do these attitudes translate to? "Don't be too nice", "Don't hesitate", "Go in for the kill", "Don't let women set the agenda" etc. Push, dominate, control. Works better for a quick pickup rather than a lasting relationship.

    If the issue is just about improving Men's confidence that's fine. But if its bolstering egos in idiotic ways and crapping on women, "Oh but they like it!", its not so good is it.

    ReplyDelete
  86. So anyway I was talking to my 26 year old sister the older day and said as politely as I could that it might be a good idea if she was married by 28. I have a very good relationship with my sister but she didn't take it very well. She was very offended.

    Jesse, I'd be happy to educate your sister on this matter. :)

    As a 42yo single mother, I'm in the unenviable position of knowing where the Zoe Lewis' of the world are.

    The bottom line is that your sister doesn't have the rest of her life to sort things out. She's got 10 years max.

    All those wonderful things that girls are taught at school about chasing your dreams are fine, but they aren't told that there are sacrifices to be made.

    Funny how that little caveat never seems to be publicized.

    If she wants to wait around for Mr.Right, she'll be waiting a long time.

    I suspect that underneath she's already worried about the bio clock running out in a few more years and being left on the shelf.

    Having your brother rub your nose in it isn't pleasant, I reckon.

    That sort of thing belongs under the Cone of Silence, and shouldn't be discussed in public.

    Your suggestion is spot on, btw. :)

    ReplyDelete
  87. ”I suspect that underneath she's already worried about the bio clock running out in a few more years and being left on the shelf.

    Having your brother rub your nose in it isn't pleasant, I reckon.“

    Lol I wasn't trying to rub her nose in it, just get the issue out there. I certainly was not bragging, I want my sister to be married and happy. She was very touchy because as you say it is a concern for her but also because she'd had a fight with her boyfriend that day.

    Things are all good ;) everythings calmed down. Thanks for your comment!

    ReplyDelete
  88. Jesse 7

    To clarify - I do not expect a super man. Of course nobody can be strong all the time. And I am more than happy to look after my future husband any way I can.
    But what I am refering to I suppose is the sort of men who are weak and need to be mothered through life. I had a bf like that when I was very young, who was hopeless in every part of his life. He was so weak he couldn't even stand up for me when his mate was rude to my face. He wanted to but was afraid his mate wouldn't like him any more. I remember my Dad told me "you need a man you can look up to."
    I don't expect a man to be entertaining me all the time. But I would like to know that when the chips are down, he's the sort of guy you want around.

    ReplyDelete
  89. That's allright Aussie girl, sorry for that.

    ReplyDelete
  90. aussie girl:
    "He was so weak he couldn't even stand up for me when his mate was rude to my face. He wanted to but was afraid his mate wouldn't like him any more."

    That doesn't sound very good.

    I had sort of the opposite problem a while back. My wife is a strong, fairly aggressive, woman and she started shouting at a man, a tough looking cockney geezer in suit type, she was accusing of stealing her parking space. I had to take charge and tell *her* firmly to GET IN THE HOUSE. She grumbled, but obeyed. Later on she accused me of being 'weak' for not 'being on her side'. I explained that it was not something worth getting into a violent physical confrontation about, and that was my priority.

    If the guy had verbally abused/attacked _her_ it would have been different, but in this situation the priority for me was to be 'strong' - by taking charge of _her_, and stopping her hot temper from getting us into trouble over nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Simon

    That does not sound good either! In my case I had done nothing offensive. Just be brought where I apparently was not wanted.
    In your case, well I don't think you need to stand up for your wife when she behaves that way. She actually shamed herself and you by behaving that way. I have been put in my place firmly by a close male friend before and while it upset me at the time I must confess, I never had more respect for a man other than my father. He told me what was good for me and what was right and was not afraid of my emotional behavior.

    Jesse_7 - no hard feelings. Thanks for being so respectful. I certainly understand why men can feel frustrated by the state of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  92. This is sad, I am the daughter of a single mother by choice and I've suffered the consequences of my mother having a similar mentality. My mother was a financially sound woman and she was a great mother who gave me everything, nevertheless I was scarred my whole life because I don't and will never know who my father is. If these women would know all the pain and the identity crisis that the donor concieved child of a single woman goes through, I think they will work more on settleling down. I've had trouble in all my relationships because of growing up in a single parent home and I've had to spent most of my life dealing with the issues product of it. Just like the majority of single mothers, I doubt a lot that she will find a man later on because most men with serious intentention won't date a woman who had a children like this for obvious reasons. I feel bad for her daughter because I know what she will have to go through.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hi Anonymous,

    Its not an easy issue and I understand its not easy growing up without a Dad. If you don't mind me saying all the best and big hugs.

    ReplyDelete
  94. As a woman over 50, I have to defend the feminists. I came from a two-parent household: my father worked 60 hours a week, and then, in his spare time, served as a volunteer deputy sheriff. He was also a womanizer. When I was 12, he divorced my Mom for another woman. While he lived with us, he supported the family, which, of course, was very good, but he was not at all interested in his children. My Mom was a stay-at-home mom until the divorce. During the stay-at-home period, she cleaned and gardened all day long, but not in a good way. More in an obsessive-compulsive-toothbrush to clean the floor way. Maybe too many television commercials defining her worth by how twinkly the linoleum shone? There was definitely some kind of pathology going on there with the housekeeping.

    Feminists have not honored the roles of mother and wife: it's true. And, perhaps they promised that women could have it all. But to assume that all was bread and roses prior to feminism is just wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Surprise,

    We are all guilty at times of basing our political views on our own personal circumstances.

    And that's clearly a problem with your comment. It sounds like there was a problem with the marriage of your parents - but that doesn't mean that we should give up distinct roles for men and women as fathers and mothers.

    Nor does it mean that anything feminism has to offer will make people less fallible - feminism hasn't, for instance, increased the percentage of families with an active father but greatly decreased it.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.