It's a dressed up version of an old argument: that young men are not what their fathers were; that they aren't accepting adult responsibilities; and that they are forcing young women to give up in disgust on the idea of marriage and to turn to sperm banks.
What has brought this about? Part of her argument is that the modern knowledge economy forces young people to extend their educations and to travel around the country, thereby delaying the opportunity to settle down.
But she hints too that the modern ideal of self-defining autonomy leads people to favour solo career pursuits rather than family commitments:
They write their own biographies, and they do it from scratch. Sociologists use the term "life script" to describe a particular society's ordering of life's large events and stages. Though such scripts vary across cultures, the archetypal plot is deeply rooted in our biological nature ... For women, the central task usually involved the day-to-day rearing of the next generation; for men, it involved protecting and providing for their wives and children. If you followed the script, you became an adult, a temporary custodian of the social order until your own old age and demise.
Unlike adolescents, however, pre-adults don't know what is supposed to come next. For them, marriage and parenthood come in many forms, or can be skipped altogether...
Given the rigors of contemporary career-building, pre-adults who do marry and start families do so later than ever before in human history. Husbands, wives and children are a drag on the footloose life required for the early career track and identity search.
That's liberal culture for you: family roles are downgraded and delayed as being a "biological destiny" whilst priority is given to a self-authored identity connected to careers.
Hymowitz then argues that without a commitment to family, young men lack depth:
What explains this puerile shallowness? I see it as an expression of our cultural uncertainty about the social role of men. It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.
She finishes on this note:
Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men's attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There's nothing they have to do.
They might as well just have another beer.
Some of this she gets right. She's right that 20-something women are increasingly doing better than men in jobs and education. She's right that the focus on self-defining autonomy leads to a delay in family formation. She's right that modern society has left men without the family responsibilities that might encourage a commitment to more adult concerns in life.
But she still gets it mostly wrong. I was there when the changes started to kick in. My generation of men still expected to go to uni and then soon after get a job and marry. That was still the "life script". So why did it change?
It wasn't significantly because the economy required us to spend extra time at university or to travel around. That wasn't the issue we faced. The problem was that women had changed. They had been raised to put careers and independence first. Marriage and children were a long way down the female checklist - there was a time when many university women might have answered that such matters were to be left to their late 30s.
So men weren't required as husbands and fathers until some impossibly late stage in life. Furthermore, if marriage were to be deferred that long, then women didn't have to select for family men. They could let rip a preference for bad boys or have flings with unsuitable men or reject decent men because they weren't ready for stable commitments yet.
The truth is that if women in the 1980s and 1990s had selected for traditionally masculine qualities, then that's what would have remained dominant within male culture.
It's probably the case, even today, that if the majority of women selected for depth of character in men then that's what men would be encouraged to adapt to.
My criticism of Kay Hymowitz, therefore, is that she prefers to explain the changes she discusses as being the result of impersonal economic forces rather than the deliberate efforts of feminists and liberals and that she overlooks the role of women, particularly in what women select for in men, in changing the male culture.
I'd also take exception to her claim that:
husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete
If husbands and fathers are optional to any degree at all it's because the state has stepped in to artificially create this situation. And, anyway, few middle-class women want to raise children alone through a sperm donation.
Nor are the masculine virtues obsolete. If a man wants to succeed in his career and in his family life, he will still need fortitude, stoicism, courage and fidelity.
These virtues are obsolete only in the sense that they aren't being selected for by young women. So a man shouldn't expect that by cultivating these qualities he's going to gain an advantage in the dating stakes. He should cultivate these qualities instead because he recognises them as virtues in their own right and because they are important qualities to draw on in other aspects of his life.
"These virtues are obsolete only in the sense that they aren't being selected for by young women. So a man shouldn't expect that by cultivating these qualities he's going to gain an advantage in the dating stakes. He should cultivate these qualities instead because he recognises them as virtues in their own right and because they are important qualities to draw on in other aspects of his life"
ReplyDeleteThe inherent logic of this post is that the development of male qualities in any society is dependent upon women "selecting" these qualities and that if women do not do that then these same desirable male qualities will disappear. This portrayal of males and male character development as victims of female behaviour is quite clearly absurd.
The reality is that in traaditional societies, male charcter formation was encouraged by elder males and there was social pressure on males to marry. Access to women was limited and ganted only to those who were suitable marriage material which meant that if a man wanted a wife he needed to first prove to her father that he had a career, a pattern of reliable behaviour, financial stability and the means to acquire property.
As soon as these pressures are off males they regress. This is not particular to Western societies. and can also be seen in other societies eg Arab Gulf states where the easy access to expat female workers from the Philippines and Eastern Europe has meant that many Arab men take the easier option of shacking up with an expat rather than having to impress and pay a dowry to the father of an Arab Bride.
Thus the development of male character is dependent upon the control and direction provided by elder males and when men establish and adhere to exacting standards of behaviour women fall into line.
A society in which women select males is a feminised society. In traditional societies men (or more correcttly the groom's parents) select potential brides.
That's very pie in the sky for our culture, Anon.
ReplyDeleteDo you really expect men throughout the culture to start limiting sexual access to their daughters based on male character anytime soon? That is simply not feasible in the least in our culture.
Mark -- good analysis, although I think I would say that men are behaving this way for the simple reason that *they can*. Anon says that's because elder men permit it, while you say it's because women encourage it by whom they are selecting, and an obvious mix of the two perspectives is that the fact that women can and do select their own mates has developed because men quite some time ago permitted this to emerge (which doesn't mean it can easily be put back to the way it was) -- but the very simple fact is that men behave this way because they can -- that is, the pressure is not there to behave otherwise, either from elder men, or from women. So they can do what they like. And for many guys that means X-BOX, ESPN, Guyland, and avoiding commitment like hell.
If I were in my 20s today I'm not sure I would be behaving any differently, really.
Its also not necessarily a bad thing, overall. The current culture won't change away from these systems until the fallout from them becomes super-painful, particularly for women. I expect that will happen in the next 1-2 generations as men continue to lag behind, as it were, and women's hypergamy gets increasingly frustrated. Single motherhood will become normative, and the social fallout will be intense, and maybe then there will be some changes.
It's unpleasent being on the losing side of natural selection. Our society is dying out and will be replaced by one that has a more successful reproductive strategy. Sad but true.
ReplyDeleteMs. Hymowitz' views seem to be quite in line with George Gilder's as expressed in Men and Marriage. When it comes to marriage and what is needed for the perpetuation and civilization of humanity, women are born having what it takes, while men, who are born knowing only destruction and nihilism, must adapt themselves to women's better sense, or else remain a nemesis to humanity.
ReplyDeleteOf course this is a hypothetical question, but why is there a need for men in the first place then? Wouldn't the world be perfect if all of humanity were as women?
I think the absurdity of my hypothetical question is addressed by the fact that women have a few things to learn about civilization and roles proper to humanity by adapting also to the ways of men, as men must adapt to women.
The inherent logic of your response, Anon, is that women exercise no control over the kind of men they marry, but are doled out as favors by the elder men to their young male proteges.
ReplyDeleteThat's a standard left-liberal lie.
The reality is that both men and women control the kind of women and men they marry. Women are not and never have been powerless over the men in their lives for the simple reason that women have something men want: sexual love.
You can't force love. Sex, sure, but that's not what men want. They want love expressed through sex. And that can't be forced; it must be given.
Women are free to give or withhold it, and they do, usually bartering it in exchange for something they want. When women decide to give sexual love to bad boys, as Mark points out, then men who want sexual love (the vast majority) start acting like bad boys to get it.
Note: To describe love as a simply material transaction is blasphemous. Love is far more than that. But when talking with materialists, then, as Paul says, we must be as materialists, that they may hear and understand and be won over to the truth.
"It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test."
ReplyDeleteTherein lays the solution, methinks.
Romanticism's hold on Western society for all these years has dismantled any requirement passed down from the generations that have gone before that women must act or behave in a certain way for them to be considered "women". Especially since women are no longer exhorted to become "ladies".
Thus, with no test to pass, no social standard to aspire to, women merely meander about, doing what feels good to them and satisfies their egos.
Hymowitz is right to ask "where are all the good men?". But in doing so, she should also turn those powers of perception into inquiring where the good women went and why they behave in such socially unconstructive manners.
Is she married? Or is she one of those single women unable to find a husband while in their late 30s? They used to be called bitter spinsters but it has become politically incorrect to say so.
ReplyDeleteI should say that if a woman can't find a decent husband the problem probaly lies with her,and not with men, especially taking into consideration the fact that those "pathetic American man-boys" are rather popular with foreign brides.
Hymowitz is married and has three kids -- she's more like 50. I think a lot of her concern in this area is around what her daughters are growing up into.
ReplyDeleteWell, feminists have made their bed they will have now to lie in it.
ReplyDeleteIt's because of autonomy that youth today want careers first and family last. I mean I'm studying to have a part time job so that I will take care of my kids and marry in my mid 20's. Both men and women today lack depth because of the disgusting obsession with libertarianism, progress, deconstructionism, equality, autonomy and rights, rights, rights. Traditional conservatism isn't obsolete. We are just in the final stage of civilization (also known as the downfall or the fall) kind of like a parasite finally killing the host. I give it 1 generation the soonest and 4 generations the lastest before these virtues come back.
ReplyDelete"These virtues are obsolete only in the sense that they aren't being selected for by young women. So a man shouldn't expect that by cultivating these qualities he's going to gain an advantage in the dating stakes. He should cultivate these qualities instead because he recognises them as virtues in their own right and because they are important qualities to draw on in other aspects of his life."
Agreed. Do it for family and for God.
"It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test."
Actually Kay Hymowitz both men and women had to pass a test I believe.
Novaseeker I believe it's three factors. There is no patriarchy, young women have become liberals/libertarians and young men can do what they want.
"The current culture won't change away from these systems until the fallout from them becomes super-painful, particularly for women."
ReplyDeleteIn the USA I think it's going to be sooner than other Western countries (1 generation). Other Western countries are doing to take 2 generations. The American political system is broke and let's face it Americans are utterly bankrupt and have the largest debt in history (I think it's 50 trillion the entire complete debt on all levels from everybody together) and sooner or later they will default on it. It's impossible to keep 50 trillion in debt going.
"It's unpleasent being on the losing side of natural selection. Our society is dying out and will be replaced by one that has a more successful reproductive strategy. Sad but true."
Society basically goes in cycles and not in a linear progressive line where we reach utopia. Renewal, growth, stability, wealth, decay and finally the fall. The West is in the fall (decline) phase currently.
""If husbands and fathers are optional to any degree at all it's because the state has stepped in to artificially create this situation.""
ReplyDeleteAnd because this is a fact, and because any government department eventually becomes leftist by force of economics. They get their money from the state and are thus predisposed to be favour of the state deciding everything for everyone.
Add to this our higher education system which continues to stamp out left-lib clones and there rapidly seems no backward step without a shrinking of the responsibilities of the state.
"Americans are utterly bankrupt and have the largest debt in history"
ReplyDeleteAnd the reason for this is mainly because the US with it's massive military spending has created a "Peace dividend".
Western Europe did not have to spend money on it's armed forces for the last 60 years, that is probably one of the reasons why they have not entirely collapsed, military spending can be incredibly expensive.
Guys,
ReplyDeleteSome time ago, Dr. Helen did a post on this; perhaps it was in the wake of Kay Hymowitz' first piece, Child Man in the Promised Land? Anyway, Dr. Helen had a good point as to why men don't 'grow up', as it were: there's little or no reward if they do so.
If a man grows up and assumes adult responsibilities; if he marries and has a family; then his wife can unilaterally divorce him, and he loses everything. If, OTOH, he lives life as HE pleases, the rewards are much greater. To me, it's as simple as that-at least in part anyway...
MarkyMark
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI hate to say it but Hymowitz is a Jewish name. I hope that this doesn't invite a bunch of responses from White Nationalists saying that this is a Jewish conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteFirstly a claim can be made "where have all the good women gone?". Such a question puts the onus on the opposite sex.
ReplyDeleteSecondly it should be noted that women do stand to benefit from immature men. Their position to superiority becomes established if they can show that they are the mature ones. What we can then get is "maturity" being defined as what a women wants at a given moment, such as marriage and a baby when the woman wants it. Its not unlikely then for men to say in order to establish my independence I'll be immature. Also this doesn't entirely come through the dating arena but also in families where men are raised primarily by women and schools where they're likely be taught by women or subject to feminine pressures.
I will admit that there is a "testing" process involved in manhood. This also goes along with a sense of male exclusiveness. Where is the testing now to come from? Certainly all male exclusiveness has been consistently attacked as inequitable. The movie Fight club has an interesting insight into this. It’s a men’s club, the idea of having women in it would be bizarre to the participants.
Her criticism is essentially the leftist claim that the economy and money directs all and as Mark says it ignores the influence of social factors.
Additionally any testing process takes place in the context of a hierarchy and hierarchies have been consistently devalued.
ReplyDeleteGood post. The WSJ column was predictable and we can be sure that such columns will be increasingly frequent and shrill in the coming years. Hymowitz doesn't sound like a rabid feminist but it's obvious that she prefers the simplistic narrative of feminist propagandists: young women are respectable, morally upstanding and yearn for marriage with betas, but for some inexplicable reason young men have become immature slobs and must solely bear the blame for the current SMP and social ills. I'm not sure whether she actually believes what she writes (I think not) or she knows she avoided some taboo subjects on purpose (like the fact that it was women who abandoned patriarchal roles first, not men) in order to present a feminist narrative.
ReplyDeleteWomen's cluelessness and solipsism is fascinating to behold. Do young women actually believe that they can completely swear off patriarchal roles, ride the cock carousel and live the SATC lifestyle, but men will dutifully keep their old roles, chivalrously courting women and showing unshakable willingness to marry a 34-year-old banged-out slut just because she gave the signal that she feels it's time to settle? Whatever.
One thing is for sure: listening to women's complaints has always been a very bad idea. There was a system that brought out the best in men: Western patriarchy. But apparently they didn't like that either.
Hollenhund,
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of men who play computer games or whatever not for profound reasons but just because they're lazy. If everyone does what they want it stands to reason that many men will abandon responsibilities.
Kay Hymowitz strikes me as yet another aging feminist who cannot quite come to grips with the fact that her children are going to have to live in the world that she and her feminist sisters created.
ReplyDeleteAgree that the question should be "Where have all the good women gone", but likely Hymowitz would take that personally, bristle, and reply with a fit of shaming language. Just as she all but certainly did 30 years ago to suggestions that not all men are rapists...
Hymowitz better come to terms with the idea that her "grandchildren" are likely to be cats. But she and any daughters can warm themselves with that wonderful "equality", as they stand on the glass floor.
Good comment, HH.
ReplyDeleteJesse -- I don't think laziness is the driving factor (and it isn't always video games, it's just as likely to be sports or going out to bars or what have you). The driving factor is the lack of a need to behave otherwise. The guys Hymowitz is writing about in NYC are not laggards. They are grads of elite schools and they work, often pretty hard, but they are not interested in commitment to women, and spend their free time in ways that *they* find enjoyable. They get girlfriends, too (one of Hymowitz'a complaints), so they are not total betas either.
Hymowitz's stuff is a recasting of the now quite old complaint from urban, educated women that men don't want to commit to them. I don't blame the men, frankly.
"Hymowitz's stuff is a recasting of the now quite old complaint from urban, educated women that men don't want to commit to them. I don't blame the men, frankly."
ReplyDeleteI blame both the men and the women. Hollehund has a point.
"Women's cluelessness and solipsism is fascinating to behold. Do young women actually believe that they can completely swear off patriarchal roles, ride the cock carousel and live the SATC lifestyle, but men will dutifully keep their old roles, chivalrously courting women and showing unshakable willingness to marry a 34-year-old banged-out slut just because she gave the signal that she feels it's time to settle? Whatever."
True. Women go all liberal or libertarian and they expect for men to stay traditional conservatives? Whatever. Nope. Also I'm starting to think that maybe this ties in to liberal logic. The way women think is liberal logic and the way men think is conservative logic (besides aspects of evolution, secularism and others things at the core of liberal logic).
Hymowitz is nothing more and nothing less than a Cultural Marxist. She hates anything that opposes her glorious utopia.
ReplyDeleteCaptain Army Reserve (btw I was a reservist too) and defender of traditional masculinity never fails to chip in with an uninformed comment.
ReplyDeleteSeriously Jesse your either a complete idiot or a conservative in drag.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't post too often the intelligence services might be able to trace your movements. Or is this another anonymous?
I generally agree with Novaseekers point that there is less incentive for men to commit. However, the idea that solipsism is a female only phenomenon in this day and age is naive.
"the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete"
ReplyDeletePersonally I find these things still very useful & necessary! Without them I wouldn't have got married, stayed faithful, stayed married, finally got and kept a good job, and now be raising a son together.
Re courage - one kind of courage Hymowitz probably doesn't appreciate is the courage to stand up to your wife when you know you're right, overcome liberal programming, and assert necessary male authority. Doesn't come up very often, should not be done casually, but occasionally a man needs to tell his woman (even a Liberal woman) what to do, and have the courage to stick to his guns.
TGAP Oz:
ReplyDelete"It's unpleasent being on the losing side of natural selection. Our society is dying out and will be replaced by one that has a more successful reproductive strategy. Sad but true."
This is potentially true - our society is not self-reproducing. However the collapse of our unsustainable society (Western Civilisation) may result in a better society arising from the ashes - fewer in number and with less territory, but at least sustainable. We cannot yet know what such a society would look like though.
The successor states to the Roman Empire demonstrated a variety of models; but one thing they had in common was the replacement of Roman elites by foreign barbarians, whether Germanic or Muslim. There were a few exceptions in fringe areas such as Wales, only conquered by the Germanic Anglo-Norman barbarians at the end of the 13th century.
I hope we can avoid that fate and retain control of some of our ancestral territories. Unlike the Romans, we still have large populations with a fierce fighting spirit, such as many Anglo-Celts (such as Australians, American Southerners, Ulstermen and Scots); under good leadership these populations will not be defeated militarily. But a population can be destroyed at the moral level, persuaded of its own illegitimacy, and thus lose the will to resist.
Novaseeker:
ReplyDelete"Hymowitz's stuff is a recasting of the now quite old complaint from urban, educated women that men don't want to commit to them. I don't blame the men, frankly."
Agreed. Urban professional women can't get it through their heads that having an independent income, a high-status job, and 28 former sexual partners does NOT MAKE THEM A GOOD MARRIAGE PROSPECT for their male peers. In fact the more effort they put into their career, the less attractive they are to a responsible man who's looking for a good wife, not a business partner.
I know personally I'd happily swap most of my wife's income for a willingness to do more than half the childcare (Agere Pati...), and she had the good sense to get married in her mid '20s, not mid '30s.
There are several anons posting on every thread, Jesse. BTW anyone who doesn't disclose his full info on the net is hiding something.
ReplyDeleteSo may be you can give us your full name, address and phone number?
„There are plenty of men who play computer games or whatever not for profound reasons but just because they're lazy.”
ReplyDeleteThey did not have the option to become lazy in the patriarchy and it was eventually women who, through their own choices, incentivized them to become lazy.
Hymowitz and other feminists (and socons as well) shrewdly give a false picture of the current SMP by essentially stating that there are hordes of attractive, well-educated, ambitious and good-natured women just DYING to have meaningful relationships with their beta peers, but they, being the crass slobs they are, instead heartlessly opt to watch porn, slack, play WoW and binge-drink. They remain tight-lipped about two obvious causes of male economic underperformance:
1. Most women priced themselves out of the dating market due to their unrestrained hypergamy. Dating women has always been a PITA for young betas due to the low ROI (i.e. girls expect them to basically jump through numerous hoops in order to present themselves as attractive, whereas alphas get sex for free), but nowadays it makes scarcely any sense since most women are unwilling to settle for them until their biological clock rings, preferring to ride the alpha cock carousel instead. Betas are justified in asking: why bother? What’s in it for me?
2. Men are no longer expected to become sole providers ever since women have been given numerous economic opportunities, and therefore are no longer prohibited from engaging in activities (like partying and playing WoW) that in earlier times would have messed with their ability to become young provider-protector beta husbands.
There are many other reasons as well (outsourcing, the female-friendly education system etc), but most of them are politically correct to mention. The reason why feminists and socons never mention the two I listed is that it would contradict their chosen narrative, namely that young men are solely to blame for all social problems, especially for the messed up SMP.
I also recommend Ms. Walsh's post on the true definition of "commitment", the 3rd comment to it, and Dalrock's post which it links to:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/12/01/hookinguprealities/a-relationship-is-not-a-commitment/
Hollenhund
ReplyDelete"They did not have the option to become lazy in the patriarchy and it was eventually women who, through their own choices, incentivized them to become lazy."
This is the typical male victimology commonly seen on this site and ilustrates the weakness of the Western male.
"There are plenty of men who play computer games or whatever not for profound reasons but just because they're lazy"
ReplyDeleteSo having a hobby is being lazy now? Stimulous-response.
This is what Hymowitz wrote a couple of years ago and she got soundly trampled on her weak theory of "child-men" and video games. She even wrote a semi apology after tons of responses across the internet. Obviously from her new book/article she hasn't really seen the light as it were. Call it victimology all you want, thats just more shaming. I'm tired of that line of horsepucky and generally ignore it. Get back to me when we stop having family values conservatives doing nothing to stem the liberal tide of man hating laws.
Oh and Elizabeth, your demonization of "libertarians" amuses me greatly. Keep licking that authoritarian badge snookums.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm getting a bit tired of the chip on the shoulder. This post was not directly talking about the men's movement so you shouldn't feel the obligation to post here. If you want to say its all women, men are faultless in everything, then we're wondering what planet you live on and whether its possible for you to take responsibility for you life. I'm not interested in having a discussion about more "shaming" language. Your opinion has been well voiced here.
ReplyDeleteHollenhund said,
ReplyDelete"There are many other reasons as well (outsourcing, the female-friendly education system etc), but most of them are politically correct to mention. The reason why feminists and socons never mention the two I listed is that it would contradict their chosen narrative, namely that young men are solely to blame for all social problems, especially for the messed up SMP."
Its possible to agree with your two points, and I think most people here would, without reaching your conclusion. If women choose to act in ways that seem self serving to them in the short run, we can say that men do this also in our society to a degree. You say that selfishness in men was not a problem because it was harnessed to patriarchy and this selfishness, ie to become competitive providers, fuelled them to become good men, ie be attractive to women and contribute to society. However, selfishness is a fickle master, what's good for you at a given time can change. Why under patriarchy couldn't a man dump his wife for a younger women? It was not for male selfish reasons that such a system came about but also for the protection of women. We say that women are hypergamous, why are men content to stay with the one women and not ditch her when she becomes tedious?
I'll say again that solipsism is a common western trait, whether its by a male or female. We have to go further than feminism to say why that came about.
"Get back to me when we stop having family values conservatives doing nothing to stem the liberal tide of man hating laws."
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't noticed the primary worldview is liberal and it takes a lot of strength to fight it.
"Oh and Elizabeth, your demonization of "libertarians" amuses me greatly. Keep licking that authoritarian badge snookums."
I'm honored JFP. You remind me of the commenters at the Speardhead.
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/02/the-bullies-speak/
I'm glass you view me as authoritarian because quite frankly libertarianism is not only flawed in theory but it isn't a practical ideology.
Also sorry for saying that it will take 1 to 4 generations that the West will renew. I don't really know the exact time there will be renewal but I know there will probably be since the West is in it's decline/fall phase of civilization. Sorry for my mistakes! Cheers everyone.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how any woman can look around and not be really pissed off at what the other women are doing. Of course men are boy-ish. Why wouldn't they be? There is nothing for them to do besides appease women, and that gets boring.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is less incentive for men to commit but on the other hand, lots of men don't want to commit at all.
ReplyDeleteI've got some sympathy for Hymonwitz's position. Due to a combination of cultural factors, men as compared to 50 years ago, are far less masculine and mature. I'm continually surprised at the level of immaturity and "wussiness" with regard to the men that I meet.
Playing the occasional video game is no harm, but I've always had the conception that a man who spends hours behind an x-box is sort of weird. Wanting to live off the generosity of parents "in their basement" whilst spanking the monkey to porn seemed always very distasteful. I can understand why a woman would find such a man unattractive.
"Manliness" implies certain qualities. And quite simply, a lot of modern men lack them and seem quite unconcerned about not possessing them. For example, living off others was always considered unmanly, yet many men are quite happy to live on welfare. (I'm not talking about the guys who can't find work, I'm talking about those who don't want work"). I can understand men who don't want marry a clapped out feminist hag, but I can't understand a man who does want to marry and leave a legacy at all.
The Romans understood that for a man to be considered a man he had to posses certain qualities. Fortitude, industry, strength, etc.
Our society pretty much echoed those values till recently and there was a certain dishonour in failing the "manhood test". The social ideal, combined with fear of shame, stopped many otherwise "wussy" men from acting wussy. The beta man had to "alpha up" out of shame.
Because of today's moral relativism, the "manly ideal" is gone. Now everyman is entitled to be whatever he want the shame has gone. Devoid of cultural pressure lots of men revert to their adolescent or beta state, no wonder women don't find them attractive.
The fact that our society and women don't reward manliness has contributed to its demise, but the thing is, a man does not assume the qualities of manhood for its rewards, but for the state of being that it entails.
Just an addendum;
ReplyDeleteFrom the comments section of that post at Roissy's;
"An American girl who had been going steady with a soldier posted overseas in 1943 jilted him after receiving a letter from him telling of the emotional strain of life at the front:
He was sent to Italy where the fighting was very intense for a long time, and he wrote to me whenever he could. Then, in one of those V-mail letters, he told me he cried many nights during the heavy fighting. In my sheltered life with my stereotyped notions of what a man constituted, the thought of his crying turned my stomach. I was convinced I had loved a coward. I never wrote to him again. "
It was a different world then. Something to think about.
Social Pathologist:
ReplyDeleteThe fact that our society and women don't reward manliness has contributed to its demise, but the thing is, a man does not assume the qualities of manhood for its rewards, but for the state of being that it entails.
This statement does not go far enough. Feminists have been engaging in the denegration of manliness for over a generation. Whether it was the "all men are rapists" lie, or the endless sneering about "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" to refer to men in traditional roles, the contempt of vocal feminists for masculine men has been a feature of Western society for a long time. Go and look at various entertainments, especially in the last 20 years, and tell me where you see manliness being praised, rather than lampooned or spat upon.
Furthermore, manliness has been criminalized to some degree. The ever-wider definition of "domestic violence" has made many displays of masculine anger within the home into crimes, crimes that can cost a man dearly. If you penalize something, you may well see less of it. Meanwhile, bad behavior by women is rewarded in many ways - and if you reward something, you will get more of it.
It is also important to bear in mind that a young man of 20 was born in 1990. He grew up during the Clinton years. If his mother had divorced his father when he was 5 or so, as was and is common, then what role models did he see?
Men 25 and under are the first generation to grow up under a totally feminized school system. School systems where being a normal, energetic boy was tantamount to being a criminal. Many of them have been drugged with Ritalin or other substances for years, with unknown effects upon brain development. Does Ritalin have any effect upon, say, dopamine receptors, or the way endorphins are handled? I don't know, but I fear no one else does either, because the drug was rushed into use with minimal testing.
Again I say, this is the world that feminists such as Hymowitz created. If they are having any second thoughts, it may be too little and too late for her daughters.
I talked to a guy today, who was nerdy, about politics and he said quite openly that he voted for the sex party because he was primarily interested in internet freedom and porn. He stated this without the slightest hint of embarrassment as if it was an entirely legitimate political position. That's all well and good but this kind of guy is now a ok politically because he only wants to mind his own business. Whilst other "manly" men may have been knocked back this kind of guy is left largely untouched to rise.
ReplyDeleteSocialpathologist
ReplyDeleteYou can shove your Roman stocism where the sun don't shine.
Society either rules hyperagamy or is ruled by it. Since the previous generations (yours included) played the lyre while Rome burned don't expect this one to play 'house' while the girls worship Dionysus.
Let the fat Cows of Bashan reap what they sewed and leave us to our ganga, booze and x box. When civilization collapses wake me up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting story about a man who brutally beats a child for deleting his xbox game.
ReplyDeletehttp://ninemsn.com.au/?ocid=iehp
„the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete”
ReplyDeleteCourage was needed when men were expected to mate-guard their female relatives, guard their own honor (which was, again, defined by the patriarchy) and fight in conventional wars against enemy armies. All three obligations have disappeared. In fact, such behaviors have been delegitimized, even ridiculed. Stoicism? 99 out of 100 people probably don’t even know what it means. Hymowitz therefore does have a point.
Fidelity, on the other hand, is a big exception. Men are still expected to display it, especially in marriage, but women generally aren’t. The explanation lies in the gynocentric and feminist nature of the current system, which, as Mark correctly observed, is designed to maximize female autonomy. Average women demand commitment but are unwilling to give it, therefore they wouldn’t condone a system which would legitimize male infidelity.
„The way women think is liberal logic and the way men think is conservative logic”
It isn’t liberal logic, it’s a sense of entitlement combined with solipsism. Most women, especially, young ones, don’t understand cause and effect very well. They simply cannot comprehend why men’ve changed their behavior in the past 40 years. They also believe they are entitled to men’s attention and resources by virtue of having an uterus.
„This is the typical male victimology commonly seen on this site and ilustrates the weakness of the Western male.”
No, it’s common sense. Incentives drive behavior. Always has, always will. If some activity has diminishing returns, gets ridiculed and even punished, fewer and fewer people will do it. Hence the collapse of patriarchal male roles.
„If you want to say its all women, men are faultless in everything,”
I suppose this is directed at me. Look, the fact is that women’s demands have driven the Sexual Revolution, not men’s. It was women who, by and large, complained about the old system, demanded legal and cultural change, and changed their behavior, especially sexual behavior, on a massive scale in the past 40 years and overwhelmingly support feminism or internalized its ideology. Men have adapted to these changes in various ways. And now that the feminist utopia failed to materialize, women demand that it’s men who must change their behavior? They won’t find many takers.
„You say that selfishness in men was not a problem because it was harnessed to patriarchy and this selfishness, ie to become competitive providers, fuelled them to become good men ie be attractive to women and contribute to society.”
ReplyDeleteNo. To become a competitive provider is to display selflessness, which is the main virtue the patriarchy demanded of men.
It made men attractive by relegating women to the role of second-class citizens, which ensured that the pool of men able to satisfy their hypergamy (the desire to marry up) was maximized. The poorest farmer’s daughter could look up to a farmer boy living nearby, because his social status was higher than hers.
„Why under patriarchy couldn't a man dump his wife for a younger women?”
No-fault divorce didn’t exist, did it? And if he cheated, the woman could accuse her of breaking his marriage vows in court and expect alimony.
Technically speaking, a man may do something like this today, but the legal penalty would be enormous. After all, no-fault divorce is actually „his-fault” divorce most of the time. He would be saddled by obscene alimony and child support payments.
„It was not for male selfish reasons that such a system came about but also for the protection of women.”
Obviously.
„Due to a combination of cultural factors, men as compared to 50 years ago, are far less masculine and mature. I'm continually surprised at the level of immaturity and "wussiness" with regard to the men that I meet... Manliness implies certain qualities. And quite simply, a lot of modern men lack them and seem quite unconcerned about not possessing them.”
I come across this view quite often, often expressed by bloggers like Obsidian and Real Assanova: „men have forgotten how to be men”, „men are slobs” etc. Implicit in these opinions is the baseless notion that young women are still as refreshingly feminine, good-natured and concerned with presenting themselves as attractive as 50 years ago, but men have decided to abandon old-fashioned masculinity for some strange reason. This is patently false. Men have abandoned patriarchal masculinity only AFTER women have abandoned patriarchal femininity. Men are shamed for being slobs, as if women were still dressing and behaving like ladies.
Mainstream journalists routinely shame men for playing video games and watching internet porn. Implicit in their condemnations is the similarly baseless assumption that young women don’t engage in time-consuming, socially unproductive and (shall we say) degenerate pastimes that make them unattractive in the eyes of men, like going on shopping sprees, reading romance novels (the female version of pornography), watching romantic comedies and movies like Twilight and getting completely wasted in bars with their girlfriends. When was the last time any journalist shamed women for such acts? Or is it, as I suspect, taboo to criticize anything women feel like doing?
"Then, in one of those V-mail letters, he told me he cried many nights during the heavy fighting. In my sheltered life with my stereotyped notions of what a man constituted, the thought of his crying turned my stomach. I was convinced I had loved a coward. I never wrote to him again."
ReplyDeleteThat woman is a disgusting. Women were always shielded from wartime combat and the huge psychological toll it takes on men. They don't get to decide what constitutes cowardice on the battlefield.
„You say that selfishness in men was not a problem because it was harnessed to patriarchy and this selfishness, ie to become competitive providers, fuelled them to become good men ie be attractive to women and contribute to society.”
ReplyDeleteNo. To become a competitive provider is to display selflessness, which is the main virtue the patriarchy demanded of men.
It made men attractive by relegating women to the role of second-class citizens, which ensured that the pool of men able to satisfy their hypergamy (the desire to marry up) was maximized. The poorest farmer’s daughter could look up to a farmer boy living nearby, because his social status was higher than hers.
„Why under patriarchy couldn't a man dump his wife for a younger women?”
No-fault divorce didn’t exist, did it? And if he cheated, the woman could accuse her of breaking his marriage vows in court and expect alimony.
Technically speaking, a man may do something like this today, but the legal penalty would be enormous. After all, no-fault divorce is actually „his-fault” divorce most of the time. He would be saddled by obscene alimony and child support payments.
„It was not for male selfish reasons that such a system came about but also for the protection of women.”
Obviously.
„Due to a combination of cultural factors, men as compared to 50 years ago, are far less masculine and mature. I'm continually surprised at the level of immaturity and "wussiness" with regard to the men that I meet... Manliness implies certain qualities. And quite simply, a lot of modern men lack them and seem quite unconcerned about not possessing them.”
ReplyDeleteI come across this view quite often, often expressed by bloggers like Obsidian and Real Assanova: „men have forgotten how to be men”, „men are slobs” etc. Implicit in these opinions is the baseless notion that young women are still as refreshingly feminine, good-natured and concerned with presenting themselves as attractive as 50 years ago, but men have decided to abandon old-fashioned masculinity for some strange reason. This is patently false. Men have abandoned patriarchal masculinity only AFTER women have abandoned patriarchal femininity. Men are shamed for being slobs, as if women were still dressing and behaving like ladies.
Mainstream journalists routinely shame men for playing video games and watching internet porn. Implicit in their condemnations is the similarly baseless assumption that young women, unlike young men, don’t engage in time-consuming, socially unproductive and (shall we say) degenerate pastimes that make them unattractive in the eyes of men, like going on shopping sprees, reading romance novels (the female version of pornography), watching romantic comedies and movies like Twilight and getting completely wasted in bars with their girlfriends. When was the last time any journalist shamed women for such acts? Or is it, as I suspect, taboo to criticize anything women feel like doing?
Hollenhund said,
ReplyDelete"When was the last time any journalist shamed women for such acts? Or is it, as I suspect, taboo to criticize anything women feel like doing?"
I think this is legitimate. You get it not just with the media of course but within relationships. Time for women with other women is considered justified but men's time with other men is considered substantially less so. Aside from matters of control one of the reason's I'm sure is that women are concerned that men together will cheat, this is not without some validation. A working women might reply though I work too and have to come home to be the primary family "carer" as well so where is my me time.
"Stoicism? 99 out of 100 people probably don’t even know what it means."
Men still know that they're expected to be harder than women and weakness is far less acceptable.
In relation to the issue with the war veteran in Italy, this is of course one of the cultural difficulties of the period where men were not expected to show substantial "weakness" in front of the opposite sex. It undoubtedly added to the difficulties many men faced with dealing with their experiences. On the other hand soldiers relations with each other were often strong. Not an easy situation.
Hollenhund:
ReplyDelete"Courage was needed when men were expected to mate-guard their female relatives, guard their own honor (which was, again, defined by the patriarchy) and fight in conventional wars against enemy armies. All three obligations have disappeared..."
It's funny; living in a fairly tough inner-city London neighbourhood, I don't feel this way at all. I feel I need to be constantly prepared to defend myself and my family. Growing up in Belfast, or living in Sheffield then Coventry, was not much different, though in those cases the threat came mostly from the white underclass rather than non-whites as in London.
I wonder if this is a difference between Britain, USA, and possibly Australia? Probably the majority of people in Britain live with the threat of violence from criminals; certainly not as extreme as South Africa, but definitely there. There is no sense that "the police protect us" or that most areas are safe.
Would it be right to say that in the USA most whites live in neighbourhoods they perceive to be 'safe', where physical threats are very unlikely? How about Australia?
If so, this could explain some cultural differentiation. While in the UK there are some effeminate 'metrosexual' young males in the safest upper-middle-class areas), and some videogame-blob types in lower-middle-class suburbs, the tendency is for white youth to adopt a street-tough 'gangsta' look, while older white men go for shaven heads, sturdy boots and a similar somewhat threatening demeanour. Our culture is de-civilising very rapidly.
@Hollenhund
ReplyDeleteImplicit in these opinions is the baseless notion that young women are still as refreshingly feminine, good-natured and concerned with presenting themselves as attractive as 50
Uhmmm.... No.
To quote myself;
I can understand men who don't want marry a clapped out feminist hag, but I can't understand a man who does want to marry and leave a legacy at all.
and..
The fact that our society and women don't reward manliness has contributed to its demise...
It's a logical error to assume the that the statement "men are slobs" "implies that women are good". That's more reading into the statement what you want to read and not what I said. Quite a bit of current social pathology is due to large groups of men and women behaving badly.
Not every woman's a slut, I've done the figures(Large numbers are). Not every woman is unfaithful(Moderate numbers are). In a third of marriages men initiate the divorces. Statistically therefore, there would appear to be such a thing as a good woman
The bottom line of the "opting out argument" is that there are no women worth marrying. This is a statistical fallacy and crypto-misogyny)
Ok then, assuming there is such a thing as a good woman. Do you think a man smoking dope, jerking off in his mum's basement while watching porn is a turn on?
Do you think such a woman is some way morally deficient for not finding said man a turn on?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Hate to break it to you but sluts and Church virgins get horny for the same type of man, it's just with the Churchy types that mate selection is based on more than pussy tingles. It's not just the whores complaining of the lack of good men, it's the good girls too.
To be continued......
Alpha traits are manly traits. Yeah, a man has to be loyal, hard working and caring for his children. But he also needs a pair, make a decision, act like a grown up and have some style.
ReplyDeleteMen have abandoned patriarchal masculinity only AFTER women have abandoned patriarchal femininity. Men are shamed for being slobs, as if women were still dressing and behaving like ladies.
Oh puh..lese. Part of the other aspect of the "traditional patriarchy" was not catting about. Every woman who slept around during the sexual revolution did it (in most instances) with a willing man. The sexual revolution was a societal thing, not a female only thing.
In Australia, there used the be the notion of not "cutting another man's lunch" The "patriarchy" supported each other. In a reflection of the mores of the early 60's There is a great scene in the movie Failsafe where a woman who is infatuated with Walter Matthau, gets slapped across the face by him when she tries to give him a blowjob. (And Matthau played the part of an amoral man, not some uptight churchy type.) Men too abandoned the concept of marriage and facilitated the sexual revolution.
Saying that men are unmanly in no way implies that women are somehow inherently virtuous. It's not a dichotomy.
I wonder if this is a difference between Britain, USA, and possibly Australia? Probably the majority of people in Britain live with the threat of violence from criminals
ReplyDeleteMelbourne in the 80s must have been one of the safest large cities in the world. It's less so today. You'd want to be careful as a young man in the nightclub district on the weekends.
But most suburban areas still have low crime rates.
the tendency is for white youth to adopt a street-tough 'gangsta' look, while older white men go for shaven heads, sturdy boots and a similar somewhat threatening demeanour.
Interesting, as that's been my impression from watching British TV. I don't think it's been taken as far in Australia, except that tattoos are a lot more common now.
I think the white Supremacist should reject joining either side of this highly manufactured "battle of the sexes" meme. What we are actually witnessing is a struggle between male and female liberationists both of which have the denigration and destruction of the "white" Supremacist as their inherent purpose. What we should hear when the female cries, "there are no good men" is that there are no white Supremacists; all that remains is the liberated male. For all intents and purposes, it's true, but not absolutely and so it becomes a way to say there are no traditional Western men left without actually saying that the liberated male sucks. And how do traditionalists AND male liberationist view this propaganda? As the work of "feminism..." Then the male liberationist screeches, "I need not be a "white" Supremacist to be a man!" To which the traditionalist says, "of course you need not be a "white" Supremacist to be a man." And so the vicious cyle continues. The female liberationist simply waves a hand and traditional man does not exist while the male liberationist says I need not be traditional man in order to be a good man. Both sides get their way and the "white" Supremacist is near extinction.
ReplyDeleteSocial Pathologist said,
ReplyDelete"Every woman who slept around during the sexual revolution did it (in most instances) with a willing man. The sexual revolution was a societal thing, not a female only thing."
This seems true. Men loved the sexual revolution, especially in the early days when there seemed little downside and you'd still marry a respectable wife. Men continue to support abortion on demand and not just to please the sisters.
Thordaddy said,
"The female liberationist simply waves a hand and traditional man does not exist while the male liberationist says I need not be traditional man in order to be a good man."
If you go to a middle class left wing, say labor party, function, you'll see plenty of feminists and soft men agreeing that traditional male roles are oppressive. The guys who support the notion will often be like Mr Mackey from South Park and not very masculine.
"Ok then, assuming there is such a thing as a good woman. Do you think a man smoking dope, jerking off in his mum's basement while watching porn is a turn on?
ReplyDeleteDo you think such a woman is some way morally deficient for not finding said man a turn on?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Hate to break it to you but sluts and Church virgins get horny for the same type of man, it's just with the Churchy types that mate selection is based on more than pussy tingles. It's not just the whores complaining of the lack of good men, it's the good girls too."
Dang SP.. I think that I am about to swoon..
You speak such( uncommon) obvious sense.
I thought it was a particularily strong post Social Pathologist. You should post here more often.
ReplyDelete"Oh puh..lese. Part of the other aspect of the "traditional patriarchy" was not catting about. Every woman who slept around during the sexual revolution did it (in most instances) with a willing man. The sexual revolution was a societal thing, not a female only thing."
ReplyDeleteGood post Social Pathologist. Most of us agree that liberalism has affected both men and women. It has affected society.
Men who cry before, during, or after battle are not cowards, so long as they STAY UP AND KEEP FIGHTING. Courage != stoicism.
ReplyDeleteThe Social Pathologist - ”Not every woman's a slut, I've done the figures(Large numbers are). Not every woman is unfaithful (Moderate numbers are). In a third of marriages men initiate the divorces. Statistically therefore, there would appear to be such a thing as a good woman”
ReplyDeleteI’m afraid that I’d have to question (what appear to be) your “markers” of a “good woman”. I’d also have to wonder if you’re equating your idea of a “good woman” is that same as what you would deem “marriage material”?
Despite the obvious fact that a women’s marital infidelity and/or inclination to divorce are things which will not happen/become apparent until after they are already married, simple “sluttiness” is not the only marker for a woman who is not a good prospect as a wife.
Numerous young women today have made themselves poor marital choices by virtual of having become pregnant (often as teenagers) by “men” who themselves weren’t marriage/father material. Single mothers will not only always have a divided loyalty, usually leaving any man who would marry her second to her children, but they are also inclined to feel that the guy who would marry her is not as desirable/hot/alpha as the bad-boy(s) she used to have sex with. They are also likely to feel deprived of the “fun” that other women their age were having while they were “stuck” with their children. Even those who have had abortions are likely to bring psychological baggage from having made such a choice. None of these make woman, who may not seem to have been particularly “slutty” likely to be good, faithful, long-term wives.
Many have become such “entitlement mentality” brats that they are also not worth a man marrying. Women who are demanding and/or are financially irresponsible don’t suddenly “grow up” due to getting married. I don’t know of any studies on the subject, but my personal observations are that the majority of marriages with financial difficulties are due to the selfish over-spending habits of the wife.
Additionally, a substantial percentage of young women (especially in the US), have become obese. While I realize it sounds mean-spirited to focus on such a “shallow” issue, but the fact remains that such woman are less able to keep a man attracted to them, and their obesity itself is suggestive of a lack of personal discipline. In most cases, when obese women do marry, they marry men of similarly low sexual market-place value (SMV). I’m often surprised at the number of “fugglies” who cheat on their partners. It seems that they are quite willing to “put out” for any higher SMV man who shows any interest in them.
I suspect, that by focusing on known “sluttiness” and factors which do not present until after marriage, you are over-estimating the numbers of good/marriageable young women for whom young men could be encourage to make more of themselves for.
@SP --
ReplyDeleteThe thing is that there are "good men", too -- probably at least as many as there are "good women" in this culture.
As for the masses, I don't expect men to change that much. If I were a 20-something I wouldn't bother, because while there certainly are "good women", the number of them is small, and the ROI of that kind of self-investment is therefore also rather small.
Anony
ReplyDelete"A society in which women select males is a feminised society. In traditional societies men (or more correcttly the groom's parents) select potential brides."
This is patent bullshit. All the choices depend on values.
SP
"The sexual revolution was a societal thing, not a female only thing."
I'm tempted to say "what's the difference?", but there's much better case made out here:
http://bit.ly/ebeqiU
left hand side, second paragraph.
Social Pathologist:
ReplyDeleteOh puh..lese. Part of the other aspect of the "traditional patriarchy" was not catting about. Every woman who slept around during the sexual revolution did it (in most instances) with a willing man. The sexual revolution was a societal thing, not a female only thing.
You seem to be assuming a 1:1 relationship here that clearly did not hold, and does not necessarily hold today. If you look at images from, say, 1968 college campuses, you would note many times an alpha male, usually with long hair and often with a beard, accompanied by two or more young women. Alpha male and female hypergamy at work, leading to serial polygamy or even actual polygamy.
There were more than a few communes formed where a few men, led by an alpha, shared multiple women. And the women were not coerced in any way. Not unlike some cults from the same time period, in fact.
Many of the communes formed by hippies eventually broke up over sexual issues. The women in those cases often condemned the men -- for "sexual possessiveness", i.e. wishing to have one-man-one-woman relationships.
Of course, even had those relationships been formed, they would all but certainly have failed in time, because the hippie generation was notoriously opposed to marriage. "Words on paper", they called it, neglecting to realize the importance of such commitments.
However, your observation does not appear to be based up on facts that can be observed. The 80:20 rule, or Pareto principle, has many applications. From listening to men who were adults in 1970, who tried to live the right way, and who became angry and frustrated at the goings-on around them, I can safely say that there were indeed men who did not "benefit" in any way from the sexual revolution. In fact, they were harmed by it, and so were their sisters.
And again, a woman of Hymowitz's age surely benefited from the arrangements of the 1970's...
"Agreed. Do it for family and for God."
ReplyDeleteIn a godless society, it pays to be a sociopath.
"Secondly it should be noted that women do stand to benefit from immature men. Their position to superiority becomes established if they can show that they are the mature ones. What we can then get is "maturity" being defined as what a women wants at a given moment, such as marriage and a baby when the woman wants it. "
Exactly, and then to complete her maturity she goes on to divorce and eat, pray and love. This is far worse than a man who doesn't want to "grow up".
He is refusing a position that used to some have power, now there is slavery and dishes; in the latter the woman has grown bored of her "responsibilities".
The whole narrative described by Kay is twisted.
"I will admit that there is a "testing" process involved in manhood. This also goes along with a sense of male exclusiveness. Where is the testing now to come from? "
Isn't that obvious? From women. Even Kay uses this implicit assumption, alongwith female entitlement to a good relationship. Maybe she wouldn't when female video gamers become a sizeable chunk and start talking of discrimination and sexism in video gaming.
""Manliness" implies certain qualities."
It's pointless to have virtues and your dick in your hand when that won't lead you to fatherhood in the way you desire.
Women waged a war against the male ego, they shouldn't be surprised that men have given it up.
After all, they didn't have much of it in the first place.
But then an ego is an evil thing, isn't it; other than when it's sexually attractive.
"In a third of marriages men initiate the divorces."
Mr. Devlin's article(rotating polyandry) pointed out that many of these men are goaded into it by their bored and angry wives.
The excerpt discussing this:
The women sometimes responded with a kind of countermanipulation: “they thought if they were cold and treated their husbands terribly, the men would leave, or ask them to leave.”
Sometimes this happens—which, incidentally, explains why divorce initiation statistics can be misleading. A significant portion of the roughly thirty percent of divorces which are formally male-initiated result from the wife deliberately maneuvering her husband into taking the step.
But it is not always easy for women to obtain a divorce in this manner:
“Some of the women couldn’t believe the things their husbands were willing to put up with.” (So much for men not being committed.) The author recounts cases where women deliberately tried to provoke their husbands into striking them because they calculated it would be to their advantage in the looming child-custody dispute.
The male ego has been trampled upon so much that they wouldn't even leave a harridan; wonder why Kay then wants them to be even more servile.
Slwerner said,
ReplyDelete"Numerous young women today have made themselves poor marital choices by virtual of having become pregnant (often as teenagers) by “men” who themselves weren’t marriage/father material."
This is a lower class option, I don't know of a single middle class person who has done that. Should such a thing happen with middle class women they're likely to have an abortion.
"Additionally, a substantial percentage of young women (especially in the US), have become obese."
Plenty of men have too. Do we quote Family Guy? "Lois men aren't fat, only fat women are fat".
namae nanka said,
"In a godless society, it pays to be a sociopath."
That itself is a godless comment and usually only atheists talk like that.
"The male ego has been trampled upon so much that they wouldn't even leave a harridan; wonder why Kay then wants them to be even more servile."
This is true, women want power and also strong men. This seems a bit of a contradiction at times. Arguably men though were not that different, a domestic wife might find herself cheated on with the secretary precisely because such a woman was substantially different from what he chose to marry.
There seems to be a desire here to have strong laws so betas can remain married. There is a certain element of sense in this. Is it not unreasonable though that betas should also be encouraged to alpha up? "Manliness" standards were demanding and by their presence they encouraged men to keep improving.
Jesse_7, of teen pregnancy - ”This is a lower class option, I don't know of a single middle class person who has done that.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t know about Australia, but it’s nay all that uncommon in the US to see it extending up into the middle-class. I would imagine you heard of Bristol Palin? Her situation is not that rare, BTW. I personally know of several upper-middle class families (devout Christians) who have encouraged and supported their teenage daughters who got pregnant to keep the child, with their financial support in helping them to raise the child.
Jesse_7, of obesity - ”Plenty of men have too.”
Yes, I’m aware. There is a specific reason why I didn’t volunteer that (young) men aren’t also “guilty” of making themselves undesirable as well – Kay Hymowitz, et. al. have already done so. And, some of the TradCon comments here seem to suggest the same gender-based view that the problems of society (in this case non-marriage) are mostly due to men, so that the corrective action is to try to “fix” men.
I often get the impression that some are reluctant to face the reality that woman are responsible as well, and likely much more so than are men. Much of the “not growing up” and “not seeking to commit” are responses to the changes in woman over the past several decades. There is a very strong likelihood that had the women not changed (first) men would not have changed much at all. Under traditional marriage, the majority of men benefited greatly, and the sexual revolution has benefited relatively few men. There has not existed any compelling reason for most men to wish to change what had been a very effective system.
Women were the ones who were encouraged to agitate for “reform”, so as to cast off the shackles of marriage and monogamy (Betty Freidan, et. al.). As woman gained political power (votes), they increasingly pushed for the “penalties” to women’s misbehavior and poor (sexual) choices to be removed (no-fault divorce, welfare, etc.).
I could go on, but, hopefully, you get the picture. Societal institutions like marriage got fouled up by the demands for change made by woman, so “fixing” men isn’t going to solve the issues.
On Novaseeker’s new post at the Spearhead (which I would highly recommend), poster TFH offers this:
”I will say that from what I have seen of Christian Conservatives, they are more afraid of receiving shaming language from a woman, than of dying.” (see comment to read the rest)
I wonder if he doesn’t have this one dead-on? Is always trying to find a way to put the blame on disproportionately on men merely a cop-out to avoid having to answer to conservative woman for the grave sin of pointing out the logs they have in their eyes?
[1 of 2]
ReplyDeleteJesse_7, of teen pregnancy - ”This is a lower class option, I don't know of a single middle class person who has done that.”
I don’t know about Australia, but it’s nay all that uncommon in the US to see it extending up into the middle-class. I would imagine you heard of Bristol Palin? Her situation is not that rare, BTW. I personally know of several upper-middle class families (devout Christians) who have encouraged and supported their teenage daughters who got pregnant to keep the child, with their financial support in helping them to raise the child.
Jesse_7, of obesity - ”Plenty of men have too.”
Yes, I’m aware. There is a specific reason why I didn’t volunteer that (young) men aren’t also “guilty” of making themselves undesirable as well – Kay Hymowitz, et. al. have already done so. And, some of the TradCon comments here seem to suggest the same gender-based view that the problems of society (in this case non-marriage) are mostly due to men, so that the corrective action is to try to “fix” men.
I often get the impression that some are reluctant to face the reality that woman are responsible as well, and likely much more so than are men. Much of the “not growing up” and “not seeking to commit” are responses to the changes in woman over the past several decades. There is a very strong likelihood that had the women not changed (first) men would not have changed much at all. Under traditional marriage, the majority of men benefited greatly, and the sexual revolution has benefited relatively few men. There has not existed any compelling reason for most men to wish to change what had been a very effective system.
[2 of 2]
ReplyDeleteWomen were the ones who were encouraged to agitate for “reform”, so as to cast off the shackles of marriage and monogamy (Betty Freidan, et. al.). As woman gained political power (votes), they increasingly pushed for the “penalties” to women’s misbehavior and poor (sexual) choices to be removed (no-fault divorce, welfare, etc.).
I could go on, but, hopefully, you get the picture. Societal institutions like marriage got fouled up by the demands for change made by woman, so “fixing” men isn’t going to solve the issues.
On Novaseeker’s new post at the Spearhead (which I would highly recommend), poster TFH offers this:
”I will say that from what I have seen of Christian Conservatives, they are more afraid of receiving shaming language from a woman, than of dying.” (see comment to read the rest)
I wonder if he doesn’t have this one dead-on? Is always trying to find a way to put the blame on disproportionately on men merely a cop-out to avoid having to answer to conservative woman for the grave sin of pointing out the logs they have in their eyes?
Slwerner said,
ReplyDelete"And, some of the TradCon comments here seem to suggest the same gender-based view that the problems of society (in this case non-marriage) are mostly due to men, so that the corrective action is to try to “fix” men."
I just hope we can get past this becuase we don't really think that, at this site at least. I just offered a few comments about men after a post that was focused on women and critical of Hymowitz' take.
Novaseeker - "I don't think laziness is the driving factor (and it isn't always video games, it's just as likely to be sports or going out to bars or what have you). The driving factor is the lack of a need to behave otherwise. The guys Hymowitz is writing about in NYC are not laggards. They are grads of elite schools and they work, often pretty hard, but they are not interested in commitment to women, and spend their free time in ways that *they* find enjoyable. They get girlfriends, too (one of Hymowitz's complaints), so they are not total betas either."
ReplyDelete[missed this comment earlier, but it's a great one, NS]
Anecdotally speaking, this describes a colleague of mine to a "T".
He's in his early 30's, holds a PhD., and is making a six-figure salary. He's a very hard working researcher (if his office wasn't next to mine, we'd likely not find time to speak to each other).
The thing is, while he's socially quite lib-leftist and an environmentalist (a big-time "tree-hugger"), he's also very opposed to marrying. He the sort that Novaseeker has noted that a Hymowitz's "professional class" sisters would be seeking, but who are entirely unavailable to them as potential husbands [there even some of this going on between the US coasts].
He's never mentioned playing video games, but I do know that he skies frequently, hikes and camps as he pleases, travels extensively, and attends both sporting events as well as "cultural" events (symphony, ballet, stage-plays, etc.).
In many ways, he leads an enviable life, and never lacks for willing girlfriends.
I don't have any idea about the numbers/percentages, but he does seem to be more typical of young professional unmarried men that I know of. Far from being game-playing, beer-swilling, porn-addicted, lay-abouts, living in basements, they simply have quite full and rewarding lives independent of women. They are the men that Hymowitiz is actually concerned about not "manning up" and committing themselves to some woman in marriage.
Trying to portray men who've wised up about modern women as all being abject "losers" seems as much a simple attempt at shaming men as it is any sort of serious attempt to understand young men.
"And, some of the TradCon comments here seem to suggest the same gender-based view that the problems of society (in this case non-marriage) are mostly due to men, so that the corrective action is to try to “fix” men."
ReplyDeleteNo some problems of society are the fault of men, but even a lot of these are men reacting to women changing rather than anything else.
Gender is not the main issue here. Gender is merely one of the battlefields of a single liberal worldview, THAT is the traditionalist position.
Just because something is good for men does not make it good for society as a whole.
What is certain is that when something is NOT good for men [being the vitality and dynamism of any society] then it cannot be good for the whole.
Jesse_7 - ”I just hope we can get past this becuase we don't really think that, at this site at least.”
ReplyDeleteJesse,
I was considering posts such as The Social Pathologist’s from earlier in the thread.
Such seem to be rather “mealy-mouthed” in addressing the role women have had in undermining marriage, but all too willing to jump on the band-wagon and add their own observations on “what’s wrong with the men”.
Now, I certainly not saying that men haven’t also been at fault, but, I tend to see what the “slacker” young men are doing (or, not doing) as being more an acceptance of the fact that the woman that they would otherwise try to better themselves for and pursue are just not interested in them.
In that so many “beta” young men are no longer actively pursuing women, you may not have had the number of opportunities to witness the sad spectacle of them “building up” the courage to approach a young woman (who would seem to be their SMV equal), only to be unsympathetically “shot down”, and turned away (in shame). I witnessed quite a few such scenes when I was younger, and, frankly, at times, when some guy suffered repeated rejections, I thought to myself, “he should just give up, and quit making a fool of himself”.
No, I look back and realize that it seems that a lot of the younger men in the same situations have, in fact, decided that rather than constantly risking their dignity to some ungrateful and (increasingly) tactless women (who, frankly, should be grateful for the attention, at the very least), and to forgo the “dating scene”.
I can hardly blame them.
The article should have been renamed from 'What happened to the good men?' to 'Why aren't there more Alphas'.
ReplyDeleteThe male equivalent would be, 'Why don't all chicks look like supermodels?' except the difference being men understand what a bell curve means.
I can't believe so much ink has been spilt responding to such an obviously stupid question.
Novaseeker wrote,
ReplyDelete"As for the masses, I don't expect men to change that much. If I were a 20-something I wouldn't bother, because while there certainly are "good women", the number of them is small, and the ROI of that kind of self-investment is therefore also rather small.
This is idolatry. And ironically, coming from the men's "rights" movement, it amounts to idolatry toward a woman.
Do what is right not because it will be good for some woman. Do what is right because it will be good for you, and above all, it brings honor to your Creator and Lord.
If you refuse that, then your quarrel is not with women but with God.
Slwerner said,
ReplyDelete"Far from being game-playing, beer-swilling, porn-addicted, lay-abouts, living in basements, they simply have quite full and rewarding lives independent of women."
In this instance you're describing an alpha who has no need to marry, he can get all the chicks he wants without that. Is he opposed to marriage because of the potential for being divorced or because it will mean restrictions on his lifestyle? Of course there are no children currently in that equation.
I guess its possible to say that its easier to be an alpha left/right liberal than an alpha right conservative. A left liberal only has to worry about himself, he can live his life according to relatively short term aims and goals, eg where am I going to go paragliding next summer. He may have some political or social interests but these can be picked up and then dropped just as easily.
ReplyDeleteThis free and easy lifestyle can make him very attractive to the opposite sex. Of course to marry would mean to give up some of that, especially if children were to follow. A right conservative has to worry not only about himself and his qualities and career, he's also going to be concerned about his family, his nation and probably his soul and doing the right thing. The more requirements involved will make it superficially harder to be an alpha from the right rather than the left.
slwerner,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it's wrong to assume that MGTOW men are losers. One of my brothers is not going to marry and he would have been a great catch. He has a good job, he's smart, creative and good with kids. And, yes, he keeps himself busy with hobbies of various kinds.
But I still don't think it's as full and rewarding a life as having a good marriage and having children. Nor do I believe it's what my brother would have chosen as a 20-year-old. He was demoralised by the culture of relationships in the 90s just as I was.
I can't help but regret that he wasn't able to form a family of his own. He would have made a terrific father.
@AP
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be assuming a 1:1 relationship .
No I'm not. A whole lot of men were beneficiaries of the sexual revolution and a lot of men were not. Of the two groups that were the losers, a majority were unwanted by the women and a small few were principled and thought the ideas of the revolution wrong.
Germaine Greer talking of her early days at Sydney University spoke of how it was the charismatic men that were the most enthusiastic proponents of soft polygamy.
To slwerner I don't think Bristol Palin is middle-classed or low-classed. She's high-classed with all of her money. Her dumb narcissistic mother Sarah Palin has released statements and actions over the past two years that shows her lack of seriousness towards conservatism with things like friends with a Mormon, her reality TV Show, her books and so many other things. She's just a capitalist right-liberal that pretended to be something she's not to snag votes.
ReplyDeleteThankfully because of her actions more and more traditional conservatives on the blogosphere are distancing themselves and have seen the light of right-liberalism, neoconservatism and libertarianism and it's incompatility with traditional conservatism.
It's kind of right-liberals believing in assimilation of immigrants to ideals like freedom and democracy and left-liberals believing in multiculturalism. The failure of assimilation has lead to multiculturalism in the USA for example and the failure of multiculturalism has lead to assimilation in the Europe for example. Right-liberals and left-liberals feed of each other in a vicious cycle.
"I just hope we can get past this becuase we don't really think that, at this site at least."
It doesn't matter what we do or say Jesse. In the minds of MRA's they somehow think that traditional conservatives have either created the sexual revolution (what the heck?), are aiding it (when it's the works of liberals and libertarians, not conservatives and let's face most 'conservatives' have huge infections of liberal worldview at their core) or are in control of society and therefore the blame or the cause (when they stand outside of the political and cultural system).
It stinks of the liberal accusation that divorce doesn't matter but oh my conservatives are hypocrites and we are so much moral than they are in combination that morality doesn't matter.
"Gender is not the main issue here. Gender is merely one of the battlefields of a single liberal worldview, THAT is the traditionalist position."
Agreed James. We have to go against the liberal worldview and things like gender and race come under the worldview and are important but not it's core. The core is community, society, God, etc with things like race and gender being important subsections making up the whole.
"But I still don't think it's as full and rewarding a life as having a good marriage and having children. Nor do I believe it's what my brother would have chosen as a 20-year-old. He was demoralised by the culture of relationships in the 90s just as I was."
He can give his life as a service to God since he couldn't have a family of his own sadly.
"I guess its possible to say that its easier to be an alpha left/right liberal than an alpha right conservative"
It is but it will never compare to traditional conservative masculinity (alpha right conservative).
Elizabeth Smith - ”In the minds of MRA's they somehow think that traditional conservatives have either created the sexual revolution”
ReplyDeleteOh, BS, Elizabeth! I challenge you to find these MRA’s who’ve claimed that Trad’s had ANYTHING to do with the sexual revolution. Go on, show me one.
No one thinks that Trads are at fault, as a group for the sexual revolution. The issue here is, for me, the way in which some seem to be trying to tip-toe past the reality that woman who were largely behind not only the sexual revolution, but also the current socio-sexual conditions which have convinced a significant number of men to “drop out” of the “pursuit of a mate race”. (Do you happen to remember that this thread started out as a discussion of Kay Hymowitz’s column?)
This is one area wherein Trads and other SocCons seem little different than feminists. They look at the issues facing society – here, that men don’t seem to be bettering themselves, and seeking commitments – and reflexively try to “fit” a “men are at fault” answer to what has happened.
Yes, men are behaving in ways that are not beneficial to society, are deeply selfish, and even self-destructive. There’s no argument there.
The argument is whether men simply arrived at these new modes of lifestyle unilaterally, or if they’ve been “pushed” into them. I sincerely believe it is the latter. Men have simply responded to what woman actually want (by being PUA’s) or by realizing that unleashed female sexuality and hypergamy have essentially cut them out of the marketplace – so why bother with enormous investments of time, money, and ego when failure seems inevitable?
This is an issue where SocCons and Trads are going to have to dispense with their automatic-Chivalry and female-pedastalizing tendencies and admit that woman are the ones who are mostly to blame for this situation, and that trying to show their preferred “fixes” down the throats of young men isn’t going to solve anything – because it completely ignore the real problem of needing to “fix” women first.
Here’s a quote from blogger OneSTDV, from his piece:
ReplyDeleteFeminists Caused Lack of "Good Men"
”Whenever a mainstream journalist tackles a topic pertaining to sexual issues, the axioms of female supremacism always undergird their arguments. These articles always present women as frustrated that they can't settle down with a "good man", placing the blame for the apparent absence of venerable men on the men themselves. We never hear about the increasing acceptance of sexual licentiousness, the motivations of female hypergamy, or the culture encouraging women to pursue a "Sex and the City" dream. Instead, the clueless authors criticize men for not growing up or taking responsibility.”
He goes on to give his own views on how feminism’s efforts to promote women ahead of men have worked to reduce men’s SMV’s
Not blame of Trad’s or SocCons at all, but another example of how women, not men, are the real culprits behind men “lagging” behind.
I suppose the "gripe" from Trads would be that he points out that the (left-liberal) Main-Stream Media is doing the same thing as are they - putting the blame on men.
Again, it's a issue where leftists and feminists seem to be in complete agreement with those on the conservative right (or is it the other way around?).
"I suppose the "gripe" from Trads would be that he points out that the (left-liberal) Main-Stream Media is doing the same thing as are they - putting the blame on men."
ReplyDeleteI don't know of anybody who does that. Most of them blame liberalism for infecting society (both men and women). It's liberalism that has done this to both men and women.
Slwerner,
ReplyDeleteYou say that some men are acting in socially damaging ways I would also say that many aren't willing to find a lasting solution to the solution and instead engage in individualist solutions. The men's movement as you've described it seems very individualist in its focus, ie its ok for men to seek "individual" lives, paragliding or whatever, provided they're happy. If the solution is as stark as we agree it is, then individualist solutions won't cut it. Men should as a collective be willing to say that this or that is unfair and unproductive to society. The idea that men can never do this because the system is stacked against them, therefore the best they can hope for is individualist strategies and also hope that everything will change because of their lack of participation, seems to me to be incorrect.
Elizabeth Smith - ” I don't know of anybody who does that. Most of them blame liberalism for infecting society (both men and women). It's liberalism that has done this to both men and women.“
ReplyDelete”I blame both the men and the women.”
Well,
It does seem that you put the blame “equally” on both (I mean that as being that you don’t put the blame primarily on women)?
Perhaps a better way to “tease” your honest views out would be to directly question what you see as the solution (as opposed to who to blame).
Now, my assertion is that the issue of men’s disinterests in marriage, commitment, and even for chasing after women will NOT be effectively addressed by either trying to shame them out of their behaviors, nor by seeking ways of depriving them of their diversions; but will rather require not only reform of existing anti-male laws, and elimination of anti-(white) male AA, but will also require a fundamental change in the ways in which (young) women conduct themselves. If you change these first, I believe there will be no need to try to force change on young men – they will already have been incentivized to make corrective changes on their own. If they feel that they have real prospects of finding a worthy women to marry, a job to support a family, and equal legal protections, most men will return to their true nature of wishing to marry and create a family.
Along with the needed legal reforms, do note that I believe that it is paramount to “fix” women first.
So, Elizabeth, what’s view on what “corrective actions” are necessary?
Jesse_7 - ” The men's movement as you've described it seems very individualist in its focus, ie its ok for men to seek "individual" lives, paragliding or whatever, provided they're happy.”
ReplyDelete(see my prior response to Elizabeth)
Yes, the MM is largely (at this point) aimed at “invidualistic” approaches to life. I do hope you’ve read Novaseekers contribution on this.
But, frankly, what is really wrong with that approach?
I certainly don’t advocate for some choices (i.e. the PUA lifestyle) available to men, but I do advocate for men to be fully “developed” as human beings with or without women in their lives.
It’s not but a couple of generations ago that a young man was more-or-less expected to have “established” himself prior to seeking marriage. He need to be able to provide for a wife and subsequent children. Not only would he then have the respect of the community, but he would also gain the admiration of a women (who were his SMV equals).
What has changed is that now, not only has marriage become passé, but what a man must do to “establish” himself with women has been fundamentally altered. Being positioned as “good provider” means sh*t to women (I don’t think I need to rehash the reasons why). And, should a “good man” wish to marry, the relative dearth of correspondingly “good women” is going to mean that many such men are simply “left out”.
So, what’s left for men is to “establish” themselves first-and-foremost for themselves.
Would I prefer that they aspire to more than many seem to be doing? Of course. I’m not into video games, porn, nor being inebriated. I wholly agree that these are useless, self-destructive behaviors, of zero benefit to society.
The problem remains how to convince them to do otherwise. I’ve (long) suggested that not only are legal reforms necessary to provide men a way to achieve on their merit and to provide them with equal legal protections, but that woman are going to need to encourage to become worthy of being sought after for marriage. Shifting young men from individualistic pursuits to societal-enhancing (self-sacrificing) ones is going to require first giving them something worth-while to focus on.
As I’ve stated before, the need is not so much to “fix” men, but rather to “fix” women first.
[looks as if my comments got “eaten”…again – retrying 1 0f 2}
ReplyDeleteJesse_7 - ” The men's movement as you've described it seems very individualist in its focus, ie its ok for men to seek "individual" lives, paragliding or whatever, provided they're happy.”
(see my prior response to Elizabeth)
Yes, the MM is largely (at this point) aimed at “invidualistic” approaches to life. I do hope you’ve read Novaseekers contribution on this.
But, frankly, what is really wrong with that approach?
I certainly don’t advocate for some choices (i.e. the PUA lifestyle) available to men, but I do advocate for men to be fully “developed” as human beings with or without women in their lives.
It’s not but a couple of generations ago that a young man was more-or-less expected to have “established” himself prior to seeking marriage. He need to be able to provide for a wife and subsequent children. Not only would he then have the respect of the community, but he would also gain the admiration of a women (who were his SMV equals).
[2 of 2]
ReplyDeleteWhat has changed is that now, not only has marriage become passé, but what a man must do to “establish” himself with women has been fundamentally altered. Being positioned as “good provider” means sh*t to women (I don’t think I need to rehash the reasons why). And, should a “good man” wish to marry, the relative dearth of correspondingly “good women” is going to mean that many such men are simply “left out”.
So, what’s left for men is to “establish” themselves first-and-foremost for themselves.
Would I prefer that they aspire to more than many seem to be doing? Of course. I’m not into video games, porn, nor being inebriated. I wholly agree that these are useless, self-destructive behaviors, of zero benefit to society.
The problem remains how to convince them to do otherwise. I’ve (long) suggested that not only are legal reforms necessary to provide men a way to achieve on their merit and to provide them with equal legal protections, but that woman are going to need to encourage to become worthy of being sought after for marriage. Shifting young men from individualistic pursuits to societal-enhancing (self-sacrificing) ones is going to require first giving them something worth-while to focus on.
As I’ve stated before, the need is not so much to “fix” men, but rather to “fix” women first.
slwerner both men and women need to be "fixed". Liberalism has infected both men and women and therefore traditional conservatives need to fight against liberalism wherever it may be.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Smith - ” slwerner both men and women need to be "fixed". Liberalism has infected both men and women and therefore traditional conservatives need to fight against liberalism wherever it may be.”
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
Was that an answer (“fight against liberalism”), or just a “dodge” of my question?
I was looking for something, well, a whole lot more specific.
For example, one of the first things that OI believe needs to be done is that main-stream churches in the west need to stop coddling women, excusing their bad behaviors, and stop encouraging them to find ways to blame men for their choices. These churches need to start telling women the truth.
Tell them that they are “fallen sinners”, same as men, and that they are NOT inherently better, more moral ,and more Godly than men just by virtue of being born female.
Tell them NOT to expect that there will be some White Knight waiting to save them from their own, self-chosen, wayward and immoral ways.
Tell them that if they chose to be promiscuous, it is “just” that they become pariahs, and that’s just exactly what they should expect.
Now, some churches that I’ve either been in, or have heard about, are doing just the opposite.
Am I picking on “Churchianity”? Yes, I am. I figure the place to start is with those women who will be most likely to be willing to hear the truth about themselves, and who are most likely to be willing to act accordingly. The churches aren't exactly doing their part to "train up young women"
I could go on, and on (and on, and on, and on) with a list of specific undertaking which I believe would be corrective - and not all pertaining to either just women or churches.
I’m asking for something along those lines from you.
I’m going to add this from the highly esteemed blogger grerp, who stands as a glowing example of they type of woman necessary if there is to be any hope of turning things around:
ReplyDelete”I've been following the discussion between The Thinking Housewife and The Spearhead, which more or less boils down to whether men should be encouraged or coerced to marry or otherwise support women when marrying or supporting women is 1) contrary to his own best interests and 2) could lead - via family court income extraction - to servitude and/or lifetime penury. While I am a strong believer in marriage as a building block of civilization, my view is that men should not be encouraged or coerced to marry for several reasons:
1) The short term good marriage offers for women and children can easily be undone by women at any time if she decides she wants out. And, yes, for the people who will sputter at me, men can walk too. But we are not trying to shame or coerce women into marriage here. We know subconsciously that marriage is a very good deal for women; we've just been trying to repress it because it seems "sexist." Coercing men to contract themselves to women and then allowing women to break that contract at will makes no sense.” (you can read the rest of her reasons on her blog just by clicking here)
Slwerner,
ReplyDeleteMy thinking is that the solution will have to be lead by men. Ultimately we can't wait for women to become tired of the situation and then look to offer us more. For men to be leaders in this day and age they will have to work hard to be responsible to others and not just themselves. This in my opinion does not have to be at the expense of developing as an individual but it does have to be a high priority.
Jesse_7 - ”My thinking is that the solution will have to be lead by men.”
ReplyDeleteJesse,
You seem like a bright young man, who’s willing to be open-minded. I believe that you are sincere in what you wish to see happen.
The problem I’m having here is that to simply say that men must lead isn’t any more explanatory than is, for instance, “fight against liberalism”.
I’m not disagreeing with you, mostly because I don’t know what you mean, but you really need to “flesh” that out a little bit better.
My take on the male leadership that is needed would be for men who have taken a sober look at the situation that society is in, and who are not internally governed by a misplaced sense of Chivalry and female-pedestalization, to seek to lead young men in acting in ways that are more likely to produce positive results.
But, so as to not leave it as some rather vague principle, I would specifically wish that men would carefully instruct young men about the pitfalls that could await them, and advise them that they must be very careful in selecting a woman to be their wife; and, to be willing to forgo marriage unless and until a worthy women can be found.
Along with that men should lead young men to seek higher pursuits (than, say, video games, partying, and porn), if only so that they will be better men (regardless of their eventual marital status).
The outcome I would envision is that younger women will see that only women who have kept themselves worthy of marriage are having any luck in getting quality men (who’ve made themselves worthy of marriage as well) to commit to them.
So, now, what was your vision for male leadership?
What Trads don't get is that social order is dictated top down not bottom up.
ReplyDeleteTelling men to 'alpha up or man up' does nothing but reward the status quo.
Since the 'system' is virtually omnipotent, the best option for men is simply to not participate.
Ganga, booze and slacking off is doing Gods work.
Feudalism collapsed Rome and feminism (default feudalism) will collapse the West.
slwerner, you are just so confused, and so is grerp. Among the many things traditionalist conservatives and feminists agree upon, the notion that women cannot be held responsible for their actions is very high on the list.
ReplyDeleteFeminists would say that woman was empowered, she was keeping it real, she stuck it to The Man. We all know the rest.
Traditionalists would say that those men were rude to her, that putting her to any inconvenience was just evil, and of course that if only her husband, or boyfriend, or bed-partner-du-jour would just man up she would surely be the perfect, angelic special snowflake that God(dess) wants her to be. Many, not all, of us know the rest of that, too.
Different slogans, same result: entitled princess who belongs in jail. For a long time. With her child permanently taken away, and given to an intact family.
However, the odds are, some White Knight traditionalist judge, or some feminist judge, will see her as a put-upon woman, and let her off as easily as possible. Plus give the child back to her, and her "significant other". Because, after all, she's a woman, and women are special. Oh, boy, are they...
Seriously, this is an example of a modern, entitled, special snowflake American woman. This is what Laura Woods orders men to just marry, and reproduce with.
This. This. This is a piece of reality. A reality that consistently eludes tradcons. Please, all of you, download the video and play it before you go on one of your "marry, and reproduce!" tirades.
Elizabeth, if you have a brother, I'm sure you'd want him to marry a woman like this. Because it's his duty, right?
Thanks for the pointer, slwerner. Now I can read grerps site for a while, and encounter some sense...
Slwerner said,
ReplyDelete"I’m not disagreeing with you, mostly because I don’t know what you mean"
Lol. My idea is that all men should join or be willing to join the men's movement rather than try to fight through society entirely on their own. That men would recognise that they have an obligation to sort this situation out for all men and not just seek solutions for themselves. That men would train or education other men on the pitfalls that await and generally try to assist men to avoid them. Having done that engage in their relationships in a way that doesn't leave them compromised, to the best of their ability, but still aiming for roughly traditional aims of relationship and marriage.
Anonymous reader said,
" Because, after all, she's a woman, and women are special. Oh, boy, are they..."
If women are "childlike" in some of their behaviors that includes the way that they seek sympathy when they stuff up. Lifelong criminals do this as well, along with some minorities. We obviously can't excuse behavior simply because a woman does it and male sympathy, traditional or otherwise, is running pretty thin right now.
Anonymous Reader is another foolish MRA. Didn't I tell Jesse many of them believe traditional conservatives are responsible for the consequences of liberalism or caused it?
ReplyDeleteJesse you would find this page interesting --- http://notanmra.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-i-am-not-mra.html
Forget them. Most of them (not all) accept the premises of the liberal worldview.
Thanks for the link Elizabeth. There are some interesting criticisms, however, in the absence of a men's movement I'm not sure what you would suggest? I think a men's movement is entirely appropriate provided it doesn't become a separationist movement.
ReplyDeleteI think the best would be to criticize liberalism as a whole and it's philosophy, work on creating communities, making plans that can replace today's society and other things. Unfortunately a men's rights movement is by definition liberal since they value autonomy and so many other things. I used to think the men's rights movement was a good alternative but then it occured to me that this is just the male version of feminism.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to lead to autonomy as the end, it can just be a focus on fairness and what's good for society.
Someone suggested having Patriarchy movement isntead of Men's rights movement.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you all think about it?
Traditionalists would say that those men were rude to her, that putting her to any inconvenience was just evil, and of course that if only her husband, or boyfriend, or bed-partner-du-jour would just man up she would surely be the perfect, angelic special snowflake that God(dess) wants her to be.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I think you're going to be surprised by the coming traditionalist movement. We don't think like that at all. We don't live in an age in which we could think like that.
Elizabeth Smith - ”I think the best would be to criticize liberalism as a whole and it's philosophy, work on creating communities, making plans that can replace today's society and other things.”
ReplyDeleteSo, in other words, you really don’t have any real ideas on what to do – just platitudes.
ES - ”Unfortunately a men's rights movement is by definition liberal since they value autonomy and so many other things.”
You throw out autonomy as a pejorative (not unlike Thordaddy does with de facto homo and ”devote dykism), but I cannot ascertain that you have any real “grip” on what it means.
What do you, Elizabeth, hold out as the alternative to autonomy for individuals? Have you decided that you will let others make major decisions for you in life? Or, are you going to want to make those sort of decisions yourself?
If you do wish to make your own choices – who you to date, who you will marry, and even if you will marry – you are, yourself, asserting a level of your own personal autonomy.
Perhaps your personal philosophy could better be stated as: ”Autonomy for me, but not for thee”?
I had meant to add in my previous post that my wife has a cousin who is part of some Christian (Cult), in which the church leaders do pick "appropriate" marriage partners, and must "approve" of any individually (mutual choices by the two participants, actually) chosen "pairings" before they can be married in that "church". The idea there, as this cousin tries to relate/argue to others is that young people are incapable of making such important choices for themselves, and need wise and unbiased oversight to keep them from making the wrong choice.
ReplyDeleteIt contains a bit of logic, as I have personally seen many, many “good” Christian young woman make some seriously stupid choices (usually involving their passing-over “good guys” to be with some “bad boy”).
Yet, I would hold that individual autonomy IS paramount. I would further argue that “arranged marriages” with Western Culture are not particularly likely to be happy and strong, as there is a strong probability that the spouses are being “forced” to settle for someone other than who they desired (I’d further argue that this is especially true for the women involved, who’ve been raised in a society that has championed and made a virtual deity of their personal empowerment/self-determination).
And, given that they will be living in modern Western society, they will be subject to the same temptations as are other “less-than-fully-happily-married” people.
I would say that pure autonomy is the denial of a sense of responsibility to others not voluntariness nor the existence of basic choices in life.
ReplyDeleteJesse_7 - "I would say that pure autonomy is the denial of a sense of responsibility to others"
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, the MRM exists solely because (some) men DO feel a responsibility towards other (particularly other men).
This seem to what drives gynocentric right-conservative women crazy about the MRM - men are being concerned about men, and not concerned about women instead.
This is why otherwise well-intentioned women like Laura Wood keep falling short. They cannot get past their underlying consideration of "what is best for women".
Typically, what is “best for women” will coincide with what is best for society, so this core-philosophy (thus, the gyoncentrist label) doesn’t always present itself.
Thus, as she has often done, Laura Wood can tackle the issues of “badly behaving women”, and seems to be perfectly in-line with what the majority of the MRM also hold.
It is when the issue becomes “what’s best for women”, and even “what’s best for society” not being a particularly good for men that the gynocentrism clearly emerges.
I have (had, it now seems, as she informs me I am “banned”) a long running debate with her about the what should be the utility of the MRA’s (and, let’s be clear here, if you are not directly acting for legislative and legal reform, nor contributing to those who are, you are not an MRActivist – you might be an MRAdvocate, but, really, your just part of the “Manosphere”) in the pursuit of common goals (i.e. reform of Anti-Family Laws).
She agrees with most every point about what is wrong, but, in terms of actually agitating for those reforms, she starts making excuses – “the MRA don’t go far enough”, “working within the system lend credibility to that system”, “all this focus on ‘rights’ is wrong”, and, recently, “MRA’s are too nasty”.
What she dances around is that she doesn’t really want those reforms to occur, because, some gains in the rights of men WILL come at the expense of the privileges of women, and she cannot get her head around the idea that sometime the right and just thing to do will “not be in the best interest of women”.
The “marriage” debate is a good example. Woman, nearly universally, understand that woman do benefit from marriage (and even from it’s dissolution). And, while she knows quite well the pitfalls for men entering into Marriage 2.0, her advice (to men) is not “proceed with caution”, but rather “dive right in”. Her “logic” for this – even if a man gets completely screwed-over, he can still have his “honor” (although, as I tried to point out to her, the BEST he can actually have is his own personal “integrity” – his “honor” will likely have been undone already).
I would hold that individual autonomy IS paramount.
ReplyDeleteJesse gave a good answer, but I'd like to reinforce the point that traditionalists are by no means arguing for abolishing autonomy. We are against something much more specific, namely the idea that autonomy should be considered the overriding value or the organising principle of society.
If you make autonomy paramount then why would people marry in the first place? Obviously people are deciding that there are other goods apart from autonomy that take precedence when it comes to marriage.
A society has to order the goods available to it. Autonomy will be part of the mix and in a Western community might even have a particular emphasis. But autonomy will not be paramount in all cases. If it were made so, then that community would not hold together over time.
I think the best would be to criticize liberalism as a whole and it's philosophy, work on creating communities, making plans that can replace today's society and other things.
ReplyDeleteI think that's a good overall approach. It doesn't mean that traditionalists wouldn't get involved in more specific campaigns as our numbers and influence grow.
MR - ”If you make autonomy paramount then why would people marry in the first place?”
ReplyDeleteMark,
I believe that you are implying a problem which doesn’t exist.
Men and women want to be together, they yearn to be together, many burn to be together. Marriage, historically speaking, has been a very natural thing for men and women. Men didn’t have literal guns to their heads (outside of “shotgun weddings”) forcing them to marry. They gladly chose to. They quite autonomously chose to do so. There was great benefit to be had for the average man. If this hadn’t been the case, marriage would have died out long, long ago.
What has changed (almost exclusively due to the unleashing of female sexuality via the sexual revolution – hypergamy, birthcontrol, etc.) is that there is less and less real benefit to marriage for the average man. Most, if they wish to, CAN (or, at least, could) get sex without marriage. Than can even father children (I’d point you to the Ghettos, Barrios and Trailer Parks of America – lot’s “kids”, almost no “fathers”). Those who cannot, probably aren’t marriageable to women anyway (of course, women being “picky” about who they will marry/have se with is seen as a good and wise thing).
And, even marriage no longer guarantees a man access to sex, nor even “exclusivity” of his wife’s.
Men are not just recently making “autonomous” decisions regarding marriage. The are actually doing much as they have been doing for centuries. It’s just that now, increasingly, the results of an open-minded consideration about whether or not to marry is turning out in the negative.
Trying to force some new-fangled “anti-autonomy” to put pressure on men to marry isn’t a sound answer (although, it is a far sight better than calling them de facto homos/devote dykes). The “pressure that ought to be applied is to women to try to get them to return to better behaviors which will make more men willing to marry them (as the outcome of their age-old, autonomous, decision-making process).
MR - ” It doesn't mean that traditionalists wouldn't get involved in more specific campaigns as our numbers and influence grow.”
ReplyDeleteTraditional marriage, if it could be revived, would be an easy-sell to most men. Very few men actually “enjoy” and “benefit” from the sexual revolution/sexual liberation of women, and most recognize that they are actually worse off because of it. Traditional marriage offers a way to restore “balance” for most men to be able to have a strong happy marriage to a woman, and to raise a family. Most men wouldn’t even mind the demands placed on them, if it was for a wife and family they loved.
The problems with achieving it are two-fold. First, the extant laws work over-whelming against it. And secondly, most women are not the least bit interested in it.
This latter consideration is , sadly, likely the reason why Traditionalism isn’t going to grow enough to be truly influential. Most women aren’t going to be willing to ‘submit” to the demands it makes on them. They still want marriage, of course, but without the demands – they want full control.
Trying to force some new-fangled “anti-autonomy” to put pressure on men to marry isn’t a sound answer ... The “pressure that ought to be applied is to women to try to get them to return to better behaviors which will make more men willing to marry them
ReplyDeleteOK, but the question then is why women were persuaded to give up on these better behaviours and why the establishment encouraged them to do so.
And a considerable part of the answer is that the state ideology is to maximise autonomy - which, for women, means extending the single girl lifestyle and focusing on careers rather than marriage and motherhood.
A woman who is serious about finding someone decent to marry acts very differently toward men than a woman who is in it for a casual affair or who is following her sex instinct alone.
@Jesse: One needn't be a WN to note that, nor that Hanna Rosin, author of that gloating Atlantic "men are obsolete" article and TED Talk, or Wendy Shalit, Christina Hoff Sommers, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Andrea Dworkin, Gertrude Stein, Naomi Klein, Eve Ensler, and many, many, many more, are of The Tribe.
ReplyDeleteIt is as it is. Why it is so, I don't know or care. It is, however, fair to note these things, and doesn't make one a bigot to do so - unless pointing out truths is bigoted - but only a liberal would argue that - and only when a conservative does it; if it's a liberal celebrating it, it's okay.
The general unequivocalness that people like Social Pathologist, Kathy, Jesse etc. invoke is born from a total misunderstanding of how the sexes interact. They are not interchangeable and the root cause for today's world isn't split directly down the middle between the two.
ReplyDeleteThe anonymous commenter at the start of thread had it both ironically completely on the ball and at the same time off the mark entirely. In the past, women didn't select for much of anything because fathers would fastidiously protect their daughters and screen potential suitors. Given that the future of the human race rests on a woman's hips, trusting that future to a teenage girl's judgment was probably not the best course of action.
Today, women have total and utter control from puberty on up. But their desires have not changed: they're simply out in the open, guised by this or that brand of rhetorical chaff but still essentially obvious. Thus, in the words of the anon commenter, the "development of male qualities" is now "dependent upon women selecting [those] qualities", and of course, if women don't select them, then "these same desirable male qualities will disappear".
People like the Social Pathologist (and Kathy, who have a vested interest in rationalizing the status quo) can wax lyrical about male stoicism and godly virtue all they like. It'll mean absolutely nothing to that most crucial of enterprises: the raising of and caring for children. Insofar as being ethical confers no evolutionary advantage, men will not be ethical, and you have a long row to hoe if you want to convince them of the advantages of voluntary celibacy.
Terre said,
ReplyDelete"They are not interchangeable and the root cause for today's world isn't split directly down the middle between the two."
In many respects men and women are interchangeable. An employer generally doesn't care who does the job for them provided its done and so many women work in careers.
Traditionalists would say that those men were rude to her, that putting her to any inconvenience was just evil, and of course that if only her husband, or boyfriend, or bed-partner-du-jour would just man up she would surely be the perfect, angelic special snowflake that God(dess) wants her to be.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I think you're going to be surprised by the coming traditionalist movement.
I doubt it.
We don't think like that at all.
I see no evidence to support this claim at all. On the contrary, pedestalization of women appears to be an inherent, fundamental, premise.
We don't live in an age in which we could think like that.
On the contrary, we all live in an age when we are all constantly urged to think in that manner.
Indeed, one could sum up the Hymowitz article thus:
"Men bad, women good".
Nothing new there, neither in feminism nor in trad-con thinking.m
Anonymous Reader is another foolish MRA. Didn't I tell Jesse many of them believe traditional conservatives are responsible for the consequences of liberalism or caused it?
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, do you ever actually read the postings you are replying to? Or do you just emotionally blurt out something that makes you feel your superior womanhood has once again been proven?
Honestly, when it comes to spouting slogans thoughtlessly, trad-con women are just as skilled as any feminist.
Terre said,
ReplyDelete"They are not interchangeable and the root cause for today's world isn't split directly down the middle between the two."
Jesse_7
In many respects men and women are interchangeable. An employer generally doesn't care who does the job for them provided its done and so many women work in careers.
But men and women are not interchangeable within a family. That's the point. Fathers and mothers bring different things to families. Androgeny, the dream of some subspecies of feminists, is simply not possible from a biological point of view.
Brain structure affects how we see the world and relate to it, and men's brains are different from women's brains from a very early age.
Anonymous Reader,
ReplyDeleteThe current social situation is not a product of genetic differences within the family or between men and women, but women no longer being economically dependant on men. They can work and earn on their own, so they don't need to marry for a livelihood. All of the extras, such as divorce support for ex wives are in addition to this, or an attempt to replicate female economic independence in the domestic sphere.
Yes in the workplace in many respects they are interchangeable. They can then take this attitude home with them and say I won't accept a subordinate position there either.
That far they've managed to articulate. After that, however, they become confused and have no coherent agenda, aside from power grabbing. Do they want stay at home husbands? Do they want children at all? Do they want more work and career time or less? Nobody can really determine an answer to any of these questions. Because their cause is mixed up with liberalism, ie my autonomy, my rights, my future and other mys, they can’t adequately get past what's good for them at any given moment and look to the future.
Jesse_7
ReplyDeleteThe current social situation is not a product of genetic differences within the family or between men and women, but women no longer being economically dependant on men. They can work and earn on their own, so they don't need to marry for a livelihood. All of the extras, such as divorce support for ex wives are in addition to this, or an attempt to replicate female economic independence in the domestic sphere.
I believe we are talking past each other. I have no disagreement with any of this, indeed I've written much of it in comments here myself over the years.
Yes in the workplace in many respects they are interchangeable. They can then take this attitude home with them and say I won't accept a subordinate position there either.
Ah. I think I see your point. There is a flip side to it, of course: when men must compete with women all day in the work place, the last thing that they need is another competitor at home. Thus in my opinion, there are men who will not marry, because they don't want to have to deal with contentious women all day, and another contentious woman at night. This ties back to the original article by Hymowitz, although she appears too blinkered by her 70's era feminism to see it.
That far they've managed to articulate. After that, however, they become confused and have no coherent agenda, aside from power grabbing. Do they want stay at home husbands? Do they want children at all? Do they want more work and career time or less? Nobody can really determine an answer to any of these questions. Because their cause is mixed up with liberalism, ie my autonomy, my rights, my future and other mys, they can’t adequately get past what's good for them at any given moment and look to the future.
Obviously, the answer to what they want is I Want It All, and since modern women have been told that they can "have it all" for a generation now, they clearly believe they are entitled to it.
These are the women that young men are supposed to "man up" and marry, according to feminist Hymowitz, and also according to more than a few traditionalist/conservatives.
See the problem? The real question is where have all the good women gone. But Hymowitz will not, and likely can not, ask that question. Because it would imply that women's choices have consequences...just for a start...and effects on other people, as well as the domestic animals known as "men".
slwerner
ReplyDeleteTrying to force some new-fangled “anti-autonomy” to put pressure on men to marry isn’t a sound answer ... The “pressure that ought to be applied is to women to try to get them to return to better behaviors which will make more men willing to marry them
Mark Richardson
OK, but the question then is why women were persuaded to give up on these better behaviours and why the establishment encouraged them to do so.
And a considerable part of the answer is that the state ideology is to maximise autonomy - which, for women, means extending the single girl lifestyle and focusing on careers rather than marriage and motherhood.
Here is a nice example of the kind of pedestalization that traditionalists repeatedly engage in. Apparently, all women were good, traditionalist, submissive ladies until one day, they were persuaded by some mysterious power to give all that up.
It couldn't be that women have an innate tendency to be self centered, just like men (well, MRA men, of course), and given the opportunity to unleash their hypergamous nature via safe, reliable birth control, a whole lot of them took off after the Alpha carousel and never looked back? No, no, no! That can't be true, why, it would imply that women have as animalistic and base a nature as men! And every good trad-con knows that is simply not true.
It couldn't be that women saw an opportunity to dump the boring loser they were married to, yet keep his resources and his children via "no fault" i.e. "man's fault" divorce? No, no, that would imply that women are as selfish as men are (well, MRA men, of course), rather than the altruistic angels that traditionalists know and love.
There was no vast, overarching conspiracy. There was a technological change that unleashed female hypergamy, aided by laws passed by trad-cons who still lived in some mythical, Victorian past where women were more moral than men just because they were women. And we are all still watching the disaster unfold.
A woman who is serious about finding someone decent to marry acts very differently toward men than a woman who is in it for a casual affair or who is following her sex instinct alone.
That's true. But most women are rewarded for following their hypergamy alone, for over a decade. And who says they are wrong?
Well, Men's Rights types do. Some traditionalists do, too. But not nearly enough. Because trad-cons still have this premise that women are more moral than men, absent some sinister force leading them astray. I do not see any acceptance of the known, scientifically proven, nature of women on the trad-con side.
This is a major, major flaw.
trad-cons still have this premise that women are more moral than men
ReplyDeleteAnon, the traditionalist position was put, in it fullest form, by Bonald as follows:
"The father has a particular duty to represent the objective, transcendent moral law"
Obviously, we consider the abdication of this duty by the later Victorians to have been a grave error with damaging consequences for society.
Anon, I don't live in some ethereal world. I went to uni for quite some years, I observed the ladette behaviours on display there. It is impossible for trads like myself to believe that women are more moral.