Friday, December 30, 2011

Fathers matter

Katherine Baldwin is 41 and is unmarried and childless. She has written a piece for the Daily Mail on the difficulties of dating men when the biological clock is ticking loudly. In her piece she writes:

It seems the trend to postpone motherhood till later has produced an army of women in their late 30s and early 40s who, like me, wonder if they’ve left it too late. We had succeeded in our careers and now we were ready for a family, but no one informed our ageing ovaries of the plan. We thought we could have it all, but statistics tell us that not all of us can.

That's an important point to make, particularly when one in five British women are reaching age 45 without having had children. And I have no doubt that putting careers and independence first is part of the problem. But there are other reasons why women end up childless, reasons which Katherine Baldwin discusses at her own website (more of which later).
Katherine Baldwin

My wife has two female friends who are both beautiful and feminine women, but who have remained childless. One of these women chose obviously unsuitable men for boyfriends right through her 30s. The other didn't go out with men.

I've had a chance to get to know these women and the problem isn't really a desire to remain independent. Rather, it's that they weren't able to overcome problematic relationships with their fathers.

I've noticed too that the women at my workplace who marry well and in a timely way seem to have close and affectionate ties with their fathers.

It seems that fathers matter. The work we put into our relationships with our daughters has long-term consequences.

Katherine Baldwin explains her difficulties in partnering partly in terms of an absent father:

I seem to be one of those women who craves intimacy and affection with a man but is so scared of it that she chooses people who aren’t up for it or ready for it or she sabotages relationships with anyone who is. This pattern seems to be common with women of “absent” fathers...

She writes also that:

my tendency to choose inappropriate or unattainable partners is definitely the most concerning at this stage in my life...

The above quotations also chime with something I read a few weeks back in the Mail on Sunday’s You Magazine about daughters of absent fathers. It said that “as adults, women with absent fathers are often torn between longing for a committed, loving relationship and a fear of having one in case the man they love abandons them as their father did. It is only when they realise what they are doing that they can move on and have a healthy relationship.”

...For many years, I’ve had far too many boxes that a potential partner had to tick and I’ve found fault in many a boyfriend. I’d always concluded they weren’t right for me. I’m finally realising that maybe my tick boxes and fault-finding were my ways of avoiding commitment – the commitment I so craved but was so terrified of.

That's not to say that other factors might not be involved. When women are told that their 20s are for "freedom" rather than for family formation, they are more at liberty to choose "inappropriate or unattainable" partners - men who push "sexy" buttons rather than "potential husband/father" ones. And pickiness seems to be a part of our natures - we build up idealised, romantic images of our soul mate that are difficult for people to measure up to in real life. (That's one of the problems with leaving family formation too late - we are often so driven to relationships in our early 20s that the pickiness is overruled - but later on in life it can take control).

Katherine Baldwin's career has been a glamorous one: she has travelled extensively overseas as a correspondent. But she is honest in discussing her mixed feelings about it. There are aspects of travel and life overseas that she has enjoyed, but she has also found it exhausting and unsettling. And it is not career itself from which she derives higher meaning:

I think relationship is key to addressing that sense of emptiness some of us feel. And I’m not just talking about getting ourselves a partner...For me, it’s about my relationship with myself, my relationship with something greater than myself (or God as I like to call Him) and then, once those two things are in a good place, my relationship with others.

Have you ever noticed that when you’re in the company of someone you love or of someone you’re really comfortable with – you could be having a laugh or just sitting in silence – those existential questions rarely come up? We feel connected, content and are able to live in the moment.

The same goes when I feel connected to God. I feel grounded, I feel a sense of purpose...

This is relevant to the discussion I've tried to open up recently about problems with the current culture of Christianity. I see what Katherine Baldwin is expressing here as being both basic and authentic to the spiritual life. She is not dissolving herself or abstracting herself; she describes herself as feeling "grounded" and having a sense of "connectedness" which brings her contentment and a sense of purpose and an ability to live in the moment.

Finally, I know that some of my readers will react angrily to Katherine Baldwin, seeing her as a representative of women who have made family formation difficult. But I'd ask that she not be attacked personally in the comments. My aim isn't to antagonise her personally and I don't think it does our cause much good to do so either. There's nothing I've read at her site which is anti-male; she is someone who is trying to work things through and she is doing so with a degree of culture and intelligence.

60 comments:

  1. "It seems the trend to postpone motherhood till later has produced an army of women in their late 30s and early 40s who, like me, wonder if they’ve left it too late."

    Yes you have.

    "We had succeeded in our careers and now we were ready for a family"

    Succeeded in eliminating your male competition/potential partners.

    ", but no one informed our ageing ovaries of the plan."

    Thats biology luv. On a side not this is ridiculous that leftists think their "plan" can supercede their own biology. Wakey wakey those eggs are best hatched at 19. Not above middle age.

    " We thought we could have it all, but statistics tell us that not all of us can."

    Yep. There are consquences for the choices we make in life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good luck to her. She understands her situation, so there's nothing to add.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/BBCs-panda-propaganda-is-utterly-bamboozling/

    "The BBC has compiled a list of 12 Female Faces of 2011 (one for each month) and guess who took out the final spot?..."


    "...the BBC decided that Sweetie the panda was the most relevant female to include on their list.

    A panda. A species doomed for extinction because they’re too lazy to breed."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can't say I have much sympathy. The more lonely ex-slut spinsters, the better.

    Many, many stray cats need a home.

    ReplyDelete
  5. but no one informed our ageing ovaries of the plan.

    You don't think with your ovaries. Or do you? Maybe it isn't men who think with their gonads after all.

    Finding it really difficult to give a toss.

    ReplyDelete
  6. my tendency to choose inappropriate or unattainable partners is definitely the most concerning at this stage in my life...

    To me that just sounds like a selfish woman making excuses for bad life choices. And of course, since she's a woman, it can't possibly be her fault. It's her father's fault!

    but no one informed our ageing ovaries of the plan.


    How dumb do you have to be not to realise that you don't have unlimited time? But of course, since she's a woman, that can't possibly be her fault either.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jumping Jupiter, could people try a little tenderness?

    If you want to denigrate unrepentant bitches, there's plenty of them. There's no need to enlarge the boundaries of the women who deserve to be shamed, to include a woman who seems pleasant enough and admits that she goofed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks DayBreaker.

    These roissy type blogs, though discussing important topics and making valid points, do tend to head towards a slippery type slope to degrading women and mysogeny.

    And also what does a woman mean by "Making Mistakes in Choosing Men"

    You guys assume "the bad boy, alpha male, sex god"

    When I talk that way I am referring to....

    From age 12-23 I was just so stupid. I thought if a guy wanted to do homework with me I had a shot and would get a massive 1 year long crush on that guy and only that guy! Silly yes, but it's the truth.

    Then you get older and you move into the "Rat Phase" Luckily, thank goodness, I *think* I made it through the rat phase unscathed because of my nationalist political/christian religious beliefs which scares off the majority of rats.

    An example of "Rat Phase"---The Irishman!

    "Oh he wants to take me to see his family back in Ireland. It means he loves me and that he will propose! So I will go on vacation with him!"

    When in reality he just wants you to go on vacation with him to be a bed mate and he has no intention of proposing!

    (I was not a victim of this...I saw that he did this to his ex-gf then promptly broke up with her, and just a few months ago a quick check of his facebook page showed that he did it to his current or now ex-gf. I have no doubt that both girls believed "They were the one")

    And this guy gets away with it precisely because he is NOT alpha...thus making you think he's one of the "good ones/attainable ones"

    I think some women just simply have a hard time navigating the waters...especially as Mark said....if they didn't have a good family life/father example to guide them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "do tend to head towards a slippery type slope to degrading women and mysogeny."
    Being critical of a particular type of woman = mysogeny against all women. Riiiight.

    "An example of "Rat Phase"---The Irishman!"

    Have you thought about dating an African? Sounds like your type of guy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. do tend to head towards a slippery type slope to degrading women and mysogeny.

    It's misogynistic and demeaning to give women the message that they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. This is the message that feminism (the most misogynistic of all ideologies) gives women. It amounts to treating women like children or half-wits. If this woman is a victim of anything she's a victim of feminism.

    The most revealing comment she makes is, "We thought we could have it all." Anyone as naïve as that is sadly out of touch with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One of the reasons that children from "disadvantaged" backgrounds or from homes with "absent fathers" tend to do badly in life is that they're taught they can use these things as excuses for bad or foolish behaviour.

    Psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers (who are as much of a threat to our society as feminism) have much to answer for in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "
    And also what does a woman mean by "Making Mistakes in Choosing Men"

    You guys assume "the bad boy, alpha male, sex god"

    When I talk that way I am referring to....
    "

    Nothing can lighten a day more than a good morning laught. You are referring exactly to "the bad boy, alpha male, sex god". If he was a beta you would not have noticed his existence. The Irishman is an alpha because he can date and bed multiple women. And he has interesting sort of game :).
    Read for example this:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/dont-hit-me-im-a-girl/#comment-26299

    ReplyDelete
  14. I noticed this amusing idea in the story:

    Now Rebecca, a life coach from London, is exploring the idea of co-parenting — forming a non-romantic partnership with a man to conceive and bring up a child.

    What the HELL is the man's incentive to be part of this? I get all the hassle and expense and responsibility without any sex or romance? Gee, thanks.

    She's not much of a life coach if she thinks a man will be interested in that kind of life.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, Mark asks that commenters not bash the columnist, and what do certain commenters do? Why, bash the columnist, of course.

    He asks this so that we not do unnecessary damage to the cause of truth in the eyes of potentially sympathetic women, and what do certain commenters do? Attack potentially sympathetic women.

    People like that don't merely lack respect for women; they just lack respect for anyone but themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've noticed too that the women at my workplace who marry well and in a timely way seem to have close and affectionate ties with their fathers.

    Is this correlation or causation though? No one seems to bother testing the idea that people who have unstable relationships with both parents and with romantic partners may do so because they have genetic tendencies towards unstable relationships, which they got from parents who also had genetic tendencies towards unstable relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  17. He asks this so that we not do unnecessary damage to the cause of truth in the eyes of potentially sympathetic women, and what do certain commenters do? Attack potentially sympathetic women.

    Meh, this is a lost cause anyway. If you know anything at all about women, you know that they are not interested in the "cause of truth", only in their own feeeeeewings.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Irishman has only had 3 gfs total in his entire life. (I am not in the list...the nationalist borderline Hitlerian sympathies took care of him)

    But he's pulled the "engagement Ireland around the world vacation" crap on all three.

    But that's still 3 women that were lead on in a dishonorable way for 1-2 years each during their prime man-hunting years.

    If I was his parents I'd be pissed at what I'd raised.

    When a guy says "Vacation" a girl thinks "Engagement Ring" Every Time.

    Oh and for the guy who told me to date an African...I know an Afrikaaner (now he was an Uber-Alpha and the girl should have been smarter) who pulled the same crap on his gf...Trip to Cape Town...Girl had starry eyes of 'engagement ring' (You should have seen how happy she was) and then nothing but a breakup a few months later

    Men just can't go on 2 week vacations without getting laid, so they drag the women along as a bed mate with no intention of proposing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon @5:46:00AM, get out of my face with that humbug. A man is not obliged to marry a woman just because he dates her for two years, let alone just because he takes her on vacation.

    When a guy says "Vacation" a girl thinks "Engagement Ring" Every Time.

    He is not responsible for her delusions. Furthermore, if she agreed to be his bedmate for a couple of years without insisting on a proposal, why should he NOT think she'd agree to travel with him as a bedmate without a proposal?

    The sense of entitlement of such females is nothing less than astonishing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Clearly the trend is for higher IQ women in Australia to postpone children until later in life and for lower IQ women to have children at a younger age. Without putting too fine a point on it, the trend is towards dysgenic IQ for native born Australian citizens.

    But what is the IQ trend when you factor in immigration?


    It is well known that US immigration policy today is dysgenic, ie the average immigrant to the USA has lower IQ than the average current US citizen, So over time the US population has a downward IQ trend simply from immigration

    Singapore is at the other end of the spectrum - Singapore invites huge numbers of foreigners to come to singapore to work, but t it divides them in to "workers" and talent. By and large workers are forbidden to become citizens and eventually leave but "talent" is encouraged to become a citizen and stay

    so Singapore can be said to have a eugenic citizenship policy, the government makes sure that on average newly declared citizens have higher average IQ than the native born citizens.

    Australia is a mystery to me - My impression is that manyimmigrants to Australia are from Northeast asia and as such has a higher iq than the australian average, but i have seen no statistics on this.

    can anyone point me to the average IQ of newly declared australian citizens?

    Is it politically acceptable in Australia for the government to openly state that overall high IQ immigrants are good for the country and low IQ immigrants are bad? If not, does the government pursue a high iq immigration policy like singapore, a low IQ immigration policy like the usa or something in between ?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Clearly the trend is for higher IQ women in Australia to postpone children until later in life and for lower IQ women to have children at a younger age. Without putting too fine a point on it, the trend is towards dysgenic IQ for native born Australian citizens.

    Reminds me of the opening scene of Idiocracy.

    My wife has two female friends who are both beautiful and feminine women, but who have remained childless. One of these women chose obviously unsuitable men for boyfriends right through her 30s. The other didn't go out with men.

    These women are feminine...?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "These women are feminine?"

    They are feminine in the sense of being lovely in their natures and "girly" and attractive in the way they look.

    No shortage of men wanting to go out with them. But one was too scared to take things very far with men, and the other chose the most obviously unsuitable men even when she was in her mid-30s (she finally went for a better type of man when she was in her early 40s - but it was too late for children by then).

    The sisters of these women have also remained childless - which also suggests that the paternal relationship might have at least played a role.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous, 5:46am

    "But that's still 3 women that were lead on in a dishonorable way for 1-2 years each during their prime man-hunting years."

    This is ridiculous, a woman shouldn't have to hang around with a guy for "one or two years" before she realises whether he's likely to be suitable or not. Why don't you ask him straight up after a little while? Do you see a future for us? No? Thank you, see you. If he's evasive that tells you something also.

    In the movie As Good as it Gets Jack Nicholson's character is asked how he's able to write novel's from that woman's point of view so well. He replies, "I think of a man, then take away reason and accountability".

    You are playing into this stereotype with your complaints about men. If a guy doesn't push to marry then the women should, and if its not going to happen then cut out. End of story. There will be a time when you'll realise that looking for others to blame is ultimately counterproductive no matter what's going on in society.

    Also the line "Its Dad's fault" really doesn't help get to the bottom of this. These women had more than enough time to get to grips with any issues that might have been caused by their parents, particularly their fathers, ultimately its up to the women themselves to manage this and not look for another way to blame men.

    With freedom comes ... what's the word again?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Is it politically acceptable in Australia for the government to openly state that overall high IQ immigrants are good for the country and low IQ immigrants are bad?

    Anyone who even suggested a thing would be torn in pieces by the left-wing media, and probably prosecuted for hate speech. The People's Republic of Australia does not have freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jesse, I agree with the main point of your comment: namely, these women failed to pick up on some pretty obvious signs of unsuitability in the men they were dating.

    Still, why is it better to say "It's all the young women's fault" than it is to say that it's all the fault of the men in their lives? After all, isn't it a kind of question begging to blame the young men and women? They didn't pop up out of the earth. They were raised to act in a certain way by their parents. If the way they act is destructive, I don't see how the people who taught them how to act can avoid some responsibility.

    Everyone is fully responsible for their own actions. Including parents.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If a guy doesn't push to marry then the women should, and if its not going to happen then cut out.

    I agree. From what I've observed there are women who are decisive about wanting a husband and children and then there are women who are indecisive.

    The decisive ones either go for the marrying kind of guy or else they push relationships with other men through to a conclusion - either successful or unsuccessful.

    But that then leaves the question of why some women are indecisive. I agree with Jesse that you would think that a person could work through their issues with their parents before they hit their 30s. But it just doesn't seem to happen for some women.

    Some women seem to find these things harder. They aren't as good at separating themselves from their emotions, of stepping above them and analysing them objectively.

    It wouldn't have mattered so much in past times. The option of having serial monogamous relationships with unsuitable men and of having such relationships without falling pregnant wouldn't have been there.

    But the "undecided" woman is now out there in large numbers and she is ready to be strung along by men who don't want a commitment to marriage and children.

    Finally, the point about fatherhood is still valid I think. Fathers have a bigger impact on children, both positive and negative, than they are given credit for.

    Fathers who neglect their children tend to turn their daughters into feminists and their sons into socialists. Most of the big name feminists had serious daddy issues.

    The father stands in for society; he is a representative of the larger social order; so if the relationship with the father is lacking the child might then in disappointment or anger turn against the order the father represents - that's especially true of the more sensitive, intellectual types.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Anyone who even suggested a thing would be torn in pieces by the left-wing media, and probably prosecuted for hate speech. The People's Republic of Australia does not have freedom of speech."

    Yet in Australia it is ok to say child rearing mothers are low IQ and should be done away with.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yet in Australia it is ok to say child rearing mothers are low IQ and should be done away with.

    In Australia it's OK to say anything as long as it fits the leftist agenda. Hate speech is fine if it's directed at white people, Christians, heterosexuals or married women with children.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with you Bartholomew, parents obviously have a responsibility to do the best they can, but we can't be deterministic about this. If a parent drops the ball on a matter the children can still pick themselves up and push on. After all its their lives and they have many positive role models from other people in society and also the culture (the good culture) to follow.

    I agree with Mark's point about the "indecisive women, it also includes the "hope for the best" women. These women are likely to be strung along in a society that doesn't push men to marry.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why do you bother with these endless upchucks over these skanks?

    You note the symptoms but you won't diagnose the disease. So why bother?

    I really don't get it. It's like you want to be part of the healing process but are too scared to admit the causes, lest it reflect on your own failure.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeah, I think you and Mark are certainly right to expect 30 year old adults to resolve childhood issues and to act like, well adults.

    I wonder if part of the reason that so many people do not is that their childhood issues aren't problems to be solved, but rather foundations of adulthood that are still missing. What if they can't "move on" into adulthood any more than say, an 18 year old failing Algebra student can just move on to Calculus?

    I'm not saying this to dispute what you and Mark are saying or even to say that the analogy is true. I've been reading a lot of John Eldredge's books lately, and he makes essentially this point, though with regards to men, rather than women, and it's got me thinking. His thesis would account for the otherwise inexplicable persistence of adolescence in 30 something adults.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Although I have trashed this kind of woman in the manosphere a lot, I have sympathy towards Katherine Baldwin.

    Because there is a difference: KB understands that she has committed mistakes and these mistakes are her responsibility.

    There is a lot of dignity in a person who is able to say "I was wrong. It's my fault and I have nobody else to blame". Most people are unable to say these things, which is silly, because nobody is perfect and everybody makes mistakes.

    But other women in her position start complaining, whining, blaming men and so on and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wild At Heart by John Eldredge?

    ReplyDelete
  34. "What if they can't "move on" into adulthood any more than say, an 18 year old failing Algebra student can just move on to Calculus?"

    I learned Algebra and Calculus as an adult after having virtually no proper math education thanks to our brilliant Australian public schools.
    These things can be learned. In the case of Women learning to be adults. They can do that too. However there is such a thing as too late.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't know what the alchemy of maturity is but I imagine a lot of it is guided necessity. Life is pretty soft for people these days so they don't have to grow up and shoulder responsibility, but instead choose to live care free like children or teenagers.

    Alternatively there aren't enough aids to maturity, eg social expectations, rewards and encouragaments. Many people float along in a quasi anonymous sea and don't pass the maturity markers associated with established communities.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Wild At Heart by John Eldredge?"

    Yep, along with Desire. I'd recommend both.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jesse wrote,

    "Life is pretty soft for people these days so they don't have to grow up and shoulder responsibility, but instead choose to live care free like children or teenagers."

    Yeah, that surely must be part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Still, why is it better to say "It's all the young women's fault" than it is to say that it's all the fault of the men in their lives?

    Because it is the women who want something (marriage). The men are happy with the status quo. If the women don't like the status quo, it is up to them to change it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. UPDATE:
    It looks like its most likely the genes:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/absent-fathers-and-bad-teens-its-in-the-genes/

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous,

    Do you think its legitimate for a guy to lead on a girl? What if he suspects that she wants to get married?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Life is pretty soft for people these days so they don't have to grow up and shoulder responsibility, but instead choose to live care free like children or teenagers."

    If you're immature and irresponsible and make a complete mess of your life you're soon surrounded by an army of psychiatrists, social workers, counsellers, therapists, etc, all telling you it's not your fault.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Do you think its legitimate for a guy to lead on a girl? What if he suspects that she wants to get married?

    I think the entire concept of "leading on" is meaningless in this day and age. Since a woman can dump a man at any time, for any reason, even after she actually marries him, there is no basis to claim that men have any implicit obligation to marry women that emerges merely from the fact of dating them. Women no more have the right to expect men to marry them just because they dated for X number of years than men have the right to expect women to have their children just because they dated for X number of years.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Except that such an argument denies the real life expectations of many people today, both men and women. A women today would also probably not justify her leaving her husband in such mercenary terms, instead preferring to dress her actions in some garment of right, regardless of its actual value, at least among some classes.
    Your argument supporting highly self interested, "rational" or callous dating doesn’t seem to be much of an advance and also supports the legitimacy of the modern situation that you're claiming to be opposed to. You would punish women indiscriminately regardless of their actions and would also show disdain for those suckered in by others in matters of relationships. Any form of socially supported mutual responsibility between the sexes would totally abandoned and each would be totally reliant on their own resources and cunning. What exactly makes your position better than a feminist's again? Aren't you as equally self interested and disdainful of the other sex?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Except that such an argument denies the real life expectations of many people today, both men and women.

    It is the truth. If I were a liberal, this would not matter to me, but since I am not a liberal I speak the truth regardless of what "many people" think about it.

    A women today would also probably not justify her leaving her husband in such mercenary terms, instead preferring to dress her actions in some garment of right, regardless of its actual value, at least among some classes.

    Women can justify doing what they want to do, so what else is new. This hardly alters the fact that there is no basis to claim that men have any implicit obligation to marry women that emerges merely from the fact of dating them.

    You would punish women indiscriminately regardless of their actions

    How so? It does not "punish" women at all to treat them exactly as they treat you and to treat them in accordance with objective reality (which is that they can dump you at any time so you have precisely the same obligation to them, i.e. none at all).

    Your argument supporting highly self interested, "rational" or callous dating doesn’t seem to be much of an advance and also supports the legitimacy of the modern situation that you're claiming to be opposed to.

    One may not like reality but one must still acknowledge it and act in accordance with it.

    Any form of socially supported mutual responsibility between the sexes would totally abandoned

    Wake up and smell the coffee. Socially supported mutual responsibility between the sexes has already been totally abandoned. That is the meaning of no-fault divorce. The idea that men have responsibility to women when women have no responsibility to men is simply absurd.

    What exactly makes your position better than a feminist's again? Aren't you as equally self interested and disdainful of the other sex?

    My position is that feminists have created the world we live in, and therefore like it or not we have to play by their rules. Any man who plays by the old rules, and accepts large obligations to women, at the same time that women play by the new rules in which they have no obligations to men, is nothing less than a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Good thing that you're speaking up for reality and truth. The serious feminist movement is only about 50 years old. How precisely did they "make the world" so quickly in that time? Feminism is but one of the strands of the modern world and they certainly aren't responsible for everything we see.

    Women must be drawn away from feminism if feminism is all about the imposition of one genders rights and desires over the over with socially destructive consequences. You don't draw them away from such a movement by supporting the sexual expolitaion of them, "pump and dump" verbiage being often expressed. Women should indeed feel social obligations to men and this is what we're attempting to bring about. "Mutual" obligation is the key word.

    Arguing about new or old rules is crap. We as a political movement make or advocate the rules we want to enforce and you're just arguing for what is convenient for you right now, without regard for others and using the current situation as a cover to indulge selfish desires.

    ReplyDelete
  46. How precisely did they "make the world" so quickly in that time?

    It doesn't matter, and it would be great if we could change it back, but in the meantime we have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way we want it to be.

    You don't draw them away from such a movement by supporting the sexual expolitaion of them, "pump and dump" verbiage being often expressed.

    That is not what I'm endorsing, that's what you are reading into it. What I said 3 January 2012 3:23:00 PM was that there is no implicit male obligation to marry a woman just because you've dated her for years -- and dating someone for years is hardly the same as "pump and dump" exploitation.

    Women should indeed feel social obligations to men and this is what we're attempting to bring about.

    Paradoxically, one of the ways to bring that about is to make it very clear to women that men, right now, have no obligation to them! There is no reason for women to change their behavior now, because they have the best of all worlds, which is that they have no obligation to men and at the same time they can exploit beta males who act as if the old rules of "chivalry" are in effect.

    Arguing about new or old rules is crap.

    You can call them rules or whatever you want, but it is undeniable that feminism has altered the laws and customs that govern the institution of marriage. Acting as if the old laws and customs remain in effect is not merely foolish but contrary to your stated interests. If you want to change the laws and customs that now exist, first you must acknowledge that they exist and understand their implications rather than just dismissing them as "crap".

    We as a political movement make or advocate the rules we want to enforce and you're just arguing for what is convenient for you right now, without regard for others and using the current situation as a cover to indulge selfish desires.

    It is a moot point whether the current set of feminist rules is "convenient" for me or not. They exist, regardless of what I think about them and whether or not I exploit them.

    It shows "regard for others" to state the truth. Stating that men have no implicit obligation to marry women they are dating is not merely the truth. Pretending that this is not the truth permits selfish, hedonistic women to exploit men, which must be stopped (not least because the situation will never change until this is stopped).

    ReplyDelete
  47. Saying to a woman in such a situation "Darling I like you and enjoy your company but I don't think we're likely to get married and so I hope you understand that" doesn't seem to be such a heavy burden on men in such a case, and would avoid any potential situation of leading on the woman. As women have shorter biological clocks then men its only due consideration to give them a chance of meeting an appropriate mate whilst they're able to have children.

    Its also though not just women who can be wasting their time in relationships which drag on. A man too should be working towards a stable family life and shouldn't be wasting his time endlessly on go nowhere relationships. Marriage in its entirety should not be seen as the equivalent of such a situation as its practiced successfully by many people today and it or its equivalent is the only practical basis for raising kids.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Saying to a woman in such a situation "Darling I like you and enjoy your company but I don't think we're likely to get married and so I hope you understand that" doesn't seem to be such a heavy burden on men in such a case, and would avoid any potential situation of leading on the woman.

    There is no positive obligation to say that. Furthermore, as I stated, the idea of "leading on" is meaningless these days. The old concept of "breach of promise" rested on the idea that a woman's reputation would be damaged by a broken engagement. This idea is preposterous in this day and age, and there simply is no implicit obligation to marry a woman you have dated for any period of time. If I date her for years and then decide to break up with her, that is my prerogative and is not morally improper in any way.

    As women have shorter biological clocks then men its only due consideration to give them a chance of meeting an appropriate mate whilst they're able to have children.

    I reject the idea that her time is more valuable than mine, even on a biological basis.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "I reject the idea that her time is more valuable than mine, even on a biological basis."

    Then marry her and have babies or don't marry her and live defacto or find someone else. The counter side of your not having regard for your partner and her reproduction is that she shouldn't feel obligated to have regard for yours. Nor should she be obliged to change her views. While we're at it we'll also do away, and abandon the revival of, shame, modesty, mutual compassion, in fact all of the glue of society, any society, as well as excluding their revival. Nature rent in tooth and claw.

    For you to say that this is current society ignores that over 50% of people remain married. I'm told some of them are even happy.

    ReplyDelete
  50. lWhether there's a "postive obligation" to say these things or not, its certainly good manners to do so.

    "If I date her for years and then decide to break up with her, that is my prerogative and is not morally improper in any way."

    It depends on the grounds. If you never had any intention to marry her and have children but gave the indication that you would, or where aware that she had such an expectation and did nothing to disabuse it, then that is morally improper and she has suffered a loss.

    ReplyDelete
  51. If you never had any intention to marry her and have children but gave the indication that you would, or were aware that she had such an expectation and did nothing to disabuse it, then that is morally improper and she has suffered a loss.

    Agreed. In my experience, though, women who are strung along by men usually aren't fully committed to family formation - there is some level at which they are willing to fall into being strung along.

    But it's a bad outcome for society. Do we really want many tens of thousands of Western women who might have made great mothers and wives to spend critical years in no future relationships?

    These women need encouragement to take the plunge into their adult lives as women while there is still time.

    I also agree with this:

    We as a political movement make or advocate the rules we want to enforce

    Even if we aren't in the position right now to enact reform, we have to put forward a vision of how things would be better.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Then marry her and have babies or don't marry her and live defacto or find someone else. The counter side of your not having regard for your partner and her reproduction is that she shouldn't feel obligated to have regard for yours. Nor should she be obliged to change her views. While we're at it we'll also do away, and abandon the revival of, shame, modesty, mutual compassion, in fact all of the glue of society, any society, as well as excluding their revival.

    Once again you are confusing "is" and "ought". Women and men do not have, in our current world, to have any "regard" for each other's reproduction. That's the way it IS, whether or not you think it's the way it ought to be. Shame and modesty are pretty much out the window, too. We won't do away with them - they ARE done away with. In a world where there is no stigma associated with a one night stand or divorce, shame and modesty are simply meaningless concepts, as is the idea of "leading someone on".

    ReplyDelete
  53. Whether there's a "postive obligation" to say these things or not, its certainly good manners to do so.

    I don't agree. And furthermore, if I did say I intended to marry her and then changed my mind, that would not be "bad manners" either. Indeed, in a world of no-fault divorce, if I actually married her and then divorced her, that would not be "bad manners" either.

    I must assume you think divorce is morally improper or your whole stance on "leading women on" makes no sense at all. If so, once again, the wider world does not agree with you.

    Personally, I have never dated anyone for a lengthy period without intending to marry them. If they weren't wife material I broke up with them quickly. I dated one woman for three years, intending to marry her, and then she broke up with me. In your terms she "led me on" by creating that expectation and then denying it (bad manners on her part, eh?). Then I dated another woman for two before I married her.

    It is all very well to advance the notion of how you would like society to be. However it is positively harmful to advise men to act according to how you would like society to be rather than how society IS. Young men need to be well aware that society attaches no moral stigma to women who dump them at the drop of a hat, even after they are married.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Well someone has to be a leader. If you don't oppose the current trends then you're going along with them. Its also the case that much of the modern stuff is a "trend" rather than an actuality, many people still hold many types of ideas that would be considered traditional. Indeed its hard not to, if the alternate view is simple hedonism, self interest and causal disregard for others, its hard for people not to say I wish I had stronger, more mutually satisfying and secure relationships. These have to be built on some premise and that is what conservatism and traditionalism offer.

    "However it is positively harmful to advise men to act according to how you would like society to be rather than how society IS"

    Men of course should and must be aware of the current realities and must also do their best and their bit to overcome them, not merely "slump" into them. Men are leaders, women still look to men to lead in many respects, so this is a natural role for men.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jesse_7 wrote...

    Well someone has to be a leader. If you don't oppose the current trends then you're going along with them

    Agreed. Most people today are floundering about wondering why they're so unhappy, so anxious, so angry and so dissatisfied. Many are looking for answers that mainstream society today can't give them. If they see a group of people who live by different rules and seem to be much happier, less anxious, less angry and less dissatisfied then some will decide it might be a good idea to join them.

    That's how both Christianity and conservatism have always survived - by providing a model that works better than the competition. That's how Christianity conquered pagan Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Exactly. You set a norm for behaviour, live according to it, and then overcome the oppostion gradually as it comes. We changing people first before we're changing physical institutions or laws.

    ReplyDelete
  57. That's how both Christianity and conservatism have always survived - by providing a model that works better than the competition.

    Heh, the problem with that theory is that Christianity and conservatism have been decisively overthrown by secular liberalism within the space of less than half a century - which could not happen if conservatism and Christianity provided an obviously better model.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The benefits of conservatism and Christianity have been taken for granted and know we are seeing what happens when they are abandoned.

    ReplyDelete
  59. the problem with that theory is that Christianity and conservatism have been decisively overthrown by secular liberalism within the space of less than half a century

    What we've seen in the past half century has been a gigantic social experiment. It takes a while for the catastrophic results to become obvious. I think it's clear that today most people are aware that the experiment has failed (I'm talking about people in the real world as opposed to politicians and the media).

    ReplyDelete
  60. It is not clear to me how it shows "leadership" to stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge reality, and thus to get hurt and played for a sucker, but whatever.

    ReplyDelete

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