Notice anything odd? Maybe a close up will help:
The cover is advertising a story about "Women who are single, sexy and over 60." It's Carrie Bradshaw and the Sex in the City lifestyle being promoted now to women of grandmotherly age.
The magazine story itself is what the internet writer Dalrock calls "divorce porn," i.e. it is trying to sell divorce to women as a great lifestyle move.
The story was first published in the British newspaper, The Telegraph, back in January. The Melbourne version has the heading "Meet the freemales. Deprived? No. Lonely? Definitely not. These women are happily single, sexy and 60 - and their numbers are on the rise."
The gist of the story is that women who grew up as part of the sexual revolution want to pursue the same ideals into their 60s, leaving their husbands and marriages in order to live a life that "has infinitely more possibilities" than anything experienced by previous generations of women, choosing instead of marriage a great "adventure" and doing so alone.
In a way, these women really are acting out the values of liberal modernity. In liberal modernity there are no goods that exist as part of an objective reality. Instead, value is created by the act of choosing our own subjective goods. So what matters is being free to self-determine what we do. Marriage restricts our ability to act however we want at any given time. Therefore, a liberal modern might think it "liberating" to reject marriage in favour of the "infinite possibilities" of life as a single 60-something woman.
Our commitments to others are easily dissolved in the liberal schema. It is noticeable that no thought at all is given to the husbands that these women have left. Nor to the damage done to the institution of marriage itself. There is no mention of the duties we might carry to others, instead one woman is thought of as liberated because she rejects the idea of "caring for others" - she readily admits that she is "more selfish" than those who choose to marry.
The tension here between marriage/family and liberal values is resolved in favour of liberal values. And so you have the spectacle of a major newspaper publishing "divorce porn" for women in their 60s.
Selfishness has its own rewards - you end up sad, lonely and embittered. That's the future for women under feminism. Trying to live a twenty-something lifestyle when you're sixty-something isn't a brave adventure - it's tragic and pathetic.
ReplyDeleteAdolescence is now a lifelong lifestyle.
Well put.
DeleteOn a local bulletin board, if older men are mentioned at all, the women invariably say that older men "need a woman to take care of him" and that being an older married woman means "being his nurse". So being an older married woman, to them, is just a giant pain in the neck.
ReplyDeleteIf these older women ditch their husbands, I don't know where they think they're going to find single men to date. Go into any old-age home and it's 80% women, because the men have all croaked, and the men who haven't croaked are married. In short the DM is selling an illusion, as usual.
"I don't know where they think they're going to find single men to date."
DeleteIt's a valid question, isn't it? Most men will either be married, divorced and wary of commitment, or looking for a younger woman.
It seems clear to me that the best way for a woman to secure a man's attachment into her retirement age is to have built up a loving connection during earlier decades. My own parents are happy together as retirees, but they met and married in their 20s and my father very obviously has a strong sense of love and gratitude toward her. I don't think a woman is likely to get this approaching a new man in her 60s. I can't see how she could expect to inspire the same kind of love and loyalty.
If these older women ditch their husbands, I don't know where they think they're going to find single men to date
DeleteYou have to bear in mind that feminism is organised for the benefit of a tiny number of wealthy university-educated elite women. For them this might work, after a fashion. They can afford 26-year-old toy boys.
The fact that it will mean misery for 98 percent of the female population doesn't worry them in the least. You have to remember that feminists hate and despise ordinary women. They especially loathe working-class women.
The whole cover is a rolling barrage of liberal modernity. Helicopter parenting, an aged model having kids in her 40s, personal trainers replacing revealed religion.
ReplyDeleteHave to confess, I didn't notice, but you're right. I just looked at the story about Tyra Banks. She decided to have kids in her early 40s, and has succeeded via a surrogate (the father being her 51-year-old Norwegian boyfriend). Tyra is presented as a highly successful woman in the story (model, businesswoman, mother). The term you use "rolling barrage of liberal modernity" is apt.
Delete"Meet the freemales. Deprived? No. Lonely? Definitely not. These women are happily single, sexy and 60 - and their numbers are on the rise."
ReplyDeleteI've noted this bizarre trend among feminists: they keep shouting from the rooftops that they _really are_ happier alone. They'll write articles about being alone, and oh how happy they are just pursuing their hobbies and living with their pets!
But it leads to an interesting question: if they're oh so happy, why are they endlessly shouting it from the rooftops? Why are they driven to change everyone's attitudes about marriage and love? Why especially are they driven to remake love into a one-sided contract where they get all the benefits and can pull out whenever they wish?
I believe these kinds of women have always existed. Basically, I think they wish to consume the fruits of love without the labor of pruning the weeds. When the weeds get too big, they just want to throw out the plant and get another one. In a word, I think they are just selfish and miserly women. We probably didn't hear much from them before the 20th century because they had only tiny role in the economy and thus little chance to voice their opinions. But that they are a definite block in the human race I think is certain. I doubt all these women, from Britain to America to Australia, could maintain such consistency of views unless it was a natural byproduct of their personalities. In short, I don't think it's a matter of education, per se. I think education just legitimized it and brought it out. You can't get strawberries from a raspberry plant. And I think that you only get this kind of selfish behavior from women who are already, at bottom, selfish people.
Interesting. I have a theory of my own about some of these women. There are some women, perhaps, who really do find it difficult to live with men for periods of time, for the reason that they are wired mentally toward the "feelings make facts" way of thinking. When confronted with the male mind, which tries to penetrate toward objective facts, there is a clash in which the woman feels "invalidated" - if she is her feelings, and her feelings make things a fact, but the man she is with is geared toward asserting an objective fact that contradicts this, then her feeling is wrong and so then is her sense of self and reality - which is disconcerting and destabilising - a source of irritation and suppression of self. Hence the preference to be alone, or to live at some distance from a man. In previous generations, I suspect some of these women would have drifted away from their husbands but remained married.
DeleteThere is also the issue of young women experiencing an abundance of male attention when in their teens and twenties, giving them an inflated sense of their attractiveness, and therefore an unwillingness to settle for an average man, preferring to be alone rather than being with a man of about their own level.
Your own point is a strong one too. The best women are kind, giving and nurturing - this is part of the feminine ideal - so women who are not these things, but who are selfish and miserly, are not going to fit easily into committed heterosexual relationships.
I think your point is a very strong one. I have a female relative, I'll call her Joan, who views the world in a 'feelings make facts' kind of way. We disagree often because of this, and frankly, if we weren't relatives, we'd have stopped talking to each other a long time ago. She's very adamant about what she feels. Plainly demonstrable facts have little effect on her. I've tried often to reason her into this or that course of action for her benefit, but it never gets anywhere. Only _after_ some ill effect has come of her behavior will she act. I've long since given up trying to reason her into, say, moderate exercise, because, if she doesn't _feel_ like exercising, all the reasoning in the world wont move her. And so, she'll have to have some health crisis before she starts taking care of her health. It reminds me of something George Washington said: that one of the evils of democracy is that the people must _feel_ before they will _see_. It's much the same with Joan.
DeleteAlso, I think you're correct about some women feeling invalidated by male rationality. Many times, my conversations with Joan would leave her irritated. As we talked, she'd become more and more frigid until eventually we'd just break off from talking. For the rest of the evening, and typically for several days later, she'd give me the cold shoulder. Joan, incidentally, isn't feminine.
But I've noticed other women who seem to thirst for male rationality. For instance, a lady, Lisa, who cuts my hair, is always happy to see me and drinks down our conversation. She's observant, in a female kind of way, and seems to recognize that there are things that she, as a woman, misses which a man doesn't. So she's always glad to talk with me. Lisa is quite feminine.
Now I find this juxtaposition interesting: the unfeminine Joan guards her feelings with a sword: anyone who disagrees with her is one of 'those egotistical men.' While the _feminine_ Lisa recognizes that her feelings are limited and that thus men are admirable and interesting to talk to. I would have thought that the womanly Lisa would have more ground for irritation, being farther removed from the male mind. But instead it's the _unwomanly_ Joan who resents the male mind.
That's an interesting observation. One tell for "feelings make facts" women is that they often do end up criticising men for being arrogant or egotistical, so Joan is typical in that regard. But I'm glad you mentioned your hairdresser as well. I wonder what it is that makes her more accepting of a male perspective? I'm speculating, but I've observed many times that the women who find it easiest to relate to men often have a good relationship with their own fathers.
DeleteOne tell for "feelings make facts" women is that they often do end up criticising men for being arrogant or egotistical
DeleteThat is where the typical man makes the mistake of backing off because he doesn't want to seem like a pig. Stick to your guns, boys, she will respect you for it.
I'm glad you mentioned your hairdresser as well. I wonder what it is that makes her more accepting of a male perspective?
Most likely he is saying what he actually thinks, because he does not need to seek her approval, and she likes a man who says what he thinks (as in fact most women do, not matter that they may say otherwise).
But why is he going to a "hairdresser"? Go to a male barber for chrissake.
"Stick to your guns, boys, she will respect you for it."
DeleteNo, they wont. These women have made a lifetime out of criticizing men. I know of many women in my local area who meet up twice monthly for a knitting circle, and all the conversation consists of either (A), a trip one of them took; or (B), grousing about their husbands or their lives in general. Additionally, I've worked closely with several, and instead of respecting me for my opinion, they deride me for it. There is a reason that men avoid talking to such women: it is a no-win game, where they are determined that you lose in the conversation either way.
"Most likely he is saying what he actually thinks, because he does not need to seek her approval, and she likes a man who says what he thinks (as in fact most women do, not matter that they may say otherwise)."
No, that's not the case. Even when I first went in she sought out my opinion. Once I went in and she was looking for a small portable generator online. She asked me if I could help her in a very womanly way. It was utterly clear that she considered this my purview, as a male, and thus she sought my advice. In a word, she sought my opinion _before_ she knew either (A), what my opinions were; or (B), how I would express them.
"But why is he going to a "hairdresser"? Go to a male barber for chrissake."
That was Mr. Richardson's term, not mine. Now:
(A): There _aren't_ any male barbers where I live.
(B): The outfit I go to is a very plain, straightforward place. It's not a beauty shop and isn't in any way girlish.
(C): With so few feminine women around, I would go to Lisa even if there were male barbers, in spite of what folks like you might say.
Monday night a friend threw himself a party for his 60th birthday. He's ten years divorced with two college-age sons. He is always dating multiple females. Most are within ten years of his age, either way. The fitness center is their church. The community, just north of Washington DC is high income. You have to pay to play; male or female.
ReplyDeleteSex is desperate, competitive and ruthlessly scored.
At the hub of our active town center is the meet market, an over-priced restuarant/bar. It's flanked by an ice cream and a sandwich shop popular with kids. A shooting water works with lights and music and seating and tables out front, is where the under-age gather. Wednesday evolved into a special night. Women go to the bar alone to await that evening's sex partner. The particulars are quickly sorted out at the bar. The tab is paid and off they go.
These women dress like teen age girls. The actual teenage girls, who are streaming in at the dropoff curb, are dressed like prostitutes used to. They're constantly tugging at short and tight clothes, trying to hide what they want to show.
The age-group in between - 30s and 40s - are no where to be seen. They must be driving the dropoff vehicles.
This appears to be the current life-cycle for local females these days.
My neighbor of fifteen years came to my front door soon after her divorce six years ago, to tell me that her biggiest fear was that she might never get laid again. I'm still friends with her two son's father. She asked me to have sex with her, right then. I rejected her. She has resented me ever since. She makes continuous demands on my time for favors and labors. She's clearly punishing me, even though she's now enjoying a steady stream of live-in sex partners, readily sourced at her AA meetings in room at a church just a block from the town center. Her two adult sons still live at home with this. Ages 27 and 25, they're both delivering pizza for a living.
This is sad but unsurprising. When I was growing up the cultural message was that it was men who were the wild ones but that women could be relied upon to bring them safely into domesticity. The reality seems to be that marriage doesn't prosper unless the men of a society establish a frame that supports it. This can't happen if a liberal frame is in place, as a liberal frame is based on encompassing whatever people have a mind to do and which therefore has an underlying assumption that there is no objectively right way of doing things. Many people will end up no longer having the trust to establish secure attachments with others, casual sexual encounters or distanced relationships will become more prevalent as a way of expressing heterosexuality, and many people will end up living alone (in Sweden I believe the figure has reached 50%).
Delete