Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Susan Walsh in The Atlantic

The mainstream media begins to discover the Game bloggers... or at least the more accessible of them:
This past July, Kate Bolick, the gorgeous journalist you see on the cover of this month’s Atlantic, dined at my home along with five young women I’ve been close to for years. She is 39, and she has never been married. She has written a very interesting article about her experience, and the various factors that have influenced how and when Americans marry (or don’t). Kate has done something we’ll be seeing a lot more of in the coming years – she’s talking about the reality of single life for many women. There’s an element of choice, but also an acknowledgement that men are lagging behind women in education and career advancement. She rightly identifies the Women’s Movement as the prime influence in the deterioration of the SMP. Rather than bitching or blaming men, she’s living her life in a very positive and productive way.
First, congratulations to Susan. It is good to see the Game perspective on the reality of the sexual and marital markets penetrating the media. Second, I thought the story was most interesting for what it didn't say. Despite the reactions of the young women to the writer's single status and everything that Susan was attempting to explain to the writer, the middle-aged cat-lady-in-training simply couldn't fathom that yet another Single Lady story attempting to justify a woman's barren life is the exact opposite of what most young women need to hear. No one believes the Song of the Cat Lady or needs to hear another iteration of it anymore. That the piece in The Atlantic was less celebratory and somewhat more reality-aware than most doesn't change its essence.

The reluctance of women to admit that the choices they have made are responsible for the consequences they have realized is remarkable, although not surprising. But the concept is not that hard to grasp. If a woman is going to spend the 12 Prime Years from 20 to 32 chasing and involving yourself with unsuitable men, she is going to have to either learn to a) adjust her behavior and her sights or b) find herself childless and alone.

Needless to say, there is a reason why most successful societies have historically limited the right of young women to select their own mates: young women tend to make very sub-optimal choices. And that inclination towards poor mate selection is why it is a mathematical certainty that the West will return to that system sooner or later.


JCclimber said...

And it's not like the women/girls historically had zero influence in the decisions that the family made about her mate.

Any family that loved and cherished their daughter would seek to maximize her long term happiness, because turning your flesh and blood against you in your old age is not a very good survival strategy.

I don't know any single women over the age of 30 who are actually happy about their single status. Straight or lesbian. Divorced, widowed, Christian, atheist.

Of course what they tell me in private conversation vs what they say in public (or on Facebook) often don't match.

JCclimber said...

Also, is that woman on the cover really considered gorgeous? I mean, even I can spot the obvious makeup. Maybe I just don't like the front-on, challenging pose they put her in for the shot...

Anonymous said...

Susan deleted my comment about the old woman on the front cover. Too much eye make up, silly hair and old.

Not attractive at all. Combined with an inability to see that she is to blame for her single status.

Not attractive.

indyguy77@work said...

Anon: is that any surprise? I think she's normal at best, too. "Gorgeous" is a very large stretch.

The entire article is a display of what happens when the government enables stupidity, especially of the female sort.

"Now that women are financially independent, and marriage is an option rather than a necessity, we are free to pursue what the British sociologist Anthony Giddens termed the “pure relationship,” in which intimacy is sought in and of itself and not solely for reproduction."

What utterly deluded garbage.

If women didn't have all manners of preferences, forced association, "equal pay" laws, "maternity leave" and other govt-mandated economic distortions all provided at the point of a federal goon's gun, they'd be right back in the kitchen.

And they'd be grateful to be there.

PT Barnum said...



Why is it so great?

How should I know. You are the 12 year old here.

Men's clubs existed for a very obvious reasons. Thanks for illustrating that in the starkest manner possible.

indyguy77@work said...

PT: if that's directed at me, please clarify before I reply.

Anonymous said...

The Atlantic article read like simply another cat woman trying to convince herself that she made the right choices. The only "male" commentary were things such as humans aren't made for marriage. How society has evolved past it and blah blah blah. No real understanding of where her wonderful life points to - a retirement home, cared for by workers being payed minimum wage, spending her days talking to other cat women. In the end dying alone, unmourned and unknown.

PT Barnum said...

I meant every twelve year old who gets all happy when Susan the Lunatic Harlot gives him a pat on his head.

Let's take a little piece of Susan's nasty little feminists friends article:

In societies where men heavily outnumber women—in what’s known as a “high-sex-ratio society”—women are valued and treated with deference and respect and use their high dyadic power to create loving, committed bonds with their partners and raise families. Rates of illegitimacy and divorce are low. Women’s traditional roles as mothers and homemakers are held in high esteem. In such situations, however, men also use the power of their greater numbers to limit women’s economic and political strength, and female literacy and labor-force participation drop.

One might hope that in low-sex-ratio societies—where women outnumber men—women would have the social and sexual advantage. (After all, didn’t the mythical all-female nation of Amazons capture men and keep them as their sex slaves?) But that’s not what happens: instead, when confronted with a surplus of women, men become promiscuous and unwilling to commit to a monogamous relationship. (Which, I suppose, might explain the Amazons’ need to keep men in slave quarters.) In societies with too many women, the theory holds, fewer people marry, and those who do marry do so later in life. Because men take advantage of the variety of potential partners available to them, women’s traditional roles are not valued, and because these women can’t rely on their partners to stick around, more turn to extrafamilial ambitions like education and career.

Women Good. Men Bad.

Yeah, I got it. I got it even before I read it. I got it by just seeing that she was a friend of Susan.

JCclimber said...

The funny thing is the logic of the above.
Women are scarce, therefore THEY have more power. End result? Low education for women, have to stay home, etc.... In other words, when women have the power, they seek to enslave themselves into stable relationships.

Then her next statement directly contradicts the above: "where women outnumber men—women would have the social and sexual advantage." Um, didn't you just say that the one with lower numbers have the advantage?

Anyway, she claims that when women have social and sexual advantage, then MEN (those rotten scoundrels) use their lack of power to create a nihilistic paradise.

Hmmmm. Sounds like she's saying women never really have the power. Or that they only have power when they are disempowered.

rycamor said...

Vox wrote:

Needless to say, there is a reason why most successful societies have historically limited the right of young women to select their own mates: young women tend to make very sub-optimal choices. And that inclination towards poor mate selection is why it is a mathematical certainty that the West will return to that system sooner or later.

You might say that Game and the "return to manliness" movement is one of the West's initial tools in that direction, if used right. The good, honest, hard-working middle classes (blue and white-collar) need to teach their sons how to compete with the worst elements out there. Because it is war, and the future of a society depends on it.

mmaier2112 said...

PT: Cool. I misread your intent.

Carry on!

Susan Walsh said...

Thank you Vox, I appreciate the coverage. It has been an enlightening discussion at HUS - the men, like the guys here, have strenuously objected to my description of Kate as gorgeous. In fact, some suggested, correctly I think, that her general stance and demeanor in the cover photo was rather alpha male. Maybe that's why we women liked it :-)

Kate was able to grasp more than most women professionals in NYC, but I'm afraid her fate was sealed when her mother sent her to third grade wearing feminist slogans on her clothing. Stuart Schneiderman called it abuse, and I don't disagree.

I actually agree that the West will return to restraining female sexuality. The UK is now confronting a strain of gonorrhea that is "incurable" - it resists all known antibiotics. And it leaves people vulnerable to additional STDs. In general, the UK is in the toilet wrt promiscuity.

Articles like Kate's, while hardly a fatal blow to feminism, do chip away at it. The predictable defensive, muddled responses by Marcotte and at Jezebel prove that.

I'm used to working on the margins, so I count it as a small step forward.

SarahsDaughter said...

I explained to my husband, who wanted me to watch a horror movie with him, that I was reading this, holy crap-long article, as a means to have more information for our daughters of what not to do. I find it amusing when single old women pride themselves in the "deeper" things of life.

"When an American woman gives you a tour of her house, she leads you through all the rooms. Instead, this expat showed me her favorite window views: from her desk, from her (single) bed, from her reading chair."

What she has no clue about (simply because there's no way she could) is that we married ladies will find beauty, peace, and contentment in any situation our husbands provide for us. I remember having a discussion with God about the roach infested apartment that I brought our first born home to. "If this is what you have in mind for me, God, I will find my contentment here." - Now that's peace of mind, that's deep, and that is joy (I was 21). Now...God is so good, the first thing my guests get to see is expansive land, amazing sunsets, and countless areas of our home where one can really let their hair down. After all that's what my goal was, to create a peace in our home to comfort all of it's occupants and our guests.

"...unlike singles, married couples spend less time keeping in touch with and visiting their friends and extended family, and are less likely to provide them with emotional and practical support. They call these “greedy marriages.” I can see how couples today might be driven to form such isolated nations—it’s not easy in this age of dual-career families and hyper-parenting to keep the wheels turning, never mind having to maintain outside relationships as well. And yet we continue to rank this arrangement above all else!"

I don't have a single married friend that has a job outside the home that wouldn't trade with me in a heartbeat. I find our life to be the exact opposite of what she's saying here. Even at a distance, I have more time to have lengthy conversations with and consideration for the extended members of our family. I am the go to girl whenever there's need to talk. Why? Because I am here, at home, available. I don't ever need to take vacation when an ailing family member needs care. I can just go.

I don't blame her for having a f'd up view on marriage if all she knows are career driven married women. Should she spend a week in my shoes, the weight of her pathetic decisions in life and the lies of feminism would collapse around her.

Stingray said...


I would wager a guess that she would not last a week in your shoes. At least if your children are still young. I have a marriage and family life much like yours and it is the happiest I have ever been. It is also the hardest I have ever worked in my life. I am not sure that most career women could do it.

Stingray said...

Let me rephrase. The technically *could* do it. I don't think most would be willing to give up what they deem necessary to do it.

Anonymous said...

@Stingray - While the pitiable feminist called marriages greedy relationships wrongly, adding children to the mix makes it even less true. The health and happiness of the children tend to be the focus of the parents, especially the mother. Many of the career women couldn't handle shifting focus away from their navel long enough to understand the sacrifice and joys of parenthood. At heart they never really grew up.

stg58 said...

"I would wager a guess that she would not last a week in your shoes. At least if your children are still young. I have a marriage and family life much like yours and it is the happiest I have ever been. It is also the hardest I have ever worked in my life. I am not sure that most career women could do it."

Stingray, amen to that! My wife works very hard every day keeping our two young sons (2 1/2 and 3 months) fed, loved and cared for. She is a very hard worker. I have the utmost respect for you, my wife and every woman who has the courage to do the right thing and raise their own children.

Lucas said...

Interesting claim, VD.

How do you imagine the limiation of female sexuality will happen?

I think you may have a valid point here.

Anonymous said...

As a 34yro single female in NYC, I have to step in and say something. So far everyone has pretty much stated that the author is stupid for not knowing better and now she'll die alone and childless too bad for her. I'm one of those women who got the message about male/female relationships waaaaaaayyyy to late, (as judged by the scale of dating market value) and spent my prime years getting educated and not trying to repeat the mistakes my parents made. So now I find myself here at 34 just now putting the puzzle pieces together. I don't believe I am alone in this. The combo of unhealthy relationship models and feminist propaganda is a deadly one that has probably killed more "prime years" for good women wanting more for themselves than just thier choices alone. It takes a ton of self-knowledge, insight, research, and therapy to undo all of that. Please consider that next time you all judge single women in their 30s so harshly.

Anonymous said...

Why is raising children and being a wife "doing the right thing"?. This is cleary not a secular blog, its christian influence makes it very difficult to view it as a social study. I've known many men who are older that complain about being single and childless, like their female counterparts. This seems more an issue of a humans innate want for relationships, in any way, shape or form. And why must you remove a womens agency by stating that she cannot choose a mate for herself? I really don't understand the goal of these incredibly sexist blog posts. Anyways, as for your closing statement that there is a "mathematical certainty that the West will return to that system (of choosing mates for women) sooner or later" is completely bullcrap and I think you will be quite disappointed.

Post a Comment