Sunday, November 25, 2012

The $50 trillion question

I don't think the situation quite qualifies as a marriage strike.  Not yet.  How can it, when men are now as focused on having a successful marriage as women were 15 years ago.  But the trend is clear, and there is little mystery as to why it exists:
According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
A lot of people, women especially, are still on the fence.  But they won't be for long, not once they begin to see what the real price of all those educated women and all their important careers turns out to be.  The terrible thing is that this state of affairs was not only predictable, it's not even unprecedented.

In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, "We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!"

But it's a surprisingly good article and the author is correct.  The solution is simple.  Women have only to decide to be women, not ersatz, incompetent men.  As she writes: "Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs."

Or, they can continue to cling to the myths of equality and grrrl power and descend into barbarism.  That's an option too.

90 comments:

beta_plus said...

That article is a genuine surprise. While not perfect, it is a huge step in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

Vox,

i think the love of money is a stronger lure than the prospects of marriage, and coupled with the fact that the wife will have to submit to her husband, will cause many to stay on this course until it's too late.

i think one of the greatest lines in fiction, concerning feminism, was in the book, "Satan's Hammer". . .a book about the effects of a comet breaking up and striking earth, leaving the planet wrecked.

"when the Hammer fell, feminism died."

i gotta admit, i bought the book just to read that one line.

i hope women see the problem with depending on govt to provide, because when it can no longer deliver on its handouts, they will be like the 5 virgins stuck outside without the bridegroom, and without oil in their lamps.


frenchy

Ashley said...

Surrender to their femininity.... I don't think anyone even knows what a woman or man's nature is. Everything is built upon expectations of how both genders are supposed to be, and they call that nature, and everyone buys is. It's pure bullshit, is what it is.

taterearl said...

"All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs."

I prefer as men we take back our gender from what the feminists think it is and live like a man...women will then surrender to femininity.

Unending Improvement said...

Yes, men certainly need to lead the way. But pandering to the feminist imperative is what they will do.

The fight has barely even started, in many ways we're more behind now than we were a decade ago.

Stingray said...

Ashley,

I advise you to be very careful with your wording here. The commenters here are not the same as at the other sites you have visited.

Consider yourself warned.

realmatt said...

No, Ashley, the expectations are based on the observable natural differences which cannot be explained by outside influences and learned behavior. The vast majority of which are being proven to be true by the 21st century Gods of Science, telling us what people knew thousands of years ago.

Anonymous said...

Ashley, if you really want to examine the evidence then read Steven Pinkers the Blank Slate. The evidence is rock solid.

Soga said...

Love the biblical reference. For these who are curious, the verse is from Isaiah 4.

Ashley wrote:
"Surrender to their femininity.... I don't think anyone even knows what a woman or man's nature is."

Read some history, or better yet, (if you're a Christian) read the Bible and stop trying to coach it in terms of your worldly expectations. Even if you're not a believer, the Bible does lay out some pretty good historical examples of femininity in women, so you can at least start from there.

The thing is, no matter how much we try to fight our nature as a man or a woman, we are still wired certain ways. We may vary by culture, but there are overarching patterns that describe masculinity and femininity pretty well.

A clay pot may protest to its maker as to how he is going about his work, but it is still a clay pot, and will still function as a clay pot (for the most part, if clay pots were sentient beings and tried to rebel against their created purposes).

Aeoli Pera said...

Deluded 20-something girls are going to look at these numbers and feel kind of bad for the "losers" who don't get a man (and if I understand the female mind at all, they probably have a couple of girlfriends in mind). They don't understand that the supply/demand effect applies to them too: with fewer men on the market, they will settle for a lower quality man than they would have in the first place.

This means an age-adjusted 8 woman riding alpha cocks and planning to settle with a male 7 (and would have eventually settled for a 6) will have to dig into 5 and 6 territory to find her "one and only."

Aeoli Pera said...

For those of you keeping score at home, this is obviously untenable, which means that society will have to rid itself of excess young men via an extremely bloody war of some kind. Or maybe something akin to the Great Leap Forward.

Martel said...

"Everything is built upon expectations of how both genders are supposed to be, and they call that nature, and everyone buys is. It's pure bullshit, is what it is."

So Ashley believes that men and women are different only because we "expect" them to be different. The fact that we have different organs, brain structures, and hormone cocktails running through our bodies is irrelevant.

But I'd bet my bottom dollar that Ashley believes homosexuality is set in stone, that if a dude wants to bang dudes it has nothing whatsoever to do with choice; he was born that way, and it's set in stone.

Two people with different organs being different is a societal construct, but two people with the same organs being different is an irrefutable law of nature.

Dumbass.

Pete said...

"... it's not even unprecedented."

Vox, bro, your amillennialism is showing! I'm thinking this is just the beginning of the fulfilment.

Ashley said...

Thanks for the warning Stingray. I've been reading for a while to know what I'm dealing with. I'm not scared.

Martel, way to take what I said a completely run with it. I'm sure I'd be reading all day what others have dreamed up in their heads about what I must believe and think. I can't wait to read it.

Martel said...

So set me straight then, Ashley. Do you think homosexuality is a choice or not?

Heh said...

one of the greatest lines in fiction, concerning feminism, was in the book, "Satan's Hammer". . .a book about the effects of a comet breaking up and striking earth, leaving the planet wrecked.

Lucifer's Hammer, not Satan's Hammer. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Great book!

Another great quote on feminism is from Stephen King's The Stand:

"Thank you, Men, for the railroads. Thank you, Men, for inventing the automobile and killing the red Indians who thought it might be nice to hold on to America for a while longer, since they were here first. Thank you, Men, for the hospitals, the police, the schools. Now I’d like to vote, please, and have the right to set my own course and make my own destiny. Once I was chattel, but now that is obsolete. My days of slavery must be over; I need to be a slave no more than I need to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a tiny boat with sails. "

Anonymous said...

I am not "incompetent" and a man who believes me to be so and requires me to be weak and dependent is not a man I'd consider "marriageable" in the first place.

Ashley said...

"Do you think homosexuality is a choice or not?"

It may or may not be. My thought is, it's none of my business. I'm not gay so I'll never understand why or how people can be gay. I just accept it as it is and mind my own.

OlioOx said...

What incentives do women have to change the feminist path they're on? And what are the disincentives?

I don't yet see significant numbers of U.S. women voting against any part of the institutionalized reigning feminist orthodoxy. Is the actual onset of a new Dark Ages (not just the threat thereof) the only conceivable incentive for them to do so? Does collapse have to go so far?

And I wonder -- suppose current employment trends continue and women end up dominating in almost all fields, even the most male-brained sort; the average level of performance in STEM will go down, of course, but it won't collapse entirely. Things will just run less well. It's not going to be the Dark Ages.

Men carried women for thousands of years; now it seems we are training them to carry us. I suspect they will do it much less efficiently and there will be a general social decline. But a 'new age of barbarism' is overly imaginative/romantic/optimistic (choose your favorite). Especially since there will always be a few men willing to pitch in, and the draft can always be brought back too.

SarahsDaughter said...

Worse than incompetent, Anon, Vox said ersatz incompetent. Meaning more inferior than incompetent.

Whatever made you think he was talking about you?

Anonymous said...

He said, "ersatz, incompetent men". Note the placement of the comma; ersatz is modifying the noun "men", not the adjective "incompetent".

I don't think he's talking about me specifically; I think he's talking about women in general. By talking about women in general, he is talking about me (albeit indirectly).

And just FYI: "inferior" is not less offensive than "incompetent".

Stingray said...

Women do make incompetent men just as men make incompetent women. Why would you find that offensive?

Anonymous said...

Depends on whether you interpret the comment as meaning "like men, except incompetent" or interpret it as meaning "incompetent at being men".

SarahsDaughter said...

"I don't think he was talking about me..." - Anon

I'm teasing, I know you couldn't help it, it's just so funny (solipsism) and predictable sometimes.

taterearl said...

"I don't think anyone even knows what a woman or man's nature is."

Read Genesis 3 to start. The cliff note version that the husband is to rule over his wife and she is to desire her husband. Man will work himself to death because he listens to his wife.

But hey look on the bright side...at least we don't crawl on our belly and eat dirt.

Anonymous said...

So your argument is what, Sarah? That he is actually talking about some amorphous concept of womanhood that does not include actual women?

taterearl said...

And what do we have today...women are working themselves to death trying to balance a career and family and men are putting women on a pedestal. Go figure on why things are all screwed up.

Anonymous said...

If people - both men and women - would get over the whole "pedestal" thing and try moving through life at ground level, we'd all be much better off.

SarahsDaughter said...

He is clearly talking about women who have decided to not act like women. This doesn't apply to me or Stingray for example.

Who were you saying isn't marriage material? Vox? There's an ongoing joke around here about that.

I'm not arguing with you, I was laughing at you, my apologies, I'll leave you alone. If only this Viking/Bears game wasn't so extremely boring.

Anonymous said...

I said, "a man who believes me to be [incompetent] and requires me to be weak and dependent is not a man I'd consider "marriageable".

I don't know Vox, so I can't make that assessment of his character... but I know men who do think that way and I do not consider them marriage material.

rycamor said...

Anon, most likely these men don't "require" you to be weak. They simply require you to be honest about the fact that you are weaker. Women are physically weaker than men, and it is quite obvious that they are emotionally much more thin-skinned.

Ditto with dependence. Feminists these days make such a big deal about how they aren't "dependent" on a man, when what they are now is dependent on men in the aggregate through government taxation and intervention in the workplace. If women actually had to compete with men on a level playing field without big daddy government, you know what the results would be. There is nothing shameful about such dependence. It is a fact of nature that women must be supported and protected through childbirth and caring for families, just as it is a fact of nature that men are unable to procreate by themselves, much less produce breast milk.

Tell me, is your ideal "marriageable" man shorter, weaker, less confident, less intelligent and less capable than you? I'm sure the thought of that stirs all sorts of warm feelings in you.

stg58 said...

I said, "a man who believes me to be [incompetent] and requires me to be weak and dependent is not a man I'd consider "marriageable".

I don't know Vox, so I can't make that assessment of his character... but I know men who do think that way and I do not consider them marriage material.


We probably wouldn't consider you to be marriageable either, unless we wanted to be divorced shortly thereafter.

Come up with a name for yourself. I propose Steineministe.

VD said...

I am not "incompetent" and a man who believes me to be so and requires me to be weak and dependent is not a man I'd consider "marriageable" in the first place.

First, barring any objective evidence that you can present, you are not the correct judge of your own competence. That is for others to decide.

Second, no one requires you to be weak. You are a woman, and therefore you are statistically likely to be weak in a number of divergent areas, from physical strength to logic and emotional control. If you are not weak in those areas, you are an outlier, however, the reactive nature of your response tends to indicate that you are a relatively normal woman.

Especially considering that you appear to believe that your opinion concerning what sort of men are, and are not, marriageable is relevant or of any interest to anyone but yourself.

If you don't want to be dependent, if you don't wish to be submissive, then you don't truly want to marry a man. How fortunate for you that it is now legal for you to find a wife in a number of jurisdictions these days.

taterearl said...

"Tell me, is your ideal "marriageable" man shorter, weaker, less confident, less intelligent and less capable than you? I'm sure the thought of that stirs all sorts of warm feelings in you."

Her hypergamy won't allow those feelings. In fact that trait in women isn't a bad thing.

taterearl said...

Women are weaker than men in many areas...however that doesn't mean they are less valuable.

You have a uterus so you can create a new life...I'd say that's VERY valuable.

You are more attractive than a man...which probably has to do with the uterus/feminine thing.

If you keep the uterus clean of other men other than your husband...then you are worth more than gold.

Martel said...

Ashley did a nice maneuver there by claiming she doesn't know if homosexuality is biological or a choice.

Of course, just about everyone who agrees with her politically (if her blog indicates her actual views) thinks that an individual's gayness is hard-wired.

Such folks also think that boy's preferring to play with toy guns and girls liking dolls has nothing to do with biology and is just a social construct.

So even if Ashley sidestepped the question, the left overtly contradicts itself here.

Praetorian said...

Hi Ashley,

You seem pretty sure about the fact that the male/female difference is, and let me quote here, "pure bullshit, is what it is." You also say that homosexuality may or may not be a choice, you can't know because you aren't.

You are (presumably) not a male.

Perhaps you should mind your own.

Regards,
prat

Ashley said...

I will not mind my own when I read shit about how women should be in the eyes of society when a lot of is involves behaving in ways women don't want to behave. Screw what women want to do, let's pressure them to do what we, society, think they *should* do in the name of the nature of femininity. Right?

Ashley said...

And this goes for men too. I think it's ludacris how society pressures men to be a certain way. I just had an argument at work because one guy was making fun of another guy for ordering a girly drink at a bar because it's unmanly and no chicks want to screw guy who drink that. So what, let the guy drink a damn Cosmopolitan. I'd still go home with him. I don't give a shit.

I'm not saying that there aren't differences in women and men that are hardwired. There are, but I think some folks take it way too seriously.

Praetorian said...

Hi Ashely,

Would you grant that there are some individual behaviors, of both sexes, that would, over time, destroy society? Also, would you grant that men and women have different reproductive mechanics that could imply differing society-destroying behaviors?

I recognize that you are emotional about this topic: I'm trying to think this through rationally, together.

Regards,
prat

Mr. Cosmopolitan said...

Ashley,

So, did you go home with him?

dalrock said...

I don't think the situation quite qualifies as a marriage strike. Not yet.

From my own interpretation of the data I've seen and shared, I don't think what we are seeing is a classic "marriage strike" by men. I see it more as women postponing marriage past their most marriageable years and finding that marrying later in life is exceptionally difficult.

Part of the problem may be the structural gap you have discussed between the number of men and women receiving college degrees. Part of it I'm convinced is due to my own hypothesis of a "weakened signal"; young men don't see marriage or generally even a serious girlfriend as in the cards, and therefore aren't as motivated to set themselves up as providers later in life. Part of it may simply be the poor economy of the Obama years.

Whatever the reason for the missing paddle, large numbers of marriage delaying women do seem to be finding themselves up the creek. If they were younger they could probably readjust and recover, but this is the point. They aren't younger, and their time is biologically constrained. They carefully measured their allotment of fertility and youth in order not to waste any extra on their husband. But now they have no buffer and the clock mercilessly continues ticking.

Martel said...

Mr. Cosmo: Probably not. Like most women, they're more than willing to go home with the THEORETICAL soft, sensitive, male. The ACTUAL soft, sensitive, male, not so much.

rycamor said...

Ashley said...

And this goes for men too. I think it's ludacris how society pressures men to be a certain way.


And I think it's Ludakris how women try to browbeat men into wanting what they don't want.

Josh said...

Ashley,

So what do most men want?

What do most women want?

Roundtine said...

I think it's ludacris how society pressures men to be a certain way.

And then you pressured a guy at work for joking around, like a man, with a male friend.

Martel said...

Ashley: Up until very recently, I exhibited some of those "feminine" behaviors you described. I've also had female friends like you defend me from from the guys who gave me shit for being that way.

And then I'd watch those very same female friends go home with the guys who ripped into me.

I used to agree with you, sweetie. Most of us here earlier in our lives thought like you do now.

VD said...

I will not mind my own when I read shit about how women should be in the eyes of society when a lot of is involves behaving in ways women don't want to behave. Screw what women want to do, let's pressure them to do what we, society, think they *should* do in the name of the nature of femininity. Right?

Well, no. I am suggesting that since what women want to do is incompatible with the survival of Western civilization, we should pressure them to do what is necessary in the name of preserving civilization and preventing a decline into poverty and barbarism.

For example, in Papua New Guinea, the authorities put tremendous pressure on women to stop them from doing what they wanted to do, which was eating their dead and feeding the most tasty bits to young children, because it was giving them kuru. Do you think they should have simply let all those women do what they wanted to do?

If not, then why would you support letting women destroy Western civilization? Would you change your mind if I could prove to you that letting women do what they want would destroy Western civilization?

I don't think what we are seeing is a classic "marriage strike" by men. I see it more as women postponing marriage past their most marriageable years and finding that marrying later in life is exceptionally difficult.

I tend to agree. I think natural hypergamy combined with the push for education/career over husband/children is the chief problem. The Family 2.0 laws tend to multiply that effect, but aren't the primary cause.

Martel said...

Part of the problem also is that what women want and what women think they want so often contradict. They want to tame the badboy, until they tame him and then loose interest. She wants him to hold her purse for him at the mall, but even more she wants him to pass the shit-test and turn it back on her.

Civilization requires clarity: moral clarity, legal clarity, etc. What women want is the opposite of that.

Or is it? Women hate guys who are assholes but then have lots of sex with them. So they're being clear, right? Do just what she wants so that she can despise you? Uh, sure.

Sounds like the perfect civilizational framework to me.

Anonymous said...

My "ideal marriageable man" doesn't exist.

Unlike the MGTOW types, I really do go my own way. I don't hate men; I enjoy their company a great deal. But all of my male friends are aware that I am not available for anything other than friendship.

I am always amused by the "you must be a lesbian" comments (I wonder what it is about a self-sufficient woman that triggers such defensiveness?)

Sorry to disappoint but all members of my social circle - male and female - are permanent residents of the Friend Zone.

Mr Green Man said...

We might have a triple dip in the VP bag of classics -- somebody almost threatened not to marry/have sex with Vox, we're going to talk about guys buying girly drinks, and Anonymous is slowly turning into a Bond Villain monologue.

Anonymous said...

"...your opinion concerning what sort of men are, and are not, marriageable is relevant or of any interest to anyone but yourself."

When did I suggest otherwise? I neither live nor control anyone else's life, so why would I be concerned about who they consider to be marriage material?

Michael said...

VD: "Would you change your mind if I could prove to you that letting women do what they want would destroy Western civilization?"

Vox, here's one vote for you to take this question and run with it. You've hit on bits and pieces of this many times, but I'd love to see this laid down in its entirety. I don't know anyone else who could do it.

Think of it as the TIA for feminism. TIF?

Josh said...

My "ideal marriageable man" doesn't exist.

Unlike the MGTOW types, I really do go my own way. I don't hate men; I enjoy their company a great deal. But all of my male friends are aware that I am not available for anything other than friendship.

I am always amused by the "you must be a lesbian" comments (I wonder what it is about a self-sufficient woman that triggers such defensiveness?)

Sorry to disappoint but all members of my social circle - male and female - are permanent residents of the Friend Zone.


Congratulations, you're an evolutionary failure.

Bob Wallace said...

"I don't think what we are seeing is a classic "marriage strike" by men. I see it more as women postponing marriage past their most marriageable years and finding that marrying later in life is exceptionally difficult."

That has been my experience. My experience has also been the "Alpha Carousel" doesn't exist. I've met quite a few women who slept with whatever man they found attractive, and it had nothing to do with Alpha/Beta/etc.

They postponed getting married because of "career," then suddenly found they were past their prime and their marriage prospects had essentially dried up.

Then they ended up as spinsters in an apartment, with a cat taking the place of children because their ovaries have shriveled up and died on them, blaming their problems on men, and oozing hostility toward the male sex, which they tried to keep under control with psychiatric medication.

Michael said...

Anonymous: "I wonder what it is about a self-sufficient woman that triggers such defensiveness?"

It's an example of how males & females process information differently. What you identify as defensiveness is actually amusement ... and pity.

If you don't grok that last part, give it a few years. Certain kinds of wisdom come only with age.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully, with age will also come the knowledge of how "you must be a lesbian" is an expression of amusement/pity... because at this point in time, it sounds a lot more like middle-school name-calling.

taterearl said...

"Women hate guys who are assholes but then have lots of sex with them. So they're being clear, right?"

Yup, very clear...what they say has very little meaning. How they act...does.

taterearl said...

"I don't hate men; I enjoy their company a great deal. But all of my male friends are aware that I am not available for anything other than friendship."

So have you ever been attracted to a man? If not you are either...

a) a lesbian
b) asexual

I guess we could amuse ourselves about your asexuality if that makes you feel better.

Michael said...

Anonymous "Hopefully, with age will also come the knowledge of how "you must be a lesbian" is an expression of amusement/pity... because at this point in time, it sounds a lot more like middle-school name-calling."

If I point out that you sound really defensive, will it trigger some understanding on your part?

Or should I point out that "middle-school name-calling" != "defensiveness". It's how guys rib one another. Unfortunately, we tend to sometimes think that girls can take the same kind of no-holds-barred humor as our male friends. Then we remember why they're girls and we're glad we're not.

Johnycomelately said...

"I will not mind my own when I read shit about how women should be in the eyes of society when a lot of is involves behaving in ways women don't want to behave."

No problems, women should do everything their heart's desire, as long as I am not footing the bill.

Anonymous said...

@taterearl; I don't understand why either of those things is particularly funny but if it makes you happy, then hey... knock yourself out.

@Michael; it's not a question of being unable to "take" sophomoric humor as it is a question of not understanding why it's supposed to be funny. Some people like Carlin and Lynch, some people like Brand and Tosh... different strokes and whatnot.

Michael said...

Anonymous "it's not a question of being unable to "take" sophomoric humor as it is a question of not understanding why it's supposed to be funny."

If you're able to "take" it, then why to you misinterpret it as defensiveness?

Spacebunny said...

Screw what women want to do, let's pressure them to do what we, feminists, think they *should* do in the name of the nature of feminism. Right?

There - fixed it for you to reflect reality.

Toby Temple said...

Surrender to their femininity.... I don't think anyone even knows what a woman or man's nature is. Everything is built upon expectations of how both genders are supposed to be, and they call that nature, and everyone buys is. It's pure bullshit, is what it is.

Hush, child. Let the grown ups talk. Go and play your doll.

Jason said...

Ashley probably thinks she won the argument.

taterearl said...

Would you take a bullet for a feminist? This is a good article about what masculinity and femininity is all about.

http://www.henrymakow.com/would-you-take-a-bullet-for-a-feminist.html

"For a man, possession (and the responsibility and trust it implies) is the most satisfying aspect of his relationship.
Conversely, the more power a woman demands, the less male love she will receive. She can have love or power, but she can't have both. Feminists are consigning many women to lives of bitterness and solitude."

That's why the lie of having it all can never happen.

szopeno said...

actually, there is another solution. Males who don't care about marriage will die out without leaving heirs (on average, though there will be also a few who will be highly successful), females who won't be able to secure a partner will die out (though some will afford to get a sperm donor or will get a low-value sperm from some would-be-alpha). Now, players won't leave a lot of descendants, mainly because of contraception - most smart girls will use it even when they will crave a sex from them, and those, who won't use it, will have on average lower IQ. Their descendants will have therefore lower IQ, and as such lower chances to get partners.

Without some state interventions or changes in culture, after a few generation majority of population will be composed of descendants of those few males and females who are able to get into marriages and raise enough children, and the rest will be descended from sluts and players. Those two populations will be increasingly separate (because those females who will be able to secure husbands will be those, who were more succesful in discriminating players, and husbands wil be those, who will find player style unattractive).

Mostly mormons, amishes and others like that.

OR the females will convince that having a baby is a human right and will get a state-sponsored pregnancy without a partner. And even though males will complain and be angry, they will do nothing about it, because most of males I see on MRA blogs are wimps.

Such process will be somehow slowed down by immigration, of course.

Bob Wallace said...

"She can have love or power, but she can't have both."

Actually Carl Jung said that a long time before Makow. He was talking about men, too.

Jimmy said...

"Screw what women want to do, let's pressure them to do what we, feminists, think they *should* do in the name of the nature of feminism. Right?"

Good edit. I agree.

Feminism has it own way of keeping women in-line and it leaves a much worse result.

Cail Corishev said...

And this goes for men too. I think it's ludacris how society pressures men to be a certain way.

And I think it's Ludakris how women try to browbeat men into wanting what they don't want.


And I think it's ludicrous that people are learning to spell from rap performers.

I don't call it a marriage strike, in the sense of significant numbers of men consciously refusing to marry, and I don't expect there to ever be one. But we've gone from a situation where a man used to have his slim, feminine, possibly virginal, 20-year-old girlfriend pushing for marriage; to one where the first woman to press for marriage is his chubby, divorced, 35-year-old, mother-of-two, friend-with-benefits. It only stands to reason that fewer men are going to jump at that offer.

Not many guys will decline with the thought, "Hey, they didn't want me back then, so this is what they get." They'll just kinda lose interest in marriage compared to their elders, without really knowing why.

Cail Corishev said...

Another factor: if men spend their 20s playing video games and working fast food to barely pay the bills, because women aren't pushing them to get ready for marriage, then how are these guys gonna suddenly become responsible and financially secure in their 30s when their high school girlfriends are finally ready to settle down? Even if men wanted to marry them up when the women are finally good and ready, they may not be in a position to.

Ashley said...

"Ashley probably thinks she won the argument."

Unlike others, I don't consider this a childish game. There is no argument to be won, at least not to me.

"And then you pressured a guy at work for joking around, like a man, with a male friend."

Are you for real with that ridiculous accusation? I didn't pressure him to do anything. I just disagreed with him. But of course if a women disagrees with a man, it's automatically nagging, competing, and pressure so yeah, I pressured the poor guy. I hope he can heal from his emotional scars from me daring to disagree with him.

Going to play with my doll now, because it's in my DNA!

stg58 said...

You are still avoiding the homosexuality question, Ashley. Answer it. Is homosexuality innate and set in stone?

stg58 said...

You are still avoiding the homosexuality question, Ashley. Answer it. Is homosexuality innate and set in stone?

Spacebunny said...

She answered it stg58. I don't know is an answer. Perhaps not the one you were hoping for, but an answer nonetheless.

stg58 said...

Yeah not much of an answer. An unoriginal evasion.

stg58 said...

Yeah not much of an answer. An unoriginal evasion.

Ashley said...

Fine, I'll answer but you still won't like it, of course. I think it could be either a choice or something set in stone at birth, depending on the person. Unless you are a scientist with solid proof it's one or the other, why is this or what I think a big deal to you?

CrisisEraDynamo said...

@ Ashley

Because Martel and stg58 assume that you're being hypocritical, saying that the differences between males and females are just made up by society (despite the evidence that this isn't so) while homosexual nature is set in stone, an innate drive.

Our point is that sex differences are not made up by any human being (and those are just two of many examples.)

Society didn't make men or women this way, despite what feminists have told you.

stg58 said...

CED,

That is exactly right. Many people who argue that male and female are merely cultural constructs and against the mountain of evidence that sex differences are hard wired will also say that people are born homosexual without any hesitation.

stg58 said...

CED,

That is exactly right. Many people who argue that male and female are merely cultural constructs and against the mountain of evidence that sex differences are hard wired will also say that people are born homosexual without any hesitation.

Toby Temple said...

@stg58,

what the hell is wrong with you? double posting every single time here? ~just teasing~

@ashley,
Going to play with my doll now, because it's in my DNA!

Good girl!

Spacebunny said...

Only some one who doesn't have children of their own would make a ridiculous claim like Ashely's.

Jimmy said...

Only a small minority is homosexual. Some guess it is 1 to 3 percent. These are the exceptions, which is why the feminist argument about social constructs are also in the minority. The truth is people are hard wired to be men and women. As for homosexuality, is it a choice or hard wired? I would say it could be both. It seems like gay men are more hard wired than lesbians. Despite my religious beliefs about homosexuality, I would never try to convince a gay man or lesbian to pursue a straight relationship. It will likely end badly, thus ruin the lives of 2 people. It is hard to recover from self-deception.

Duke of Earl said...

When a person claims that sexual differences are created by society they are overlooking the fact that the society was built by men and women.

If the society reflects sexual differences, perhaps it's because there were differences in its formation.

jmark said...

The less you need them...the more they want you.

Men, become independent first!...personally, morally and financially. Become so independent that you do not need a woman. Then you can afford the time to find the one right woman.

But if there is no one right woman for you, don't sweat it.

And if you pick the wrong woman, be so independent that you can afford the legal battle to protect your children and yourself from her greed. Be so independent that you can even afford it if you lose. Because even if you lose, your children still need you...and you will be able to provide for them.

binding the strong man said...

it is simple. Don't pursue a woman ina bar or some other place of ill repute. Find an “ultraconservative” religious group that isn't very engaged with the culture, convert, and be a part of that smaller society. Lots of women exist who want to be submissive. They usually are very religious, don't get their social fun in bars, and won't consider men who can't support them. I discovered this only after becoming religious. These women sense the lack of marriagable men even more than main stream women because they have actually built their lives on the hope of marriage. A decent man is a hot commodity there. He doesn't need to be as much of an asshole alpha because these women aren't ruined for the most part.

Anonymous said...

Hi there! I am aware of this is certainly fairly off-topic
however required to consult. May managing a well-established blog site for instance yours take a
massive amount of work? I'm completely new so that you can running a blog however conduct produce at my journal every day. I’d like to take up a website in order to reveal the encounter along with opinions on the net. Remember to inform me for those who have any suggestions or perhaps methods for fresh wannabe site managers. Appreciate it!
My webpage :: www.happymoods.info

Anonymous said...

Hi there, lengthy ago i opted using a mailing list about some web marketing blog site and already My spouse and i
maintain getting a great number of email messages inside my email that
this practically wrecked this particular email address.
As well as unsubscbribe weblink fails possibly. Could you being a blogger advise us where to start,
for the reason that I'd appreciate to maintain that email address contact info.
Also visit my weblog Cheap Car Insurance Quote

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.