After nearly 50 years of feminism, men want to go Dutch.Nearly two-thirds of them — 64 percent — believe women should pay for their share of dates, a survey has found.... As for women, they’re conflicted. Fifty-seven percent of them said they have offered to chip in, even on a first date. But 39 percent said they hoped men would refuse to accept their offer.First, notice that while 64 percent of men believe women should pay their share, 84 percent of them pick up the tab anyhow. There are your deltas. Second, no man who believes in traditional marital roles should expect a woman to pay for her share of a date. If you're looking for a woman who is going to put her responsibilities as a wife and mother first, you're not going to find her if you keep dating women who ask you out, drive, and pay for the date.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
To pay or not to pay
It all depends upon what sort of woman you want:
55 comments:
It looks like a good litmus test is if the woman offers to pay for her part of the date. If that happens, you should treat her coldly and not even bother to walk her to her door.
How often is a woman's offer to pay no more than a fitness test?
The solution of course is to not do things that cost money when dating. Walk around a bit and talk to her instead.
It looks like a good litmus test is if the woman offers to pay for her part of the date. If that happens, you should treat her coldly and not even bother to walk her to her door.
Isn't that a bit much? A good percentage were hoping the man would decline. Women have to find out about the men they are dating too. It's not that awful if early on the relationship she offers to pay for her part. Now, if she is doing the asking out, driving, and paying, there's a problem for sure.
In many parts of the world, the walk is the usual and common date. With maybe a soda at the end, if the guy likes her.
We have allowed a date to become a budget buster, running for many guys a third or more of their weekly take home.
This is certainly a good way to determine female designs and attitudes without laying out the cash. If she wants to see you again, she is into you. If she is distressed because she didn't get a free meal, dump her.
It looks like a good litmus test is if the woman offers to pay for her part of the date. If that happens, you should treat her coldly and not even bother to walk her to her door.
More than once I noted that if she offered to do that on a first date, it meant she didn't intend to have a second date. So hey you might as well say yes and limit the damage to your wallet.
It looks like a good litmus test is if the woman offers to pay for her part of the date. If that happens, you should treat her coldly and not even bother to walk her to her door.
Ironically, she could be shit testing you from a conservative angle to see if you a modern man rather than a traditional man. You would probably be better served to pay for the date if you asked and then turn the girl down abruptly later in a more alpha way if you suspect she's more of a feminist than you care for.
No woman wants her offer to pay to be accepted. Observe the outrage if the man terminates the meal midstream, stands, drops a fifty on the table, and advises the waiter that the 'lady' will be covering her own share.
Observe further: have any of us actually been offered a night on the town, in which the woman manifests her purported sameness, and calls us, recruits us for an evening, collects us in her car, delivers us to some fine new restaurant we had not known, and last, discreetly and without self-celebrating ceremony, funds a simple meal? Feminism is just a (free) call option on the benefits of tradition, to be exercised pragmatically.
Whereas a good woman compensates her man with attentiveness, care, kindness, support. She doesn't measure her man by either the results of her wallet biopsy, nor his patronizing gestures in the direction of popular political rhetoric. These things are alien to her.
A gaggle of secretaries pull out their calculators to divide the check. A harridan will offer to pay, as Dexter suggests, under the false premise that this frees her from obligation. (She demonstrates, by doing so, that yes a fine meal did obligate her for sex; that until she rejected the man, she was trading money for favors.)
I also agree with matamoros that our dating conventions invert the purpose of dating. They create expensive amusement park expectations, appropriate for any man who would be a charming thrill ride for children. Instead I have in my heart the idea of a quiet picnic on the grass, but I know no woman who even owns a picnic basket.
The coffee date was always my standard "getting to know you" first date. Inexpensive and no time frame so you could leave early if the man wasn't what you wanted.
Men are likely reluctant to pay anymore because even a feminist will take a free meal from a man she doesn't especially like and then what? The guy spent $100 on a night out and can't get her to return his calls. Yes, a woman offering to pay is a fitness test from a conservative angle. I always offered to pay. Most women I knew offered to pay their tab. Its polite not to assume someone you don't know very well will pay your way. This offer should not be interpreted as feminist in any way unless she insists. Also, if I didn't like the man I would offer/insist on paying. I didn't want to take gifts from a decent person that I had no intention of returning in kind.
My parents always told me to offer to pay my own way on a first date, to avoid "obligation" and to see how they would react. I usually didn't insist on it after the first offer, unless, as what was said earlier, I knew there would be no second date. It seems to be a more common thing among Millennials, though.
"More than once I noted that if she offered to do that on a first date, it meant she didn't intend to have a second date. So hey you might as well say yes and limit the damage to your wallet."
This has been my experience as well, that the women who were actually into me let me pay, and the ones who weren't were looking to split the check as a polite way of saying "you're not the one for me".
YMMV, of course.
In many parts of the world, the walk is the usual and common date. With maybe a soda at the end, if the guy likes her.
That was how my first date went with my European now-husband. There was no dinner, no movie, nothing formal. He took me on a long walk through our college town and we just talked. It was unexpected, but charming. And we liked each other well enough to cross from one end of town to the other.
No wonder people are confused these days. We have the vestigial trappings of tradition with almost none of the obligations. In a traditional framework, the point of a man paying is to demonstrate his willingness and ability to support a wife and children. But with feminist women, the expectation is that she'll work and throw the kids in daycare (if they even have kids), so there's no purpose to be served by a man paying the tab. However, if two people are committed to being traditional, then a woman is likewise obligated to demonstrate what she will do for a husband and children. Besides acting warm and sweet, she can cook him meals at her home and show the man what kind of housekeeper she is.
I dunno, maybe it's good in a sense that women feel awkward taking from men without giving anything, but the proper response isn't for a woman to try to relieve a man of his obligation, but to figure out what her obligation is and how to fulfill it.
Stickwick: "Besides acting warm and sweet, she can cook him meals at her home and show the man what kind of housekeeper she is."
If I am seeing someone I quickly invite her over for dinner, as I enjoy cooking far more than the restaurant amusement park. It's also a lot healthier. (Of course, in Europe, knowledge of food and wine and the ability to provide both with one's own hands instead of one's wallet is an act of gracious elegance, if not a social requirement.) A hidden element is my curiosity: will she reciprocate?
(As a sidebar, one learns an incalculable amount, as you note, with just a quick glance at how a woman designs, and maintains, her home. I'm of the opinion that design is fate.)
This has happened thrice in the past 10 years. We beat on, boats against the current.
I cannot fathom paying anything more than $35 on a first date. Even in an expensive city like San Francisco.
Never in my dating life did this fail me. In fact, the best dates were either free or of negligible cost ($6 or less).
I only let the woman pay for part of the date if I was certain it would not be a long term relationship.
It's a good way to screen out the high-maintenance bitches, too. I found out that even the most attractive women liked doing non-traditional dinner and movie type dates, perhaps because it was different and unexpected, or perhaps because as one told me, "it seems like you assume that just doing stuff with you is enough to make this a great date". Well yeah, as evidenced by the fact that you're spending the night at my place, why change that assumption?
Folks, I have an interesting question.
While I am teaching my son red-pill wisdom that was hard earned in the field and from reading and observing, how do I teach him to be ready for the next twist of the dating marketplace?
Because as the red-pill knowledge AND the economic disaster gains traction, it is certain the dating market will change again.
I guess the main thing is to teach red-pill wisdom, the fundamental nature of both women and men (but especially women).
That is the key element which was missing from my own education, in that the typical feminist crap was instilled in me by my delta father and stay at home but feminist mother.
It looks like a good litmus test is if the woman offers to pay for her part of the date. If that happens, you should treat her coldly and not even bother to walk her to her door.
Good grief, what a lame response. Get all butthurt and sullen? Yeah, well, good luck with that.
But Hueristics has the right answer anyway - don't do expensive things together until you've got a good idea if the two of you are interested in each other. And by the time you've established that, well, remember that Alphas have women offering to do nice stuff for them (including buying them things) all the time.
I thought cooking for a woman was beta.
The dynamic is a difficult one to deal with. My wife, who aspires to be a stay-at-home, went dutch on our first date. I was still somewhat traditionalist at this point, so I had offered to pay. But she was still keen on marriage despite her progressive date-values, and we got engaged six months later.
Today, paying for dates is just setting yourself up to get "rinsed". She gets to evaluate your "worthiness", and you get to spend money for the privilege. She may not have any intention of actually evaluating you fairly, she might just enjoy the free food and entertainment (hence the rinsing).
It's a fine line to walk, because you can't live your whole life being paranoid that you're going to get rinsed, and on the other hand you probably don't want to shack up with a career girl.
Perhaps the best way to do it is to see how the date is going. If it's going poorly, split the check and next the girl. If it's going well, and she's not just flattering your ego to make you feel like it's going well (good luck with that one), then perhaps pay for it....after you've established that you've had a great time and, yes, you would like to see each other again.
Good grief, what a lame response. Get all butthurt and sullen? Yeah, well, good luck with that.
But Hueristics has the right answer anyway - don't do expensive things together until you've got a good idea if the two of you are interested in each other. And by the time you've established that, well, remember that Alphas have women offering to do nice stuff for them (including buying them things) all the time.
Alphas do when they are only interested in getting laid.
If the point of your date is to assess whether or not she would be a submissive wife, then it is a solid test.
And lastly, when you treat women coldly, the ones who are interested in you will come back to you because they need to know why. Nothing more Alpha than that.
It looks like a good litmus test is if the woman offers to pay for her part of the date. If that happens, you should treat her coldly and not even bother to walk her to her door.
Yup, that is a bit much. Many times it's nothing more than a half-hearted gesture and she's not expecting you to accept her offer. In other words, it's a shit test. Now, if she demands to pay for her part of the date despite your objections, then that's a different story. Either you have a feminist on your hands or she's not that into you. In both those cases it's 'next.'
I took one of the most feminine, traditional girls I've ever dated out to a French restaurant for our first date. We then walked over to a local bar. I picked up the bill at the restaurant and paid cash for the first round of drinks at the bar. She surprised me by buying the second round of drinks and bringing them over to our table. No problem with that.
When I can afford it easily (recently, that's not ever), I prefer to pay. I won't insist, but usually the server will give a single check, which I cover without making anything of it. I do it to gauge what kind of girl she is. If she's offended and turned off, then good, I wouldn't have cared to be around that kind of girl anyway. If she's appreciative, she's worth considering as dating material.
I'll note that this strategy obviously isn't optimal for laying chicks, but it does seem good for selecting more traditional ladies. Also, I've noticed a high correlation between appreciating my paying and the quality of her cooking.
I can envision this conversation.
W: Oh, let me help with the bill.
M: I've got it.
W: I don't want you to pay for me. I'll pay my share.
M: Here's the deal. You can pay your share, making this our last date, or you can let me pay the bill and we might go out again.
But the man probably shouldn't say that, he should just pay the bill.
If the point of your date is to assess whether or not she would be a submissive wife, then it is a solid test.
If paying for stuff is the sum total of your definition of this, then you're going to have some sad blunders in your dating life. How do you differentiate a "submissive" wife who lets you take manly charge of the dinner check from a golddigger looking for free stuff?
Not to mention, you want a wife who is submissive to her husband, not to any random man she happens to be around - which is precisely what you are on a first date.
And lastly, when you treat women coldly, the ones who are interested in you will come back to you because they need to know why. Nothing more Alpha than that
More likely she'll just think you got offended and butthurt, which is most definitely not Alpha. If you can't maintain control of a social situation where two people on friendly terms are trying to settle a dinner check without taking it personally and getting sullen and withdrawn, how can you possible maintain control of important situations?
She offered to pay for part of the date. You're either going to let her pay, or not let her pay. But whichever it is, if your emotional state changes based on that insignificant little affair, what is she supposed to think of you?
Besides, what sort of woman would want to be the wife of a man who's going to get angry and withdrawn over every minor misstep she makes?
If paying for stuff is the sum total of your definition of this, then you're going to have some sad blunders in your dating life. How do you differentiate a "submissive" wife who lets you take manly charge of the dinner check from a golddigger looking for free stuff?
Royal Tenenbaum answered that question.
Not to mention, you want a wife who is submissive to her husband, not to any random man she happens to be around - which is precisely what you are on a first date.
Well, you can't exactly tell her you want to have sex and she can't refuse, right?
She offered to pay for part of the date. You're either going to let her pay, or not let her pay. But whichever it is, if your emotional state changes based on that insignificant little affair, what is she supposed to think of you?
That you were insulted by her behavior. That you expected her to assume you'd take care of it because, after all, you had to ask her out.
But what would she think of a man who has her pay part of the date when he was one who asked her out in the first place? I mean, she'll think he's cheap, he's doesn't have the ability to support a long-term commitment.
That he's failed her shit test.
More likely she'll just think you got offended and butthurt, which is most definitely not Alpha. If you can't maintain control of a social situation where two people on friendly terms are trying to settle a dinner check without taking it personally and getting sullen and withdrawn, how can you possible maintain control of important situations?
There's no butthurt. And you are in total control. I'm didn't say treat her with disrespect, just to act not interested after the fact. Alphas show no interest to plenty of women, either because they are genuinely uninterested or because they wish to attract them.
Besides, what sort of woman would want to be the wife of a man who's going to get angry and withdrawn over every minor misstep she makes?
Nice strawman. This isn't about every minor misstep because once you're married, it's a different story.
Women will know whether or not they want to continue to date you within the first few minutes. Hell, they know whether or not they will have sex with you within the first few minutes.
Stickwick Stapers I dunno, maybe it's good in a sense that women feel awkward taking from men without giving anything, but the proper response isn't for a woman to try to relieve a man of his obligation, but to figure out what her obligation is and how to fulfill it.
Good point. I wish more women would view it in this sense. Life is based on mutually interlocking obligations.
I thought cooking for a woman was beta.
Cooking for a woman isn't beta. Making cake pops for a woman... that's beta/gamma/delta. Or just plain 'gay.'
In many parts of the world, the walk is the usual and common date. With maybe a soda at the end, if the guy likes her.
None of my good first dates were traditional restaurant dates. Going for a walk and getting caught in the rain; going to a carnival; taking her to a classical music concert (with tickets she knew were free); making dinner for her at my place...those were all good first dates, and they avoided the thorny issue of payment. (A girl who argues over paying for dinner won't think of it when you're buying corn dogs at a carnival.) As this thread shows, there's no way to handle paying for dinner that some women won't misunderstand.
Save dinner and a movie for someone you've been seeing a while.
Since the point of this post is determining if the girl is feminine or feminist, I suggest as you walk with her, offer her your arm. A lady will gladly accept the offer - a feminist not so much.
Odd, for myself, if I asked her out for a dinner date, something I rarely do, I'll simply declare as it winds down "I'll pick up the check, you pick up the tip".
-No obligation on her part to reciprocate via sex
-She has to pull a bit of the weight
-Women tend to be more accurate judges of the level of service we've received
Has always worked just fine, wound up getting laid 95% of the time after a dinner/do something else date, no obligations from either party after the sex, no "I paid the full amount and got blue balls to show for it".
Now that I know a bit about Game, probably did not need the dinner date to have sex with them, still was rather nice to just enjoy their company.
That you were insulted by her behavior.
Which is exactly my point - she should assume you were insulted, and frankly, if you get insulted by the normal sort of fitness tests a woman throws at you - especially early in your relationship - well, that's a fail.
Has always worked just fine, wound up getting laid 95% of the time after a dinner/do something else date, no obligations from either party after the sex, no "I paid the full amount and got blue balls to show for it".
Good grief, women have become pigs. ¡Viva la revolución feminista!
Heh, we are the counter revolution, feministas are merely reactionaries now.
Heh, we are the counter revolution, feministas are merely reactionaries now.
Vox and Dalrock are the counter-revolution. You're just capitalizing on the chaos.
Under classical revolutionary theory you would be correct, however under new revolutionary theory, leaderless action based on spontaneously forming groups without a formal agenda is the "new".
Basically Dalrock and Vox are merely one faucet of information, the real revolutionary acts of approaching and having success, see no strings attached sex, are the revolutionary actions that further the cause.
IE, as the information is disseminated, and more men have success and their world views changes vis a vis the feminine imperative, the more the movement grows.
The truly revolutionary posture of it all is no one "leader" is deemed to be the "truth" men are free to take or discard at their discretion..and one never really knows who reads and implements the information therein.
Basically Dalrock and Vox are merely one faucet of information...
Indeed, they are veritable spigots of information.
No offense meant to either Dalrock or Vox.
I do find it fascinating that revolutionary theory was once considered a social science, like any other science, when the bricks fell in Berlin, that view has dimmed and been mostly discarded (to be replaced by Environmentalism).
The current revolution among men is not based on social science, rather the fundamental basis is physical sciences. Studies in everything from Sociology to the mundane discipline of color matching. All designed for one purpose, to remove the miasma that women are mystical creatures that no one can understand.
That turns out not be the case, and Science, as per usual, proves to be a dual edged sword, those behind such efforts could not have possibly realized a community of men would form that would bend their findings to their own anti female imperative ends.
And thus the movement came to be, which is designed to use the unconscious portion of feminine action and turn it to our own purposes.
For all of the sturm and drung about Schwyzer, he understood this rather well so much so even feminists who knew what he was about..still said either nothing, or slept with him.
Dinner isn't the problem, its the larger expenses.
I reject feminism and I'm poor. So I'm going to be alone/mateless forever.
The current revolution among men is not based on social science, rather the fundamental basis is physical sciences. Studies in everything from Sociology to the mundane discipline of color matching.
I have no idea what color matching is, but sociology is a social "science," not a physical science.
... under new revolutionary theory, leaderless action based on spontaneously forming groups without a formal agenda is the "new" ... the real revolutionary acts of approaching and having success, see no strings attached sex, are the revolutionary actions that further the cause.
There are a number of men in the manosphere who are adept at recognizing patterns and discerning motivations, and are providing this information to other men out there. That information is value-neutral; it's what a man does with it that has meaning. Some men use it to attract wives and exert dominion over them, others to get a lot of no-strings-attached sex. The potential of the former to change society in a significant way is obvious. What is not obvious to me is how the latter is counter-revolutionizing the feminists. Considering what feminism has wreaked on Western society, would you explain to me how Western society is being counter-revolutionized by no-strings-attached sex? Is it changing marriage rates? divorce rates? reproduction rates? family law? affirmative action? HR policies? abortion laws? false-rape accusations? public education? higher education? political correctness? speech codes? what?
[Western society is being counter-revolutionized by no-strings-attached sex? Is it changing marriage rates? divorce rates? reproduction rates? family law? affirmative action? HR policies? abortion laws? false-rape accusations? public education? higher education? political correctness? speech codes? what?
-"no strings attached sex" goes to the fundamental problem, most men in the West are simply socialized to believe having access to sex is a mystical process that requires a near Herculean effort to achieve. The more that is demystified the more men learn their actual value in a relationship, should they choose to enter one. This simply act allows the mind to grasp the fact they've largely been lied to by Society and manipulated for Societies ends, not their own.
-Marriage rates: They are plummeting in the West for a reason, mainly men increasingly do not see the need for it.
-Divorce rates: From a revolutionary point of view, Divorce is the ultimate force feeding of the Red Pill to men who desperately cling to the illusion that "marriage is what I'm supposed to be in". The more the pretty little lie perishes, the more men there are who have a vested interest in learning Game.
-Affirmative Action: In America this notion is being discarded, cannot speak for Europe.
-Abortion laws: If one has not noticed, in several areas in the US it is very difficult to have one.
-False Rape Accusations: This is a truism, and a powerful tool in the female shaming strategy that society largely buys into, it is a target to be engaged by a serious movement.
-Public Education: Institutional support of the female imperative, once again a target to be engaged, it is interesting to note home schooling is a growth industry in America, in Europe not so much as Socialism is firmly entrenched and frowns upon deviance from the State's program.
-Speech Codes: do explain
-Political Correctness: Heh, the manosphere itself shows the effort has failed outside of the largely dying main stream of media content. The proper term is Politcally Corrected Speech, a holdover from Mao's China.
Revolutions classically required at least 10% participation from the populace to become effective, with advent of the internet it has been speculated 3% population participation is required for a Revolution to gain traction. I'd tend to agree especially when one the goals, no strings attached sex, co-opts the main instrument the media uses to push products or even political viewpoints. The more sex is used to market the more people who wish to engage in it, this is not likely to change in the near future as a attractive woman in a bikini being used to sell cheeseburgers simply works.
Sociology is merely an allusion to the various sciences that underpin the movement, Psychology and Biology are also included in the fundamental knowledge that is a foundation of Game.
You have avoided my question entirely. I didn't ask for mini-theses on all of those problems, I very specifically asked how no-strings-attached sex is changing them.
Psychology is not a physical science. The only physical science that could in any way be related to Game is biology. What you're talking about is a human behavioral phenomenon and as such would be governed by social science, if there actually was such a thing.
Believe it or not, do have better things to do with my time then to reply to inquiries, and your question was answered in my response.
Good day then.
Yes, I do believe it, JA. My question wasn't answered in any of your incoherent replies, but thanks for trying nevertheless.
SS: "Some men use it to attract wives and exert dominion over them, others to get a lot of no-strings-attached sex."
You omit, "Or simply protect themselves, their friends and their sons." I can't turn back time, so I can't use the information to better read, shape and a former battlespace. I can prevent a few future ambushes, unlike the pigeon-boy in today's Dear Prudence post.
This element of new information perhaps answers in part your closing questions. NSA sex is just window dressing for some; the information is the window.
Also true, this is why I mentioned that this information is very much a faucet, one takes what lessons one wishes to take from it and implement it for your own benefit that is the leaderless portion.
I will say Game w/o NSA is toothless for the single male, granted it will mean a introspection into what makes one tick and what men want from life free from the Societal filter, however without pickup and the actions that go along with it Game will have little appeal to the massmen who may see the Red Pill but feel the work required to implement it is far to daunting.
You omit, "Or simply protect themselves, their friends and their sons."
Absolutely, some men use that information to protect themselves and other men. That, too, falls under the category of counter-revolutionizing the feminists.
This element of new information perhaps answers in part your closing questions. NSA sex is just window dressing for some; the information is the window.
I already addressed that, and it doesn't answer my question.
Game may be a revolutionary way of thinking, but all by itself it doesn't constitute a counter-revolutionary movement against feminism. The information in and of itself is value-neutral. JA was arguing that by using the value-neutral information of Game to engage in NSA sex (assuming he's telling the truth about his success in that regard), he and others like him are counter-revolutionizing feminists, but he failed to explain how. The reason he can't explain it is that he's confusing the adoption of revolutionary thinking with engagement in revolutionary action. The latter requires the former, but that doesn't mean they're equivalent.
Knowledge of Game is like knowing how to use the tools in a toolbox. Some men have decided to use the tools to fortify broken structures and build new ones; others use the same tools to just pry things open.
Stickwick, I have no serious opinion on whether or not Game is "counter-revolutionary" or not. I just find it explanatory. Apparently so do you.
I don't care if Game is changing feminists or not. (I actually think that the more committed feminists encourage Game-derived NSA sex, which is a shopworn observation it is so obvious.) Thus I think the only thing I disagree with you on is your comment that using the value-neutral knowledge of Game places my 'protection' trope in the "counter-revolutionizing feminists" campaign. I have a simpler view that may be summarized as "who cares?"
For it is not counter-revolutionary. Illustration: I also protect myself from street thugs. The only street thug conversions I will attempt will be those who make the mistake of bothering me when I'm armed. Certain populations should just be identified and contained.
Anyway, enjoy the day. Your comments are always interesting.
Here's an idea: You could say NSA sex is counter-revolutionary because it gives feminists what they ask for but don't really want. Then, by the time some of them realize it's not actually what they want, they've been had, it's too late, and they have no kids to indoctrinate. Also, some of them will become sad and will try to warn younger women away from the feminism they chose.
Bobby,
JA was the one who initially framed it in terms of a counter-revolution; I went along with it, because it's mostly accurate.
For it is not counter-revolutionary. Illustration: I also protect myself from street thugs. The only street thug conversions I will attempt will be those who make the mistake of bothering me when I'm armed. Certain populations should just be identified and contained.
How can you identify and contain a population if the prevailing philosophy of a society is hostile to that notion? No, I quite disagree about the revolutionary aspect; Game is counter-revolutionary, when applied in the context of preserving and building up civilization. Very few people would argue that the point of self defense is to convert thugs to your way of thinking, but if you ever found yourself in a society that made it difficult to defend yourself and propagandized people into becoming willing victims*, you'd certainly want to convert enough people to your way of thinking so that you could more easily defend yourself. Also, if thugs know you'll fight back, they're less likely to attack you. Same goes for feminists and any other aggressive, hostile group of people.
* In many places in the West it's already like this.
Then, by the time some of them realize it's not actually what they want, they've been had, it's too late, and they have no kids to indoctrinate.
Somehow, that hasn't managed to change anything for the better in the last 20 years. The big problem is, how many of these women are childless because they've killed their own babies? Some of them do have children, because there's a large supply of hapless beta schlubs offering to marry them. And if they can't find one of those, they can just get knocked up and live on the public dime.
Also, some of them will become sad and will try to warn younger women away from the feminism they chose.
If only. Vox and others have provided ample evidence that the opposite usually occurs; these bitter women rationalize their experiences and try to infect the next generation of women with their noxious philosophy.
I have some cognitive dissonance or maybe rejection of my prior comment. What irked me this week was a non-internet interaction where someone felt the need to tell me its dysfunctional and screwed up of me to stay at home, care for parents and not work. They went on to say that I will recover or get out of poverty or what I call is livable austerity. I totally agreed and added I cannot compete with stateside women for local men; the women have better cars, endless cash flows, jobs, phones and text. I cannot win in this life or the next. I resign.
Stickwick: "How can you identify and contain a population if the prevailing philosophy of a society is hostile to that notion?"
I'd do it the old-fashioned way: build the City upon the Hill. (Winthrop, quoting Matthew 5:14.) I see no reason to construct that City upon the Hill in Detroit, or obligating myself to reforming the editorial board of the NYTimes or the mores of feminist culture as it is reflected in law.
I think we get too caught up engaging the broken and lost and instead need to better create boundaries and alternatives. It's like the great gray city of Lewis' The Great Divorce. They're already in Hell and just don't know it. Since they've chosen it they should live with it. If we do a better job of ignoring them and building a better city we'll do more good.
This again reminds me of the humorous story told by Rabbi Daniel Lapin when he visited a red light district in order to try to understand. After placating the hookers that he was just curious and confused, he discovered it wasn't gammas and omegas that visited but alphas - they all had fancy cars, wore good suits. Any of them could have seduced their way into a one-night-stand at a local bar. Why pay?
He asked an older Rabbi who was disappointed that he hadn't figured it out. By seducing a woman and using her, he would be reducing himself - committing a kind of fraud. By paying for sex, he could think of it as an even exchange. Both he and the woman got something out of it. He wasn't using her.
So if you pay for the date, what ARE you ultimately paying for?
I also think there is an alpha angle to having her pay - a subject to a feudal lord rendering tribute. At least if you can reframe it as such. And if you do and then pay anyway?
LP 999/Eliza, if you see this, take heart. I'm pretty sure the kind of man who wants a stay-at-home wife would consider you a prize. Men aren't attracted to money and status, they want to marry a nurturing woman.
I'm in a similar situation: poor as a church mouse, but I'm demonstrating my ability to homeschool kids and cook healthy food. The kind of men I would want to marry find that valuable.
Ok, agreed.
My apologies, this week's events were speaking for me. I would not usually make those comments. I must learn to block out the week's dramas for reality. It is just a couple baby boomers hurt my stupid feelings so I was sad over it.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.