Friday, October 14, 2011

Piece of Advice #97: Look farther into the future



So I read the Kate Bolick article in The Atlantic that both Dalrock and Susan Walsh have commented on in the past few days, and in my mind I've been juxtaposing it with the posts found over at We Are the 99 Percent.

The thrust of Bolick's piece is that, yes, marriage is dying, but that this is not necessarily bad news for women because serial monogamy and other alternatives to marriage can be just as fulfilling, if not more so.  Bolick says that she doesn't regret, at 28, throwing away a relationship that could have been permanent for reasons she is still unable to entirely define, even though no equally enjoyable or promising relationship materialized for her later.  (Which makes her quite different in prospective from Lori Gottlieb, also of The Atlantic, whose Marry Him thesis is, more or less, "Any port in a storm," - storm being defined as, "in your mid- to late thirties.")

Bolick tells us that she isn't lonely, that her life is rich and fulfilling and full of friends who support her and offer her their plush digs in which to crash.  She doesn't know if she wants children, and the men available to her now are unpalatable.  Under those conditions who needs a husband?

The problem with this whole thesis is that while being permanently single may be a fulfilling and rich way for women like Bolick to lead their lives, it doesn't work as well for women who are 1) dumber, 2) poorer, 3) less intrepid/independent or 4) not possessed of generous friends of significant means.  And it works really badly for women who want to raise healthy, well adjusted, non-poverty stricken children.  The fact is, most women aren't very much like Bolick at all - which is why most women want to get married, because subconsciously they know, despite all the feminist propaganda that portrays marriage as a one-way trap to stifling, abused servitude, that marriage is a good deal for women.  Women are smaller, weaker, more risk averse, more comfort seeking, and are rarely the kind of trail-blazing, money-making geniuses who can sit alone atop a heap of money and adulation.  Almost all of them will eventually want babies too which will make them physically, emotionally, and financially more vulnerable than women like Bolick.

One of the themes that emerges from the We Are the 99 Percent posts is fear/anxiety.  Over and over the posters, the majority of which are women, say they are scared.  They don't know what is going to happen.  They fear for the future if the government doesn't swoop in with the jobs, the debt forgiveness, and the free healthcare.  The fact is that women are already the biggest users of the social safety net in terms of welfare, food stamps, WIC, subsidized housing, childcare vouchers, etc. Since they are largely covered for at least the basics of food and housing, what they are essentially demanding, then, is the eradication of risk.  All risk.

While the economic situation is very complex, the timing of this tremendous outpouring of fear and despair is not coincidental.  We are now at least three generations deep into the destruction of the traditional family.  Boomer women came from intact families many of which would provide backup if and when they crashed and burned in their youth.  Gen X women had a more fractured family landscape, but previous recessions were not as dire and grandparents often pitched in.  Millenials, on the other hand, may come from a family tree with hardly an intact branch.  Their Boomer parents can't afford to aid them because they need their own help.  Forty percent of Boomer women are single and hardly any of them are adequately prepared for retirement.

I've heard many women say that they don't need men, that they are too much work and that these women value their time, space, and freedom.  And it's true that childless women in their middle years may not need husbands.  They are still working and most have not had health complications.  But with age comes vulnerability.  Women of yesteryear knew they could depend on their husbands and children to help them as they aged, if they had done their duty to their families.  Who is going to do that for a single woman?  A nephew?  A good friend?  I remember visiting my Great Aunt Lola when she was dying of cancer twenty years ago.  Her husband of fifty years, a man I'd known as a rather absent-minded professor, obsessed with books and rather indifferent to the human condition either abstract or practical, tenderly doted on her as she lay on a cot in their small sitting room.  Day after day he cared for her as she had cared for him throughout their lives.  And when she died and my Uncle Ed became senile and frail, their oldest daughter came and took him into her house and cared for him until he died years later.

Who is going to tenderly care for the wave of single women entering into old age?  Or the middle-aged ones who have compromised their health early with unhealthy habits and obesity?  Not their husbands.  Not their children.

So many women I've know stubbornly refuse to look beyond tomorrow, but life is long and, often, hard.  I read this on Facebook the other day:
Boys play house...Men build homes!!! Boys shack up...Men get married!!! Boys make babies...Men raise children!!! A boy won't raise his own children, a man will raise his and someone else's!!! Boys invent excuses for failure...Men produce strategies for success!!! Boys look for somebody to take care of them...Men look for someone to take care of!!! Boys seek popularity...Men demand respect and know how to give it..BOYS DO WHAT THEY WANT, MEN DO WHAT THEY CAN & MORE!
The woman who posted it has three children from two different men.  She is stuck in a mediocre paying, dead-end job.  She divorced her first husband because marriage wasn't fun, then shacked up with a series of less and less stable men until she threw the last mooching bum out a year or so ago.  She is 40.  Now she is seriously looking for Mr. Right and says she won't settle for anything less because she's worth it.  The handwriting on her wall was written nearly a decade ago when she had her second and then third illegitimate child: life-long poverty.  Her parents have helped her out over and over.  She never pays taxes, but always gets a big return in April because of her head of household status.  She wants a bailout, but fails to recognize that she's been perpetually bailed out for the decisions she deliberately made her whole life.  She will not be in a position to help her own children, and they will need help.  Oh yes, they will.

This woman is far more representative of most women than Bolick will ever be.  Read the above paragraph again.  Does it sound like she thinks she's better off on her own?  No.

There are, of course, alternative ways for people to care for each other outside of the traditional family, as Bolick mentions when she talks about the Begijnhof, a former Dutch religious collective. However, these types of communities generally constrict an individual's freedom with rules they make for the peace and betterment of the community and require self-sacrifice as well as long-term service to others.  You can't spend your life having adventures and spending all your time and money on yourself and then show up sick and needy on the doorstep of some commune at age 65 and expect them to take you in.

It's interesting the romantic way Bolick describes this women-made "nest." For her, when women make the rules, the idea of “If you want to live here, you have to adjust, and you have to be creative,” isn't stifling or repressed, it's liberating.  Hmmmm.

54 comments:

  1. So many women I've know stubbornly refuse to look beyond tomorrow, but life is long and, often, hard.

    Sad and true. (Hendiadys, hooray!) I read an interview with Gloria Steinem, where she said she started saving money when she turned 60. 60! I'm hoping that I misread or misremember the interview, because that statement appalled me.

    Grerp, what do you think of the feminist movement's tendency to find attractive spokeswomen, whose desires, interests and options are, as you say, not representative of most women's? E.g. Bolick, Gloria Steinem, Kathleen Hanna. In the book Do As I Say (Not as I Do), Schweizer points out that Steinem, for example, had the option to get married at any time, and most women don't have that option.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The author of the quoted Facebook piece, like many modern, feminist women (redundant?), is getting her JUST desserts...

    ReplyDelete
  3. The facebook piece says, essentially: "Boys are irresponsible, and I disapprove it (now, after the hot sex is over). Men are responsible, and I approve it (because they could fix my own irresponsibility, so I don't have to be responsible, ever)."

    Perhaps the men do what they can, and more... but why exactly should they choose to do it *for you*, dear facebook complainer?

    It is, like, their duty? Well, then let's talk about your duties, too. Wait, you don't have any? Interesting... especially in context of equal rights, equal abilities, et cetera.

    You know that anything a man can do, a women can too (probably better), right? Then, show us... starting with, say, responsibility. Show us that if men can be responsible, you - a proud liberated empowered woman - can do the same or even better! After a few years, post your results and conclusions...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great Post Grerp.

    One thing that has always puzzled me is the way the feminist movement advocates one size fits all solutions.

    You can see it in their attitude towards marriage. It seems that feminism thinks that the career of an HR rep in an office park will be just as fulfilling as the career of a cutting edge civil rights lawyer or activist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A boy won't raise his own children, a man will raise his and someone else's!!!

    I'm sitting here baffled in disbelief at this. Why, exactly, should a "man" raise somebody's love child?

    I wonder what she would think about this whiny FB post by some 40ish male bar hopper:

    A woman has children with her first husband only, a girl spawns like salmon!!! A woman keeps her legs together until she can convince a good man to marry her, a girl spawns like a salmon!!! A real woman cheerfully raises the children of her philandering mate, but girls just won't!!!

    Wow. Sounds like the boys and girls are having all the fun out there. Who the heck wants to grow up?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's been interesting to note how many of the "99%" are single women with children. Once I would have thought that meant women were especially oppressed--now I see it means they made shitty choices that they don't want to be responsible for.

    Raising another person's child without making a very specific choice to do so (ie, adoption) rarely ends well. Step-children are usually tolerated, not loved and treasured. I've seen this with all of my husband's half/step sisters (he has no full siblings). Sorry to disappoint all the women who love their children but love having sex more. You aren't doing your kids any favors by "getting them a new daddy."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't be surprised if Bolick starts the familiar "cat lady" whining when her beauty is gone and men no longer want her.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bolick does us one service: she highlights the relationship between economic conditions and social mores on the other. One cannot responsibly object to the one without carefully examining the other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. er, "...and social mores. One cannot..."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sigh,

    Grerp totally gets it... I was having a conversation with a former young prostitute & I basically gave her the same advice (think about life after 30...)

    Feminism is screwing women over royally...

    SSTTE

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thought you would find this amusing:

    My (almost) seven year old daughter announced this morning that when she grows up she's going to be an "animal doctor" and that she wasn't going to get married and have children. I asked, "then who is going to take care of you when you're very old and can't do it yourself?" to which she promptly replied, "I guess I'll just die then. Heaven's better anyway."

    ReplyDelete
  12. People are generally very bad in thinking about things that extend over long periods of time. The average 20 year old can no more imagine being a 50 year old than (s)he can imagine being a polar bear.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To Becky T: Your daughter will never see her dreams come true. She will see heaven before that happens. feminism is a tool for collapsing societies. Women will bear the brunt of their foolishness in the aftermath when millions die in Gulags. I find nothing of your post 'amusing'. Sick actually. Children know nothing. Their brains are impressioned by adults. She has been brainwashed by a sickness that will ensure her early demise. That's nice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Men don't want Bolick now. She sounds like another brainwashed moron. Her looks faded long ago, and she is in her 40's now. She is only telling stories to make her self feel less alone. This is about as rationale as a mental instution patient serving a life term, making imaginery friends and talking about how cozy the rubber room walls are. Feminism is for idiots. Instead of just cutting their own ovaries out, they allowed the Zionist's to train them more eloquently how to let them rot on the vine..

    ReplyDelete
  15. Most people are too dumb to look at the chapters in human history where 'feminism' was already used to destroy the nation. Bolshevik Russia. Jewish proxies, Lenin & Trotsky on behalf of Jewish finance, destroyed the Czarist monarchy. Feminism is a tool. Its not a way of life ! It is only a short term mechanism to destroy the society it infects. Women are fools to believe otherwise. Men seem a bit wiser and have a disgust for feminism that is palitable. Women however keep on spinning their web "come on boys.. let us play.. girls just want to have fun". Exactly. They do not want to become women and responsible. Real women are anti-feminist but where are their voices ? They are women too. The Zionist media sidelined real women decades ago. They were beaten back into their kitchens and silenced. Considered cattle by the very psychos who scream "Women's rights". That means they have a right to stay home, nurture a husband and his career, and their children and build a stable loving environment to raise impressionable children in. Instead the Zionist convince females that money & power and manhood is what they've been missing out on. It rots out the femininity of a woman and she ends up burned out. Men end up not wanting to protect,love or nurture their families. They have seen how the Zionist courts destroy & penalize them. The solution is to kill feminism by cutting the serpent's head of.. Zionist banking systems. That will stop the finance of feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually, Bolick is quite attractive for a woman in her forties. She could still have a shot at marriage, however slight, if she repented of feminism and sought men in her league. But the hamster will have none of it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Grerp writes: "It's interesting the romantic way Bolick describes this women-made "nest." For her, when women make the rules, the idea of “If you want to live here, you have to adjust, and you have to be creative,” isn't stifling or repressed, it's liberating. Hmmmm."

    Here is evidence that women can reject maternity but not the maternal instinct. Bolick's fastidious rule-making is but a variation of "Mommy knows best". In a loving home headed by a strong husband, this feminine impulse benefits young children because nurturing requires externally imposed order. In the dating market, this same impulse, when aimed at controlling grown men, backfires on the single woman. Only weak men, i.e, the very men she finds sexually uninteresting, tolerate domination by their girlfriends and wives.

    ReplyDelete
  18. BeckyT - I did find that amusing. The naivete of youth. If only we could flip a switch when all of our work seems done and it's time to go...

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Who is going to tenderly care for the wave of single women entering into old age? Or the middle-aged ones who have compromised their health early with unhealthy habits and obesity? Not their husbands. Not their children."

    I can understand what you said about single women, but I'm not following your reasoning on obesity. Are you talking about obese single women? Or married ones? Or obese women in general?

    My 68 yo mother is obese, but that has had no effect on her children's willingness to care for her as she ages. Granted, my mother is an unusually good person and I admit that probably skews my perspective.

    I've been reading your blog for a few weeks now, and really enjoying it. You have helped me find words for ideas that I wasn't able to articulate.

    Gwen

    ReplyDelete
  20. The author seems to think the shortage of desirable men should compel women to share men and not marry them. When a couple gets married, the shortage just gets worse for the masses. How can 99% of women get "something" when some women are marrying the good ones?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Feminism has divorced women from the previous generation's wisdom. Women would have been warned about the urge to abandon a good man in their time. Now, female sensibility has been sacrificed on the altar of freedom. Women are no longer taught how to love properly.

    The evidence is clear. Young women are not dating. No one has told them that they need to consciously choose who they'll be with. They've been told to choose the magic, the natural, and anything less is unnatural. Unfortunately, stable relationships are not made like that. The vast majority of men (and women) have to LEARN to interact with each other properly.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In large part females used to get married because they needed Male Parental Investment, and they needed MPI because they wanted sex, and sex meant having children, and they wanted children anyhow to be supported in their old age.

    The whole mechanism has unraveled, and now females are supported by welfare or their work pensions in their old age, so those who chose to have "fun" instead of children will be supported by the work of the children of those who had children and managed to get a man to invested in their children.

    Even 2dn wave feminism has been a backlash against the oppression of the matriarchy, which has ruled humanity for so long. The matriarchy, older women who brainwashed younger women into having children and men into being their provider drones.

    Because humanity has lived for the past several dozen/hundred thousand years in villages, and the most terrible thing that could happen to a village was insufficient fertility.

    A dying village is one in which young women did not have enough children, all men have died of accidents, war, ground down by work, and all that are left are old widows and nobody to support them, to work the fields, to repair the houses, to help them when they are too weak to walk. And this did happen.

    The matriarchy was the reaction of women to the dread of ending their lives in poverty and fear, but also in despair and loneliness.

    Now women like Kate Bolick reckon that *they* don't need to have children, because there will always be some stupid sucker women (either in the USA or in some country exporting immigrants to the USA) who will have them, and these other women's children will work the fields, keep the houses repaired, or in the modern version pay the taxes or generate the profits to pay their pensions.

    Women like Kate Bolick think that property is therefore a substitute for children, and have been demanding since around 1980 for ever greater house price gains, ever better public pensions, ever higher share prices, for the benefit of their safe retirement, and ever lower wages for men, to make their property buy more work from the children of other women.

    Whether this will work or they will be ultimately financially disappointed remains to be seen. Conning old women out of their savings has always been a big industry.

    But I suspect that even if the Kate Bollick types will be proven right that ever higher property prices for themselves and ever lower wages for the children of other women will work financially for them, I suspect that they have underestimated the loneliness and despair of barren old women.

    They may well be in their dotage comfortable rentiers, but you cannot buy children grandchildren, even if I am sure that they will try pretty hard (it already happens in China, where city women who already have had their one natural child buy or kidnap additional ones from rural families to reduce the risk that their single natural child will not provide financially and emotionally for them in their dotage).

    ReplyDelete
  23. «It's been interesting to note how many of the "99%" are single women with children.»

    Hem, that's in part because they feel betrayed. The idea since around 1980 and the explosion of demand for friendly jobs and legislation by women is that women get safe, well paying, good pension government jobs, and men get lower wages and longer unemployment with lower insurance in temporary private sector jobs.

    Since middle aged/"middle class" women are swing voters in some critical states or districts most politicians have been running on a platform of doing whatever pleases authoritarian, self absorbed, property owning female voters want for the past 30 years:

    «They fear for the future if the government doesn't swoop in with the jobs, the debt forgiveness, and the free healthcare. The fact is that women are already the biggest users of the social safety net in terms of welfare, food stamps, WIC, subsidized housing, childcare vouchers, etc.»

    One very apposite example is the recent big drop in support for the UK right-wing government by middle aged/"middle class" females, and a column in "The Times" (2011-09-17) argues:

    «The C2 women who voted Conservative last time did so because they, in low to middling-paid roles such as nurses, secretaries and carers, believed welfare had grown too generous, that benefits rewarded the do-nothings while they toiled. They hoped the Tories would crack down.
    Now, they are shocked to discover the Government regards them as part of the problem. They work in the “bloated public sector”, their meagre pensions are grotesquely lavish, their often tough vocational jobs are regarded as worthless and dispensable. Labour celebrated “hard-working families”; the Tories tell them it was their salaries – not the bankers’ excesses – that broke the economy.»

    These are women who thought they they were on the gravy train for life, and that lazy, parasitical males who could not find a job in the middle of the biggest recession for decades should be left to hang in the wind, to fund tax cuts for themselves and more house price appreciation to give them tax-free capital gains.

    Another interesting point of note is the graph of people incarcerated in the USA in the past several decades:

    http://timinglogic.blogspot.com/2011/09/economic-realities-created-by-pigmen.html

    Obviously the graph is overwhelmingly about locking up nasty men, and in particular nasty men with a dark skin:

    «Since they are largely covered for at least the basics of food and housing, what they are essentially demanding, then, is the eradication of risk. All risk.»

    Including the risk of meeting some bad feral beast (especially if dark skinned). The logic of the past 30-40 years has been towards extreme criminal justice tightening, it has been "better safe than sorry" and "you cannot be too safe", and presuming guilt (but only for nasty feral beasts of the male species, and all of them are nasty feral beasts of course), and locking up men "just in case" if they look "nasty".

    Scared middle/older aged and middle/upper class women have been demanding or endorsing the PATRIOT act, the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, the TARP, anything that makes them feel safer.

    There is a colossal demand for authoritarianism in general and shifting risk from males to females by ageing middle class females, and politicians pander to that demand with zeal, because those swing voters are up for grabs.

    The current politics in many first-world countries is the dictatorship of mean scared "old aunts" who want more hangings of bad men and better pensions for old women.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Blissex writes:

    "Scared middle/older aged and middle/upper class women have been demanding or endorsing the PATRIOT act, the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, the TARP, anything that makes them feel safer.

    There is a colossal demand for authoritarianism in general and shifting risk from males to females by ageing middle class females, and politicians pander to that demand with zeal, because those swing voters are up for grabs.

    The current politics in many first-world countries is the dictatorship of mean scared "old aunts" who want more hangings of bad men and better pensions for old women."

    Essentially, this describes the politics of nearly all of my elderly female relatives. A combination of cowardice, bootlicking (especially of the TSA), and vicarious brutality.

    ReplyDelete
  25. «Essentially, this describes the politics of nearly all of my elderly female relatives. A combination of cowardice, bootlicking (especially of the TSA), and vicarious brutality.»

    Bullies to the weak, and weak with the bullies. As to the «vicarious brutality» the greatest power thrill a woman can have is to tell a guy who is interested in her "that guy over there gave me a nasty look, are you a wimp or are you going to teach him a lesson?", a very popular pastime especially in the old south with darkskins as victims (now with FRAs every man in effect has become a darkskin feral beast one step away from a lynching).

    And there are so many "old aunts" because of the tail end of the baby boom, and they vote and donate and do not have any particular party loyalty, and thus are a most powerful interest group.

    In countries with similar demographic profiles the dictatorship of "old aunts" has had the same results, sometimes with different outcomes.

    In the UK the government has even introduced ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) which are court injunctions that can be requested (typically by "old aunts") against people (typically men) who behave poorly even if they don't commit any crime, and violating the injunction is then a crime with a heavy sentence.

    Try to imagine millions, dozen of millions of "old aunts" giving you a stern lecture about behaving yourself or else.

    ReplyDelete
  26. «women are already the biggest users of the social safety net in terms of welfare, food stamps, WIC, subsidized housing, childcare vouchers, etc.»

    One of the biggest points here is that Social Security is an insurance scheme, against having had low income during your life, and living too long.

    Because of that and since premiums are not different by gender, females pay much lower premiums and males much higher premiums than their risk profiles warrant.

    * Because men tend to live much shorter lives because of much higher risks they take and the much harder (physically or in terms of stress) work they take without many breaks for decades. Note also that most property in the USA ends up owned by women because of divorce "settlements" or simply because widows inherit their husband's anyhow (most wives survive their husbands).

    * Because women tend to work less during their life by taking job breaks to have children or to pursue more satisfying and less stressful careers (and that female pay is lower than male pay at parity of conditions is a massive lie).

    As an (mutual) insurance proposition, Social Security is a vastly better deal for females than males (and it benefits disproportionately better off females at the expense of less well off males).

    Originally this was intentional, and not white knighting, because most females were supposed to trade a lot of other options for child-bearing and child-raising in difficult conditions.

    Medicare, large parts of which are welfare and not (mutual) insurance, is even more massively skewed in favour of older women, as most of the cost is paid during the later years of life, and most females have many more years of old age than men.

    But the Kate Bolicks of this world (including Ayn Rand in her time) like to get the benefits without paying the dues (not even to other women, as in getting eventually supported by other women's children).

    ReplyDelete
  27. Grerp...amazing article...really makes you think. Thank you for writing this piece, it really hit home!!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Which makes her quite different in prospective from Lori Gottlieb, also of The Atlantic, whose Marry Him thesis is, more or less, "Any port in a storm," - storm being defined as, "in your mid- to late thirties.

    I think that's a bit unfair to Gottlieb. After reading Marry Him I thought she was warning women not to wait until after 30 because by then you're opting out. Thirty-five tops.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gwen - thanks for your comment. I'm glad you've enjoyed the blog. What I meant was that people have aged their bodies so that problems that might have come later in earlier generations are hitting in mid-life now. I've read a lot of that on the We Are the 99% site - women who are disabled and unable to work in their 50's and 60's. Some of this is genetic or the result of accident/injury, but obesity-generated diabetes can age the heck out of your body in a relatively short time.

    Omnipitron - thank you!

    Herb - What was interesting about the Gottlieb book, which I did read, was how she advocated a point and then deviated from it when it concerned her personally. So she would say, basically, you should be realistic and settle for what you can get and then eliminate entirely men who didn't meet standards she couldn't quite abandon herself. This weakened her point considerably and made for a rather frustrating reading experience (for me, at least).

    ReplyDelete
  30. What a thought provoking piece. I have been chewing on this one for a couple days now.

    For my two cents the Battle Of The Sexes has been fought and lost by both sides two decades ago - and this woman is merely one of the walking wounded.

    This is not a cut against men. She is trying to make peace with the follies of her youth; her biological clock has timed out. She can either be a bitter old harridan about it, or accept it and move on. Not much of a choice is it?

    We all have regrets by the time we reach middle age. "I should have gone to school..." or "I should have taken that job offer..." or even "I never should have married her/him...". We all make mistakes and she made hers.

    I hear the singles bragging of their freedom all the time and I keep quiet. They have to tell themselves something, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  31. «This is not a cut against men.»

    She however seems to be writing something like that:

    «But while the rise of women has been good for everyone, the decline of males has obviously been bad news for men—and bad news for marriage.»

    Even if well underneath all the story making she may well be feeling this:

    «She is trying to make peace with the follies of her youth;»

    Yet she is trying to advise other women to repeat them with glee, and to blame men for not rising up to the occasion. The theme of her story is that because of the decline of men she has not been pursued by the very hot extremely awesome men with lots of options yet desperate to commit to her that she so deserved to be swept off her feet by.

    «her biological clock has timed out. She can either be a bitter old harridan about it, or accept it and move on. Not much of a choice is it?»

    But what she is actually doing is advocating it to other women as as a winning choice, and blaming men for being such a mediocre yet promiscuous gender that she had no choice but give up on having LTRs with them except as cock support systems, as in "too many ex-boyfriends to count" (between 28 and 39!), and all her stories of fucking around with many many samples of «high-status American urban male».

    In her article she profiles herself as a common variety of cock-hopper with the usual delusion of finding Mr. Big at the very last moment.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Grep - She was maddening, wasn't she (I knew you read it given you inspired me to read it as I was just considering dating again when I read your review). She is the perfect example of our inability to follow our own advice. However, I do think she wrote it to honestly convince women younger than her to not develop the habits she couldn't, even of the time of writing, completely kick.

    She also deserves credit for the final section where she reveals the fate of her sample women who dumped reasonable guys and how few were able to marry.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yours is a peculiar perspective, my friend. Not quite unique, but oddly unusual.

    Still, the problem remains the same. It is not possible to speak in terms of men/women any more than jew/gentile, oriental/occidental, right/left handed. I know, I know. There are ALL those generalizations. But, sorry, there are only individuals. You. Me. And that person over there... is that a man or woman? Who cares.

    Your blog is interesting because it reflects the views of an individual... even if this is an individual trying to figure out the world by drowning individuality in a sea of generalizations or, in other words, struggling with the rationalization of fantasies.

    I wish you well, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  34. As a solo Dad in his early 50s, I'm the kind of person that Gottleib is left to go for. But I want to see some regret, change and wisdom.

    From what the links indicate, she's too neurotic, too clingy, too precious, too entitled: she disqualifies herself from consideration by most men in my situation. We don't want someone like her around our children.

    And if she doth repent, I want to see the blood tests...

    ReplyDelete
  35. The teachings of Srila Prabhupada on women and anti-feminism
    http://prabhupadawomen.wordpress.com/

    The purpose of this essay is to address the issue of feminism and misandry (hatred of men, the opposite of misogyny) and how it has destroyed modern society. We will be analyzing many of the statements made by Srila Prabhupada about women, their role in society, and the anti-feminism stance of his teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  36. «As a solo Dad in his early 50s, I'm the kind of person that Gottleib is left to go for.»

    But that would invalidate her whole life to that point. That's why she preaches one way but acts another way, because changing her act would be a complete betrayal of all her previous choices. It is incredibly difficult to do.

    It is far more likely, as it is the easy path, that she will go instead for guys younger than her and if she is very lucky she will get this:
    www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/magazine/02babymaking-t.html

    Actually wait I now remember that she has already done that, she got a baby with artificial insemination.

    «But I want to see some regret, change and wisdom. »

    I guess that you have learned that the chances of that happening to any woman like that are near zero. Again, it is a fundamental reset of her life. And most of the women that might show some change will be acting it to snare some sucker, as go-go girls since time immemorial have done. The trope is that of the village slut marrying at the last minute the village idiot, the only guy who hasn't done her yet and whom she can fool with a last minute "nice girl" or "repented slut" act if he has heard the rumours.

    «And if she doth repent, I want to see the blood tests...»

    More like a full medical plus written advance written consent to DNA testing in case of pregnancy.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Blissex:

    I am single for fairly much the reasons you have mentioned. And I'm aware, that in this market (which is what Susan Walsh calls it) I'm very likely to remain alone for the rest of my days because I won't play the current post modern game.

    Grerp

    Thanks for the comment @ my place. Your Uncle Ed sounds like my Dad -- releiving teacher for the children's home (for bad boys) at 78.

    ReplyDelete
  38. «The teachings of Srila Prabhupada on women»

    These may make sense in a situation similar to that the times where the ancient Vedas were written, where women had a short fertile interval, infant mortality rates were high, and the only support for old women were their children, and therefore the matriarchy pressured younger women to be pregnant and raise children almost constantly.

    Our issue is that for the first time in the history of humanity all those things are no longer applicable, and we are in a huge transition phase.

    The answer is certainly not the 3rd wave feminism stance that men are vermin or drones (if totally subservient), but probably also not the same answer that kept villages in existence when most humans were hunting and gathering.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think the genie has left the bottle.

    If you are a man and you want to get married, consult an attorney well beforehand and get a prenup ready for signing.

    If she balks at the concept entirely, walk away.

    I am divorced, two kids and 48. I've done this twice already, with no regrets.

    If I don't meet a marriageable woman by the time I'm 50 - I'll have fun and stay single.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Blissex -- Black men are quite over-represented in the crime statistics, particularly rape. That picture in the Daily Mail during the London riots of the huge, hulking Black guy making the scrawny White guy strip down and give him his clothing was not all that unusual. Few White guys beat up/rob etc. Black people (when they do it is front page news). But the reverse is common (Emily Gruendlisberger of the Onion got her leg broken in one "flash mob" attack in Philly). Gruendlisberger of course blamed ... nerdy White guys for the "racism" that drove her attackers.

    Yes ladies, we know you hate Beta Males. [No one does Beta Male better than White guys.]

    In fact, most WOMEN are soft on crime, vote to acquit in juries, are opposed to the death penalty, and long prison sentences. It is men and particularly married men or those with kids (or both) that favor harsh penalties -- they have skin in the game. Most Middle class White women in the US live and work in highly segregated areas and have no real clue about what life in a very un-segregated city like say, New Orleans is like. [I lived in New Orleans for years prior to Katrina. You could have a million dollar mansion and three blocks in from St. Charles there's a crack house, and that's in Uptown/the Garden District.] White women generally favor affirmative action, civil rights, because as junior partners they get a piece of the action, so to speak, in shafting White guys.

    Part of the eternal search for Alpha is finding that guy who is not penalized by AA/Diversity/Multiculturalism. We've made White guys second/third class citizens (straight ones anyway). And no it's not those "devious Jews" ... you see that in Germany too. Not many Jews there, for some reason no one knows.

    That Beta male is a bad bet, because his ability to earn is severely impacted by mass immigration, diversity, preferences against him. Going single Mom is not that bad an option, given the uncertainty of Beta Male White guys.

    Don't forget "Diversity" and all that costs -- decreased earnings AND stability of Beta Male providers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Let me add, should anyone doubt me, you can check the Bureau of Justice Statistics from the DOJ here. The latest info is 2005, particularly look at Table 42, which covers single assailants only, perceived race of attacker. There were 37,917 cases of White victim, perceived Black attacker. There were between 0-10 cases of the other way around.

    Now, there are flaws in the FBI collected stats. They don't cover Hispanics (who are sometimes lumped in "other" and sometimes in White bins, no real method). They don't cover multiple assailants. But by way of comparison, Blacks comprise 12% of the population in 2010, Black men about half of that, and Black men under 35 about half of THAT (or around 3% or so of the population). The figures with racial breakdowns show a massive over-representation for Black guys (and a massive under-representation for Asian guys) for whatever reason. Again you can download the PDF and see for yourself.

    Facts are stubborn things, no matter what movies or TV says.

    ReplyDelete
  42. A woman can put on 4" heels and declare a man taller than herself "too short".

    A woman can put on $50 worth of makeup and declare a man her equal to be insufficiently attractive.

    A woman can use gender hiring preferences to steal a job away from a more qualified man and then declare him to be "too poor".

    Modern women are monsters. Mindlessly devouring everything at whim. With neither care or cruelty, only insatiable appetite.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Bolick is so clueless that I don't know why we're bothering to discuss her. She is obviously still hung up on the guy she kicked to the curb at 28, and she isn't smart enough to realize that when his new fiance let her help him pick out a wedding tux, it wasn't being cool, it was rubbing the dog's nose in its own poop, just about the meanest thing the ex's bride could do to her. And now she wants to give life advice to women... Brilliant! This would be funny, if it weren't the source of future tragedies for other women.

    ReplyDelete
  44. My goodness there are a lot of "women haters" on this posting. We can't ALL be that bad. Most of the people I know aren't that distrusting and generalizing of ALL women. Most of us kind of like each other and make attempts to work with each other.
    The way I see it, ALL people are flawed - both men and women, and it's best if we can find ways to work with and accommodate one another rather than condemn each other and only look for and dwell on the imperfections of the other.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous @19:08.

    Most of us did not start out hating women. But when you have just spent two hours at the lawyer for child's place because the ex is taking you back to court... you get annoyed.

    When women assume they have a relationship with you or can make demands as if they are your sister, your lover or your daughter because they happen to be female... you get angry.

    And when people start using "woman hater" you start wondering how much they hate men. Look, this is Grerp's place. Many of the men are here because we LIKE Grerp. She is wise, she is funny, and she speaks the truth.

    A similar (if not the same) bunch comment at Alte's place. We are the group who mourn the loss of the traditional compromise between men and women called marriage that has mutated into some form of legalistic indenture (for men) and an mechanism for ensuring loneliness (for women).

    Alte, the last I looked, was a girl. Grerp is a girl. But neither of them will accept NAWALT as an excuse. If you are a grown woman, then you are responsible for your behaviour. The anger you have read above... is mild. Go to W. F. Price's place for a stronger brew... because at places like his those of us who have been through the circle of hell called the family court meet and share our feelings.

    And those feelings are not gentle. Because no man is treated gently in the sexist system that exists in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Chris:
    I read your pain in your writing. It is real and I'm sorry you have to go through it, but you are missing my point. If you have young children, I've probably been married(happily and successfully) for more years than you are old. I don't consider myself much of a feminist. I don't hate men. I rather like being around them and working with them. I do consider myself someone who wants fairness for both sexes. I don't see how condemning ALL women accomplishes that.
    Anger and hate feed on each other. They make us feel justified, but they really don't solve problems. In my marriage we had our struggles but determined that we were committed to it and each other and attempted to remember what it was we liked about each other and why we picked each other. In doing so we were able to reach solutions. I realize to all people can do that.

    I have known women who did stupid things that wrecked their relationships, but I've also known men who walked for a new "chickie", left women with nothing but the kids and bills. Another absconded with all the family's savings, the wife's inheritance and even her pension leaving her with only a handicapped adult child. Another who turned out to be gay wanted to stay in a marriage but only if he could have his flings on the side. Others had alcohol or "toy" issues which interfered with the needs of the family. Another I knew sent his wife to work in a place that put her in physical danger because he didn't want to work. They are still married. This doesn't make ALL men bad. Bad behavior is not exclusive to either sex. Both can know suffering.
    As to the the idea that I should go elsewhere than GRERP's blog, I should say I find her interesting, witty, wise and most often sensible. I think she sometimes pushes an issue and have told her so on occasion because I've known her a long time. I admire her as a person and I respect her and her opinions even if I don't always agree. I see no reason to try blog's that will only feed frustration, anger and hate so I probably won't look up the web site you recommended.
    I hope you can find answers to the issues you are going through. I would wish that for you and also for women who have have mistreated by men.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Chris and Anonymous - thank you for your kind words. Obviously, I don't think all women are evil. I do think that as a society we call out men on their bad behavior more than we call out women, at least publicly.

    I've known men who have done terrible things to their families, but it seems like recently I've heard just as many stories about women who've flaked out or turned evil. Young women too.

    The world seems to have turned pretty dark of late.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I have known women who did stupid things that wrecked their relationships, but I've also known men who walked for a new "chickie", left women with nothing but the kids and bills.

    This is one of the most irritating of hamster squeakings: "Hey, nobody's perfect. Some women do terrible things, some men do terrible things. (Unverifiable stereotypical bad-man anecdote. Unverifiable stereotypical bad-man anecdote. Unverifiable stereotypical bad-man anecdote. Unverifiable stereotypical bad-man anecdote.) It's all good, why can't we just get along, let's stop criticizing women's bad behavior or the legal and social superstructure that enables, promotes, and/or excuses it."

    While it's true that we're all fallen creatures, and that members of both sexes have done too many terrible things to count over the centuries, the fact is that today it is women's bad behavior that is at the heart of societal decline, and that behavior is the direct result of a legal and cultural climate that not only fails to condemn, not only fails to criticize, not only fails to objectively note, but actually enables and celebrates it.

    The fact that Anon 8:08 can rattle off 5 examples of "bad" men, but has not a single bad word to say about women tells me all I need to know of her.

    I would clarify that I don't think women any more fallen than men, but, right now, all their worst impulses are encouraged, nourished, and championed. With predictable results.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Grerp, thanks for your clarification. I have to agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "The problem with this whole thesis is that while being permanently single may be a fulfilling and rich way for women like Bolick to lead their lives, it doesn't work as well for women who are 1) dumber, 2) poorer, 3) less intrepid/independent or 4) not possessed of generous friends of significant means. And it works really badly for women who want to raise healthy, well adjusted, non-poverty stricken children."

    People like Bolick remind me of the following joke:

    Two guys are sitting next to each other in a bar at the top a skyscraper. One says to the other,

    "Did you know that the wind currents here are so strong, they prevent you from falling from the window to the ground?"

    "Come on! You're pulling my leg!"

    The first guy jumps out the window and sure enough, he not only doesn't fall, but comes back through the window. The second guy goes,

    "Let me try that!"

    He then falls from the window to his death. The bartender then tells the first guy,

    "Superman, you're such a &^%$ when you're drunk"

    People like Bolick are the female equivalent of Superman in this joke (or close enough in mortal terms). Because of a very lucky confluence of circumstances - whether it's looks, wealth or social circle - which prevent them from hitting the pavement.

    The crime is they entice normal people to go skydiving without a parachute...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Unless you desperately want children, neither men nor women should get married. If you stay single, you don't have to share your earnings and savings with a partner and you can accumulate more wealth, because you don't have to pay for children. Nor do you have to fear losing a significant part of your income and savings in case of a divorce. I have seen plenty of hardworking people, both men and women, lose their hard-earned savings and often their houses to the unproductive husbands/wives they're divorcing. This has reinforced my conviction that I will never marry.

    If you have sufficient savings and a pension plan or something like that, retirement is no problem if you're single. Healthcare is only a potential problem in countries like the US which don't have universal healthcare. However, I live in a country that has universal healthcare. As for partners and children taking care of you when you get old and sick, that is rare and getting rarer. Old people's homes are full of people who have children and families and are still neglected.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "The world seems to have turned pretty dark of late."

    And yet, you still have time to contemplate your navel. Can't be all that dark. If it was really dark, you wouldn't be able to vote. You wouldn't be able to go to college. You wouldn't be able to own anything (including your clothes). You wouldn't be able to file for custody of your children in the event of divorce. You would, in fact, be an indentured servant and you would belong to your husband.... like in 1850. Woot! Good times! Are those the 'lighter' times?

    I'd like to know about the 'lighter' times. How old are you? Because, I kinda like these times and I don't remember any 'lighter' times. So tell me about them. Fill me in on your wisdom about the 'lighter' times. Surely you've lived in the 'lighter' times. I'm 51 so I assume you're way older than me and can fill me in on the 'lighter' times. Can't wait to hear about the glorious "good ol' day's" when things were "light".

    ReplyDelete
  53. Girls play house...Women build homes!!! Girls shack up...Women get married!!! Girls make babies...Women raise children!!! A girl won't raise her own children, a woman will raise her own and someone else's!!! Girls invent excuses for failure...Women produce strategies for success!!! Girls look for somebody to take care of them...Women look for someone to take care of!!! Girls seek popularity...Women demand respect and know how to give it..GIRLS DO WHAT THEY WANT, WOMEN DO WHAT THEY CAN & MORE!

    ...looks to me like the woman who posted the reverse of this quote was a "girl" looking for a "man".

    ReplyDelete