Interesting article, I had commented on the Spearhead about this and I'll repeat it here, I didn't think we'd hear reports of this situation quite so soon. I had actually predicted this situation about 6 months ago (I went by AMAX back then), once again as a comment I had made on the Spearhead and when you understand the basic concepts behind men and women in the sexual marketplace, it's not hard to see why this is happening.
Once more, it also shows why Hanna Rosin has her head up her @$$ in regards to urging men to "drink the purple Kool Aid". Sorry Hanna, men have already been drinking the purple Kool Aid for decades, this is what made civilization possible. It's just that now men are beginning to stop, more and more are seeing the truth about women. That's a choice we men have available to us, we can ‘opt out’ of society, we have that option.
See, Hanna Rosin and so many others in present day society, are suffering from solipsism. They believe that men and women have the exact same desires when they seek marriage and family. They believe that men, just like women, greatly want to get married and have kids.
This seems to be the basis for why Hanna stomps around doing her victory dance at the current plight of men, because she believes that men will have no other choice but to submit to 'female superiority' (cough) since the only other recourse would be financial devastation.
Sadly, (for her and her ilk) she is wrong, horrifically wrong and this article proves it in spades.
You see, men just like women, do posses an inclination to settle down with a partner and have kids, but unlike women, it isn't an intense drive to do so. In reality many men have one primal need; SEX, and this is what our hairier ancestors traded for with women in the past. The men traded their resources for access to a woman's body.
Pretty cut and dry, right? However, this information somewhat changes the game a bit now doesn’t it? The things that men and women value as important now affects their view and their choices in life wouldn't you say?
Once more, it also shows why Hanna Rosin has her head up her @$$ in regards to urging men to "drink the purple Kool Aid". Sorry Hanna, men have already been drinking the purple Kool Aid for decades, this is what made civilization possible. It's just that now men are beginning to stop, more and more are seeing the truth about women. That's a choice we men have available to us, we can ‘opt out’ of society, we have that option.
See, Hanna Rosin and so many others in present day society, are suffering from solipsism. They believe that men and women have the exact same desires when they seek marriage and family. They believe that men, just like women, greatly want to get married and have kids.
This seems to be the basis for why Hanna stomps around doing her victory dance at the current plight of men, because she believes that men will have no other choice but to submit to 'female superiority' (cough) since the only other recourse would be financial devastation.
Sadly, (for her and her ilk) she is wrong, horrifically wrong and this article proves it in spades.
You see, men just like women, do posses an inclination to settle down with a partner and have kids, but unlike women, it isn't an intense drive to do so. In reality many men have one primal need; SEX, and this is what our hairier ancestors traded for with women in the past. The men traded their resources for access to a woman's body.
Pretty cut and dry, right? However, this information somewhat changes the game a bit now doesn’t it? The things that men and women value as important now affects their view and their choices in life wouldn't you say?
Consider even the social labels men and women place on each other in terms of what it is that either gender finds important. A woman who can't achieve marriage is labeled a spinster, but is there a well-known negative label for men who don’t ‘achieve’ marriage? If a man states that he never wanted to marry, how many are inclined to believe him? What happens if a woman where to say the same thing?
Isn’t a man labeled a loser, NOT for failing to get married, but failing to have regular sex? Isn’t that more the barometer in which men rate themselves and each other for the most part?
We've heard of the negative term 'Crazy Cat Lady' well, is there such a thing as a 'Crazy Cat or Dog Man?'
It all comes down to each gender's biological imperatives, men want sex for the most part, women want resources and for obvious reasons. The issue is that a man's Biological Imperative is much easier to meet that a woman's. However, due to the great need that men had for his BI, women where able to leverage sex in return for men’s resources. In the end, it’s a lopsided trade, but we men like sex enough to seal the deal. However, since the advent of Feminism, things have changed drastically.
You see, chastity, which feminism killed off, was actually one of the biggest assets in a woman's arsenal. Not just a few women either, when the vast majority of women practiced chastity, it therefore put sex at a premium and actually gave women much more bargaining power in terms of achieving their goal; marriage and children.
There was a documentary I watched once in regards to the Beach Party Movies and Annette Funicello stated that 'Annette was firm with Frankie in the movies. No ring, no nookie.’ That was a staple of the times, ‘Annette’, wasn’t the only woman to put her foot down to her beau at the time. Marriage was a man's price of admission for sex you see, and many men where willing to pay it, obviously. There where also social pressures which where applied to men in society and in religion for men to "grow up", mature, marry and have a family as well, that can't be discounted in it's effects on maturing males in our pasts.
When women followed this advice and remained chaste en masse, it also created a monopoly if you will. While not only keeping said woman viable (as men wouldn't want a loose woman) it also made sure that men had no alternative BUT to get married if they wanted sex. Where else could men go to get that itch scratched right?
So with this goal in mind and social pressure to grow up, men had plenty of good reasons to be upstanding citizens and contribute to society. The better educated and higher their earning potential, the prettier the girl they could possibly get and therefore (it is surmised) the more satisfying the roguring would be.
How about now, what has happened in light of feminism? Well, what these women are experiencing is simply the realization of differing biological imperatives as they compete for dominance. Marriage is a very steep proposition for a man, it always has been in reality, but with sex being the price for admission, it all seemed worth it in the end. Now that men can get sex for free, why pay that extra fee? Why would a man now pay that steep price of marriage when HIS needs are being taken care of now? What precisely in marriage in addition to sex benefits men now? Besides the veritable minefield it has become which poses distinct and real dangers in Marriage 2.0, marriage and commitment to a woman doesn't give a man any real benefit making it worth his while.
See what I'm getting at?
Even if a woman decides that she is fed up and gives an ultimatum, what sort of leverage does she have now? The woman in the article left her boyfriend since he wouldn't commit, but the reality is that he WILL be able to replace her, it's only a matter of time. The evidence is there, she LEFT him, she didn’t marry him, what does that say about the power dynamic between the two?
Take this quote from the article;
“…because men will work for sex.”
And this is very true, however…consider this; because chastity is seen as such a patriarchal and controlling fixation and now since sex is given away at such a low premium, where is a man's requirement to amount to anything significant? What does a man lose if he decides that Call Of Duty part 14 is worth more than pleasing his girlfriend? What work does a man HAVE to do now?
In this market…he doesn’t lose much, nor does he have to do much, sorry ladies, but hey, Feminism has given you so much right??? Right???
Thanks to Feminism, women have lost the biggest piece of leverage they had on men and it could take a combined effort of pretty much all women to keep their legs closed in order to get this leverage back. Women, in all absolute honesty, haven't the foggiest of how screwed they really are in terms of the fallout from feminism. By not giving a sh!t about the plight of men while making marriage an intolerably dangerous and miserable proposition for men (while it's still a very vaulted state for women, c'mon, how many magazines are printed for marriage for men? GROW UP!!) while giving sex away for free, they have shot themselves in the foot in one of the worst ways imaginable. Moreover, as the economy continues its slide, it will ONLY get worse.
Thanks to Feminism, women have lost the biggest piece of leverage they had on men and it could take a combined effort of pretty much all women to keep their legs closed in order to get this leverage back. Women, in all absolute honesty, haven't the foggiest of how screwed they really are in terms of the fallout from feminism. By not giving a sh!t about the plight of men while making marriage an intolerably dangerous and miserable proposition for men (while it's still a very vaulted state for women, c'mon, how many magazines are printed for marriage for men? GROW UP!!) while giving sex away for free, they have shot themselves in the foot in one of the worst ways imaginable. Moreover, as the economy continues its slide, it will ONLY get worse.
Supply and Demand, it can really blow sometimes.
Omnipitron
4. When many of these women realize that they're not going to be able to lock down men at the "top end" of the range of men willing to engage in casual sex with them, they "settle" (in their minds) for a man who they think is below their standards. Alpha fux, beta bux. Not a setup for long term happiness.
ReplyDelete5. Traditional marriage (1.0) is a system where the man gets:
A. Exclusive sexual access to a woman/ certainty of paternity of any children-- for life.
In return for:
B. A commitment to provide resources, support, and protection to that woman and her children-- for life.
Marriage 2.0 = The above contract can be broken at any time, for any reason, or no reason, by either party, without penalty. In fact, uniquely among contracts, the one who breaks the contract (75% of the time or more, the wife) is typically rewarded.
(A.) Is no longer enforceable during the marriage. In fact, any attempt to enforce it is viewed as "abusive, controlling behavior."
(B.) Is very much still enforceable via the full machinery of the legal system, up to and including jail time, for many years beyond the duration of the marriage.
6. This system has been coasting along, but gradually slowing, on the momentum leftover from the image of marriage 1.0, but more and more men are realizing that it's a sucker's game. Marriage 2.0 is not compatible in the long term with a stable, advanced society.
7. Final thought. We often accept the way that language is used, and new words and expressions are introduced, without much thought. Example: "deadbeat dads" vs. "single moms." One is vilified and imprisoned, the other glorified. Yet in reality, "deadbeat dads" are often abandoned dads, and/or cut-off-from-their-children dads, or simply poor dads, who typically did not choose their current situation, while "single moms" are typically deadbeats who chose to have a child out of wedlock and to impose the costs (both the direct costs and the delayed costs of growing up fatherless) on society. Why not "deadbeat moms?"
4. When many of these women realize that they're not going to be able to lock down men at the "top end" of the range of men willing to engage in casual sex with them, they "settle" (in their minds) for a man who they think is below their standards. Alpha fux, beta bux. Not a setup for long term happiness.
ReplyDelete5. Traditional marriage (1.0) is a system where the man gets:
A. Exclusive sexual access to a woman/ certainty of paternity of any children-- for life.
In return for:
B. A commitment to provide resources, support, and protection to that woman and her children-- for life.
Marriage 2.0 = The above contract can be broken at any time, for any reason, or no reason, by either party, without penalty. In fact, uniquely among contracts, the one who breaks the contract (75% of the time or more, the wife) is typically rewarded.
(A.) Is no longer enforceable during the marriage. In fact, any attempt to enforce it is viewed as "abusive, controlling behavior."
(B.) Is very much still enforceable via the full machinery of the legal system, up to and including jail time, for many years beyond the duration of the marriage.
6. This system has been coasting along, but gradually slowing, on the momentum leftover from the image of marriage 1.0, but more and more men are realizing that it's a sucker's game. Marriage 2.0 is not compatible in the long term with a stable, advanced society.
7. Final thought. We often accept the way that language is used, and new words and expressions are introduced, without much thought. Example: "deadbeat dads" vs. "single moms." One is vilified and imprisoned, the other glorified. Yet in reality, "deadbeat dads" are often abandoned dads, and/or cut-off-from-their-children dads, or simply poor dads, who typically did not choose their current situation, while "single moms" are typically deadbeats who chose to have a child out of wedlock and to impose the costs (both the direct costs and the delayed costs of growing up fatherless) on society. Why not "deadbeat moms?"