I’m 63 and I really grew up during the sexual revolution . For many years we thought it was wonderful , that the notion of a “slut” would disappear and we could engage freely in recreational sex. Don’t forget, we now had the birth control pill to stave off any unwanted pregnancies . But, in the end, it was all a mirage. Women and men do approach sex differently and no matter how much we tried to convince ourselves that the “sex” was great, there was always an underlying hope that these guys would really like us. Our rationale was , here we are, a group of intelligent, sexual people. Surely the men would appreciate that. Only, they didn’t. And time after time we started to feel empty, and undeserving of love. It was because even though as women we felt free, men never looked at it that way. It took me many years to figure this out, that even though we felt we were in control of everything, sadly the rest of society did not agree with us.
You are spot on. Men are driven by evolution to try and spread their seed around. Women bear children and are driven by evolution to have a stable home life so their offspring will survive and flourish.
These are two vastly different evolutionary drives.
You should not use glittering generalities and debate me with specifics. Prove me wrong with a point by point response. Tell me that many species of mammals do not have dominate males who are the only males that breed within their herd or group.
Well in human relations you are starting off with 'mammals' when discussing human communication and behavior. That's a good specific to get you in the ballpark for a discussion.
Also do not ask another person what is needed to satisfy your judgement of right or wrong in a fluid discussion. That is another flaw in understanding. Why don't you try listening?
Simply put- I am a man. I believe you are a woman, (could be wrong), and you specifically put out a nonsense theory about men. I do not have a single male friend or acquaintance that remotely believes or practices your theory about 'the seed' theory.
It is actually as obtuse and comical as Archie Bunker's 'rib theory'... that theory being that women behave a certain way because they want the rib back from men according to the Adam & Eve story in the bible.
I named several species where the dominate male is the only one who breeds with the females. Once again you gave me generalists. From now on, I will refuse to answer your posts.
You use the same tactics that leftists use when I try to debate them. Their answers, like yours are vague and not to the point and then they degenerate into calling me names. They do this because they cannot refute me. I am not saying you can't refute, you just won't.
The evolutionary drives are the same, as you point out.
The asymmetry is that there is very little cost for a man to impregnate a woman compared to the cost for a woman to get pregnant. Given access to enough women, one man could father thousands of children during his life, whereas the average woman can bear roughly ten (maybe fifteen?) children during her life. So, most women can ill afford to spend a year or more bearing the child of a low-quality male.
Given that, “spread your seed” can be a viable option for a man to reproduce, but the same strategy would be a disaster for a woman.
Even though technology (abortion and contraception) dramatically reduces the risk to women of disease and of bearing the offspring of low-quality males, it doesn’t change the evolutionary drives that have developed over thousands of generations. So, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if most women are not interested in the idea of frequent promiscuous sex with random men.
Low Quality males. what a great description. I see young males (and some females) stealing . rioting , grabbing.. now we have "flash mob break ins and every time I wonder. who are their parents. how did they come to be.. where do they go after the deed is done and how many will celebrate with random sex. or violent sex.. who are the women involved and how do they see themselves and how much of that will result in a "baby momma"that perpetuates the cycle
So, I lived in the 70s-80s (age 14-34) and Devo had it right. We, as a species have been devolving, from a pure Darwinian definition, at least physically, in that it's no longer 'survival of the fittest'. We keep people alive, that in earlier centuries would have been culled by disease, or other weak genetic profiles. Those weak genetic profiles, that would have been culled a couple hundred years ago, are still around in our gene pool. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's just a 'thing'.
Unfortunately, the other component is mental evolution, and unfortunately, that can't be discussed because it's taboo to study mental capacity at the genetic level at all in a comparative sense. You'll lose tenure, publishing rights, and be unemployed.
I think the point was that for women, the idea seemed great, but the reality has turned out not to be so. Same urges, vastly different consequences. Attention must be paid to consequences.
The drive is not to have as many children as possible. The drive is for sex. And as a guy, I can tell you that from youth to at least early middle age, that drive is crazy powerful. I can remember being totally unable to concentrate once, in an 11th grade English class that I loved, and, once it was over, making a beeline to the nearest bathroom, one in which others might be present, to address that craving, despite never before having done so outside of the privacy of my own room, or in the shower.
The drive comes from the fact that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were polyamorous, such that the guys with the most powerful desire were the ones most likely to have descendants. (See Sex at Dawn, by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha.)
I am 63. About 15 years ago, I started having frank conversations about sex with close female friends. None. Zero. Zip. Nada had any clue about what you just described. They thought men”liked” sex more than women. One friend, an MD, was so sceptical she went home and asked her husband of 25 years if he’d been like that, and was stunned when he said yes.
We discussed the vagaries of female sexuality too. Especially after marriage/kids. Executive Summary: Men can’t turn it off. Women can’t turn it on (though they wish they could). It is of course more complicated than that. Maybe I should submit a guest essay to Bari! 😊
I've got six years on you. It's funny--I've never thought of talking about the ridiculous level of desire with women. I'll have to have some of those conversations! I've known a few women who had particularly high drives, but plenty of others who had plenty of libido without being driven crazy by it. And I've been told by women, "a lot of men say they like sex, you REALLY do."
Ya I agree with this. I am now 41 and feel the drive slowing down but when I was between the ages of 20-30 I just felt totally and endlessly consumed by the desire for sex and the sensation of orgasm. Extremely "primal" and "base" but also very real and very powerful.
The proximate drive may be for sex, but the evolutionary pressure is to propagate your DNA, which in turn means producing as many offspring as possible who also produce offspring.
At the same time, young men have developed an out of control rage against young women who won't sleep with them (see the incel community and the "pick up artist" gurus) while also maintaining the age old contempt and disgust for women who *do* have sex. There really is no way to win.
I'd just add that male and female hormones haven't changed for many thousands of years, but changes in cultural norms have allowed each gender to feel less hesitance of acting against prior 'norms'
50K years ago, there were humans as smart as we are today but with no wisdom other than what tribal elders passed to them. Today, we think we're so much smarter, but we aren't. Today we're just much wiser, but not as wise as future generations.
If we were truly wise, we would look to the traditions and norms of our ancestors to inform our present day decisions. There is much wisdom in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, and in our old traditions. What we currently seem to have in abundance is hubris and narcissism.
Rick you're failing to acknowledge child support the complexity of single parenting, how that impacts males.
Directing a lot of logic to the serial impregnator theory, which is extremely rare in carrying to full term, is a false road to travel down. It also stereotypes the vast majority of males who father children incorrectly.
It’s different strategies. For instance, a male fathers 1000 children, but because he’s not around to help raise them 95% die. That’s still 50 offspring. A woman may have 10, say, and an 80% survival rate, that’s 8 offspring.
A salmon may lay 1000 fertilized eggs and casts them to the currents.A bear has one or two cubs that she fully invests in. Similar here.
No, males want to spread their seed as widely as possible and will drive away other males to gain breeding opportunities, but females are selective, they want to mate with the strongest, best providers and protectors, so their offspring have a better chance to reach adulthood.
Evolutionary biologists do not agree with your statement in the human species. The reason is the huge differential between the sexes in the investment required. Men can father multiple children in a single day; women must choose a mate and then forego other possibilities for reproducing for at least 9 months. Women must be more selective than men.
You are correct but I am correct also. They are both in play. Time and time again nature shows us both to be correct. Horses, turkeys, primates, wolves have a dominate male that breeds with a hareem of females.
That is true but the result is children. In some cultures, the parents are driven to have as many children as possible and in China to have as many males as possible.
It certainly used to be old age insurance, back before Social Security, and still is to some extent. My two siblings and I certainly helped out when my parents began getting sick--not financially, as our parents both had good pensions, but just being there. My father lived with my sister after he became moderately disabled and mildly demented from a stroke. He lived for around a year with her. He probably would have died much quicker if he hadn't lived with family. Nothing obviously killed him, but he was definitely getting tired of living, and he'd begun asking if he was going to see our mother in heaven (she'd died first). And, he died 3 years to the hour since she'd had the stroke that led to her death 9 months later.
Please explain how women's children are more likely to survive if the women mate with many different males. It seems like the tricky part has always been encouraging males to bond longer term with their progeny to help insure their survival.
I’m not sure what your point is in relation to my question or this article. Genetic diversity is served simply by not mating with close relatives, not by women having a different father for every child. Group ownership of anything results in suboptimal care for the thing shared -- see the tragedy of the commons. But to down-date this to the present article and current millennium, are you saying that women’s happiness or genetics are better served by women who don’t seek strong relationships with men they perceive to be genetically superior, loyal and personally compatible?
I don’t believe that was the point of my article . Nothing wrong with what you wrote at all, it’s just that we hoped we could kind of be like men, sex for enjoyment
As a man (49) it’s definitely food for thought and I enjoyed the article. I’m one of those who looking back wishes I had approached sex differently when I was younger. Definitely influenced by my older brother and had the Casanova mindset for a few years when I was a young man. But honestly even for me then it was not fulfilling either, have always been much happier in all respects (not just sexually) when I’m in a committed loving relationship.
It doesn’t mean that a primal urge never appears but it’s easier to tamp such thoughts down when one remembers the less fun aspects of casual sex. In particular when the act was over, now what? Awkwardness and shame is what I often felt regardless of the amazing physical high…Just not worth it for me.
Personally, I find that repugnant. To me, sex has always been and should always be an expression of love, rather than a physical act that gives you satisfaction like taking a dump.
Because he compared it to going to the bathroom , I never said sex with love isn’t more satisfying, but to use his comparative , I 100% stand by what I wrote.
Very arrogant reply. Nowhere in Rick’s observation is there a focus on quality of sex as the deciding point. Far too much emphasis on the sex act in this whole discussion as well as the social phenomenon it’s based on, and far too little on quality and purposes of good relationship between men and women, based on RESPECT and appreciation of our roles in maintaining an enduringly positive, productive society
Arrogant? Rick compared casual sex to a bowel movement and the reason for the discussion is supposed to be in response to the article which is centred around sex. There are several tangents that have evolved, but they have nothing to do with me or my views. If you read my first response you would see that. Please choose your words carefully.
This. Spectacular indeed! Here’s a difference, though: For guys, almost any sex feels good. For women, some sex does not. It’s painful, or demeaning, or leads to feelings of guilt. But they did it because they felt pressured, despite not being “in the mood.”
This is a big part of Louise Perry’s realization. In general, sex for men and women is simply not an equal construct.
Rick, as I stated those few years when I was younger that I treated it more casually I did and especially now do have regrets. I’m an imperfect man but I do genuinely try to be a good person and do the right things. Having said that I would never equate sex to anything remotely akin to defecating. Sex is an amazing thing, it’s just far more fantastic when done with someone you know backwards and forward, someone you truly love and cherish.
I can’t erase the past, but I can and did learn from it. My sexuality will never be something casual again and I am happy to see more young people like the author coming to the same conclusion and being willing to share this realization as it would be great if many could avoid the same mistakes.
Exactly right. We thought we could do it too, but we were let down by that line of thinking. It hasn’t worked out like the generation who brought it about had hoped.
Promiscuity isn't and never was a good thing, but young people especially are incited to it by popular culture. Stupid, stupid tv shows like "Sex and the City" which dressed empty lives up in pretty dresses, put them in attractive apartments in NYC and called it 'empowerment'.
The problem for women in hookup culture: when it’s done you still have him inside of you, but he doesn’t have you inside of him. It can never be symmetric.
Michael Gurian wrote about for the last 2 1/2 decades: The Wonder of Boys.....: A Fine Young Man...; Boys and Girls Learn Differently...; What could he be thinking?: How A Man's Mind Really Works....and many more. He talks about the differences in boys and girls brains and how boys process sex through pleasure (which as we know is momentary) and girls through the emotional sector of the brain. It's been a while since I've read him, but as we raised one of each, I've learned to talk about sex with them through this lens.
I am the same age and had the same experience. Also the role of pornography' is not discussed enough I came of age when most men did not have access to graphic pornography as access to hardcore pornography have grown men's expectations of sex have changed and not in a good way for women.
Girls and women are called and considered "sluts" just as much now, if not more so. There is a complete lack of respect for and contempt for women who have sex, just as there always has been. The "revolution" did nothing to change those attitudes.
That goes to the point someone else made which is consensual sex is ALWAYS the choice of the woman, otherwise it's rape. In addition, women have sold sex for money; it's a transaction. Because I (and researchers much smarter than I) believe that women's and men's brains are wired differently particularly in response to sex, (pleasure for men and emotion for women) the pejorative has stuck.
Knowing that sex can lead to a variety of transmitted diseases (ie. Monkeypox), you'd think human nature would demand more protective instincts but in the last two decades it's been all about the hook up culture.
Asserting your independence and feminism can absolutely be expressed in a million ways other than free sex.
Most young women don't even identify as feminists, so I doubt that is a major motivation. There are also many young women who hate hookup culture, but they aren't confident about how to find men to date elsewhere.
I know many of those women including my daughter and most of her friends. She's never been about hook up culture and now at 21 has her first boyfriend. She always said she wanted to date to marry--meaning the man had to marriageable. When they were dating, but not yet exclusive, her boyfriend described her to his friends as "the smartest, coolest girl in civil engineering."
My daughter doesn't feel the need to define herself in the accepted/expected nomenclature. And I agree that there are a lot more like her out there. I think they like the anonymity.
I've never understood why females wanted to adopt male lifestyles, which historically, has resulted in males dieing five years earlier. I do get the whole workplace equity thing, but not the lifestyle.
I understand your feelings. I still have a couple of questions. How do you know the young man did not wish to be liked? How do you know the sex was not appreciated?
You’re dreaming. Women have all the rights. Custody is almost a given. Child support as well. They have the unilateral right to aborting a child their partner may want. They have politicians screeching about equal pay for less experience and computing pay disparities based upon completely different circumstances. Your daughters just make,lousy choices, it would appear.
We all thought that no-fault divorce was the greatest invention ever; after all, who wants to be in an unhappy marriage? Like all things, though, there is a yin and a yang to it - yes, it lets people ditch an unhappy marriage as easily as changing underwear, but it also eliminates the incentive to tough it out through the rough patches. Society has a vested interest in maintaining stable families; no-fault divorce and the Great Society's provision for women to marry the government and cut out the middle man has damaged those nuclear families irreparably. Just ask a black scholar like Tom Sowell, and lately, Candace Owens.
Tired of your partner? Yearning to see "the other side?" Got your panties in a wad? Then just bail - that's all there is to it. And if you have a child, you get the dual delights of a monthly payment and the ability to deny that sonofabitch to see his children.
No, marriage is a legal contract - nothing more. As I said to another poster in a private email, with those few words of promise you give the State the right to stick its long nose up your backside a foot and to alter your life forever. I used to think that Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell had the oddest, most unhealthy arrangement ever; now I think it is the only way to go. I would advise neither of my two sons ever to marry; the downside risk is just too high. (edited for grammar and clarity)
Society has a vested interest in stable marriages?
Marriage as an institution is the cornerstone of a well ordered society. And since the 1960s the US has gone out of it’s any to destroy the nuclear family unit for political reasons.
The social welfare programs of the Great Society actually targeted the nuclear family unit, intentionally or effectively. You want out of your mother’s house? Have a baby. Who cares if the father hangs around. As a matter of fact, he better not, or you’ll lose benefits. The first time I clearly saw this dynamic was in the movie Claudine in 1974, as a sneak preview to the z three z Musketeers. It’s all about a single black mother (Diahann Carroll) who hides her lover (James Earl Jones) from the social service worker who visits the house to make sure there’s no extra source of income available so that benefits could be reduced or eliminated. The welfare cheats were actually the hero of the piece while the people looking to make sure that the rules were being followed were the villains. Now? They don’t even do home visits.
Just file and you get housing benefits, SNAP benefits (now on debit cards rather than the old booklets that said food stamps on them, so you aren’t embarrassed at being incapable or disinterested in feeding your own family), and a monthly check.
And you wonder why the number of households headed by single mothers soar. Why there is no father in the house to set an example of going to and coming home from a days hard work. Who can provide discipline. Why they concentrate in blue liberal cities, where they WANT needful people so they can be viewed as the provider of life’s necessities while the other guys want to take it away from them. They take their votes and then disappear until the next election. They don’t care that these urban cores are the new softer form of slavery with the cities being todays plantations.
And same sex marriage?
Marriage was an institution created to encourage families, where a woman has a child and a the hunter/provider man takes care of them. There is a reason why there was so many benefits accorded to married couples in the tax and other laws - to encourage the formation of families.
Not this crazy stuff you see today, with two same sex people incapable of providing the same kind of examples and guidance that a mother and father can give. All this crazy speed and aegg donations create unnatural families - either the real mom or the real dad isn’t there. Either any mom or any dad isn’t there. These kids are raised in anomalous conditions just because gays want children for themselves, regardless of the effect upon those children.
Society does have an interest I. Stable marriages. But they trashed them
What helps create a stable society? Does same sex marriage? I believe it can. Males and females (not on food stamps) might marry and create traumatic families.
There is a reason that people - and other creatures - were created in two genders (OMG, did I commit a crime in saying that?), where one carries a sperm and one carries an egg. There is a reason why men evolved to be larger and stronger than women, why women are born with bigger hips.
And it is natural and rational for the two beings who physically and genetically created these children to feel an obligation and responsibility to nurture and care for such children, providing what each can based upon the differences imbedded in them. That was the basis for our social order for millennia. It was and is the bedrock of a well ordered society.
As the 1970s Chiffon margarine commercial used to say “it’s not nice to fool nature”.
A male father and a female mother creating a child together, caring for it, bringing to bear the softness and caring of a mother and the toughness and real world reality of a father had been the rule since before they chiseled those tablets at Sinai.
But these days we have people who want what they want when they want it. Be it dependency in lieu of work (let ‘s call it “entitlements” so they don’t feel badly), envy of the guy next door who makes a lot of money because he put his mind to it, or gays who want what other people can create, so they do it through non traditional means and don’t even consider the effect of intentionally depriving the child of balanced parenthood and all the benefits that come with it. After all, they WANT it.
Yikes. Would you say that to an infertile married couple who uses IVF with a sperm or egg donor? That the “real” parent isn’t there?
Heterosexual parents aren’t a monolith and neither are gay parents. It’s not hard to find good or bad examples in either set.
Generally speaking, gay or straight, marriage promotes stability in families and communities. Fortunately, there’s an escape hatch if it turns out you’ve married a toxic or abusive partner. These things don’t always reveal themselves in advance.
" I would advise neither of my two sons ever to marry; the downside risk is just too high. (edited for grammar and clarity)"
That is very sad. You would be depriving them of life's greatest joy and depriving yourself of the joys of grandchildren & a large, healthy, stable family.
You should advise your sons to Marry Wisely. Both for their own happiness & for yours. The goal is to have descendents (as many as possible) & children to carry on your name.
Marry women who have good family values. A good place to find such women would be church or any such organization with good family values.
Boy are you so right. I'm not religious, but a very-much-so friend and I discuss things like this quite often. A lifelong atheist, I'm afraid I boxed myself out from a good source of marriageable material; nowadays - still an unbeliever - I've come to believe exactly what you say.
Also unfortunately, both my kids are atheists too. I don't think I have done them any favors.
You don't have to be a religious believer to have "family values." I am an atheist and still believe in the nuclear family, fidelity, and the raising of children with good values and a desire to be good citizens.
No fault divorce also decreases the care before getting INTO marriage. People get married with the expectation that they can get out of it if they don't like it. People will take more care if it is harder to get out of it.
I benefited from no fault divorce. I met the love of my life when she was 19 and I was 29. I had no idea that I had a chance with her; she was crazy beautiful and very intelligent. But she got married at age 25 to a very dishonest (but very charming) man that she did not really love. 12 years into her marriage she confessed that she was in love with me. So no fault divorce worked in OUR case...I don't know if it is a good factor for society as a whole.
Rick, please take a breath. Maybe in your anger you read something into golfer’s comments that he didn’t actually write. He just said his daughters got a raw deal. Not to say that young men are getting a great deal. Well, maybe the guys that just want to sleep around and never have a purpose above their belts are doing ok - as they see it. I would hate live my life in a way that my greatest achievement in life consisted in a large number of sexual encounters where I used women for my pleasure.
Our law and customs hurt men, women and children. Maybe some get a short term benefit, but in the long run we all get hurt. Badly.
Golfer did not say his daughters made any poor choices. just that society has pressured them to be different ..as for women having ALL of the rights.. that is somewhat true when we see the VP of the USA.. a SCOTUS that does not know what a woman is. and so on
Ah! The ad hominem comes out, exposing the lack of argument and the presentation of emotion.
First of all, when looking at my POV, you will see that it brims with traditional values. YOUR people were the angry ones, marching in the streets, threatening SCOTUS judges which is a Federal felony, seeking to change norms under the threat of cancellation in c9ncertmwithnyiurmfriemds in the media and Hollywood. Your people were the ones who refused to recognize Trump’s election, shopped around for faithless electors and then called out others for dong the same. Yours were the people who supported DAs that let out criminals with no bail so that they can commit more felonies, as your cohorts rioted, burned and killed in the streets screaming pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon, demanding that the police be defunded. Funny how the extreme misconduct of the FEDERAL police in the service of your political friends didn’t call for similar action.
The anger is all yours - it is and was anger at traditional values that made this country what it is. A country that saved the world from itself twice in less than 40 years. The country that all your friendly illegal aliens are attracted to.
Assault rifles as you know, but lie in using the term, are not available to civilians in the US. Period. That’s been the case since the days of Dillinger and Bonnie & Clyde. But you know that too. What you call “assault weapons” are scary looking weapons that act like a traditional hunting rifle. One trigger pull, one bullet. Charles Whitman used an even more powerful weapon shooting 31 people in 90 minutes for the tower of the U of Texas in 1966 - 57 years ago.
But as to death by gun, look no further than your own political co- religionists for 99% of the blame.
Oh you love misdirection. Forget about the fact that only 4% of shooting deaths in the US occur with rifles. You HAVE to forget that. Because otherwise, you’ll have to face up to the misery in the urban cores where so much of death by gun occurs - right in the heart of blue cities and states where people are purposefully kept in downtrodden communities with lousy schools, violence, drug use, single mother homes and loads of dependency transfer payments.
You don’t care that your side has creates such a dependent, miserable and violent class of people - you count on it to take their votes and then forget about them. And they are left with your message of anger, envy and resentment, so they pick up a gun, start selling drugs, forget about school and kill and rape each other. That’s just your cost of doing business.
You don't know anything about me or what I support or don't support. I don't know who you're talking to or about, but it isn't me. I suggest Risperdal.
Rick, I’m reading your posts here completely as bitter. I’m sorry you’ve had such a rough time with women post Sexual Revolution. Pardon me, but it sounds like *you* are the one who made “lousy choices.”
I recognize the pain that men and boys are suffering these days. Any boy-mom or anyone who loves boys knows this. Misogyny doesn’t help your issue.
This essay is expressing how the Sexual Revolution was a sick bill of goods for women, and meanwhile, destroyed the social and familial environment for men—while appealing and appeasing the Lowest Common Denominator in society.
That somehow behaving sexually with the *worst* of men, was “liberating” to women. Your bitterness does not address the reality of what decent women and men face that Golfer is talking about, that my generation and younger face everywhere. In fact your bitterness is a symptom of the Sex Rev’s catastrophic effects. Your anger is misdirected. Let’s ask who was responsible to selling the Sex Rev to society. And kindly remove your microscope from yourself.
You’re very funny…..I’ve been married to the same woman for. 40 years. I have three daughters who successfully navigated the sexual revolution without becoming promiscuous.
Who sold the bill of goods to EVERYONE? That’s the issue. Like typical leftists, you focus on women because they are classic victims whose victimhood can be milked for votes.
But women and me. Walk into a bedroom with equality in terms of choices. Of course, in the event of pregnancy, women walk out with just about all them rights and power, but that’s another story.
You write, as did the author, thst women are mentally or emotionally weak and can be fooled by quasi (look up the word) used car salesmen into having sex with the “bad boys”.
Women - decent, smart, whatever - know enough to keep their clothes on and hightail it away from the bad boys. My wife and daughters did. My sister did.
How little you think of women - like lemmings who run into the arms of bad boys.
What caused the breakdown of the social unit? Lots of things.
The Great Society made it profitable to have babies to get out of your mothers house with full free benefits. That basically destroyed the urban cores. And it bled outside to everyday Americans.
The 60s were a dangerous time - turn on, tune in, drop out was a big deal. The summer of love in 1967 got huge play across the US. Then the ultimate birth control process became universally available - abortion on demand - that allowed women to erase their mistakes with a simple d&c.
Hollywood started showing nudity and simulated sex nationwide. The Golden Age of Porn arose at the same time.
The 60s were a deadly time for families and decency in America.
Am I bitter? Not really. My family had the values to resist the craziness going on around them. No sluts, no drug addicts, no one running away to Canada to avoid the draft.
But it was the decade thst America took the wrong turn that we continue to pay for to this day.
My 21 yo daughter is newly dating a young man and my mother/her grandmother said to her "stay a lady no matter how much it hurts". I had to deconstruct that a bit for her, but it's a fact that it is really up to my daughter. Having said that, I also teach my son to be a gentleman.
You’re funnier…not quite as smart as you think you are! You should look more closely at my profile pic for example, before you call me a leftist interested in profiting from the glorification of the victim. LOL XD
And then you might read how much we are on the same page, but you are much more vindictive in your attitudes here.
Accusing Golfer’s daughters of making “lousy choices”! When he was describing the cesspool they have to swim in that all good girls have to endure since your rowdy 60s youth that I’m sure you thoroughly enjoyed. We’ve been harassed and violated by precocious male classmates since before we knew what sex was. Puh-lease. You would never know what that is like. Though I’m sure you’ve detailed your own victimizations well. And then you advise your grandsons “not to marry”— because there are no good women left you imply! LOLOLOLOL You’re just reversing the roles and playing Man-Victim! Not attractive. There are good men and good women and both groups are suffering. Wake up. Have a smarter day.
Actually my advice isn’t based upon no good girls left. Rather it’s because of the uneven playing field in Family Court. Women almost always get physical custody even if they work full time and hire nannie’s. Spousal support is common and typically goes one way. I prefer the Goldie Hawn/Kurt Russell model.
Golfer- A large portion of what I have noticed with our daughters, is that ignoring the parent, ignoring the family, ignoring support and structure- is being taught as a virtue for young women. This is being defined as strength for them, when instead it is isolating them from external forms of support that all human being require.
It's horrendous advice for any young person male or female. But those delivering the advice- love to give with a pompous passion.
I don't want to "love" your comment. As a woman and a mother, I'm very sorry those things happened to your daughters. I've had my share of not wonderful things happen to me, as a woman, beginning in my teens. I didn't have the benefit of parental guidance or support.
My sons were just not raised to be that way and have had struggles finding girls that want a nice guy. They all have good hearts. My middle son took his beautiful best friend to his Senior Prom. He was the only guy her parents would trust. He's 24, now, and I truly wish someone would see the great guy that he is and appreciate him. But, the college age girls he was in class with...they seemed to want the jerks. I hope they grow out of that phase.
Where does he live? I have a 23 yr old daughter that would love to meet a nice guy. 😉She doesn’t date at all! But then again, I’ve also heard mothers of young adult sons with the same lament.
The assault on fatherhood as evil and toxic, the painting of positive masculine stewardship of the home as patriarchal oppression, the removal of fathers from the home by the we're getting vengeance on men, you'll never see your child again, pay the lawyer divorce court system, did exactly what Marxist lesbian feminism intended. It destroyed the family.
"Toxic" masculinity is nor nearly as poisonous as the distortion of, and psychosis on the hoof created by feminism around the human sexual, "sleeping with the enemy" "why can't we hate men", weaponized feminist destruction of the male/female relationship. Most young women today have never encountered the positive masculine nor, have most young men. Most don't have fathers. Marxist feminism (at a profit) created the kangaroo court D.E.I. commissariat and the boys should be girls, girls should be boys ring in the nose blue haired butchery of sexuality now being force fed to kindergartners. Likewise, the "brave new world", snip those dicks, remove those breasts profit center. The article maintains the same us vs. them perspective that has always characterized feminism. The feminist, who needs men and fathers, destruction of the American social fabric, can be seen in the gang murders and mass shootings we witness every day.
A good look at the narcissism of professional feminist exploitation can be seen in the "mattress girl" airball. The feminist commissariat continued to support lies and accusations of sexual assault against a young man despite his being proven innocent. Then encouraged the young woman to maintain her victim status by parading the campus with a mattress tied to her back and celebrating her quasi-BDSM art exhibitions as cutting edge. After maximum exploitation in the feminist press she was discarded and she bottomed out posting sexual re-enactments of the supposed crime on porn sites. Feminism didn't give a f'k about either the young woman or young man whose lives it destroyed.
Pay me Marxist elite professional feminism couldn't wait to ally itself with big brother WEF/CCP totalitarian financial feudalism. Arrest for thought crimes in Europe and Canada, the seizure of a citizens personal finances, attempts to destroy farmsteads and small business all spring from the "I married the state" poor me victimhood feminism used to gain power while subverting rather than enhancing the masculine/feminine relationship. The passive-aggressive, kangaroo court D.E.I. anonymous complaint pile on, he made me "anxious" accusation, destroy that livelihood and career, character assassination, sue that institution for big cash and move on, micro-aggression, you can't say that, no free speech P.C. grift is all feminist in origin.
In the 80's the mens movement foretold the coming perpetual stunted childhood and violence of today's adolescent. The toxic soup young women and men encounter on today's campus is the direct result of the feminist attack on those pushing for healthy dialogue and the exploration of rite of passage healthy masculinity and the promotion of conscious stewardship by young men in society, culture and family. Thank God your daughter had a father capable of helping her confront the problem, ugly as it was, and find a solution, uncomfortable as it was, to not be overwhelmed by a compromised anti-human institution.
I had no idea what came of "mattress girl". What an astonishing descent. And she is precisely the reason why (and now especially with Biden rescinding the due process granted men on campus the right to fight accusations of rape or sexual assault) we've talked to our son so much about sex, drinking, sex and drinking, etc.
Wasn't what happened to your daughter in the dorm text book sexual harassment? It's against the law? How can that not be against school policy and the law and for the school to do nothing about it, regardless of any housing policies. You all should've reported it to the police and filed a criminal case!
Bingo. Horrifying. The stories abound. When a “friend”— from church at that!— hit on me sexually, at 12, at our lockers, I was scarred for years. Violated vicariously. It was the early 90s. That was just the beginning. Where did this little boy learn this? From MTV. The music. The movies, the television, the worsening video games. And all my peers were sucked in. And who put this sewage out there? Adults. For children and teens to swim in and drink up.
Where was love? A silly dream for prepubescent princesses? Today we have the most cynical teens ever seen. Thank you, Sex Rev.
Who could a good girl date? What would be the guy’s expectations? The epidemic of “trans” girls— they are just opting out of a hypersexualized society. Boys too, have been tremendously harmed by the Sex Rev. We’ve lost as much or more than we gained. Let’s pray.
I have 3 sons (23, 24, 31). None of them have treated a girl like that. Ever. My 31 year old son's HS girlfriend broke up with him, after they graduated, and went after another guy. Then, she tried to use my son to make the other guy jealous. He got himself out of that situation. Then, during college, she decided she was into girls. At some point, she went back to dating guys.
All of our "kids" need to know themselves and seek out healthy relationships.
Feminism has programmed women to think that they need to engage in sex as freely as men. That makes women a lot more available for "casual sex" than they otherwise would be.
Prior to the era of feminism, women were taught that having sex before marriage tarnished them, so they were less available for casual sex than they would otherwise have been. It is harmful for young men and women to be taught differently about sex.
I have a decade-younger sister. She asked me about the birds and the bees. I explained it to her, including that it (sex) is pleasurable. "Did you ever get that feeling with anyone?" she asked me. "Yes," I said (I was 18 at the time.) Who, she wanted to know. I told her "I think you can guess." (It was pretty obvious, as we'd made use of my bedroom for our trysts.)
Her first time was definitely not with a love match, but she's now been married for 30 or 31 years, and her oldest (son) just got engaged.
Considering that casual sex has--until the advent of birth control drugs and antibiotics--been much riskier for women than it is for men, what kinds of strategies would it be logical for societies develop to discourage women from engaging in casual sex?
Historically, taboos have served a protective purpose for societies. That's why they develop. I don't buy into the notion that sexual taboos arose only because "the Patriarchy" wanted to control women's sexuality. Mothers are just as capable of developing taboos to protect their daughters from bad choices as any father is.
Whether "casual sex" or sex with someone the girl/young woman met and seems to think "likes" her/is her boyfriend in the moment - much has changed. Now that I have kids in college I am appalled by the amount of performative sex where the roommate is in the bed opposite trying to "play dead" even as she feels trauma. These kids (performing) do not have consideration for the roommate or respect for themselves. What are your thoughts and I am sorry if I am writing a "Dear Abby" ? :)
In my youth, I did a lot of non-PinV to avoid the possibility of pregnancy. And then later, as a way of avoiding STIs with women I didn't know well yet, or prior to both getting tested.
Depends on the male/female ratio of the locality. I would say it's true here in the San Francisco Bay area, where men outnumber women, but it definitely was not true in New York City where there may be more men but many of them are immigrants with wives back home. If you're a young white women in NYC you are out of luck if you didn't move there with a boyfriend.
Women are the more emotionally intelligent gender. They are the more manipulative gender.
Your problem is that skill in these areas follows a normal distribution (aka bell curve). You have a problem with the most manipulative men, so you write about them. The other 90% are invisible to you.
No gender has a plus or minus on the other gender in regard to manipulation. A quality manipulative teenage girl can run circles around boys and girls alike.
You have no one to blame but the parents. My brothers and their wives have raised fantastic sons. They are all married with children and below 35 years of age. One has five children, from ages 1-7. Only the one year old is a girl. I don't doubt they will raise their sons the same way. And we are raising our son to be a strong, respectful, Christian young man.
Having a daughter too who tells us just what girls are willing to do to nab a young man will make your hair curl. It's all about choices.
Nothing against your choices in religion. But Christianity is not necesssary for raising good people. My world is populated mostly by atheists and and agnostics, as well as Jews, Mormons, and a few other Christians. There are a lot of very good people, and a lot of very good marriages.
I said, "You have no one to blame but the parents." Your rebuttal, besides saying I "couldn't be more wrong", is to say others also influence kids. No doubt, they do. You are welcome to "blame" the others you listed for how boys are being raised (not to the expectations of your daughters), but the parents are legally, ethically and morally responsibility for them 24/7 until age 18. As a parent, if you are struggling to parent your child, find others to help you; Boys and Girls Clubs, mentorship programs, after school programs. It is still your job as parent to do that. If you don't, your kid will fill the void with their own hand selected influencers. (Is this where we should talk about the parent who keeps their kid off social media until an "appropriate" age and then monitors all of it versus the parent who succumbs to the pressure of other bad parents and lets their kid do whatever?)
Rearing a child is our most important job. Once they become adults, hopefully the job we've started (because isn't over by any stretch) has provided the moral and ethical compass that will lead to good. My opinions are formed from experiences, even if anecdotal. Parents are and always will be the first teachers, mentors, and models of "acceptable" behavior.
Now define acceptable.
That is where parents and parenting diverge. You just have to take one look on social media or the news to see that.
Well it sounds like you're a solid parent which makes your daughters blessed/lucky (whatever term you prefer). The example they see is what they will look for and they will find it.
To the contrary, a small percentage of men are the way you describe, and the large majority are trying to date and getting rejected constantly because they have no idea how to play the game. You (and your daughters) are oblivious to that majority; they mean nothing to you, so they're not part of your discussion.
There is a book I would highly recommend for your daughters: The Rules Book: Time Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr Right.
This book changed my life. I was stuck in the hook up culture in my early 20's, feeling used, etc. The Rules showed me the way to a wonderful husband who treats me well. We have been happily married for 9+ years with 2 kids.
Every young woman around 13 should be encouraged to read Ovid's tale of the rape of Philomela by her brother-in-law, Tereus. The tale provides an unforgettable description of what lies in the heart of mankind and resonates with a truth that few today would have the guts to acknowledge. Of course some men become civilised and are able to rise to their better instincts and are capable of a loving relationship. But women would do well to keep this cautionary tale in her handbag as a reminder of just what is walking around out there...
All very good advice, but the core issue is women think this is about women. It’s not. It’s about men and their expectations of a woman.
Chivalry has to be taught to boys (men). Women are the ones who destroyed chivalry because they projected on themselves that they were regarded as inferior. Women need to teach their boys to be honorable. Boys need to see men who honor their wives and daughters.
As long as mothers raise sons who look at women as sex toys, no amount of advice on how to avoid problems will help. The help starts where the problem starts — mothers and fathers raising sons to truly respect and admire the innate qualities of a woman — women are very special.
Glad to see that women are finally waking up to the horse crap they were sold. Men need to do the same.
And if you think deconstructing gender roles will help, you are sorely misguided…
Women could easily have said “hey, I’ve got so much power over you men that you are all obliged to open the door for me”. Instead they opted for: “don’t touch that door! what do you think I am? A girl?”
Women were sold the idea that you want the right to have sex like a man - totally unencumbered! And the pill made that possible…
So here we are…
and who told men that sex was meant to be completely unencumbered?
As an aside, my dad always walked on the outside of any of the women in our family down the sidewalk. I was so excited to call and tell him that I finally learned how that became a thing. Back in the days when women on just one dress (full length of course) and the horse and carriages came trotting by, if there were puddles the dirt/water splashed on the gent's leg rather than the woman's skirt. It's really so simple and so kind.
PS I just told my daughter who is newly dating that you want to see how he treats you (opening doors, etc) but also how he treats the servers, waiters, Uber drivers, etc. It says everything about how he'll treat the one he cares most for if he can treat strangers with such respect.
How interesting. I used to have a job working with ex-convicts. I ran into one of my clients, a convicted rapist, on the street one day. He insisted on buying me a cup of coffee and walking on the outside of the pavement. He had very good manners and lived in a nice Upper East Side apartment building.
I suspect.having the garments of civility fool some, but as I have noted and visible in a neighboring comment, lacking grace and candor with others is more likely a better signal on how one will treat you over time. And why would you go to get coffee with a known rapist? Regardless of his manners?
I'm unsubscribing to this newsletter because of idiots like you. If you read the comment (maybe you don't read very well), he was my client and I ran into him while we were both walking to the program. In New York City, you don't necessarily "go get coffee" you just buy it at the corner bodega and drink it while you're walking somewhere. I can't explain my entire job to you but if you were able to use one scintilla of common sense you would be able to figure out that rejection of a small gesture isn't psychotherapeutic.
The pill also free women from not having to marry someone they didn't love just because they got pregnant. It also freed them to wait a few years to marry so that they could get their education or pursue a career. Without the pill, women were slaves to their biology. I'm not saying that the goal of having unlimited promiscuous sex is legitimate - I don't think it is. But The Pill did a lot more good than bad.
“Did a lot more good than bad”… so poisoning a woman’s body so she can be sexually available to a man at all times, from the time she first hits puberty, does a lot more good than bad?
I’d recommend Pope Paul VI’s work “Humanae Vitae,” prophesying the catastrophic societal effects on women that the Pill would engender…but for 60 years people have ignored and excoriated him for being an old white religious man, i.e, clueless. I guess not.
It is now known that a major, if not principal, influence in the writing of "Humanae Vitae" was Karoł Wojtyła, himself greatly influenced by his friend the Polish doctor Wanda Półtawska, an extreme social conservative. The encyclical went against what the papal commission on contraception had recommended. The hardening position, if not fanaticism, of the Catholic Church regarding contraception and abortion over the past sixty years may well be the responsibility of these two.
I was raised to be chivalrous by both Mom and Dad, it wasn’t anything unusual about it in the time and place I learned this. It has frankly been harder for me to not help but be even though society has sorta frowned on it. For me it was never a disrespectful thing or about Patriarchal dominance, on the contrary it was because we were taught to respect women and elevate them over us in many ways. It would have been unimaginable for me to ask a woman to fight and die in a foreign conflict the way I was gladly willing to do so if our country needed me (even if not drafted). So this is a long winded way of agreeing with you. Woman didn’t improve their lot in life in that respect IMO. I’m thankful women have opportunities like never before but for me there perhaps will always be some things I will always deem as my duty and that of other men.
I too was raised with all of the chivalrous principles. What good did it do me? None. There is an equivalent to "Madonna/whore" syndrome for women; I call it "brother/lover" syndrome. As a young man, I was always chivalrous with my dates, and women in general. It nearly always got me put into the "brother" category. I was the one she called when her toilet backed up. When she wanted funtime, I wasn't on the list. I eventually gave up on dating for a while. The irony is, I met my wife of 28 years through video dating, the '90s equivalent of dating apps.
Boys today are raise to be subservient to women, and to suppress their masculinity. And women complain that they can't find any good men. Nobody seems to be able to put two and two together.
I agree. When I met my husband in the 70’s he had to be taught some simple chivalry habits. When I talked to him about it he said he thought I would be insulted by opening the door for me. I have worked for almost 40 plus years to train into him what those early misguided years of feminism worked out of him. It is a mothers job to train but it is a fathers job to role model
You note that "mothers" are raising boys incorrectly, but then still blame the boys. Where are the fathers? Per the narrative, they are at fault, but in practice, they are often forced out.
Now, let's talk about how the standards for women have been lowered, because boy have they ever!
People traditionally blamed the mother when anything went wrong with the kids. It's always three things - the mother, the father, the inherent nature/biology of the child.
Frankly, everyone needs to be re-taught a lot of this. Sure, I grew up in a household that still respected women, and have raised my own kids that way. But, the line "mothers raise sons who look at women as sex toys" - really? I doubt there are very many mothers, as a percentage of the population, that do *that*.
There's no easy or fair way to lump all women and all men into one big block, because that's just not the case. But right now, men are, in general, playing defense. They're responding to the crazy that's going on around them, for both good or ill (in their opinion) - sure, they may like the easy sex, but men *need* women, just as much as women need men - in long lasting, and rewarding relationships.
And these days, particularly after the many overpublicized cases of rape that didn't happen, and the #METOO movement, and yes, the availability of easy sex, young men are left in a weird state of limbo, where their physiology tells them one thing, but society tells them another. And they are a lot less likely to even start the normal process of dating, since that may get them sent to HR, fired, sued, put in jail, or on an apology tour.
So, in the end, you're right about one thing - boys need to be taught chivalry, but girls need to be taught the value of sex (as the author suggests) as well. And more women need need to continue to speak up about the unintended consequences of feminism before we've lost an entire generation.
Excellent feedback. Blame is not accountability, nor is it a way to be responsible with power given to someone. Way too much of present feminist rhetoric and school taught feminism even comes close to scratching the surface on this.
Watching three teenage girls, two now women, being force fed this information during #METOO was tough to stomach. The only thing I could do was caution them, that good guys, guys you want to date - do not want to be painted with the same brush a rapist is painted with. It is a turn off and it will isolate you. They would respond that 'that's not what they are saying'. I would ask 'what are the guys saying?' They would say, 'they say nothing'. My follow up was 'Do you think they are free to honestly speak with you, or do they feel threatened to speak honestly with you?'. There was no response.
What I witnessed is the more potent the feminist party line came out, the more manipulative male counter part was attracted to that type of dialogue. The 'player', the narcissist, all the people who could hurt them. The kids you wanted your daughter to date, they zipped up and walked off to more moderate or conservative voices. Think of it this way, how great is it to be in relationship where one party cannot open their mouth? Equality is not recreating the same negative condition on the other party. The modern liberal movement cherishes this bastardized idea, and it is so fundamentally wrong.
It is not a difficult concept that when you vilify by gender, race, political party, occupation or the way another combs their hair, you are in fact a bitter, nefarious, and/or hostile person. It's been going this way since 2010.
Exactly. In regard to college specifically, many of the "good men" are no longer attending college in person. They are either going to trade schools, or taking college classes online. For men, nothing good can come out of being on campus today. But that means young women don't see them or notice then. They see the scions, the boys who can behave the way they want because their connections to powerful families insulate them.
A lot of them see it as a dangerous proposition. You can financially destroy your life paying $250-300k for a piece of paper that makes less than a trades job, most times significantly less. Then you get the bonus of having an undue prejudice label slapped on you.... Then you may get falsely accused and have no due process to defend yourself... leaving you crippled and broke because of your gender. It's horrible proposition to go on campus, or to work for a large company or institution.
The way mandated reporting requires is anonymity. That makes sense. However, there are serial false reporters who hurt real victims of rape, and innocent people falsely accused. State Children and Families departments are not required to aggregate data on false reports. This means the anonymity keeps each report separated. So, the state cannot tie together someone who reports 'abuse' frequently for benefit or mental illness. If you are the victim of a serial false reporter there is no recourse due the legal construct of law and system. The system also relies very heavily on healthcare and education facilities to report and investigate. This makes no sense because healthcare workers and teachers are not trained investigators. There is also no legal penalty to make a false report to a social worker (most of the investigators in family services), a teacher or healthcare professional. However, if you make a false report to law enforcement or a court officer it's crime.
False reports need to be counted internally on the State and Federal level, and have a criminal consequence- but again no one wants to discuss this because of being 'anti-woman', even though it is not. I discovered this after seeing someone get falsely reported in custody case over thirty times. While viewing CDC domestic violence and sexual assault statistics. Their surveys do not include screened out cases, or in other words cases of a false report. They only measure screened in and ignore a data set that is over 50% of the reports. So that's potentially a huge number of false report victims. Go talk to a divorce lawyer, a cop who responds to domestic cases daily, and ask them if every claim is valid. They will tell you about the need for process and discernment instead of emotionally driven shout down feminism.
So yes with institutional obstacles like these, a lot of men, good men just protect themselves, stay away, and look very thoughtfully for women who possess solid values. They and their partner are rewarded with great relationships. The great news is their is an overwhelming majority of men and women out there connect. You just will not find this at the institutions that cherish this type of insanity in the name of progress. The institution propagates a myth that they are so evolved that this intellectual path is the optimal breeding ground, when in fact- that ship if it sailed, was probably never there. It also stands to argue how full of crap their actual opinion is. Ultimately, these people will produce significantly less kids. Who knew Darwin would actually be right?
However, the upside is this mess is innovating US society. Massive innovation and the institutions that do not possess integrity/honesty will be left behind by quality people.
We have lost two generations already don’t hold out much hope for future generations especially with the current leadership in the White House. Although having said that The Clinton years were the worst for women in America our ex president was a misogynist who should have been impeached and forced to resign that man was disgusting he disrespected the Oval Office so much for role models why are we surprised!
Rape is still one of the most underreported and underconvicted crimes. A rapist has a less than 3% chance of going to trial, let alone being convicted.
There should be a rule online somewhere that says when you quote a statistic, you need to link to the peer reviewed study/survey that purports said statisic, and it has to be less than five years old.
I have no doubt that rapes were under-reported in the past, or, that in some countries where the victim is blamed for rape that they're almost never reported.
But in the US? In every county or city? In every community? In the last five years? Was this before, during or after COVID?
It's not about women, it's about men? With great freedom comes great responsibility and women need to take responsibility for their actions and decisions. That is the core issue. Except for cases of rape, which nobody condones, women are 50% of the decision in consensual sex, and assuming all men want sex, then without 100% consent of the females there is no sex. Let's be careful not to make this a furtherance of the trendy neoliberalism scorn of young men, that they are all bad from birth and they alone are the ones that are the problems. Women can dictate whatever sexual experience they want, date whomever they want, and build around themselves the kind of people they want. Nothing is stopping them but themselves. I open doors for women, walk on the street side, pull out chairs etc, and some women find that a disdainful part of the patriarch, and that is fine. Find who you like to be with, I'll be ok. There are plenty of women that like that and my relationship doesn't have to be a constant war-like struggle to change or reaffirm that dynamic. Take responsibility and define who you are, but who you are shouldn't be blamed on anyone other than you.
In practice, they are much closer to 100%. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Deciding ideologically that the gate should be wide open is part of the problem, but there's a lot more going on here.
Great advice, and might I add that whenever liberal feminists portray males as sexual predators they tend to avoid the reality that upward mobility, money and power have cultivated within their activist rank and file to be just as
Not anymore…the expectations that society has imposed on us today— and they’re expressed *everywhere*: music, movies, television—- the expectation for a young woman is, if she wants to keep a guy, well, she has to please him…today “please him” is code for more and more, earlier and earlier…. and I guess the relationship gets progressively more demanding… On the other hand, the emotional expectations for a guy today seem impossible to many men, and they opt out of relationships, with porn.
It’s easy to assume the best of our own sex and the worst of the other… But I do not agree to that. Today’s standards hurt both men and women, boys and girls. It’s satanic.
As far as “women get to date whomever they want,” HA! Please don’t sound so bitter or deceive yourself, sir! Plenty of beautiful women find themselves with precious little dating experience today…women with high standards about sex…(today that’s left almost exclusively religious women) and eventually find themselves having to do things deep down that they don’t want to do (even kiss), with men they don’t really like (even if they’re very nice high-standards men), just to be with someone… [And plenty of unattractive men get all bitter about beautiful women “being superficial,” i.e. wanting to be with someone attractive also, lol ;)]
It’s not right to blame either sex alone this way. We’re living in a society no one ever dreamed could exist (except Pope Paul VI).
"It’s not right to blame either sex alone this way. We’re living in a society no one ever dreamed could exist."
Bingo. Social media and the Pill, and the automobile, and high rates of divorce and abortion and on and on. The last 100 years, even the past 10 years, (thanks in no small part to yet another invention: the cell phone) - we are ALL in uncharted territory. And trying to pin this on one sex or the other - isn't fair.
(And don't even get me started, obviously, on stuff like having 42 different genders.)
I instinctively knew since I was a kid (I’m early Millennial) that women LOST as much or more than they gained in the S.R. I’m THRILLED someone eloquent enough has finally given it voice, and the time in society after 60 years of catastrophic damage has finally ripened for us to turn it around.
HOWEVER…that being said, it was shocking to me, as I dated here and there, the number of men who needed to be taught that “Girls are people too.” Explicitly. To see women as personalities and not merely roles of any type.
The sad thing is, the whole feminism movement in its earlier waves, just like the Civil Rights movement and disabilities awareness were necessary, was at some levels quite necessary. Some “progress” was good. Looking forward to “Fourth Wave Feminism.” Where sex is valued, protected, and sacrificed for as it used to be, and the respect, love and communication between the sexes can be restored to the state it was in the Garden.
Male-Female Sex is the most powerful force in the universe— it is capable of producing a NEW HUMAN BEING. Let’s honor that power again. Let’s remember the value of each human being again, or renew our quest to do so with greater energy than before.
Very well said. I mean, this part: "Male-Female Sex is the most powerful force in the universe" may be a slight exaggeration. ;) But it's certainly one of the most powerful forces on Earth.
And I agree, early feminism was helpful. I think women should certainly have the option for a career if they want it. And, like Amy Comey Barrett, I think they should have the option for having large families and a supportive husband who helps share all the burdens of having a family - while still achieving whatever it is they want to.
Just imagine over the centuries, how many ideas were squelched because they came from a woman?
But, yes, feminism has gone too far, and now in the US, we're actually seeing our birth rate decline. We need to re-establish the importance of good relationships, families, and the value of sex and mutual respect.
I emphasized that and don’t dial it back because if you believe as I do that each human being ever created has infinite value in the eyes of God, unique in all creation, then the power to co-create a new human being *is* the most powerful force in the universe that *we* can have! Do you see what I mean? And we reallllly need to restore a proper and healthy respect for that power, as you stated. And I like everything else you stated as well!
Ahh, yes, in that case, it is as you say. ;) If you mean what's available to us, to almost each of us, then yes - agreed. Most powerful in the universe, yada yada.
However, you still have to contend with compound interest Einstein's opinion on the matter. :)
Hahaha yeah, thanks for the fascinating number fun, but definitely small potatoes for Einstein! It is a special talent to make money—one I do not have— but the problem is with the guys who make quasi-astronomical sums of it thinking *they* are the most powerful in the universe! Eventually their Creator has the last laugh.
Interesting you brought up Einstein, because your last post about women brought him to *my* mind— really, this historical fiction novel, “The Other Einstein” by Marie Benedict, considering life as Ms. Mileva Maric’ Einstein. Really good, really plausible in my experience!
One last clarification: I’d say from the point of view of the Judeo-Christian believer, yeah, male-female sex *is* objectively the most powerful force in the universe, because God never *died* for a supernova ;)
You’re welcome and thank you for letting me sharpen my thoughts off yours!
Hey, thanks for the book recommendation! I just did an Amazon check and almost 6k reviews with a 4.4 star rating? NOICE. It likely wouldn't surprise you to know that I consider myself a "feminist."
"But.. but.. Jake. You're... not a woman."
I know. I know, it's crazy. But, I am married, (so that means, I support, at least one woman, and put her on a pedestal that has been there at least 25 years. (I ADMIT NOTHING!).
We have three daughters. I have four sisters. I have a mother, two grandmothers, a step-mother. I have nieces, and even a grand-niece.
Like many men, I have a LOT of humans of the female persuasion to root for.
I sometimes wonder how we get these "battle of the sexes" arguments in the first place! We've had the media pit is class warfare, race-warfare, sex warfare.
They were not (even remotely) unwarranted, but one can help but think that all of them were over-hyped eventually, and used for other agendas.
I mean, has any cause ever been used without someone co-opting it for their own agenda somewhere along the line?
It doesn't take long to wonder how one becomes a cynic, eh? ;) Yet, somehow, I, we, remain hopeful.
WRONG. You are the one projecting male attitudes and thoughts about sex onto women with sons: I have lived all over the world and I have NEVER met one mother who would have any idea how to raise her sons to look at women as sex toys. THAT is just not the kind of knowledge mothers have to pass on to their sons; THAT attitude can only be transmitted to boys by their misogynist fathers!
I have been happily married FOR MANY DECADES to a wonderful man with three brothers, all of whom are wonderful devoted husbands and fathers and you know why they turned out this way? Because they all watched their father treat their mother with the utmost love and respect day in and day out for over 40 years! I have known men who had very close and loving relationships with loving mothers but if their fathers treated their mothers like shit then they, in turn, treated THEIR wives like shit. Stop blaming mothers for shitty men; blame shitty men!
They can repeat the mistakes of the past, or they can overcome them. I had a father (as many of us did) who ignored kids. Who rarely did anything with or to them except for the occasional beating. I had a mother who, though faithful, after the divorce, left us largely to our own devices.
There comes a point when blaming parents is just a cop-out. What WE as a society can do, is try to impart some wisdom on the next generation. We can't both blame the previous one for being bad examples, and then the later one for not getting the supposed lessons.
I agree with what you said except I don't think it's totally fair to say only women projected inferiority onto themselves. Historically men had always treated women as inferior, and in many parts of the world still do. And if women projected that way, it's because that was the world they were resisting against.
I have a nine-year-old daughter that I would willingly give my life for, and this essay struck a deep chord with me.
For a large part of my adult life, I eschewed monogamy, embraced promiscuity, and enjoyed the benefits of hook-up culture.
It was only after those seemingly random hookups led to the birth of my oldest child that I chose to settle down, make plans for my life, and create a stable home and environment for my child.
Looking back, I see the carnage my promiscuity caused for me, but it's the women I met and sometimes hooked up with who suffered most.
Many dealt with life-changing circumstances due to promiscuous late-night hookups, including broken relationships, early childbirth, forgotten dreams, and soul-crushing abortions, to name a few.
Most of the men who helped bring about these disastrous circumstances offered little to no support to these women whose lives they helped to destroy.
I'm not putting all the blame on the men.
After all, it takes two to tango.
But it wasn't the men whose career aspirations, reputations, and futures got destroyed.
The women always paid the highest price for so-called "sexual freedom."
Education is not enough.
Creating awareness is not enough.
Handing out condoms, birth control, and spermicide in the Student Center is not enough.
Teaching our children how to think past the pleasure of the moment, how to set goals, and how to create good self-care habits at a young age is critical to their success and mental health.
Include sex in your conversations with your kids.
Approach the topic early and often.
Empower them with knowledge upfront.
Create space for your children to feel heard, understood, loved, and valued.
Instead of talking at them or telling them what to do, ask them what they're doing, what they want, and how you can help them get it.
Empathy is the key.
After much deliberation, these are the guidelines my wife and I use with our children.
I can only hope that they will be enough to guide them in the right direction and avoid the pitfalls and potholes my wife and I have visited.
A lovely post, Justin. And as one with a similar past as your own, I have tried over decades to move on to find that elusive meaning to it all. And personally, now, I think I have.
The only caveat I will offer, and perhaps you might agree (as your ‘two need to tango’ would suggest) - that women past, present and future have made and will make decisions that have empowered them or diminished them. Choices are made and they will either be joyous ones or disastrous ones. As ours have been.
It is and will always be a battle field out there. Your advice to your girls is correct, but it is not new. The women you and I were dating and having sex with in our halcyon days received the same advice from their parents, rest assured.
Women have and always will exercise the freedom to choose, what they do with that choice is up to them. This article, in my view, does not address that. It diminishes that in an attempt to shift responsibility inordinately on men, but that is just my humble opinion.
I do hope your girls will listen to you. But be ready if all of that does not go as planned.
I agree with your perception of the article's attempt to shift blame.
Humans, by nature, must have someone or something to blame when things don't go according to plan.
It is a rare person, often one who has learned this lesson through experiential means, that takes time to look in the mirror to find the source of their worldly woes.
I'm lucky to have learned this lesson by age 33. Many men and women much older than me still search for the cause of their problems yet never consider reflecting on how they contributed to or even outright caused the issues they regularly face.
Once I made that leap, life grew exponentially better and more meaningful.
I think the article isn’t turning the blame from one sex to another, but rather, asking us to rethink the whole “Sexual Revolution” and who it really benefitted and at what cost. I believe both girls and boys are suffering to this day from it. But I look at the dance music beginning with the early millennials, teens in the late 90s-turn of 2000. “My anaconda don’t want none unless you got buns, hun!” Preteen girls mindlessly mimicking the words to these songs and their mothers are oblivious, their fathers are powerless. The decimation of the family structure in the communities where that music was most celebrated. Twenty years later the hypersexualized culture led to the explosion of girls opting out of sexuality altogether—the whole trans/non-binary craze. Those songs weren’t written by children for children. They were written and produced by ADULTS for children and teens to consume. The movies, the music, the television: the culture formed and shaped us, distorted our views and expectations of the other sex to the grossest extremes. We need to recognize what we lost was as much or more than we gained, and restore respect and LOVE and sacrifice and communication between the sexes, only better this time.
Thanks for your voice Louise. It's a great return of sanity to an important debate. Things have worked out for me. I spent a long time not worrying about settling down and when I did get serious, I met a wonderful woman with a child and I jumped into the responsibility of fatherhood. It's been very joyful. I wish my generation was taught the importance of family life. I have friends that have chosen to not have kids and my heart breaks. I see them pouring their entire lives into jobs that don't give them back the satisfaction you would get from family.
Having children makes a man. It gives him a reason and a purpose to work towards. It's a special commitment and a responsibility to the present and the future. Marriage often makes the man.
An over broad reply, sorry. True purpose and stature comes from the realm of self belief, from that comes confidence, and from that comes responsibility for a family, if the man so chooses.
Women are complicated creatures, as this article highlights, but of course, so are men.
You’re right. I have complicated a very simple premise. But with over forty per cent of marriages ending in divorce, I cannot see how a man’s new found ‘stability’ and ‘purpose’ has helped either him or his spouse.
There are many reasons for divorce. Many couples get divorced after a long, long marriage. During that marriage they raised a family successfully. I know several this would apply to. When you have born and raised children who grow up into responsible adults you have done your job even if the marriage does not last until death do us part.
Some of all of the reasons as to why marriages don't last may be expectations. The most enduring marriages are among the most conservative cultures. Their expectations are different. They don't necessarily expect to be "happy," or "fulfilled" whatever that means. They have joined in a union for the continuation of their culture and heritage.
the "over fourty per cent of marriages end in divorce" statistics are highly suspect. I try to figure out how I'd calculate the rate of divorce, and it's very difficult to do based on the data that's out there.
anecdotally, my experience has been very different; my cohort of friends married in early-mid 30s, and we pretty much all have kids now. In the ten years since my first kid, I've only known one couple to divorce. Mind you, we are as un-religious as they come, live in NYC, etc. etc. So if anything, there should be lots and lots of divorces, whereas in reality it's almost none.
I'm not sure who publishes "divorce rates" or how they calculate them (or what they gain from gaslighting), but I am extremely skeptical of any "data" quoted on this topic.
Yes. Their jobs will not see them through the ups and downs of life, and into old age. Their jobs will not bring them the sheer joy of looking at their child for the first time.
This goes back several generations at this point—I have Gen X and millennial friends and relatives who have skipped marriage and/or kids, seemingly just from a fear of being tied down. I try not to project my priorities and joys onto them, but I think they’ve made a big mistake, and from my perspective it sure looks like some of them are coming to realize that…but a bit too late to do anything about it (re:kids, at least), unfortunately.
Somehow a good many of them think their pets are like children and will fill that void. I cringe every time I see an ad that promotes the idea of pets as children ( and they are everywhere!)
the "fur baby" thing is creepy, cringy, and wrong wrong wrong. I have a cousin in mid 30s whose social media was recently taken over by "meet my new furry baby" photos and videos... breaks my heart.
Yes it unfortunately is very sad because people almost always regret not having kids, but the regret comes when its too late for them.
And the earlier one has kids, the better. In your 20's you have more fun & energy with the kids then in your 30's and 40's for example.
I do plan to teach my kids (when they grow up) of the importance of having a family, doing it at a (relatively) younger age and not having "a fear of being tied down"
There are multiple branches of my family that are essentially going extinct because the younger folks have chosen not to have kids. Which is their prerogative, of course, and I’m sure they’re getting by with other distractions for now. But I can’t help suspecting that as they drift into their fifties, gardening and music gigs will start to wear thin and their houses will start to seem awfully quiet…and by then, there’ll be no going back.
Don’t knock having kids at a later point. I got the wildness of my 20s and 30s out first. My mom and dad were 40 when was born. I didn’t get married until 43, had 3 kids, last when I was 49. All three are smart, interesting, and successful kids. I may not live to see grandkids at this rate (though my genes predict I’ll live into my 90s). I had plenty of energy raising them with my wife! She is however a decade my junior ... [edited to fix the typo on "wildness"]
It's different for men versus women, but really you sound quite fortunate to have had kids so late in life without disabilities.
it's also different now that women can freeze eggs to extend fertility until later in life.
nevertheless, in my particular case, waiting as long as I did to have my first is perhaps my only real regret in life. if i had started earlier I could have had more kids. the only way to make the world a better place is by making more good people to populate it with ..
Exactly what I'm seeing and i fear their marriages will break down when the one that acquiesced to the no kids request begins to resent their spouse for it.
I'm very happy to hear being a father worked out for you, truly! But you can't project your happiness on other people. You don't know their stories, their experiences, or where they came from. I definitely believe that generally stable families are the bedrock of a stable society, and liberals are no not being honest about the detriments of fa lot of the values we gave up. But at the same time, I for one am very, very happy to be childfree. I never regretted that decision for a second, and never will. I'm sure there are other people out there like me for their own personal reasons.
And while this is not the motivation behind my choice, looking at the gender madness infesting the world today, I'm beyond glad and relieved I don't have a daughter or daughters today who are being gaslit into dumb shit like men can be women and they must accept men claiming to be women to be in the same changing rooms and bathrooms, or dumb shit ideas like sex work is work or scrupulous platforms like OnlyFans exploiting the naives is a good place to make $$, or to grow up with a generation of boys whose brains are rotted by violent porn online. Every time I think of these things I'm beyond glad I don't have kids, and when I turn to dust I can leave and the world can burn if that's what people want if what I think doesn't matter.
I remember thinking to myself while waiting for a bus in 1985 or so (after my shift at the pizza place, some "career") that the most difficult thing to achieve, it had turned out, was to have children. I never knew where a relationship was going, didn't know how to ask, felt unworthy given how loose I'd been, didn't know how to communicate my needs -- compared to my mother's generation, when dating clearly led to marriage and if it didn't look like that would work out, they got out and moved on. The chaos of the so-called Sexual Revolution will take generations to undo; it frankly made my life even harder than it had to be -- and it wasn't fun. When I try to suggest that we change the narrative, and how about we agree, once more, that dating leads to marriage or get out and move on, that we should get married sooner than later (especially now that we live longer), have our kids and pursue a career in, say, our late 20's, when the kids are in school, friends and community established -- women look at me as if I'm insane -- yet -- yet -- pursuing a career first merely leads to fertility clinics in one's late 30's and early 40's....the whole social experiment has failed....and the worst effect that I see coming up the pike is that when my generation is old, most of us won't have children to advocate for us (in my high school friend group, only two of five had children, one of whom had had so many abortions she could barely carry her one child to term); I entertain predictions that assisted suicide will have to become a thing -- what else could be done with so many aged out childless women...? The whole enterprise -- like so many other progressive causes -- wasn't cause and effect by any stretch of the imagination. Castles in the air. I'm glad that Perry wrote this book -- even if it won't undo my own following the Pied Piper off a cliff, I hope it helps shift the narrative away from this cynical interpretation of motherhood and womanhood as "oppression." Nothing is worse than the oppression of fending for one's self in a chaotic, inhospitable world.
Feminism also advocated for no fault divorce that radically altered the marriage contract. The first order effect was that many women were able to walk away from abusive marriages. But the second order effect was that it created a disincentive for men to marry. Why marry when you could lose half of your assets at any time for any reason? This is a little discussed part of the decline in marriage rates imho.
It’s funny…. The family court system - and take it from a practicing lawyer - is so stacked against men, that marriage is actually dangerous.
Imagine….men walk and women walk into a bedroom with equal rights and the women walks out with all the rights and the men walk out with all the risk. Why is there no provision for a man to legally abort their relationship to a child they don’t want? All of the emotional and economic arguments that women make in support of their absolute unilateral right to decide on abortion - even within marriage - apply to men. Men may not want children. They may not want or be able to form the emotional relationship required. They may have their careers sidetracked to be able to meet mandated support obligations. But none of that counts for ANYTHING. A woman has the right to unilaterally impose these burdens on a man.
I told my grandson that as much as it disgusts me to say this, marriage is a lousy deal for men in the American. If you want a child, have one with someone you care for, but look at it as 18 years of car payments. Live alone and make your booty calls or spend time together but always keep your own place. You can get from others what you can get from a wife - the supermarkets now sell reasonably priced prepared meals. You can hire a cleaning woman to clean your house and do your laundry. And you never have to worry about having to give up half your stuff.
If a man's greatest fear is giving up half his stuff he should not marry. Nor is that type of man ever going to be a worthwhile partner for a decent woman. There are never any guarantees at the outset of a marriage. The only ones that are successful are the ones where both partners are willing to work through the inevitable bad times. And sometimes one or the other is giving more than 50%. As long as it is not always the same partner doing so that is okay too. As for getting what a wife does at the supermarket, or restaurant for that matter, good luck with that. That crap is bland or heavily processed which will kill you before your bitterness does.
On the power of women in the legal realm I actually agree.
But all of that is in reference to failed relationships. I also agree on the unilateral control of the abortion issue given to women. Plus there are men who want the child unwanted by the woman. My skin still crawls about that woman from Arkansas, I believe, who was pregnant with her third child and could not figure out how to procure a legal abortion. The pregnancy was the result of casual sex (there is no such thing) but the man embraced the idea of having a child. Lastly, as a lawyer, it takes a certain type to be a family lawyer. You sound like you fit right in.
If a woman goes into a marriage knowing that if it doesn’t work out, she should not go into a marriage. On the power of women in the legal realm, you agree but offer no solutions. Perhaps because you like the uneven playing field. So you’ll just keep that benefit in your pocket and ignore the mindset of a man who knows that he’s going into a rigged game and how he considers that. Of course, from you’re perspective, if he even has that in mind he’s not fit for marriage. And that lopsided benefit is only the case if failed relationships (which MUST be a man’s fault ) so he should just take it, right? With divorce rates sky high, he should just ignore it and wait for the beating he may well take. And it takes a Thor to be a man hating feminist. You seem to fit right in.
Having been married for over 55 years to one of the good guys, as are my daughter and son (for less years of course, but over 20j, I am sincerely glad none of us met you. You sound like a horribly, mean-spirited, angry man. I’m sorry you have no happiness in your life because it is out there.
I’ve been married just as long. I have 9 lovely grandchildren from 4 well educated and successful marriages to people of the opposites sex.
It wasn’t MY anger that torched our society. I wasn’t of the party that stoked anger and division. You know, the one that admittedly plays the divisive game of identity politics, slicing our society into subsets of people they can imbue with anger to harvest their votes. The one that Intentionally created urban plantations where people can’t get an education and live am9ngst violence, drugs and one parent households so that they could imbue them with anger and hopelessness while blaming the OTHER guy, even though they’ve run the places for 50 or more years. The one that hates the police and focuses on the relatively minuscule number of police shootings while ignoring the massive number of shootings in their urban plantations, created,solely for vote harvesting.
To do that takes a hell of a lot more anger and meanspiritedness than I ever felt towards anyone other than those of you who do it.
I should note that I’ve told my sons they’ll be in for some serious repercussions if they marry a woman they haven’t brought home to meet mom and dad.
They may decide to do it anyway but if given the chance I can pick out the losers after ten minutes of conversation and would tactfully warn him afterwards.
I hope you know what a cluster B personality disorder is. My parents and I were completely unfamiliar, and we all thought the world of my then-fiancé. It was only in hindsight that we all now see the red flags of the “lovebombing” phase of the idealize-devalue-discard cycle.
I spent my high school years hitchhiking across the country as a runaway. As a result I have a very finely honed character gauge. It failed me once but on the whole I have a very good track record of detecting unstable, dishonest or otherwise undesirable personalities.
I don’t particularly need the ever changing paychobabble. Ten minutes’ conversation is enough to determine whether someone is who they claim to be.
My kids have seen it in action. Friends they brought home who set off my alarms and later proved themselves to be exactly what I warned my kids.
If one of my sons brought a problematic woman home and my gauge went off they’d listen. Would that change their minds? I don’t know.
Marie - ditto here. I hitchhiked all over Seattle as a teenager in the late 60's. That was before we heard of Ted Bundy. I definitely know what you mean about the character gauge - it's like spidey-sense.
My husband and another student friend had a house-painting business during college. My husband was good at math, i.e. figuring footage, how much paint to buy etc so he was the one to do the bid. Often I would go with him and there were a few times I just knew someone was going to be difficult or wouldn't pay. He would say 'they're so nice!' and I'd say 'hmmm.' I was right every time.
Marriage is the optimist’s ultimate bet. But people change, life circumstances sometimes veer wildly off track and course corrections become necessary. I hope for you that having a grandson you can speak to candidly is some satisfaction and that he, not your “stuff” will be your comfort as life winds down.
It's almost as if ... man AND women needed to be careful before making a promise for an entire lifetime. Do your promises have meaning? In that case, divorce isn't really an option. So you best make extra super duper sure, and then live with the choice.
funny how marriage is supposedly such a bum deal for men but married men live 5+ years longer than bachelors.
you say "A woman has the right to unilaterally impose these burdens on a man." === that isn't any more true for women than men. be selective. choose a mate who respects and loves you. and if you marry, you marry for life. you're making an oath, you MUST keep it
It’s true that being a good chooser is critical. But in the case of abortion, men and women walk into the bedroom as equals and women walk out with all the rights in the event of a pregnancy.
Feminism also redefined what "abusive" means -- while women get off the hook for their own abuse. On that note, I got divorced because he was having difficulty holding a job, which might have seemed like a good reason at the time, but doesn't seem so now. And there are more blithely unaware self-aggrandizing choices to cover in my semi-autobiographical novel "My Dumb Postfeminist Life."
As an aged woman with a child who may or may not be helpful.. women can form communities of like-minded women and/or join religious communities synagogues, churches, mosques other types, built around people looking out for each other, whatever our life circumstances.
Dog L. Wow. Your post was really powerful. You seemed to have struck all the right chords. Very sad and I’m sure it will speak to a lot of people and, hopefully, help them.
I have been so disgusted with the immorality of the sexual revolution, the cheapening of a woman’s body, the meaninglessness of sex. I would be called a prude for thinking women should dress and act more modestly. Women should show they respect themselves if they want to be respected. The idea that a woman would strip naked and jump into bed with someone she just met is incomprehensible to me. So old fashioned values are making a comeback. Finally! Listen up men, the gravy train is over. Clean up your manners, google “chivalry”, and send flowers. Look for Ms Right. Not Ms Right Now.
Re the gravy train being over - my teenage son told me that a lot of teen boys/young men are happy about Roe being overturned because they think it will cause women to be less promiscuous, which in turn will entail them being more choosy about partners, which may well turn off the "gravy train" for the hottest guys who catch the most tail, but it will result in more options (more sex/more committed relationships) for the average man. I.e., when the ladies aren't chasing the few rakes, they will learn to appreciate the greater, humbler charms of less flashy but more worthy men. I thought that was fascinating. And good.
Girls will never stop chasing the rakes. We desire people that others desire. It's fundamental to us being social animals.
I'm sure many of us have felt lukewarm interest in someone, only to have it EXPLODE after seeing them with another person.
the most effective tool girls have is not putting out. if you want to be wanted, don't put out. if you like a boy, don't put out (ESPECIALLY if he's a rake, which he probably is, otherwise you wouldn't like him)
this is the part I don't get: girls thinking they should put out to maintain a boy's interest. It couldn't be farther from the truth. if you want a boy to like you, DON'T PUT OUT
I think we are going to see an increasing rejection of progressive ‘values’ by young people now that progressives are running society. This is just one of them.
Lmao. YOU just said that women are stripping themselves down naked and having sex with men they just met. Maybe it's time for WOMEN to clean up their manners?
NC, I enjoy the passion of your argument. But seriously, that carnal horse among young women and men left the barn sixty years ago and it is not coming back.
This article we’re commenting on is a feeble attempt to go back to a 1950’s mother ship of moral correctness. It might make for great discussion but is ultimately pointless in the decisions young women make, and have always made.
Sex might be meaningless when not associated with with a long term relationship, but that fact, unfortunately, has to be experienced and not taught.
This essay should be read by every young woman. I’ve never seen a promiscuous woman thrive. I don’t say that to judge or from some place of moral superiority. Simply that the behavior does not work for women. Every woman I knew who bought into this mentality either ended up with a terrible partner or no partner, constantly was disappointed in men but blamed the men, and more than a few times got into dangerous hook up situations. If you brought up any of these points you were some religious stiff or victim blaming. Same ad hominem language that we see now.
Listen to the podcast. It’s really a great debate between feminist theory vs reality. Especially re: porn. What they left out of the podcast is that young men get addicted to porn at a very early age and expect their young women hook ups to engage in sexual behavior that is NOT safe or enjoyable. The dangers are ten fold for a woman and ruinous for men who have their own sexuality skewed in a devastating direction.
I agree with Bari that, as a woman, I would not have a fraction of the life I have if not for early feminist leaders and advocates. However the narratives regarding sexual behavior for women are damaging.
"Only have sex with a man if you think he would make a good father to your children—not because you necessarily intend to have children with him, but because this is a good rule of thumb in deciding whether he’s worthy of your trust." That was the advice I gave my granddaughter as she headed to college. Don't think she listened. This culture of open sex was one of the problems I had with the sitcom FRIENDS-too much casual -sex as well as the more overtly oversexualized SEX IN THE CITY, which I never watched. I fear the same thing is happening with the casual marijuana use in shows now. No restraint or consequences seen anywhere.
Two more and then I have to get going on my life. Years ago, Phil Donohue in an earnest effort to help people understand teenage sex, had a young woman on the program. I can't remember if she was an unwed mother or what, while Phil was directing the conversation in a very enlightened manner, she interrupted him with, 'you have to understand the passion" which I think flew over his head, but being closer in age to the girl I understood what she meant. The 2nd thing is St. Augustine's prayer, "O Master, make me chaste and celibate, but not yet."
This essay is both OUTSTANDING and profound. It resonates with another INCREDIBLE essay that went viral this week - Bridget Phetasy's "I Regret Being A Slut," which you can read here: https://bridgetphetasy.substack.com/p/slut-regret , which I shared with my daughter, a Women's Health Nurse Practitioner, who loved it.
What I want to speak to is Perry's passing observation that "CHIVALRY IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING." Yes, it is. But feminists foolishly, ignorantly, and condescendingly discourage it to their detriment. Consider the simple practice of opening a door for a woman. Occasionally when I do so for a woman I get a bristling glare from her, which unspokenly communicates "You misogynistic pig, I'm perfectly capable of getting the door myself" - a rather selfish (if not outright narcissistic) response on her part (I also open doors for men...). What this "Feminazi" fails to see is that I have cultivated this Chivalrous practice in the lives of my son and me to teach and remind us to RESPECT women. My son (an Army Major) is required to "salute" other soldiers. Why? Because, like "opening doors," the practice HABITUATES AND DEMONSTRATES RESPECT. It reminds enlisted people to respect their officers - to accord them their due - and this is done even if the officer is a jerk, for you are respecting the POSITION, not the PERSON. Women complain that men "don't respect us" and then chastise Chivalrous men when they do. They castrate the Stallion and then complain that it has no offspring...
Ok - I am not at all religious - but raised Catholic. The reality is that most social conventions evolved over time and actually make a lot of sense. These are reflected in both religious and cultural practices. Sometimes they become obsolete because time have changed. The rise of the welfare state makes some of them anachronisms. However if you look at the Ten Commandments- they make sense. They are good things to strive for - even if we fail again and again. Especially the no murder one.
The first four commandments are just religious recommendations that make no difference one way or the other. Commandments 5-10 make sense, with exceptions. "Honor your father and mother," for example. If your parents were abusive, there's nothing wrong with separating yourself from them. Only 2 1/2 of the 10 commandments are actually illegal--murder, theft and bearing false witness (this one only in a court, though). Not committing adultery and not being a jealous person definitely make sense, but they aren't illegal.
I'm so glad somebody's publicly taking on Andrea Dworkin--at last! Certainly many woes arise from the matricidal impulses of the current young generation, and a related set of woes arise from their patricidal impulses. By and large, few parents, mothers or fathers, would want their children, daughters or sons, entangled in the bleak, dehumanizing landscape of contemporary hook-up culture.
We're no longer dealing with the physical. It is pathological. Marxist feminist "woke" psychology is powering the imposition of the totalitarian utopianism being pushed by the WEF/CCP juggernaut as a ruse for the destruction of the independent citizen and the nation state. The capture of the national dialogue and new push for limited free speech by fascist totalitarian finance disguising itself as benevolent socialism intends to bring back dark ages feudalism.
Reading this article brings me back to college. I am in a room, trying to sleep. My roommate comes in, with a boy I know just wants to hook-up. They have sex, from behind. At the end, he says, "thanks babe," gets up and leaves. She wanted some sort of relationship. I don't think he even talked to her again. I am by no means a saint, but that experience marked me. I remember another time a few summers later. There was a guy who I think was somewhat interested (and I was somewhat interested) but somehow I wasn't good enough. He didn't make a move until he was drunk. I told him no, he needed to be sober. It ended our easy camaraderie and friendship; I became the person to be avoided. That was also sobering, though I know I dodged a bullet of a relationship with a man who would treat me poorly. I talk to my son and daughter about respect and bodily respect and the dangers of porn, etc. Not because I am a saint, but because I have these memories...that I don't want to become part of their psyche.
Heather MacDonald has done a great job of addressing this problem in her book "The Diversity Delusion". She writes that in the past, the default position for girls was "No", whereas now girls have to justify not wanting to engage in sex right away. She quotes one girl who basically equated having intercourse even though she didn't want to with sitting at a lunch table with a girl she really didn't want to have lunch with! The comparison boggled my mind. Apparently, you go through with it to avoid the hassle of explaining yourself. Where's the self-respect?
The feminist movement is run and has been run by inflexible fanatics. History, facts and reality means nothing to a fanatic. Men and women aren't equal. There are obvious differences. Our physiology, our internal make ups are different. For example, men are physically stronger. Women, every month are awash in hormones which affects them physically and emotionally.
Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist. Before you go orbital on me, I have been happily married for 52 years and I have been only married once. I know from experience about living with a woman who went insane once a month. In all fairness, not every month.
The whole point in this is, we are not equal. That doesn't mean I want discriminatory attitudes toward women. I just want the feminist to accept the differences. I want equal treatment of woman in the workplace. I my professional career I have actively support equal treatment.
Having said this, I support stay at home moms. I realize that a single mom has to work to support her children but if you have the luxury to be a stay at home mom take it. It is the most important job and at times difficult job in the world.
Feminist vehemently support the idea that you don't need a man to raise a child. That is not what nature, evolution and shrinks says. Children raised in a stable heterosexual environment are better adjusted because they have a strong male presence. It is the same with a single man raising children. Children need a strong female presence.
This is not an ideal world and I am not criticizing single parents that do the best they can raising children without a partner.
The whole point of my post is to point out there are differences and these differences have shaped mankind ever since we stood upright and started using tools. (Before some wiseass thinks of this. I realize other animals use tools but we have used them to advance our civilization.)
lol Lonesome! My husband and I are still on our 1st marriage - 51 years now. I was 18 and we were both in college, i.e. we were doomed to fail. But didn't! And in all fairness I'd say he's had his insane moments too and couldn't claim pms as an excuse :)
Women are hormonal. As for myself, men are just stupid.
I have believed for a long time, women are the superior of the species.
Women can be murderers, drug addicts, criminals just like the rest of the population. However, I believe because of their differences from testosterone driven males, they have a different perspective on the world around us and sociologists say they approach problems differently from men.
I won't be happy until 51% of our elected officials are women. But speaking of criminals, we don't need more Nancy Pelosis and Hillary Clintons.
This is mind blowingly frustrating. I agree with much of this piece, but anytime I as a conservative male had or would have said any of this I would be condemned from the highest heights of feminism. Suggest women should be prudent when it comes to partying or dress etc and I would be “blaming the victim.” To suggest men should school men in appropriate behavior as men and in their behavior towards women and it is “toxic masculinity.” To suggest there were differences between men and women and that standards of behavior should reflect that fact would be examples of sexism or bigotry or transphobia, etc. And now a feminist is writing all the same things that I and many men have said and believed for years but somehow I feel she is arguing that feminism needs to save women, yet again, from those evil men. I think it can’t be overstated that the vast, vast majority of the problem she describes is not caused by men but is actually the result of feminist overreach.
Actually, women get accused of similar things - when I rejected brainwashing at the university some 30 years ago I was accused of "blaming the victim" and internalized misogyny. I think this author probably gets some of the same criticism, but she's on a site that is open to her message. Also, more and more people are waking up to what was once obvious. I don't think she is blaming men here - I could be wrong, but it might just be a sensitivity on your part due to so many decades (I assume) of unfair criticism you've suffered as a man. I'm sorry you and your kind have been so wrongly criticized. The world is just full of paradoxes.
I understand your frustration. I came of age in the sexual revolution. I entered college in a technical field that was essentially all male 7 women out of 700 men). My jobs were mostly male dominated. I dealt with serious racism and sexism issues all the time. Once the police had to be called in. I fought for women’s and minorities careers for decades. I had women who worked for me careers flourish. However I would also hesitate to ever call out the “hook up” culture because I would have been accused of backwards religious thinking. It pained me enormously to see the wreckage it led to. I have been married 47 years to the one and only man I have been with and I raised our three children to value themselves and wait for their mate. They have. I volunteered in a rape and abuse crisis center and was heartsick at how our culture has led to such grief. But even with my personal experience, even with my accomplishments of championing womens careers and even with the pain and courage of calling out sexism in the workplace I ever never felt comfortable in challenging this culture in a public way. So it is not just that you are a man. I think it took a person like ms Perry to do this. She has the technical background to do and understand the research. It took time to develop the data to prove this in a world who values “science “ over historical wisdom. I thank my parents to give me the upbringing to allow me to navigate this time taking advantage of its benefits yet escape its excesses.
I’m 63 and I really grew up during the sexual revolution . For many years we thought it was wonderful , that the notion of a “slut” would disappear and we could engage freely in recreational sex. Don’t forget, we now had the birth control pill to stave off any unwanted pregnancies . But, in the end, it was all a mirage. Women and men do approach sex differently and no matter how much we tried to convince ourselves that the “sex” was great, there was always an underlying hope that these guys would really like us. Our rationale was , here we are, a group of intelligent, sexual people. Surely the men would appreciate that. Only, they didn’t. And time after time we started to feel empty, and undeserving of love. It was because even though as women we felt free, men never looked at it that way. It took me many years to figure this out, that even though we felt we were in control of everything, sadly the rest of society did not agree with us.
You are spot on. Men are driven by evolution to try and spread their seed around. Women bear children and are driven by evolution to have a stable home life so their offspring will survive and flourish.
These are two vastly different evolutionary drives.
Evolution is racist and genderist. Genetics can't be discussed, just feelings.
I feel you are right.
Very well put LP.
You don't really know men or understand them. You should probably talk to some of them, and then listen. It's called sharing.
You should not use glittering generalities and debate me with specifics. Prove me wrong with a point by point response. Tell me that many species of mammals do not have dominate males who are the only males that breed within their herd or group.
Well in human relations you are starting off with 'mammals' when discussing human communication and behavior. That's a good specific to get you in the ballpark for a discussion.
Also do not ask another person what is needed to satisfy your judgement of right or wrong in a fluid discussion. That is another flaw in understanding. Why don't you try listening?
Simply put- I am a man. I believe you are a woman, (could be wrong), and you specifically put out a nonsense theory about men. I do not have a single male friend or acquaintance that remotely believes or practices your theory about 'the seed' theory.
It is actually as obtuse and comical as Archie Bunker's 'rib theory'... that theory being that women behave a certain way because they want the rib back from men according to the Adam & Eve story in the bible.
I named several species where the dominate male is the only one who breeds with the females. Once again you gave me generalists. From now on, I will refuse to answer your posts.
You use the same tactics that leftists use when I try to debate them. Their answers, like yours are vague and not to the point and then they degenerate into calling me names. They do this because they cannot refute me. I am not saying you can't refute, you just won't.
Or maybe its just that evolution is bullshit.
The evolutionary drives are the same, as you point out.
The asymmetry is that there is very little cost for a man to impregnate a woman compared to the cost for a woman to get pregnant. Given access to enough women, one man could father thousands of children during his life, whereas the average woman can bear roughly ten (maybe fifteen?) children during her life. So, most women can ill afford to spend a year or more bearing the child of a low-quality male.
Given that, “spread your seed” can be a viable option for a man to reproduce, but the same strategy would be a disaster for a woman.
Even though technology (abortion and contraception) dramatically reduces the risk to women of disease and of bearing the offspring of low-quality males, it doesn’t change the evolutionary drives that have developed over thousands of generations. So, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if most women are not interested in the idea of frequent promiscuous sex with random men.
Low Quality males. what a great description. I see young males (and some females) stealing . rioting , grabbing.. now we have "flash mob break ins and every time I wonder. who are their parents. how did they come to be.. where do they go after the deed is done and how many will celebrate with random sex. or violent sex.. who are the women involved and how do they see themselves and how much of that will result in a "baby momma"that perpetuates the cycle
Can we drop the “baby momma” reference. It is racist.
umm no. it is a common term used in daily life just like "who's your daddy" but if you think it is racist by all means. dont use it
So, I lived in the 70s-80s (age 14-34) and Devo had it right. We, as a species have been devolving, from a pure Darwinian definition, at least physically, in that it's no longer 'survival of the fittest'. We keep people alive, that in earlier centuries would have been culled by disease, or other weak genetic profiles. Those weak genetic profiles, that would have been culled a couple hundred years ago, are still around in our gene pool. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's just a 'thing'.
Unfortunately, the other component is mental evolution, and unfortunately, that can't be discussed because it's taboo to study mental capacity at the genetic level at all in a comparative sense. You'll lose tenure, publishing rights, and be unemployed.
I think the point was that for women, the idea seemed great, but the reality has turned out not to be so. Same urges, vastly different consequences. Attention must be paid to consequences.
100%
The drive is not to have as many children as possible. The drive is for sex. And as a guy, I can tell you that from youth to at least early middle age, that drive is crazy powerful. I can remember being totally unable to concentrate once, in an 11th grade English class that I loved, and, once it was over, making a beeline to the nearest bathroom, one in which others might be present, to address that craving, despite never before having done so outside of the privacy of my own room, or in the shower.
The drive comes from the fact that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were polyamorous, such that the guys with the most powerful desire were the ones most likely to have descendants. (See Sex at Dawn, by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha.)
that drive is crazy powerful.
I am 63. About 15 years ago, I started having frank conversations about sex with close female friends. None. Zero. Zip. Nada had any clue about what you just described. They thought men”liked” sex more than women. One friend, an MD, was so sceptical she went home and asked her husband of 25 years if he’d been like that, and was stunned when he said yes.
We discussed the vagaries of female sexuality too. Especially after marriage/kids. Executive Summary: Men can’t turn it off. Women can’t turn it on (though they wish they could). It is of course more complicated than that. Maybe I should submit a guest essay to Bari! 😊
I've got six years on you. It's funny--I've never thought of talking about the ridiculous level of desire with women. I'll have to have some of those conversations! I've known a few women who had particularly high drives, but plenty of others who had plenty of libido without being driven crazy by it. And I've been told by women, "a lot of men say they like sex, you REALLY do."
Ya I agree with this. I am now 41 and feel the drive slowing down but when I was between the ages of 20-30 I just felt totally and endlessly consumed by the desire for sex and the sensation of orgasm. Extremely "primal" and "base" but also very real and very powerful.
Thank you for being honest.
The proximate drive may be for sex, but the evolutionary pressure is to propagate your DNA, which in turn means producing as many offspring as possible who also produce offspring.
My second paragraph addresses the evolutionary pressure.
At the same time, young men have developed an out of control rage against young women who won't sleep with them (see the incel community and the "pick up artist" gurus) while also maintaining the age old contempt and disgust for women who *do* have sex. There really is no way to win.
I'd just add that male and female hormones haven't changed for many thousands of years, but changes in cultural norms have allowed each gender to feel less hesitance of acting against prior 'norms'
50K years ago, there were humans as smart as we are today but with no wisdom other than what tribal elders passed to them. Today, we think we're so much smarter, but we aren't. Today we're just much wiser, but not as wise as future generations.
If we were truly wise, we would look to the traditions and norms of our ancestors to inform our present day decisions. There is much wisdom in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, and in our old traditions. What we currently seem to have in abundance is hubris and narcissism.
We'll put, sadly.
Rick you're failing to acknowledge child support the complexity of single parenting, how that impacts males.
Directing a lot of logic to the serial impregnator theory, which is extremely rare in carrying to full term, is a false road to travel down. It also stereotypes the vast majority of males who father children incorrectly.
It’s different strategies. For instance, a male fathers 1000 children, but because he’s not around to help raise them 95% die. That’s still 50 offspring. A woman may have 10, say, and an 80% survival rate, that’s 8 offspring.
A salmon may lay 1000 fertilized eggs and casts them to the currents.A bear has one or two cubs that she fully invests in. Similar here.
Yes! 68% of children still live in two parent households, so plenty of men are invested in their children's upbringing.
No, males want to spread their seed as widely as possible and will drive away other males to gain breeding opportunities, but females are selective, they want to mate with the strongest, best providers and protectors, so their offspring have a better chance to reach adulthood.
What part of Texas?
San Antonio
Being a frog, did you go to TCU.
Evolutionary biologists do not agree with your statement in the human species. The reason is the huge differential between the sexes in the investment required. Men can father multiple children in a single day; women must choose a mate and then forego other possibilities for reproducing for at least 9 months. Women must be more selective than men.
You are correct but I am correct also. They are both in play. Time and time again nature shows us both to be correct. Horses, turkeys, primates, wolves have a dominate male that breeds with a hareem of females.
Lonesome, the drive is for sex, not children. See my post currently about five above.
That is true but the result is children. In some cultures, the parents are driven to have as many children as possible and in China to have as many males as possible.
Some believe this drive is old age insurance.
It certainly used to be old age insurance, back before Social Security, and still is to some extent. My two siblings and I certainly helped out when my parents began getting sick--not financially, as our parents both had good pensions, but just being there. My father lived with my sister after he became moderately disabled and mildly demented from a stroke. He lived for around a year with her. He probably would have died much quicker if he hadn't lived with family. Nothing obviously killed him, but he was definitely getting tired of living, and he'd begun asking if he was going to see our mother in heaven (she'd died first). And, he died 3 years to the hour since she'd had the stroke that led to her death 9 months later.
Please explain how women's children are more likely to survive if the women mate with many different males. It seems like the tricky part has always been encouraging males to bond longer term with their progeny to help insure their survival.
I’m not sure what your point is in relation to my question or this article. Genetic diversity is served simply by not mating with close relatives, not by women having a different father for every child. Group ownership of anything results in suboptimal care for the thing shared -- see the tragedy of the commons. But to down-date this to the present article and current millennium, are you saying that women’s happiness or genetics are better served by women who don’t seek strong relationships with men they perceive to be genetically superior, loyal and personally compatible?
Tell it to Genghis Khan: https://go.nature.com/3puKHlf
What is wrong with limiting sex to a loving relationship that is meaningful and long-standing? Why is promiscuity natch a good thing?
I don’t believe that was the point of my article . Nothing wrong with what you wrote at all, it’s just that we hoped we could kind of be like men, sex for enjoyment
As a man (49) it’s definitely food for thought and I enjoyed the article. I’m one of those who looking back wishes I had approached sex differently when I was younger. Definitely influenced by my older brother and had the Casanova mindset for a few years when I was a young man. But honestly even for me then it was not fulfilling either, have always been much happier in all respects (not just sexually) when I’m in a committed loving relationship.
It doesn’t mean that a primal urge never appears but it’s easier to tamp such thoughts down when one remembers the less fun aspects of casual sex. In particular when the act was over, now what? Awkwardness and shame is what I often felt regardless of the amazing physical high…Just not worth it for me.
Personally, I find that repugnant. To me, sex has always been and should always be an expression of love, rather than a physical act that gives you satisfaction like taking a dump.
Well then, maybe you’ve just never had fabulous sex, which is too bad because it can be absolutely spectacular 💥
How can that be your conclusion from what he said? Sex combined with love is much more satisfying than just sex.
Because he compared it to going to the bathroom , I never said sex with love isn’t more satisfying, but to use his comparative , I 100% stand by what I wrote.
Very arrogant reply. Nowhere in Rick’s observation is there a focus on quality of sex as the deciding point. Far too much emphasis on the sex act in this whole discussion as well as the social phenomenon it’s based on, and far too little on quality and purposes of good relationship between men and women, based on RESPECT and appreciation of our roles in maintaining an enduringly positive, productive society
Arrogant? Rick compared casual sex to a bowel movement and the reason for the discussion is supposed to be in response to the article which is centred around sex. There are several tangents that have evolved, but they have nothing to do with me or my views. If you read my first response you would see that. Please choose your words carefully.
This. Spectacular indeed! Here’s a difference, though: For guys, almost any sex feels good. For women, some sex does not. It’s painful, or demeaning, or leads to feelings of guilt. But they did it because they felt pressured, despite not being “in the mood.”
This is a big part of Louise Perry’s realization. In general, sex for men and women is simply not an equal construct.
And what’s left over after he or you just walk away?
Rick, as I stated those few years when I was younger that I treated it more casually I did and especially now do have regrets. I’m an imperfect man but I do genuinely try to be a good person and do the right things. Having said that I would never equate sex to anything remotely akin to defecating. Sex is an amazing thing, it’s just far more fantastic when done with someone you know backwards and forward, someone you truly love and cherish.
I can’t erase the past, but I can and did learn from it. My sexuality will never be something casual again and I am happy to see more young people like the author coming to the same conclusion and being willing to share this realization as it would be great if many could avoid the same mistakes.
That's a terrible analogy.
Exactly right. We thought we could do it too, but we were let down by that line of thinking. It hasn’t worked out like the generation who brought it about had hoped.
Totally right 🙁
Promiscuity isn't and never was a good thing, but young people especially are incited to it by popular culture. Stupid, stupid tv shows like "Sex and the City" which dressed empty lives up in pretty dresses, put them in attractive apartments in NYC and called it 'empowerment'.
The problem for women in hookup culture: when it’s done you still have him inside of you, but he doesn’t have you inside of him. It can never be symmetric.
Brevity is the soul of wit. Well phrased, :)
No truer words.....I'm totally stealing that! Thanks Bob!
Michael Gurian wrote about for the last 2 1/2 decades: The Wonder of Boys.....: A Fine Young Man...; Boys and Girls Learn Differently...; What could he be thinking?: How A Man's Mind Really Works....and many more. He talks about the differences in boys and girls brains and how boys process sex through pleasure (which as we know is momentary) and girls through the emotional sector of the brain. It's been a while since I've read him, but as we raised one of each, I've learned to talk about sex with them through this lens.
I am the same age and had the same experience. Also the role of pornography' is not discussed enough I came of age when most men did not have access to graphic pornography as access to hardcore pornography have grown men's expectations of sex have changed and not in a good way for women.
Bingo.
As a male who came of age in the 70s, be careful what you wish for........
Girls and women are called and considered "sluts" just as much now, if not more so. There is a complete lack of respect for and contempt for women who have sex, just as there always has been. The "revolution" did nothing to change those attitudes.
Men who bed multiple women are call studs. Women who bed multiple men are called sluts.
It is not fair but then life isn't fair.
Exactly
That goes to the point someone else made which is consensual sex is ALWAYS the choice of the woman, otherwise it's rape. In addition, women have sold sex for money; it's a transaction. Because I (and researchers much smarter than I) believe that women's and men's brains are wired differently particularly in response to sex, (pleasure for men and emotion for women) the pejorative has stuck.
Knowing that sex can lead to a variety of transmitted diseases (ie. Monkeypox), you'd think human nature would demand more protective instincts but in the last two decades it's been all about the hook up culture.
Asserting your independence and feminism can absolutely be expressed in a million ways other than free sex.
Most young women don't even identify as feminists, so I doubt that is a major motivation. There are also many young women who hate hookup culture, but they aren't confident about how to find men to date elsewhere.
I know many of those women including my daughter and most of her friends. She's never been about hook up culture and now at 21 has her first boyfriend. She always said she wanted to date to marry--meaning the man had to marriageable. When they were dating, but not yet exclusive, her boyfriend described her to his friends as "the smartest, coolest girl in civil engineering."
My daughter doesn't feel the need to define herself in the accepted/expected nomenclature. And I agree that there are a lot more like her out there. I think they like the anonymity.
You’re so right.
I've never understood why females wanted to adopt male lifestyles, which historically, has resulted in males dieing five years earlier. I do get the whole workplace equity thing, but not the lifestyle.
I understand your feelings. I still have a couple of questions. How do you know the young man did not wish to be liked? How do you know the sex was not appreciated?
I don’t believe in sex with people that I like. I like lots people. I believe in sex with people,I love.
You’re dreaming. Women have all the rights. Custody is almost a given. Child support as well. They have the unilateral right to aborting a child their partner may want. They have politicians screeching about equal pay for less experience and computing pay disparities based upon completely different circumstances. Your daughters just make,lousy choices, it would appear.
We all thought that no-fault divorce was the greatest invention ever; after all, who wants to be in an unhappy marriage? Like all things, though, there is a yin and a yang to it - yes, it lets people ditch an unhappy marriage as easily as changing underwear, but it also eliminates the incentive to tough it out through the rough patches. Society has a vested interest in maintaining stable families; no-fault divorce and the Great Society's provision for women to marry the government and cut out the middle man has damaged those nuclear families irreparably. Just ask a black scholar like Tom Sowell, and lately, Candace Owens.
Tired of your partner? Yearning to see "the other side?" Got your panties in a wad? Then just bail - that's all there is to it. And if you have a child, you get the dual delights of a monthly payment and the ability to deny that sonofabitch to see his children.
No, marriage is a legal contract - nothing more. As I said to another poster in a private email, with those few words of promise you give the State the right to stick its long nose up your backside a foot and to alter your life forever. I used to think that Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell had the oddest, most unhealthy arrangement ever; now I think it is the only way to go. I would advise neither of my two sons ever to marry; the downside risk is just too high. (edited for grammar and clarity)
Society has a vested interest in stable marriages?
Marriage as an institution is the cornerstone of a well ordered society. And since the 1960s the US has gone out of it’s any to destroy the nuclear family unit for political reasons.
The social welfare programs of the Great Society actually targeted the nuclear family unit, intentionally or effectively. You want out of your mother’s house? Have a baby. Who cares if the father hangs around. As a matter of fact, he better not, or you’ll lose benefits. The first time I clearly saw this dynamic was in the movie Claudine in 1974, as a sneak preview to the z three z Musketeers. It’s all about a single black mother (Diahann Carroll) who hides her lover (James Earl Jones) from the social service worker who visits the house to make sure there’s no extra source of income available so that benefits could be reduced or eliminated. The welfare cheats were actually the hero of the piece while the people looking to make sure that the rules were being followed were the villains. Now? They don’t even do home visits.
Just file and you get housing benefits, SNAP benefits (now on debit cards rather than the old booklets that said food stamps on them, so you aren’t embarrassed at being incapable or disinterested in feeding your own family), and a monthly check.
And you wonder why the number of households headed by single mothers soar. Why there is no father in the house to set an example of going to and coming home from a days hard work. Who can provide discipline. Why they concentrate in blue liberal cities, where they WANT needful people so they can be viewed as the provider of life’s necessities while the other guys want to take it away from them. They take their votes and then disappear until the next election. They don’t care that these urban cores are the new softer form of slavery with the cities being todays plantations.
And same sex marriage?
Marriage was an institution created to encourage families, where a woman has a child and a the hunter/provider man takes care of them. There is a reason why there was so many benefits accorded to married couples in the tax and other laws - to encourage the formation of families.
Not this crazy stuff you see today, with two same sex people incapable of providing the same kind of examples and guidance that a mother and father can give. All this crazy speed and aegg donations create unnatural families - either the real mom or the real dad isn’t there. Either any mom or any dad isn’t there. These kids are raised in anomalous conditions just because gays want children for themselves, regardless of the effect upon those children.
Society does have an interest I. Stable marriages. But they trashed them
What helps create a stable society? Does same sex marriage? I believe it can. Males and females (not on food stamps) might marry and create traumatic families.
There is a reason that people - and other creatures - were created in two genders (OMG, did I commit a crime in saying that?), where one carries a sperm and one carries an egg. There is a reason why men evolved to be larger and stronger than women, why women are born with bigger hips.
And it is natural and rational for the two beings who physically and genetically created these children to feel an obligation and responsibility to nurture and care for such children, providing what each can based upon the differences imbedded in them. That was the basis for our social order for millennia. It was and is the bedrock of a well ordered society.
As the 1970s Chiffon margarine commercial used to say “it’s not nice to fool nature”.
A male father and a female mother creating a child together, caring for it, bringing to bear the softness and caring of a mother and the toughness and real world reality of a father had been the rule since before they chiseled those tablets at Sinai.
But these days we have people who want what they want when they want it. Be it dependency in lieu of work (let ‘s call it “entitlements” so they don’t feel badly), envy of the guy next door who makes a lot of money because he put his mind to it, or gays who want what other people can create, so they do it through non traditional means and don’t even consider the effect of intentionally depriving the child of balanced parenthood and all the benefits that come with it. After all, they WANT it.
Yikes. Would you say that to an infertile married couple who uses IVF with a sperm or egg donor? That the “real” parent isn’t there?
Heterosexual parents aren’t a monolith and neither are gay parents. It’s not hard to find good or bad examples in either set.
Generally speaking, gay or straight, marriage promotes stability in families and communities. Fortunately, there’s an escape hatch if it turns out you’ve married a toxic or abusive partner. These things don’t always reveal themselves in advance.
" I would advise neither of my two sons ever to marry; the downside risk is just too high. (edited for grammar and clarity)"
That is very sad. You would be depriving them of life's greatest joy and depriving yourself of the joys of grandchildren & a large, healthy, stable family.
You should advise your sons to Marry Wisely. Both for their own happiness & for yours. The goal is to have descendents (as many as possible) & children to carry on your name.
Marry women who have good family values. A good place to find such women would be church or any such organization with good family values.
Boy are you so right. I'm not religious, but a very-much-so friend and I discuss things like this quite often. A lifelong atheist, I'm afraid I boxed myself out from a good source of marriageable material; nowadays - still an unbeliever - I've come to believe exactly what you say.
Also unfortunately, both my kids are atheists too. I don't think I have done them any favors.
You don't have to be a religious believer to have "family values." I am an atheist and still believe in the nuclear family, fidelity, and the raising of children with good values and a desire to be good citizens.
No fault divorce also decreases the care before getting INTO marriage. People get married with the expectation that they can get out of it if they don't like it. People will take more care if it is harder to get out of it.
I benefited from no fault divorce. I met the love of my life when she was 19 and I was 29. I had no idea that I had a chance with her; she was crazy beautiful and very intelligent. But she got married at age 25 to a very dishonest (but very charming) man that she did not really love. 12 years into her marriage she confessed that she was in love with me. So no fault divorce worked in OUR case...I don't know if it is a good factor for society as a whole.
holly cow!
????
Rick, please take a breath. Maybe in your anger you read something into golfer’s comments that he didn’t actually write. He just said his daughters got a raw deal. Not to say that young men are getting a great deal. Well, maybe the guys that just want to sleep around and never have a purpose above their belts are doing ok - as they see it. I would hate live my life in a way that my greatest achievement in life consisted in a large number of sexual encounters where I used women for my pleasure.
Our law and customs hurt men, women and children. Maybe some get a short term benefit, but in the long run we all get hurt. Badly.
Golfer did not say his daughters made any poor choices. just that society has pressured them to be different ..as for women having ALL of the rights.. that is somewhat true when we see the VP of the USA.. a SCOTUS that does not know what a woman is. and so on
What a joke. I only hope you aren't one of those people who stews in resentments and misogyny until he picks up an assault rifle. Please get help.
Ah! The ad hominem comes out, exposing the lack of argument and the presentation of emotion.
First of all, when looking at my POV, you will see that it brims with traditional values. YOUR people were the angry ones, marching in the streets, threatening SCOTUS judges which is a Federal felony, seeking to change norms under the threat of cancellation in c9ncertmwithnyiurmfriemds in the media and Hollywood. Your people were the ones who refused to recognize Trump’s election, shopped around for faithless electors and then called out others for dong the same. Yours were the people who supported DAs that let out criminals with no bail so that they can commit more felonies, as your cohorts rioted, burned and killed in the streets screaming pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon, demanding that the police be defunded. Funny how the extreme misconduct of the FEDERAL police in the service of your political friends didn’t call for similar action.
The anger is all yours - it is and was anger at traditional values that made this country what it is. A country that saved the world from itself twice in less than 40 years. The country that all your friendly illegal aliens are attracted to.
Assault rifles as you know, but lie in using the term, are not available to civilians in the US. Period. That’s been the case since the days of Dillinger and Bonnie & Clyde. But you know that too. What you call “assault weapons” are scary looking weapons that act like a traditional hunting rifle. One trigger pull, one bullet. Charles Whitman used an even more powerful weapon shooting 31 people in 90 minutes for the tower of the U of Texas in 1966 - 57 years ago.
But as to death by gun, look no further than your own political co- religionists for 99% of the blame.
Oh you love misdirection. Forget about the fact that only 4% of shooting deaths in the US occur with rifles. You HAVE to forget that. Because otherwise, you’ll have to face up to the misery in the urban cores where so much of death by gun occurs - right in the heart of blue cities and states where people are purposefully kept in downtrodden communities with lousy schools, violence, drug use, single mother homes and loads of dependency transfer payments.
You don’t care that your side has creates such a dependent, miserable and violent class of people - you count on it to take their votes and then forget about them. And they are left with your message of anger, envy and resentment, so they pick up a gun, start selling drugs, forget about school and kill and rape each other. That’s just your cost of doing business.
I hope you’re proud.
You don't know anything about me or what I support or don't support. I don't know who you're talking to or about, but it isn't me. I suggest Risperdal.
Aren’t you sweet
Rick, I’m reading your posts here completely as bitter. I’m sorry you’ve had such a rough time with women post Sexual Revolution. Pardon me, but it sounds like *you* are the one who made “lousy choices.”
I recognize the pain that men and boys are suffering these days. Any boy-mom or anyone who loves boys knows this. Misogyny doesn’t help your issue.
This essay is expressing how the Sexual Revolution was a sick bill of goods for women, and meanwhile, destroyed the social and familial environment for men—while appealing and appeasing the Lowest Common Denominator in society.
That somehow behaving sexually with the *worst* of men, was “liberating” to women. Your bitterness does not address the reality of what decent women and men face that Golfer is talking about, that my generation and younger face everywhere. In fact your bitterness is a symptom of the Sex Rev’s catastrophic effects. Your anger is misdirected. Let’s ask who was responsible to selling the Sex Rev to society. And kindly remove your microscope from yourself.
You’re very funny…..I’ve been married to the same woman for. 40 years. I have three daughters who successfully navigated the sexual revolution without becoming promiscuous.
Who sold the bill of goods to EVERYONE? That’s the issue. Like typical leftists, you focus on women because they are classic victims whose victimhood can be milked for votes.
But women and me. Walk into a bedroom with equality in terms of choices. Of course, in the event of pregnancy, women walk out with just about all them rights and power, but that’s another story.
You write, as did the author, thst women are mentally or emotionally weak and can be fooled by quasi (look up the word) used car salesmen into having sex with the “bad boys”.
Women - decent, smart, whatever - know enough to keep their clothes on and hightail it away from the bad boys. My wife and daughters did. My sister did.
How little you think of women - like lemmings who run into the arms of bad boys.
What caused the breakdown of the social unit? Lots of things.
The Great Society made it profitable to have babies to get out of your mothers house with full free benefits. That basically destroyed the urban cores. And it bled outside to everyday Americans.
The 60s were a dangerous time - turn on, tune in, drop out was a big deal. The summer of love in 1967 got huge play across the US. Then the ultimate birth control process became universally available - abortion on demand - that allowed women to erase their mistakes with a simple d&c.
Hollywood started showing nudity and simulated sex nationwide. The Golden Age of Porn arose at the same time.
The 60s were a deadly time for families and decency in America.
Am I bitter? Not really. My family had the values to resist the craziness going on around them. No sluts, no drug addicts, no one running away to Canada to avoid the draft.
But it was the decade thst America took the wrong turn that we continue to pay for to this day.
Agree!
My 21 yo daughter is newly dating a young man and my mother/her grandmother said to her "stay a lady no matter how much it hurts". I had to deconstruct that a bit for her, but it's a fact that it is really up to my daughter. Having said that, I also teach my son to be a gentleman.
You’re funnier…not quite as smart as you think you are! You should look more closely at my profile pic for example, before you call me a leftist interested in profiting from the glorification of the victim. LOL XD
And then you might read how much we are on the same page, but you are much more vindictive in your attitudes here.
Accusing Golfer’s daughters of making “lousy choices”! When he was describing the cesspool they have to swim in that all good girls have to endure since your rowdy 60s youth that I’m sure you thoroughly enjoyed. We’ve been harassed and violated by precocious male classmates since before we knew what sex was. Puh-lease. You would never know what that is like. Though I’m sure you’ve detailed your own victimizations well. And then you advise your grandsons “not to marry”— because there are no good women left you imply! LOLOLOLOL You’re just reversing the roles and playing Man-Victim! Not attractive. There are good men and good women and both groups are suffering. Wake up. Have a smarter day.
Actually my advice isn’t based upon no good girls left. Rather it’s because of the uneven playing field in Family Court. Women almost always get physical custody even if they work full time and hire nannie’s. Spousal support is common and typically goes one way. I prefer the Goldie Hawn/Kurt Russell model.
Golfer- A large portion of what I have noticed with our daughters, is that ignoring the parent, ignoring the family, ignoring support and structure- is being taught as a virtue for young women. This is being defined as strength for them, when instead it is isolating them from external forms of support that all human being require.
It's horrendous advice for any young person male or female. But those delivering the advice- love to give with a pompous passion.
I don't want to "love" your comment. As a woman and a mother, I'm very sorry those things happened to your daughters. I've had my share of not wonderful things happen to me, as a woman, beginning in my teens. I didn't have the benefit of parental guidance or support.
My sons were just not raised to be that way and have had struggles finding girls that want a nice guy. They all have good hearts. My middle son took his beautiful best friend to his Senior Prom. He was the only guy her parents would trust. He's 24, now, and I truly wish someone would see the great guy that he is and appreciate him. But, the college age girls he was in class with...they seemed to want the jerks. I hope they grow out of that phase.
Where does he live? I have a 23 yr old daughter that would love to meet a nice guy. 😉She doesn’t date at all! But then again, I’ve also heard mothers of young adult sons with the same lament.
I had a very frustrating few years watching guys who said they "hated drama" and were "done with crazy" go straight for crazy.
I also went for a jerk because if you can't beat em, join em. I think it's human nature to want a challenge but I do think most people grow out of it.
I'll bet your kiddo meets someone great!
The assault on fatherhood as evil and toxic, the painting of positive masculine stewardship of the home as patriarchal oppression, the removal of fathers from the home by the we're getting vengeance on men, you'll never see your child again, pay the lawyer divorce court system, did exactly what Marxist lesbian feminism intended. It destroyed the family.
"Toxic" masculinity is nor nearly as poisonous as the distortion of, and psychosis on the hoof created by feminism around the human sexual, "sleeping with the enemy" "why can't we hate men", weaponized feminist destruction of the male/female relationship. Most young women today have never encountered the positive masculine nor, have most young men. Most don't have fathers. Marxist feminism (at a profit) created the kangaroo court D.E.I. commissariat and the boys should be girls, girls should be boys ring in the nose blue haired butchery of sexuality now being force fed to kindergartners. Likewise, the "brave new world", snip those dicks, remove those breasts profit center. The article maintains the same us vs. them perspective that has always characterized feminism. The feminist, who needs men and fathers, destruction of the American social fabric, can be seen in the gang murders and mass shootings we witness every day.
A good look at the narcissism of professional feminist exploitation can be seen in the "mattress girl" airball. The feminist commissariat continued to support lies and accusations of sexual assault against a young man despite his being proven innocent. Then encouraged the young woman to maintain her victim status by parading the campus with a mattress tied to her back and celebrating her quasi-BDSM art exhibitions as cutting edge. After maximum exploitation in the feminist press she was discarded and she bottomed out posting sexual re-enactments of the supposed crime on porn sites. Feminism didn't give a f'k about either the young woman or young man whose lives it destroyed.
Pay me Marxist elite professional feminism couldn't wait to ally itself with big brother WEF/CCP totalitarian financial feudalism. Arrest for thought crimes in Europe and Canada, the seizure of a citizens personal finances, attempts to destroy farmsteads and small business all spring from the "I married the state" poor me victimhood feminism used to gain power while subverting rather than enhancing the masculine/feminine relationship. The passive-aggressive, kangaroo court D.E.I. anonymous complaint pile on, he made me "anxious" accusation, destroy that livelihood and career, character assassination, sue that institution for big cash and move on, micro-aggression, you can't say that, no free speech P.C. grift is all feminist in origin.
In the 80's the mens movement foretold the coming perpetual stunted childhood and violence of today's adolescent. The toxic soup young women and men encounter on today's campus is the direct result of the feminist attack on those pushing for healthy dialogue and the exploration of rite of passage healthy masculinity and the promotion of conscious stewardship by young men in society, culture and family. Thank God your daughter had a father capable of helping her confront the problem, ugly as it was, and find a solution, uncomfortable as it was, to not be overwhelmed by a compromised anti-human institution.
I had no idea what came of "mattress girl". What an astonishing descent. And she is precisely the reason why (and now especially with Biden rescinding the due process granted men on campus the right to fight accusations of rape or sexual assault) we've talked to our son so much about sex, drinking, sex and drinking, etc.
Wasn't what happened to your daughter in the dorm text book sexual harassment? It's against the law? How can that not be against school policy and the law and for the school to do nothing about it, regardless of any housing policies. You all should've reported it to the police and filed a criminal case!
Great comment. My "like" is not registering.
This thought will no doubt be deemed ridiculous but there is a lot to be said for chaperone's.
Bingo. Horrifying. The stories abound. When a “friend”— from church at that!— hit on me sexually, at 12, at our lockers, I was scarred for years. Violated vicariously. It was the early 90s. That was just the beginning. Where did this little boy learn this? From MTV. The music. The movies, the television, the worsening video games. And all my peers were sucked in. And who put this sewage out there? Adults. For children and teens to swim in and drink up.
Where was love? A silly dream for prepubescent princesses? Today we have the most cynical teens ever seen. Thank you, Sex Rev.
Who could a good girl date? What would be the guy’s expectations? The epidemic of “trans” girls— they are just opting out of a hypersexualized society. Boys too, have been tremendously harmed by the Sex Rev. We’ve lost as much or more than we gained. Let’s pray.
I have 3 sons (23, 24, 31). None of them have treated a girl like that. Ever. My 31 year old son's HS girlfriend broke up with him, after they graduated, and went after another guy. Then, she tried to use my son to make the other guy jealous. He got himself out of that situation. Then, during college, she decided she was into girls. At some point, she went back to dating guys.
All of our "kids" need to know themselves and seek out healthy relationships.
Your reply pretty much puts a kabosh on the whole article’s intent.
Women DO have power and do know how to use it if and when it suits them.
There is no asymmetry to power. Both sexes wield it equally.
Manipulation is not "power"
I'm sorry, but women are in total control of the mate selection process. It's even more true than ever.
Feminism has programmed women to think that they need to engage in sex as freely as men. That makes women a lot more available for "casual sex" than they otherwise would be.
Third Wave feminism. Not any of the feminism before that.
Prior to the era of feminism, women were taught that having sex before marriage tarnished them, so they were less available for casual sex than they would otherwise have been. It is harmful for young men and women to be taught differently about sex.
I have a decade-younger sister. She asked me about the birds and the bees. I explained it to her, including that it (sex) is pleasurable. "Did you ever get that feeling with anyone?" she asked me. "Yes," I said (I was 18 at the time.) Who, she wanted to know. I told her "I think you can guess." (It was pretty obvious, as we'd made use of my bedroom for our trysts.)
Her first time was definitely not with a love match, but she's now been married for 30 or 31 years, and her oldest (son) just got engaged.
Considering that casual sex has--until the advent of birth control drugs and antibiotics--been much riskier for women than it is for men, what kinds of strategies would it be logical for societies develop to discourage women from engaging in casual sex?
Historically, taboos have served a protective purpose for societies. That's why they develop. I don't buy into the notion that sexual taboos arose only because "the Patriarchy" wanted to control women's sexuality. Mothers are just as capable of developing taboos to protect their daughters from bad choices as any father is.
Taboos...
Whether "casual sex" or sex with someone the girl/young woman met and seems to think "likes" her/is her boyfriend in the moment - much has changed. Now that I have kids in college I am appalled by the amount of performative sex where the roommate is in the bed opposite trying to "play dead" even as she feels trauma. These kids (performing) do not have consideration for the roommate or respect for themselves. What are your thoughts and I am sorry if I am writing a "Dear Abby" ? :)
The Amish had bundling.
In my youth, I did a lot of non-PinV to avoid the possibility of pregnancy. And then later, as a way of avoiding STIs with women I didn't know well yet, or prior to both getting tested.
No, no they're not
Depends on the male/female ratio of the locality. I would say it's true here in the San Francisco Bay area, where men outnumber women, but it definitely was not true in New York City where there may be more men but many of them are immigrants with wives back home. If you're a young white women in NYC you are out of luck if you didn't move there with a boyfriend.
Women are the more emotionally intelligent gender. They are the more manipulative gender.
Your problem is that skill in these areas follows a normal distribution (aka bell curve). You have a problem with the most manipulative men, so you write about them. The other 90% are invisible to you.
That’s true. Both my daughters have told me that they are teased for being virgins. One is 19 and the other 23.
No gender has a plus or minus on the other gender in regard to manipulation. A quality manipulative teenage girl can run circles around boys and girls alike.
You have no one to blame but the parents. My brothers and their wives have raised fantastic sons. They are all married with children and below 35 years of age. One has five children, from ages 1-7. Only the one year old is a girl. I don't doubt they will raise their sons the same way. And we are raising our son to be a strong, respectful, Christian young man.
Having a daughter too who tells us just what girls are willing to do to nab a young man will make your hair curl. It's all about choices.
Nothing against your choices in religion. But Christianity is not necesssary for raising good people. My world is populated mostly by atheists and and agnostics, as well as Jews, Mormons, and a few other Christians. There are a lot of very good people, and a lot of very good marriages.
Did I say there weren't? Wow, you need to check your reflexes.
I said, "You have no one to blame but the parents." Your rebuttal, besides saying I "couldn't be more wrong", is to say others also influence kids. No doubt, they do. You are welcome to "blame" the others you listed for how boys are being raised (not to the expectations of your daughters), but the parents are legally, ethically and morally responsibility for them 24/7 until age 18. As a parent, if you are struggling to parent your child, find others to help you; Boys and Girls Clubs, mentorship programs, after school programs. It is still your job as parent to do that. If you don't, your kid will fill the void with their own hand selected influencers. (Is this where we should talk about the parent who keeps their kid off social media until an "appropriate" age and then monitors all of it versus the parent who succumbs to the pressure of other bad parents and lets their kid do whatever?)
Rearing a child is our most important job. Once they become adults, hopefully the job we've started (because isn't over by any stretch) has provided the moral and ethical compass that will lead to good. My opinions are formed from experiences, even if anecdotal. Parents are and always will be the first teachers, mentors, and models of "acceptable" behavior.
Now define acceptable.
That is where parents and parenting diverge. You just have to take one look on social media or the news to see that.
Well it sounds like you're a solid parent which makes your daughters blessed/lucky (whatever term you prefer). The example they see is what they will look for and they will find it.
To the contrary, a small percentage of men are the way you describe, and the large majority are trying to date and getting rejected constantly because they have no idea how to play the game. You (and your daughters) are oblivious to that majority; they mean nothing to you, so they're not part of your discussion.
There is a book I would highly recommend for your daughters: The Rules Book: Time Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr Right.
This book changed my life. I was stuck in the hook up culture in my early 20's, feeling used, etc. The Rules showed me the way to a wonderful husband who treats me well. We have been happily married for 9+ years with 2 kids.
https://therulesbook.com/
Every young woman around 13 should be encouraged to read Ovid's tale of the rape of Philomela by her brother-in-law, Tereus. The tale provides an unforgettable description of what lies in the heart of mankind and resonates with a truth that few today would have the guts to acknowledge. Of course some men become civilised and are able to rise to their better instincts and are capable of a loving relationship. But women would do well to keep this cautionary tale in her handbag as a reminder of just what is walking around out there...
Now we get blaming from Mother. It is societies fault.Your daughters have choices to make.
All very good advice, but the core issue is women think this is about women. It’s not. It’s about men and their expectations of a woman.
Chivalry has to be taught to boys (men). Women are the ones who destroyed chivalry because they projected on themselves that they were regarded as inferior. Women need to teach their boys to be honorable. Boys need to see men who honor their wives and daughters.
As long as mothers raise sons who look at women as sex toys, no amount of advice on how to avoid problems will help. The help starts where the problem starts — mothers and fathers raising sons to truly respect and admire the innate qualities of a woman — women are very special.
Glad to see that women are finally waking up to the horse crap they were sold. Men need to do the same.
And if you think deconstructing gender roles will help, you are sorely misguided…
I have always felt that women lowered their standards to men and instead of raising men up to women's standards.
Exactly…
Take “Chivalry” for example:
Women could easily have said “hey, I’ve got so much power over you men that you are all obliged to open the door for me”. Instead they opted for: “don’t touch that door! what do you think I am? A girl?”
Women were sold the idea that you want the right to have sex like a man - totally unencumbered! And the pill made that possible…
So here we are…
and who told men that sex was meant to be completely unencumbered?
Two guesses and the first doesn’t count…
As an aside, my dad always walked on the outside of any of the women in our family down the sidewalk. I was so excited to call and tell him that I finally learned how that became a thing. Back in the days when women on just one dress (full length of course) and the horse and carriages came trotting by, if there were puddles the dirt/water splashed on the gent's leg rather than the woman's skirt. It's really so simple and so kind.
PS I just told my daughter who is newly dating that you want to see how he treats you (opening doors, etc) but also how he treats the servers, waiters, Uber drivers, etc. It says everything about how he'll treat the one he cares most for if he can treat strangers with such respect.
How interesting. I used to have a job working with ex-convicts. I ran into one of my clients, a convicted rapist, on the street one day. He insisted on buying me a cup of coffee and walking on the outside of the pavement. He had very good manners and lived in a nice Upper East Side apartment building.
Intelligent psychopaths and sociopaths are great mimics.
I suspect.having the garments of civility fool some, but as I have noted and visible in a neighboring comment, lacking grace and candor with others is more likely a better signal on how one will treat you over time. And why would you go to get coffee with a known rapist? Regardless of his manners?
I'm unsubscribing to this newsletter because of idiots like you. If you read the comment (maybe you don't read very well), he was my client and I ran into him while we were both walking to the program. In New York City, you don't necessarily "go get coffee" you just buy it at the corner bodega and drink it while you're walking somewhere. I can't explain my entire job to you but if you were able to use one scintilla of common sense you would be able to figure out that rejection of a small gesture isn't psychotherapeutic.
That's only partly right. It was also because chamber pots would be emptied in the streets and hit the man instead of the woman.
Also yaay hats
Kindness and respect is no longer allowed. :)
😔
The pill also free women from not having to marry someone they didn't love just because they got pregnant. It also freed them to wait a few years to marry so that they could get their education or pursue a career. Without the pill, women were slaves to their biology. I'm not saying that the goal of having unlimited promiscuous sex is legitimate - I don't think it is. But The Pill did a lot more good than bad.
“Did a lot more good than bad”… so poisoning a woman’s body so she can be sexually available to a man at all times, from the time she first hits puberty, does a lot more good than bad?
Look up NaturalWomanhood.org.
I’d recommend Pope Paul VI’s work “Humanae Vitae,” prophesying the catastrophic societal effects on women that the Pill would engender…but for 60 years people have ignored and excoriated him for being an old white religious man, i.e, clueless. I guess not.
It is now known that a major, if not principal, influence in the writing of "Humanae Vitae" was Karoł Wojtyła, himself greatly influenced by his friend the Polish doctor Wanda Półtawska, an extreme social conservative. The encyclical went against what the papal commission on contraception had recommended. The hardening position, if not fanaticism, of the Catholic Church regarding contraception and abortion over the past sixty years may well be the responsibility of these two.
Thank God!!!
I have my grandfather’s portrait of our Polish Pope still proudly on my wall! In fact he’s smiling down on me typing right now!
But I can see the direction you lean by the choice of your wordings— are you a Polish Communist??
I was raised to be chivalrous by both Mom and Dad, it wasn’t anything unusual about it in the time and place I learned this. It has frankly been harder for me to not help but be even though society has sorta frowned on it. For me it was never a disrespectful thing or about Patriarchal dominance, on the contrary it was because we were taught to respect women and elevate them over us in many ways. It would have been unimaginable for me to ask a woman to fight and die in a foreign conflict the way I was gladly willing to do so if our country needed me (even if not drafted). So this is a long winded way of agreeing with you. Woman didn’t improve their lot in life in that respect IMO. I’m thankful women have opportunities like never before but for me there perhaps will always be some things I will always deem as my duty and that of other men.
I too was raised with all of the chivalrous principles. What good did it do me? None. There is an equivalent to "Madonna/whore" syndrome for women; I call it "brother/lover" syndrome. As a young man, I was always chivalrous with my dates, and women in general. It nearly always got me put into the "brother" category. I was the one she called when her toilet backed up. When she wanted funtime, I wasn't on the list. I eventually gave up on dating for a while. The irony is, I met my wife of 28 years through video dating, the '90s equivalent of dating apps.
Boys today are raise to be subservient to women, and to suppress their masculinity. And women complain that they can't find any good men. Nobody seems to be able to put two and two together.
Your parents taught you well.
Pass it on…
Yip you right the lines have been blurred for both sexes since 21st century it’s even worse
I agree. When I met my husband in the 70’s he had to be taught some simple chivalry habits. When I talked to him about it he said he thought I would be insulted by opening the door for me. I have worked for almost 40 plus years to train into him what those early misguided years of feminism worked out of him. It is a mothers job to train but it is a fathers job to role model
You note that "mothers" are raising boys incorrectly, but then still blame the boys. Where are the fathers? Per the narrative, they are at fault, but in practice, they are often forced out.
Now, let's talk about how the standards for women have been lowered, because boy have they ever!
People traditionally blamed the mother when anything went wrong with the kids. It's always three things - the mother, the father, the inherent nature/biology of the child.
Frankly, everyone needs to be re-taught a lot of this. Sure, I grew up in a household that still respected women, and have raised my own kids that way. But, the line "mothers raise sons who look at women as sex toys" - really? I doubt there are very many mothers, as a percentage of the population, that do *that*.
There's no easy or fair way to lump all women and all men into one big block, because that's just not the case. But right now, men are, in general, playing defense. They're responding to the crazy that's going on around them, for both good or ill (in their opinion) - sure, they may like the easy sex, but men *need* women, just as much as women need men - in long lasting, and rewarding relationships.
And these days, particularly after the many overpublicized cases of rape that didn't happen, and the #METOO movement, and yes, the availability of easy sex, young men are left in a weird state of limbo, where their physiology tells them one thing, but society tells them another. And they are a lot less likely to even start the normal process of dating, since that may get them sent to HR, fired, sued, put in jail, or on an apology tour.
So, in the end, you're right about one thing - boys need to be taught chivalry, but girls need to be taught the value of sex (as the author suggests) as well. And more women need need to continue to speak up about the unintended consequences of feminism before we've lost an entire generation.
Excellent feedback. Blame is not accountability, nor is it a way to be responsible with power given to someone. Way too much of present feminist rhetoric and school taught feminism even comes close to scratching the surface on this.
Watching three teenage girls, two now women, being force fed this information during #METOO was tough to stomach. The only thing I could do was caution them, that good guys, guys you want to date - do not want to be painted with the same brush a rapist is painted with. It is a turn off and it will isolate you. They would respond that 'that's not what they are saying'. I would ask 'what are the guys saying?' They would say, 'they say nothing'. My follow up was 'Do you think they are free to honestly speak with you, or do they feel threatened to speak honestly with you?'. There was no response.
What I witnessed is the more potent the feminist party line came out, the more manipulative male counter part was attracted to that type of dialogue. The 'player', the narcissist, all the people who could hurt them. The kids you wanted your daughter to date, they zipped up and walked off to more moderate or conservative voices. Think of it this way, how great is it to be in relationship where one party cannot open their mouth? Equality is not recreating the same negative condition on the other party. The modern liberal movement cherishes this bastardized idea, and it is so fundamentally wrong.
It is not a difficult concept that when you vilify by gender, race, political party, occupation or the way another combs their hair, you are in fact a bitter, nefarious, and/or hostile person. It's been going this way since 2010.
Exactly. In regard to college specifically, many of the "good men" are no longer attending college in person. They are either going to trade schools, or taking college classes online. For men, nothing good can come out of being on campus today. But that means young women don't see them or notice then. They see the scions, the boys who can behave the way they want because their connections to powerful families insulate them.
A lot of them see it as a dangerous proposition. You can financially destroy your life paying $250-300k for a piece of paper that makes less than a trades job, most times significantly less. Then you get the bonus of having an undue prejudice label slapped on you.... Then you may get falsely accused and have no due process to defend yourself... leaving you crippled and broke because of your gender. It's horrible proposition to go on campus, or to work for a large company or institution.
The way mandated reporting requires is anonymity. That makes sense. However, there are serial false reporters who hurt real victims of rape, and innocent people falsely accused. State Children and Families departments are not required to aggregate data on false reports. This means the anonymity keeps each report separated. So, the state cannot tie together someone who reports 'abuse' frequently for benefit or mental illness. If you are the victim of a serial false reporter there is no recourse due the legal construct of law and system. The system also relies very heavily on healthcare and education facilities to report and investigate. This makes no sense because healthcare workers and teachers are not trained investigators. There is also no legal penalty to make a false report to a social worker (most of the investigators in family services), a teacher or healthcare professional. However, if you make a false report to law enforcement or a court officer it's crime.
False reports need to be counted internally on the State and Federal level, and have a criminal consequence- but again no one wants to discuss this because of being 'anti-woman', even though it is not. I discovered this after seeing someone get falsely reported in custody case over thirty times. While viewing CDC domestic violence and sexual assault statistics. Their surveys do not include screened out cases, or in other words cases of a false report. They only measure screened in and ignore a data set that is over 50% of the reports. So that's potentially a huge number of false report victims. Go talk to a divorce lawyer, a cop who responds to domestic cases daily, and ask them if every claim is valid. They will tell you about the need for process and discernment instead of emotionally driven shout down feminism.
So yes with institutional obstacles like these, a lot of men, good men just protect themselves, stay away, and look very thoughtfully for women who possess solid values. They and their partner are rewarded with great relationships. The great news is their is an overwhelming majority of men and women out there connect. You just will not find this at the institutions that cherish this type of insanity in the name of progress. The institution propagates a myth that they are so evolved that this intellectual path is the optimal breeding ground, when in fact- that ship if it sailed, was probably never there. It also stands to argue how full of crap their actual opinion is. Ultimately, these people will produce significantly less kids. Who knew Darwin would actually be right?
However, the upside is this mess is innovating US society. Massive innovation and the institutions that do not possess integrity/honesty will be left behind by quality people.
But wait, wasn’t it Gloria Steinem who said “Women need men like fish need a bicycle”?
We have lost two generations already don’t hold out much hope for future generations especially with the current leadership in the White House. Although having said that The Clinton years were the worst for women in America our ex president was a misogynist who should have been impeached and forced to resign that man was disgusting he disrespected the Oval Office so much for role models why are we surprised!
Rape is still one of the most underreported and underconvicted crimes. A rapist has a less than 3% chance of going to trial, let alone being convicted.
There should be a rule online somewhere that says when you quote a statistic, you need to link to the peer reviewed study/survey that purports said statisic, and it has to be less than five years old.
I have no doubt that rapes were under-reported in the past, or, that in some countries where the victim is blamed for rape that they're almost never reported.
But in the US? In every county or city? In every community? In the last five years? Was this before, during or after COVID?
It's not about women, it's about men? With great freedom comes great responsibility and women need to take responsibility for their actions and decisions. That is the core issue. Except for cases of rape, which nobody condones, women are 50% of the decision in consensual sex, and assuming all men want sex, then without 100% consent of the females there is no sex. Let's be careful not to make this a furtherance of the trendy neoliberalism scorn of young men, that they are all bad from birth and they alone are the ones that are the problems. Women can dictate whatever sexual experience they want, date whomever they want, and build around themselves the kind of people they want. Nothing is stopping them but themselves. I open doors for women, walk on the street side, pull out chairs etc, and some women find that a disdainful part of the patriarch, and that is fine. Find who you like to be with, I'll be ok. There are plenty of women that like that and my relationship doesn't have to be a constant war-like struggle to change or reaffirm that dynamic. Take responsibility and define who you are, but who you are shouldn't be blamed on anyone other than you.
"women are 50% of the decision in consensual sex"
In practice, they are much closer to 100%. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Deciding ideologically that the gate should be wide open is part of the problem, but there's a lot more going on here.
That has been and always will be true!
Great advice, and might I add that whenever liberal feminists portray males as sexual predators they tend to avoid the reality that upward mobility, money and power have cultivated within their activist rank and file to be just as
predatory toward their male counterparts
Men rape and murder women; women do not rape and murder men.
Not anymore…the expectations that society has imposed on us today— and they’re expressed *everywhere*: music, movies, television—- the expectation for a young woman is, if she wants to keep a guy, well, she has to please him…today “please him” is code for more and more, earlier and earlier…. and I guess the relationship gets progressively more demanding… On the other hand, the emotional expectations for a guy today seem impossible to many men, and they opt out of relationships, with porn.
It’s easy to assume the best of our own sex and the worst of the other… But I do not agree to that. Today’s standards hurt both men and women, boys and girls. It’s satanic.
As far as “women get to date whomever they want,” HA! Please don’t sound so bitter or deceive yourself, sir! Plenty of beautiful women find themselves with precious little dating experience today…women with high standards about sex…(today that’s left almost exclusively religious women) and eventually find themselves having to do things deep down that they don’t want to do (even kiss), with men they don’t really like (even if they’re very nice high-standards men), just to be with someone… [And plenty of unattractive men get all bitter about beautiful women “being superficial,” i.e. wanting to be with someone attractive also, lol ;)]
It’s not right to blame either sex alone this way. We’re living in a society no one ever dreamed could exist (except Pope Paul VI).
"It’s not right to blame either sex alone this way. We’re living in a society no one ever dreamed could exist."
Bingo. Social media and the Pill, and the automobile, and high rates of divorce and abortion and on and on. The last 100 years, even the past 10 years, (thanks in no small part to yet another invention: the cell phone) - we are ALL in uncharted territory. And trying to pin this on one sex or the other - isn't fair.
(And don't even get me started, obviously, on stuff like having 42 different genders.)
I instinctively knew since I was a kid (I’m early Millennial) that women LOST as much or more than they gained in the S.R. I’m THRILLED someone eloquent enough has finally given it voice, and the time in society after 60 years of catastrophic damage has finally ripened for us to turn it around.
HOWEVER…that being said, it was shocking to me, as I dated here and there, the number of men who needed to be taught that “Girls are people too.” Explicitly. To see women as personalities and not merely roles of any type.
The sad thing is, the whole feminism movement in its earlier waves, just like the Civil Rights movement and disabilities awareness were necessary, was at some levels quite necessary. Some “progress” was good. Looking forward to “Fourth Wave Feminism.” Where sex is valued, protected, and sacrificed for as it used to be, and the respect, love and communication between the sexes can be restored to the state it was in the Garden.
Male-Female Sex is the most powerful force in the universe— it is capable of producing a NEW HUMAN BEING. Let’s honor that power again. Let’s remember the value of each human being again, or renew our quest to do so with greater energy than before.
Very well said. I mean, this part: "Male-Female Sex is the most powerful force in the universe" may be a slight exaggeration. ;) But it's certainly one of the most powerful forces on Earth.
And I agree, early feminism was helpful. I think women should certainly have the option for a career if they want it. And, like Amy Comey Barrett, I think they should have the option for having large families and a supportive husband who helps share all the burdens of having a family - while still achieving whatever it is they want to.
Just imagine over the centuries, how many ideas were squelched because they came from a woman?
But, yes, feminism has gone too far, and now in the US, we're actually seeing our birth rate decline. We need to re-establish the importance of good relationships, families, and the value of sex and mutual respect.
Thank you, Jake D!
I emphasized that and don’t dial it back because if you believe as I do that each human being ever created has infinite value in the eyes of God, unique in all creation, then the power to co-create a new human being *is* the most powerful force in the universe that *we* can have! Do you see what I mean? And we reallllly need to restore a proper and healthy respect for that power, as you stated. And I like everything else you stated as well!
Ahh, yes, in that case, it is as you say. ;) If you mean what's available to us, to almost each of us, then yes - agreed. Most powerful in the universe, yada yada.
However, you still have to contend with compound interest Einstein's opinion on the matter. :)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/compound-interest-the-most-powerful-force-in-the-universe/
(I mostly kid. I just remember hearing that Einstein quote, even though it's likely completely bunk. :) Thanks for the friendly word tossing!
Hahaha yeah, thanks for the fascinating number fun, but definitely small potatoes for Einstein! It is a special talent to make money—one I do not have— but the problem is with the guys who make quasi-astronomical sums of it thinking *they* are the most powerful in the universe! Eventually their Creator has the last laugh.
Interesting you brought up Einstein, because your last post about women brought him to *my* mind— really, this historical fiction novel, “The Other Einstein” by Marie Benedict, considering life as Ms. Mileva Maric’ Einstein. Really good, really plausible in my experience!
One last clarification: I’d say from the point of view of the Judeo-Christian believer, yeah, male-female sex *is* objectively the most powerful force in the universe, because God never *died* for a supernova ;)
You’re welcome and thank you for letting me sharpen my thoughts off yours!
Hey, thanks for the book recommendation! I just did an Amazon check and almost 6k reviews with a 4.4 star rating? NOICE. It likely wouldn't surprise you to know that I consider myself a "feminist."
"But.. but.. Jake. You're... not a woman."
I know. I know, it's crazy. But, I am married, (so that means, I support, at least one woman, and put her on a pedestal that has been there at least 25 years. (I ADMIT NOTHING!).
We have three daughters. I have four sisters. I have a mother, two grandmothers, a step-mother. I have nieces, and even a grand-niece.
Like many men, I have a LOT of humans of the female persuasion to root for.
I sometimes wonder how we get these "battle of the sexes" arguments in the first place! We've had the media pit is class warfare, race-warfare, sex warfare.
They were not (even remotely) unwarranted, but one can help but think that all of them were over-hyped eventually, and used for other agendas.
I mean, has any cause ever been used without someone co-opting it for their own agenda somewhere along the line?
It doesn't take long to wonder how one becomes a cynic, eh? ;) Yet, somehow, I, we, remain hopeful.
Outstanding. See my comment elsewhere, which mirrors yours...
WRONG. You are the one projecting male attitudes and thoughts about sex onto women with sons: I have lived all over the world and I have NEVER met one mother who would have any idea how to raise her sons to look at women as sex toys. THAT is just not the kind of knowledge mothers have to pass on to their sons; THAT attitude can only be transmitted to boys by their misogynist fathers!
I have been happily married FOR MANY DECADES to a wonderful man with three brothers, all of whom are wonderful devoted husbands and fathers and you know why they turned out this way? Because they all watched their father treat their mother with the utmost love and respect day in and day out for over 40 years! I have known men who had very close and loving relationships with loving mothers but if their fathers treated their mothers like shit then they, in turn, treated THEIR wives like shit. Stop blaming mothers for shitty men; blame shitty men!
This is silly. Everyone has a choice.
They can repeat the mistakes of the past, or they can overcome them. I had a father (as many of us did) who ignored kids. Who rarely did anything with or to them except for the occasional beating. I had a mother who, though faithful, after the divorce, left us largely to our own devices.
There comes a point when blaming parents is just a cop-out. What WE as a society can do, is try to impart some wisdom on the next generation. We can't both blame the previous one for being bad examples, and then the later one for not getting the supposed lessons.
Who married the shitty man and had his kids?
A woman with a shitty father.
I disagree. It is father's who have the responsibility to teach their sons how to respect women. But women must expect to be respected too.
I agree with what you said except I don't think it's totally fair to say only women projected inferiority onto themselves. Historically men had always treated women as inferior, and in many parts of the world still do. And if women projected that way, it's because that was the world they were resisting against.
I have a nine-year-old daughter that I would willingly give my life for, and this essay struck a deep chord with me.
For a large part of my adult life, I eschewed monogamy, embraced promiscuity, and enjoyed the benefits of hook-up culture.
It was only after those seemingly random hookups led to the birth of my oldest child that I chose to settle down, make plans for my life, and create a stable home and environment for my child.
Looking back, I see the carnage my promiscuity caused for me, but it's the women I met and sometimes hooked up with who suffered most.
Many dealt with life-changing circumstances due to promiscuous late-night hookups, including broken relationships, early childbirth, forgotten dreams, and soul-crushing abortions, to name a few.
Most of the men who helped bring about these disastrous circumstances offered little to no support to these women whose lives they helped to destroy.
I'm not putting all the blame on the men.
After all, it takes two to tango.
But it wasn't the men whose career aspirations, reputations, and futures got destroyed.
The women always paid the highest price for so-called "sexual freedom."
Education is not enough.
Creating awareness is not enough.
Handing out condoms, birth control, and spermicide in the Student Center is not enough.
Teaching our children how to think past the pleasure of the moment, how to set goals, and how to create good self-care habits at a young age is critical to their success and mental health.
Include sex in your conversations with your kids.
Approach the topic early and often.
Empower them with knowledge upfront.
Create space for your children to feel heard, understood, loved, and valued.
Instead of talking at them or telling them what to do, ask them what they're doing, what they want, and how you can help them get it.
Empathy is the key.
After much deliberation, these are the guidelines my wife and I use with our children.
I can only hope that they will be enough to guide them in the right direction and avoid the pitfalls and potholes my wife and I have visited.
A lovely post, Justin. And as one with a similar past as your own, I have tried over decades to move on to find that elusive meaning to it all. And personally, now, I think I have.
The only caveat I will offer, and perhaps you might agree (as your ‘two need to tango’ would suggest) - that women past, present and future have made and will make decisions that have empowered them or diminished them. Choices are made and they will either be joyous ones or disastrous ones. As ours have been.
It is and will always be a battle field out there. Your advice to your girls is correct, but it is not new. The women you and I were dating and having sex with in our halcyon days received the same advice from their parents, rest assured.
Women have and always will exercise the freedom to choose, what they do with that choice is up to them. This article, in my view, does not address that. It diminishes that in an attempt to shift responsibility inordinately on men, but that is just my humble opinion.
I do hope your girls will listen to you. But be ready if all of that does not go as planned.
I agree with your perception of the article's attempt to shift blame.
Humans, by nature, must have someone or something to blame when things don't go according to plan.
It is a rare person, often one who has learned this lesson through experiential means, that takes time to look in the mirror to find the source of their worldly woes.
I'm lucky to have learned this lesson by age 33. Many men and women much older than me still search for the cause of their problems yet never consider reflecting on how they contributed to or even outright caused the issues they regularly face.
Once I made that leap, life grew exponentially better and more meaningful.
Responsibility is a yoke many don't wish to bear.
I think the article isn’t turning the blame from one sex to another, but rather, asking us to rethink the whole “Sexual Revolution” and who it really benefitted and at what cost. I believe both girls and boys are suffering to this day from it. But I look at the dance music beginning with the early millennials, teens in the late 90s-turn of 2000. “My anaconda don’t want none unless you got buns, hun!” Preteen girls mindlessly mimicking the words to these songs and their mothers are oblivious, their fathers are powerless. The decimation of the family structure in the communities where that music was most celebrated. Twenty years later the hypersexualized culture led to the explosion of girls opting out of sexuality altogether—the whole trans/non-binary craze. Those songs weren’t written by children for children. They were written and produced by ADULTS for children and teens to consume. The movies, the music, the television: the culture formed and shaped us, distorted our views and expectations of the other sex to the grossest extremes. We need to recognize what we lost was as much or more than we gained, and restore respect and LOVE and sacrifice and communication between the sexes, only better this time.
Thanks for your voice Louise. It's a great return of sanity to an important debate. Things have worked out for me. I spent a long time not worrying about settling down and when I did get serious, I met a wonderful woman with a child and I jumped into the responsibility of fatherhood. It's been very joyful. I wish my generation was taught the importance of family life. I have friends that have chosen to not have kids and my heart breaks. I see them pouring their entire lives into jobs that don't give them back the satisfaction you would get from family.
Family life saves men. It gives them purpose and stature.
My most important work and my most profound joys come because I am a husband and a father.
Purpose is a great phrase, I always used the word meaning.
Having children makes a man. It gives him a reason and a purpose to work towards. It's a special commitment and a responsibility to the present and the future. Marriage often makes the man.
Naomi you the most normal person on this site!!
Really? ROFL. Thank you (I think) for the compliment.
An over broad reply, sorry. True purpose and stature comes from the realm of self belief, from that comes confidence, and from that comes responsibility for a family, if the man so chooses.
Women are complicated creatures, as this article highlights, but of course, so are men.
Good grief. Don't over complicate a very simple premise. Marriage stabilizes a man and children give him purpose.
You’re right. I have complicated a very simple premise. But with over forty per cent of marriages ending in divorce, I cannot see how a man’s new found ‘stability’ and ‘purpose’ has helped either him or his spouse.
There are many reasons for divorce. Many couples get divorced after a long, long marriage. During that marriage they raised a family successfully. I know several this would apply to. When you have born and raised children who grow up into responsible adults you have done your job even if the marriage does not last until death do us part.
Some of all of the reasons as to why marriages don't last may be expectations. The most enduring marriages are among the most conservative cultures. Their expectations are different. They don't necessarily expect to be "happy," or "fulfilled" whatever that means. They have joined in a union for the continuation of their culture and heritage.
the "over fourty per cent of marriages end in divorce" statistics are highly suspect. I try to figure out how I'd calculate the rate of divorce, and it's very difficult to do based on the data that's out there.
anecdotally, my experience has been very different; my cohort of friends married in early-mid 30s, and we pretty much all have kids now. In the ten years since my first kid, I've only known one couple to divorce. Mind you, we are as un-religious as they come, live in NYC, etc. etc. So if anything, there should be lots and lots of divorces, whereas in reality it's almost none.
I'm not sure who publishes "divorce rates" or how they calculate them (or what they gain from gaslighting), but I am extremely skeptical of any "data" quoted on this topic.
Yes !
Yes. Their jobs will not see them through the ups and downs of life, and into old age. Their jobs will not bring them the sheer joy of looking at their child for the first time.
I read once that nobody on his death bed ever said, "I wish I had worked more overtime."
Having BTDT once I can attest this is the absolute truth.
This goes back several generations at this point—I have Gen X and millennial friends and relatives who have skipped marriage and/or kids, seemingly just from a fear of being tied down. I try not to project my priorities and joys onto them, but I think they’ve made a big mistake, and from my perspective it sure looks like some of them are coming to realize that…but a bit too late to do anything about it (re:kids, at least), unfortunately.
Somehow a good many of them think their pets are like children and will fill that void. I cringe every time I see an ad that promotes the idea of pets as children ( and they are everywhere!)
the "fur baby" thing is creepy, cringy, and wrong wrong wrong. I have a cousin in mid 30s whose social media was recently taken over by "meet my new furry baby" photos and videos... breaks my heart.
Yes it unfortunately is very sad because people almost always regret not having kids, but the regret comes when its too late for them.
And the earlier one has kids, the better. In your 20's you have more fun & energy with the kids then in your 30's and 40's for example.
I do plan to teach my kids (when they grow up) of the importance of having a family, doing it at a (relatively) younger age and not having "a fear of being tied down"
There are multiple branches of my family that are essentially going extinct because the younger folks have chosen not to have kids. Which is their prerogative, of course, and I’m sure they’re getting by with other distractions for now. But I can’t help suspecting that as they drift into their fifties, gardening and music gigs will start to wear thin and their houses will start to seem awfully quiet…and by then, there’ll be no going back.
Don’t knock having kids at a later point. I got the wildness of my 20s and 30s out first. My mom and dad were 40 when was born. I didn’t get married until 43, had 3 kids, last when I was 49. All three are smart, interesting, and successful kids. I may not live to see grandkids at this rate (though my genes predict I’ll live into my 90s). I had plenty of energy raising them with my wife! She is however a decade my junior ... [edited to fix the typo on "wildness"]
It's different for men versus women, but really you sound quite fortunate to have had kids so late in life without disabilities.
it's also different now that women can freeze eggs to extend fertility until later in life.
nevertheless, in my particular case, waiting as long as I did to have my first is perhaps my only real regret in life. if i had started earlier I could have had more kids. the only way to make the world a better place is by making more good people to populate it with ..
"kids so late in life without disabilities"
What makes you think this is true? I wrote that they were "smart, interesting, and successful".
Perhaps you are focused on the wrong stuff with kids.
Ideally do it younger but I had mine at 38 & 42 and it’s still been a joy. I’m only getting tired now at 62 with the youngest in college
Exactly what I'm seeing and i fear their marriages will break down when the one that acquiesced to the no kids request begins to resent their spouse for it.
They’ll be sorry when they’re 65 and retired.
I'm very happy to hear being a father worked out for you, truly! But you can't project your happiness on other people. You don't know their stories, their experiences, or where they came from. I definitely believe that generally stable families are the bedrock of a stable society, and liberals are no not being honest about the detriments of fa lot of the values we gave up. But at the same time, I for one am very, very happy to be childfree. I never regretted that decision for a second, and never will. I'm sure there are other people out there like me for their own personal reasons.
And while this is not the motivation behind my choice, looking at the gender madness infesting the world today, I'm beyond glad and relieved I don't have a daughter or daughters today who are being gaslit into dumb shit like men can be women and they must accept men claiming to be women to be in the same changing rooms and bathrooms, or dumb shit ideas like sex work is work or scrupulous platforms like OnlyFans exploiting the naives is a good place to make $$, or to grow up with a generation of boys whose brains are rotted by violent porn online. Every time I think of these things I'm beyond glad I don't have kids, and when I turn to dust I can leave and the world can burn if that's what people want if what I think doesn't matter.
I remember thinking to myself while waiting for a bus in 1985 or so (after my shift at the pizza place, some "career") that the most difficult thing to achieve, it had turned out, was to have children. I never knew where a relationship was going, didn't know how to ask, felt unworthy given how loose I'd been, didn't know how to communicate my needs -- compared to my mother's generation, when dating clearly led to marriage and if it didn't look like that would work out, they got out and moved on. The chaos of the so-called Sexual Revolution will take generations to undo; it frankly made my life even harder than it had to be -- and it wasn't fun. When I try to suggest that we change the narrative, and how about we agree, once more, that dating leads to marriage or get out and move on, that we should get married sooner than later (especially now that we live longer), have our kids and pursue a career in, say, our late 20's, when the kids are in school, friends and community established -- women look at me as if I'm insane -- yet -- yet -- pursuing a career first merely leads to fertility clinics in one's late 30's and early 40's....the whole social experiment has failed....and the worst effect that I see coming up the pike is that when my generation is old, most of us won't have children to advocate for us (in my high school friend group, only two of five had children, one of whom had had so many abortions she could barely carry her one child to term); I entertain predictions that assisted suicide will have to become a thing -- what else could be done with so many aged out childless women...? The whole enterprise -- like so many other progressive causes -- wasn't cause and effect by any stretch of the imagination. Castles in the air. I'm glad that Perry wrote this book -- even if it won't undo my own following the Pied Piper off a cliff, I hope it helps shift the narrative away from this cynical interpretation of motherhood and womanhood as "oppression." Nothing is worse than the oppression of fending for one's self in a chaotic, inhospitable world.
Feminism also advocated for no fault divorce that radically altered the marriage contract. The first order effect was that many women were able to walk away from abusive marriages. But the second order effect was that it created a disincentive for men to marry. Why marry when you could lose half of your assets at any time for any reason? This is a little discussed part of the decline in marriage rates imho.
It’s funny…. The family court system - and take it from a practicing lawyer - is so stacked against men, that marriage is actually dangerous.
Imagine….men walk and women walk into a bedroom with equal rights and the women walks out with all the rights and the men walk out with all the risk. Why is there no provision for a man to legally abort their relationship to a child they don’t want? All of the emotional and economic arguments that women make in support of their absolute unilateral right to decide on abortion - even within marriage - apply to men. Men may not want children. They may not want or be able to form the emotional relationship required. They may have their careers sidetracked to be able to meet mandated support obligations. But none of that counts for ANYTHING. A woman has the right to unilaterally impose these burdens on a man.
I told my grandson that as much as it disgusts me to say this, marriage is a lousy deal for men in the American. If you want a child, have one with someone you care for, but look at it as 18 years of car payments. Live alone and make your booty calls or spend time together but always keep your own place. You can get from others what you can get from a wife - the supermarkets now sell reasonably priced prepared meals. You can hire a cleaning woman to clean your house and do your laundry. And you never have to worry about having to give up half your stuff.
I’m not sure I’d let you see my minor son if you were his grandpa and I found out you told him those things.
Of course not. You’d be a traitor to your gender (if you even know what it is these days)
LOL
If a man's greatest fear is giving up half his stuff he should not marry. Nor is that type of man ever going to be a worthwhile partner for a decent woman. There are never any guarantees at the outset of a marriage. The only ones that are successful are the ones where both partners are willing to work through the inevitable bad times. And sometimes one or the other is giving more than 50%. As long as it is not always the same partner doing so that is okay too. As for getting what a wife does at the supermarket, or restaurant for that matter, good luck with that. That crap is bland or heavily processed which will kill you before your bitterness does.
On the power of women in the legal realm I actually agree.
But all of that is in reference to failed relationships. I also agree on the unilateral control of the abortion issue given to women. Plus there are men who want the child unwanted by the woman. My skin still crawls about that woman from Arkansas, I believe, who was pregnant with her third child and could not figure out how to procure a legal abortion. The pregnancy was the result of casual sex (there is no such thing) but the man embraced the idea of having a child. Lastly, as a lawyer, it takes a certain type to be a family lawyer. You sound like you fit right in.
If a woman goes into a marriage knowing that if it doesn’t work out, she should not go into a marriage. On the power of women in the legal realm, you agree but offer no solutions. Perhaps because you like the uneven playing field. So you’ll just keep that benefit in your pocket and ignore the mindset of a man who knows that he’s going into a rigged game and how he considers that. Of course, from you’re perspective, if he even has that in mind he’s not fit for marriage. And that lopsided benefit is only the case if failed relationships (which MUST be a man’s fault ) so he should just take it, right? With divorce rates sky high, he should just ignore it and wait for the beating he may well take. And it takes a Thor to be a man hating feminist. You seem to fit right in.
Having been married for over 55 years to one of the good guys, as are my daughter and son (for less years of course, but over 20j, I am sincerely glad none of us met you. You sound like a horribly, mean-spirited, angry man. I’m sorry you have no happiness in your life because it is out there.
I’ve been married just as long. I have 9 lovely grandchildren from 4 well educated and successful marriages to people of the opposites sex.
It wasn’t MY anger that torched our society. I wasn’t of the party that stoked anger and division. You know, the one that admittedly plays the divisive game of identity politics, slicing our society into subsets of people they can imbue with anger to harvest their votes. The one that Intentionally created urban plantations where people can’t get an education and live am9ngst violence, drugs and one parent households so that they could imbue them with anger and hopelessness while blaming the OTHER guy, even though they’ve run the places for 50 or more years. The one that hates the police and focuses on the relatively minuscule number of police shootings while ignoring the massive number of shootings in their urban plantations, created,solely for vote harvesting.
To do that takes a hell of a lot more anger and meanspiritedness than I ever felt towards anyone other than those of you who do it.
Good lawyers don't make assumptions. And you are batting .000 on yours about me. Although family lawyers are known for snide comments and behaviors.
I should note that I’ve told my sons they’ll be in for some serious repercussions if they marry a woman they haven’t brought home to meet mom and dad.
They may decide to do it anyway but if given the chance I can pick out the losers after ten minutes of conversation and would tactfully warn him afterwards.
I hope you know what a cluster B personality disorder is. My parents and I were completely unfamiliar, and we all thought the world of my then-fiancé. It was only in hindsight that we all now see the red flags of the “lovebombing” phase of the idealize-devalue-discard cycle.
I spent my high school years hitchhiking across the country as a runaway. As a result I have a very finely honed character gauge. It failed me once but on the whole I have a very good track record of detecting unstable, dishonest or otherwise undesirable personalities.
I don’t particularly need the ever changing paychobabble. Ten minutes’ conversation is enough to determine whether someone is who they claim to be.
My kids have seen it in action. Friends they brought home who set off my alarms and later proved themselves to be exactly what I warned my kids.
If one of my sons brought a problematic woman home and my gauge went off they’d listen. Would that change their minds? I don’t know.
Marie - ditto here. I hitchhiked all over Seattle as a teenager in the late 60's. That was before we heard of Ted Bundy. I definitely know what you mean about the character gauge - it's like spidey-sense.
My husband and another student friend had a house-painting business during college. My husband was good at math, i.e. figuring footage, how much paint to buy etc so he was the one to do the bid. Often I would go with him and there were a few times I just knew someone was going to be difficult or wouldn't pay. He would say 'they're so nice!' and I'd say 'hmmm.' I was right every time.
Marriage is the optimist’s ultimate bet. But people change, life circumstances sometimes veer wildly off track and course corrections become necessary. I hope for you that having a grandson you can speak to candidly is some satisfaction and that he, not your “stuff” will be your comfort as life winds down.
I’m not worried about my stuff. I have a pre-nup. I worry about his
A man definitely needs to be careful before signing the marriage license.
No fault divorce is a disaster for all involved, especially the children.
It's almost as if ... man AND women needed to be careful before making a promise for an entire lifetime. Do your promises have meaning? In that case, divorce isn't really an option. So you best make extra super duper sure, and then live with the choice.
funny how marriage is supposedly such a bum deal for men but married men live 5+ years longer than bachelors.
you say "A woman has the right to unilaterally impose these burdens on a man." === that isn't any more true for women than men. be selective. choose a mate who respects and loves you. and if you marry, you marry for life. you're making an oath, you MUST keep it
It’s true that being a good chooser is critical. But in the case of abortion, men and women walk into the bedroom as equals and women walk out with all the rights in the event of a pregnancy.
Feminism also redefined what "abusive" means -- while women get off the hook for their own abuse. On that note, I got divorced because he was having difficulty holding a job, which might have seemed like a good reason at the time, but doesn't seem so now. And there are more blithely unaware self-aggrandizing choices to cover in my semi-autobiographical novel "My Dumb Postfeminist Life."
Oh, it is so much worse than all of that. It kicked off court-created fatherlessness and all of its unintended consequences. https://medium.com/arc-digital/a-brief-history-of-custody-laws-and-court-created-fatherlessness-2f0cc48ee46e
🎯
As long as abortion on demand is a birth control option, promiscuity will flourish.
As an aged woman with a child who may or may not be helpful.. women can form communities of like-minded women and/or join religious communities synagogues, churches, mosques other types, built around people looking out for each other, whatever our life circumstances.
Dog L. Wow. Your post was really powerful. You seemed to have struck all the right chords. Very sad and I’m sure it will speak to a lot of people and, hopefully, help them.
This makes me so happy to read!
I have been so disgusted with the immorality of the sexual revolution, the cheapening of a woman’s body, the meaninglessness of sex. I would be called a prude for thinking women should dress and act more modestly. Women should show they respect themselves if they want to be respected. The idea that a woman would strip naked and jump into bed with someone she just met is incomprehensible to me. So old fashioned values are making a comeback. Finally! Listen up men, the gravy train is over. Clean up your manners, google “chivalry”, and send flowers. Look for Ms Right. Not Ms Right Now.
Re the gravy train being over - my teenage son told me that a lot of teen boys/young men are happy about Roe being overturned because they think it will cause women to be less promiscuous, which in turn will entail them being more choosy about partners, which may well turn off the "gravy train" for the hottest guys who catch the most tail, but it will result in more options (more sex/more committed relationships) for the average man. I.e., when the ladies aren't chasing the few rakes, they will learn to appreciate the greater, humbler charms of less flashy but more worthy men. I thought that was fascinating. And good.
Wow! Very mature thinking for a teen! Good for him!
Girls will never stop chasing the rakes. We desire people that others desire. It's fundamental to us being social animals.
I'm sure many of us have felt lukewarm interest in someone, only to have it EXPLODE after seeing them with another person.
the most effective tool girls have is not putting out. if you want to be wanted, don't put out. if you like a boy, don't put out (ESPECIALLY if he's a rake, which he probably is, otherwise you wouldn't like him)
this is the part I don't get: girls thinking they should put out to maintain a boy's interest. It couldn't be farther from the truth. if you want a boy to like you, DON'T PUT OUT
Yes. And if he doesn't think you're worth it, then he's not good for you.
I think we are going to see an increasing rejection of progressive ‘values’ by young people now that progressives are running society. This is just one of them.
Lmao. YOU just said that women are stripping themselves down naked and having sex with men they just met. Maybe it's time for WOMEN to clean up their manners?
Didn’t I say women need to respect themselves?
NC, I enjoy the passion of your argument. But seriously, that carnal horse among young women and men left the barn sixty years ago and it is not coming back.
This article we’re commenting on is a feeble attempt to go back to a 1950’s mother ship of moral correctness. It might make for great discussion but is ultimately pointless in the decisions young women make, and have always made.
Sex might be meaningless when not associated with with a long term relationship, but that fact, unfortunately, has to be experienced and not taught.
For who will listen?
Only those who pretend to.
Cultural change doesn't only go in one direction.
I agree. The 1920’s were much more liberal and relaxed about sex in many places than the 1950’s. History does not move in a straight line.
This essay should be read by every young woman. I’ve never seen a promiscuous woman thrive. I don’t say that to judge or from some place of moral superiority. Simply that the behavior does not work for women. Every woman I knew who bought into this mentality either ended up with a terrible partner or no partner, constantly was disappointed in men but blamed the men, and more than a few times got into dangerous hook up situations. If you brought up any of these points you were some religious stiff or victim blaming. Same ad hominem language that we see now.
Listen to the podcast. It’s really a great debate between feminist theory vs reality. Especially re: porn. What they left out of the podcast is that young men get addicted to porn at a very early age and expect their young women hook ups to engage in sexual behavior that is NOT safe or enjoyable. The dangers are ten fold for a woman and ruinous for men who have their own sexuality skewed in a devastating direction.
I agree with Bari that, as a woman, I would not have a fraction of the life I have if not for early feminist leaders and advocates. However the narratives regarding sexual behavior for women are damaging.
Plus Louise has a comforting calm demeanor.
"Only have sex with a man if you think he would make a good father to your children—not because you necessarily intend to have children with him, but because this is a good rule of thumb in deciding whether he’s worthy of your trust." That was the advice I gave my granddaughter as she headed to college. Don't think she listened. This culture of open sex was one of the problems I had with the sitcom FRIENDS-too much casual -sex as well as the more overtly oversexualized SEX IN THE CITY, which I never watched. I fear the same thing is happening with the casual marijuana use in shows now. No restraint or consequences seen anywhere.
Let’s face it: any time a penis comes into contact with a vagina pregnancy can happen regardless of any contraceptive.
I told my kids this same thing because it can easily be TRUE.
But honestly, I think it's more than that, although that's the base line. Extended loveless sexual episodes can be soul numbing
Oh absolutely. But when young hormones are raging few extinguishers work better than “do I want this person to be a mother/ father to my kid?”
Two more and then I have to get going on my life. Years ago, Phil Donohue in an earnest effort to help people understand teenage sex, had a young woman on the program. I can't remember if she was an unwed mother or what, while Phil was directing the conversation in a very enlightened manner, she interrupted him with, 'you have to understand the passion" which I think flew over his head, but being closer in age to the girl I understood what she meant. The 2nd thing is St. Augustine's prayer, "O Master, make me chaste and celibate, but not yet."
Ok this really made me laugh.
In a good way because you're correct
This essay is both OUTSTANDING and profound. It resonates with another INCREDIBLE essay that went viral this week - Bridget Phetasy's "I Regret Being A Slut," which you can read here: https://bridgetphetasy.substack.com/p/slut-regret , which I shared with my daughter, a Women's Health Nurse Practitioner, who loved it.
What I want to speak to is Perry's passing observation that "CHIVALRY IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING." Yes, it is. But feminists foolishly, ignorantly, and condescendingly discourage it to their detriment. Consider the simple practice of opening a door for a woman. Occasionally when I do so for a woman I get a bristling glare from her, which unspokenly communicates "You misogynistic pig, I'm perfectly capable of getting the door myself" - a rather selfish (if not outright narcissistic) response on her part (I also open doors for men...). What this "Feminazi" fails to see is that I have cultivated this Chivalrous practice in the lives of my son and me to teach and remind us to RESPECT women. My son (an Army Major) is required to "salute" other soldiers. Why? Because, like "opening doors," the practice HABITUATES AND DEMONSTRATES RESPECT. It reminds enlisted people to respect their officers - to accord them their due - and this is done even if the officer is a jerk, for you are respecting the POSITION, not the PERSON. Women complain that men "don't respect us" and then chastise Chivalrous men when they do. They castrate the Stallion and then complain that it has no offspring...
Oooooh, very good.
The Bible was right all along
I know. I laughed out loud at the supported by research statement.
I've been waiting for this comment ;)
Ok - I am not at all religious - but raised Catholic. The reality is that most social conventions evolved over time and actually make a lot of sense. These are reflected in both religious and cultural practices. Sometimes they become obsolete because time have changed. The rise of the welfare state makes some of them anachronisms. However if you look at the Ten Commandments- they make sense. They are good things to strive for - even if we fail again and again. Especially the no murder one.
The first four commandments are just religious recommendations that make no difference one way or the other. Commandments 5-10 make sense, with exceptions. "Honor your father and mother," for example. If your parents were abusive, there's nothing wrong with separating yourself from them. Only 2 1/2 of the 10 commandments are actually illegal--murder, theft and bearing false witness (this one only in a court, though). Not committing adultery and not being a jealous person definitely make sense, but they aren't illegal.
adultery is a crime in most states.
I'm so glad somebody's publicly taking on Andrea Dworkin--at last! Certainly many woes arise from the matricidal impulses of the current young generation, and a related set of woes arise from their patricidal impulses. By and large, few parents, mothers or fathers, would want their children, daughters or sons, entangled in the bleak, dehumanizing landscape of contemporary hook-up culture.
We're no longer dealing with the physical. It is pathological. Marxist feminist "woke" psychology is powering the imposition of the totalitarian utopianism being pushed by the WEF/CCP juggernaut as a ruse for the destruction of the independent citizen and the nation state. The capture of the national dialogue and new push for limited free speech by fascist totalitarian finance disguising itself as benevolent socialism intends to bring back dark ages feudalism.
Reading this article brings me back to college. I am in a room, trying to sleep. My roommate comes in, with a boy I know just wants to hook-up. They have sex, from behind. At the end, he says, "thanks babe," gets up and leaves. She wanted some sort of relationship. I don't think he even talked to her again. I am by no means a saint, but that experience marked me. I remember another time a few summers later. There was a guy who I think was somewhat interested (and I was somewhat interested) but somehow I wasn't good enough. He didn't make a move until he was drunk. I told him no, he needed to be sober. It ended our easy camaraderie and friendship; I became the person to be avoided. That was also sobering, though I know I dodged a bullet of a relationship with a man who would treat me poorly. I talk to my son and daughter about respect and bodily respect and the dangers of porn, etc. Not because I am a saint, but because I have these memories...that I don't want to become part of their psyche.
Heather MacDonald has done a great job of addressing this problem in her book "The Diversity Delusion". She writes that in the past, the default position for girls was "No", whereas now girls have to justify not wanting to engage in sex right away. She quotes one girl who basically equated having intercourse even though she didn't want to with sitting at a lunch table with a girl she really didn't want to have lunch with! The comparison boggled my mind. Apparently, you go through with it to avoid the hassle of explaining yourself. Where's the self-respect?
Dr Laura has been preaching this stuff for 20 years.
And she got little thanks for it from the general public, but her show was like fresh air to those who had ears to hear
The feminist movement is run and has been run by inflexible fanatics. History, facts and reality means nothing to a fanatic. Men and women aren't equal. There are obvious differences. Our physiology, our internal make ups are different. For example, men are physically stronger. Women, every month are awash in hormones which affects them physically and emotionally.
Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist. Before you go orbital on me, I have been happily married for 52 years and I have been only married once. I know from experience about living with a woman who went insane once a month. In all fairness, not every month.
The whole point in this is, we are not equal. That doesn't mean I want discriminatory attitudes toward women. I just want the feminist to accept the differences. I want equal treatment of woman in the workplace. I my professional career I have actively support equal treatment.
Having said this, I support stay at home moms. I realize that a single mom has to work to support her children but if you have the luxury to be a stay at home mom take it. It is the most important job and at times difficult job in the world.
Feminist vehemently support the idea that you don't need a man to raise a child. That is not what nature, evolution and shrinks says. Children raised in a stable heterosexual environment are better adjusted because they have a strong male presence. It is the same with a single man raising children. Children need a strong female presence.
This is not an ideal world and I am not criticizing single parents that do the best they can raising children without a partner.
The whole point of my post is to point out there are differences and these differences have shaped mankind ever since we stood upright and started using tools. (Before some wiseass thinks of this. I realize other animals use tools but we have used them to advance our civilization.)
Accept the differences. Don't deny them.
lol Lonesome! My husband and I are still on our 1st marriage - 51 years now. I was 18 and we were both in college, i.e. we were doomed to fail. But didn't! And in all fairness I'd say he's had his insane moments too and couldn't claim pms as an excuse :)
Women are hormonal. As for myself, men are just stupid.
I have believed for a long time, women are the superior of the species.
Women can be murderers, drug addicts, criminals just like the rest of the population. However, I believe because of their differences from testosterone driven males, they have a different perspective on the world around us and sociologists say they approach problems differently from men.
I won't be happy until 51% of our elected officials are women. But speaking of criminals, we don't need more Nancy Pelosis and Hillary Clintons.
Perfect.
Thanks for the laugh. My wife would agree with you.
And I agree with the rest of your post.
Precisely. It seems bizarre to me that feminists have bought into the notion that women need to effectively BE men in order to be of worth.
Wendy Shalit’s book, “Return to Modesty” was signaling this back in the 90’s.
This is mind blowingly frustrating. I agree with much of this piece, but anytime I as a conservative male had or would have said any of this I would be condemned from the highest heights of feminism. Suggest women should be prudent when it comes to partying or dress etc and I would be “blaming the victim.” To suggest men should school men in appropriate behavior as men and in their behavior towards women and it is “toxic masculinity.” To suggest there were differences between men and women and that standards of behavior should reflect that fact would be examples of sexism or bigotry or transphobia, etc. And now a feminist is writing all the same things that I and many men have said and believed for years but somehow I feel she is arguing that feminism needs to save women, yet again, from those evil men. I think it can’t be overstated that the vast, vast majority of the problem she describes is not caused by men but is actually the result of feminist overreach.
Actually, women get accused of similar things - when I rejected brainwashing at the university some 30 years ago I was accused of "blaming the victim" and internalized misogyny. I think this author probably gets some of the same criticism, but she's on a site that is open to her message. Also, more and more people are waking up to what was once obvious. I don't think she is blaming men here - I could be wrong, but it might just be a sensitivity on your part due to so many decades (I assume) of unfair criticism you've suffered as a man. I'm sorry you and your kind have been so wrongly criticized. The world is just full of paradoxes.
Nailed it
I understand your frustration. I came of age in the sexual revolution. I entered college in a technical field that was essentially all male 7 women out of 700 men). My jobs were mostly male dominated. I dealt with serious racism and sexism issues all the time. Once the police had to be called in. I fought for women’s and minorities careers for decades. I had women who worked for me careers flourish. However I would also hesitate to ever call out the “hook up” culture because I would have been accused of backwards religious thinking. It pained me enormously to see the wreckage it led to. I have been married 47 years to the one and only man I have been with and I raised our three children to value themselves and wait for their mate. They have. I volunteered in a rape and abuse crisis center and was heartsick at how our culture has led to such grief. But even with my personal experience, even with my accomplishments of championing womens careers and even with the pain and courage of calling out sexism in the workplace I ever never felt comfortable in challenging this culture in a public way. So it is not just that you are a man. I think it took a person like ms Perry to do this. She has the technical background to do and understand the research. It took time to develop the data to prove this in a world who values “science “ over historical wisdom. I thank my parents to give me the upbringing to allow me to navigate this time taking advantage of its benefits yet escape its excesses.