|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:51 am Post subject: Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends |
 |
|
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vg7322727mgl1875/fulltext.html?MUD=MP
| Quote: |
...
But not in sex. In fact, Regnerus shows over and over that when it comes to sex, the minority rules. This is what happens in economics, especially in the dynamics of supply and demand. When supply outnumbers demand, the suppliers (the majority) are in a weak position and must yield ground, such as by reducing their price. In contrast, when demand outnumbers supply, the suppliers (now the minority) have the advantage and can dictate the terms to their liking, such as by raising the price.
In simple terms, we proposed that in sex, women are the suppliers and men constitute the demand (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Hence the anti-democratic, seemingly paradoxical sex ratio findings that Regnerus describes. When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage. For example, American colleges in the 1950s conformed to that pattern. In our analysis, women benefit in such circumstances because the demand for their sexuality exceeds the supply. In contrast, when women are the majority, such as on today�s campuses as well as in some ethnic minority communities, things shift toward what men prefer: Plenty of sex without commitment, delayed marriage, extradyadic copulations, and the like.
It is fashionable to describe all gender relations as reflecting the oppression and victimization of women. When women were a minority of students, this was interpreted as indicating that women were victims of oppressive discrimination. Now that women are a majority, they are victims because of not being able to dictate the terms of romantic and sexual behavior. Much of Regnerus�s discussion respects this dominant tradition. We also respect that fashion, but as social scientists interested in both genders, we shall use this brief comment to redress the standard imbalance by discussing some implications for men (cf. Baumeister and Vohs 2004).
Sexual marketplaces take the shape they do because nature has biologically built a disadvantage into men: a huge desire for sex that makes men dependent on women. ... Women certainly desire sex too � but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men (Baumeister et al. 2001). We have even concluded that the cultural suppression of female sexuality throughout much of history and across many different cultures has largely had its roots in the quest for marketplace advantage (see Baumeister and Twenge 2002). Women have often sustained their advantage over men by putting pressure on each other to restrict the supply of sex available to men. As with any monopoly or cartel, restricting the supply leads to a higher price.
...Evolutionary theory said that the cultural suppression of female sexuality arose because men wanted to restrain women�s sexuality so as to be sure that their partners would be faithful (so the men could be confident of paternity). Feminist theory almost always harks back to male oppression, and so the cultural suppression of female sexuality reflected men�s desires to dominate women, possess them, and/or prevent them from finding sexual fulfillment. In both cases, the cultural suppression of female sexuality should come from men. Yet the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that the cultural suppression of female sexuality is propagated and sustained by women (Baumeister and Twenge 2002). ... Similar to how OPEC seeks to maintain a high price for oil on the world market by restricting the supply, women have often sought to maintain a high price for sex by restricting each other�s willingness to supply men with what men want.
Sometimes men have sought to improve their chances for sex by keeping women at a disadvantage in terms of economic, educational, political, and other opportunities (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). For example, researchers have found that in New York in the 1800s, surprisingly high numbers of employed women resorted to occasional prostitution to supplement their meager wages (Elias et al. 1998). But in general this male strategy backfired. Women appear to have realized collectively that sex was the main thing they had to offer men in order to get a piece of society�s wealth, and so they restricted sexual access as much as they could, to maintain a high price. Recent work has found that across a large sample of countries today, the economic and political liberation of women is positively correlated with greater availability of sex (Baumeister and Mendoza 2011). Thus, men�s access to sex has turned out to be maximized not by keeping women in an economically disadvantaged and dependent condition, but instead by letting them have abundant access and opportunity. In an important sense, the sexual revolution of the 1970s was itself a market correction. Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage (Baumeister and Twenge 2002).
What does all this mean for men? The social trends suggest the continuing influence of a stable fact, namely the strong desire of young men for sexual activity. As the environment has shifted, men have simply adjusted their behavior to find the best means to achieve this same goal. Back in 1960, it was difficult to get sex without getting married or at least engaged, and so men married early. To be sure, this required more than being willing to bend the knee, declare love, and offer a ring. To qualify as marriage material, a man had to have a job or at least a strong prospect of one (such as based on an imminent college degree). The man�s overarching goal of getting sex thus motivated him to become a respectable stakeholder contributing to society.
The fact that men became useful members of society as a result of their efforts to obtain sex is not trivial, and it may contain important clues as to the basic relationship between men and culture (see Baumeister 2010). Although this may be considered an unflattering characterization, and it cannot at present be considered a proven fact, we have found no evidence to contradict the basic general principle that men will do whatever is required in order to obtain sex, and perhaps not a great deal more. (One of us characterized this in a previous work as, �If women would stop sleeping with jerks, men would stop being jerks.�) If in order to obtain sex men must become pillars of the community, or lie, or amass riches by fair means or foul, or be romantic or funny, then many men will do precisely that. This puts the current sexual free-for-all on today�s college campuses in a somewhat less appealing light than it may at first seem. Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture.
...
All of this is a bit ironic, in historical context. The large institutions have almost all been created by men. The notion that women were deliberately oppressed by being excluded from these institutions requires an artful, selective, and motivated way of looking at them. Even today, the women�s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves. Almost certainly, this reflects one of the basic motivational differences between men and women, which is that female sociality is focused heavily on one-to-one relationships, whereas male sociality extends to larger groups networks of shallower relationships (e.g., Baumeister and Sommer 1997; Baumeister 2010). Crudely put, women hardly ever create large organizations or social systems. That fact can explain most of the history of gender relations, in which the gender near equality of prehistorical societies was gradually replaced by progressive inequality�not because men banded together to oppress women, but because cultural progress arose from the men�s sphere with its large networks of shallow relationships, while the women�s sphere remained stagnant because its social structure emphasized intense one-to-one relationships to the near exclusion of all else (see Baumeister 2010). All over the world and throughout history (and prehistory), the contribution of large groups of women to cultural progress has been vanishingly small.
...
Indeed, the world of work is a daunting place for a young man today. Feminists quickly point to the continued dominance of men at the top of most organizations, but this is misleading if not outright disingenuous. Men create most organizations and work hard to succeed in them. Indeed, an open-minded scholar can search through history mostly in vain to find large organizations created and run by women that have contributed anything beyond complaining about men and demanding a bigger share of the male pie.
Why have men acquiesced so much in giving women the upper hand in society�s institutions? It falls to men to create society (because women almost never create large organizations or cultural systems). It seems foolish and self-defeating for men then to meekly surrender advantageous treatment in all these institutions to women. Moreover, despite many individual exceptions, in general and on average men work harder at their jobs in these institutions than women, thereby enabling men to rise to the top ranks. As a result, women continue to earn less money and have lower status than men, which paradoxically is interpreted to mean that women�s preferential treatment should be continued and possibly increased (see review of much evidence in Baumeister 2010). Modern society is not far from embracing explicit policies of �equal pay for less work,� as one of us recently proposed.
...
...
So maybe the young men don�t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women. Sex has become free and easy. This is today�s version of the opiate of the (male) masses. The male who beds multiple women is enjoying life quite a bit, and so he may not notice or mind the fact that his educational and occupational advancement is vaguely hampered by all the laws and policies that push women ahead of him. After all, one key reason he wanted that advancement was to get sex, and he already has that. Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex. Success isn�t as important as it once was, when it was a prerequisite for sex.
...
With regard to work, the societal changes are producing less contribution by men and more by women. These might offset, with few or no costs to society. Still, replacing male with female workers may bring some changes, insofar as the two genders approach work differently. Compared to men, women have higher rates of absenteeism, seek social rewards more than financial ones, are less ambitious, work fewer hours overall, are more prone to take extended career interruptions, and identify less with the organizations they work for. They are more risk averse, resulting in fewer entrepreneurs and inventions. (Baumeister 2010, noted an appalling gender imbalance in new patents; nobody is seriously suggesting that the U.S. Patent office systematically discriminates against women, but women simply do not apply for patents in anything close to the rate that men do.) Women are less interested in science and technology fields. They create less wealth (for themselves and others).
... |
I've had to cut it down significantly and it is well worth a full read.
Some commentary:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/latest-baumeister-paper-supports-ch-concept-of-the-sexual-market/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aside from her absolutely terrible English how do I explain all this to my girlfriend? We just started seeing each other and I think this would confuse her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zackback wrote: |
| Aside from her absolutely terrible English how do I explain all this to my girlfriend? We just started seeing each other and I think this would confuse her. |
Why would you want to? That would result in you getting less sex, either from her getting upset or her taking this article as a serious call to action (heh, rather no action). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So maybe the young men don�t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women. Sex has become free and easy. This is today�s version of the opiate of the (male) masses. The male who beds multiple women is enjoying life quite a bit, and so he may not notice or mind the fact that his educational and occupational advancement is vaguely hampered by all the laws and policies that push women ahead of him. After all, one key reason he wanted that advancement was to get sex, and he already has that. Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex. Success isn�t as important as it once was, when it was a prerequisite for sex. |
Sociopathic ambition runs rampant in the American corridors of power. I don't see how these societal changes are prominent enough to affect the good they might seem to offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| interesting article, thanks titus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I don't have a problem with talking about sexual relations as if it were an economic market, I find the assumptions in the article to be questionable at best and don't right false at worse.
1. This statement: "When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage."
Lacks an understanding of personal and cultural choices and preferences. Women don't just have one mind. You can find women who think many different things across a spectrum on these issues.
2. Then there is this statement: "Sexual marketplaces take the shape they do because nature has biologically built a disadvantage into men: a huge desire for sex that makes men dependent on women. ... Women certainly desire sex too � but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men"
I think the concept of evolutionary desires for sex are much more complex and even more satisfying than this. For example, while men do have stronger sex drives in their teens than women, women's sex drives increase dramatically in their 30s, often all the way up to and even (sometimes) past menopause. While, men's sex drives start to decrease as early as their 20's. This is certainly not a black/white on/off phenomenon but one that is gradual and sometimes even up and down. This suggests that sex drive differences between the sexes may have more to do with balance and preventing over-population, including the length of women's ability to be fertile.
3. This: "Evolutionary theory said that the cultural suppression of female sexuality arose because men wanted to restrain women�s sexuality so as to be sure that their partners would be faithful (so the men could be confident of paternity)."
is either very poorly worded or patently false. It may be a cultural or personal strategy but it has nothing to do with evolution.
4. "Women appear to have realized collectively that sex was the main thing they had to offer men in order to get a piece of society�s wealth, and so they restricted sexual access as much as they could, to maintain a high price.
Good luck doing anything "collectively" like this. Furthermore, men (the pimp/owner) profit as much from prostitution or more than women. Men also gain economic advantages from marrying the "right" woman. Women rarely gain economic advantages outside men unless they are a member of the elite.
5. "Even today, the women�s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves."
At first, it was all about equal access/competition. Today, it may not. But, I don't think anyone can argue about equal access/competition. Furthermore, it ignores women owned business and successful women politicians. Lastly, is the writer suggesting that women form separate societies from men with their own institutions like Amazon women or something? The whole thing smells of slight of hand propaganda.
6. What I will agree with: Sexual relations between men and women today, especially in the U.S., have become more politically charged than anytime I am aware of. These are not easy paths for both men and women to walk. And, as long as there is mistrust and anger (on both sides), it is going to be hard for some people to have good relationships with the opposite sex and I agree that is sad. But, I would be thinking a long the lines of finding ways to bring the sexes together rather than more of this "political drivel and warped logic" which will only exacerbate the problem.
Understanding the opposite sex and finding ways to have a good relationship both in your business/work dealings and your personal relationships is always the best way to go forward. And, it is the same with your same-sex relationships in business/work and I guess personal relationships if that is your orientation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm actually inclined to agree with the feminists regarding virginity-value: it has the hallmark of the masculine stamped firmly upon it. Almost any woman is going to have a natural inclination to put out to a male she perceives as attractive, it's men, who individually want virginal mates, and collectively don't want to have to provide for illegitimate offspring, who have an interest in restricting and systematizing that. It's surely after men took control of the social order that virginity-value manifested, and although historically it has been enforced by women as well as men, that probably represents a degree of domestication rather than natural inclination.
As far as women on college campuses being looser, I really don't think that has much to do with fewer men on college campuses or "supply and demand" at all (universities are not closed systems), and is instead related to a broader, society-wide loosening of sexual mores. The biggest material factor in fact is probably the extreme availability of tools to restrict undesired births and the transmission of STDs: sex is about as consequence-free as it has ever been in the history of the world, and unsurprisingly, that results in more casual sex, on and off campus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting read to some extent but if you have no problem dating and seem to 'get' (understand) women, etc. its just an article.
This seems like the kind of thing someone who can't get or understand women gets into. If you're getting laid or able to find and get cool chicks, it wouldn't interest those guys much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoneyMike
Joined: 03 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Baumeister is great.
To Unposter's points:
1) Of course you can't say this about all women everywhere at any given time. All this article was looking at was general trends, and in my opinion he got them pretty accurately.
2) Interesting thought, but even at women's peak, I don't think they have the same desire as an average man. It would be a straight up free for all after a certain age if that was the case. That said, I don't have any evidence for that, it's just an opinion.
3) Yeah, maybe poorly worded there. That said, some people do consider the passing on of culture to be an evolutionary adaptation, and in that light, this desire can be seen as evolutionary.
6) I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. I don't think the author is trying to drive the sexes apart so much is he is trying to shed light on why things have gone in the direction they have. If trying to find a solid, rational explanation for something is seen as problematic, what does that say about where we're at right now?
Just some thoughts, can't write any more now, class time. Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| I don't think anyone can argue about equal access/competition. |
That's right, inequality 'of opportunity' across the sexes - in short, sex roles - was the norm for millenia upon millenia of human history. Until, in fact, 30 years ago.
But no arguments exist in its favour.
As an aside, don't people these days ever feel an authentic curiousity in their ancestors and in why they lived the way they did? Authentic curiousity, as in, not seeking to 'explain away', but actually to understand. If our fathers were hopelessly stupid and ignorant, well, we're our father's sons, aren't we? How are we suddenly so smart? It seems to me that even the most enflamed progressivist has to admit, to save the appearances, that his ancestors must have had some halfway decent reason for organizing society the way they did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I'm actually inclined to agree with the feminists regarding virginity-value: it has the hallmark of the masculine stamped firmly upon it. |
Agreed! We can see this reflected in the old distinction between the Apollonian and the Dionysian - Dionysus, or Bacchus, the old god of wine and madness, whose cult was led by women and celebrated in orgies. Even historically it seems impossible to argue that sexual mores do not loosen when women rise in power and influence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I'm actually inclined to agree with the feminists regarding virginity-value: it has the hallmark of the masculine stamped firmly upon it. |
Agreed! We can see this reflected in the old distinction between the Apollonian and the Dionysian - Dionysus, or Bacchus, the old god of wine and madness, whose cult was led by women and celebrated in orgies. Even historically it seems impossible to argue that sexual mores do not loosen when women rise in power and influence. |
Here is an article we discussed in this forum sometime back that lends modern credence to this: 'Men Live Better Where Women Are In Charge'.
| Quote: |
Coler: I wanted to know what happened in a society where women determine how things are done. How do women tick when, from birth onwards, their societal position allows them to decide everything? We men know what a man is, we put that together quickly -- but what constitutes a woman? Although, I didn't get any wiser on that point.
...
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is life like for a man in a matriarchy?
Coler: Men live better where women are in charge: you are responsible for almost nothing, you work much less and you spend the whole day with your friends. You're with a different woman every night. And on top of that, you can always live at your mother's house. The woman serves the man and it happens in a society where she leads the way and has control of the money. In a patriarchy, we men work more -- and every now and then we do the dishes. In the Mosuo's pure form of matriarchy, you aren't allowed to do that. Where a woman's dominant position is secure, those kinds of archaic gender roles don't have any meaning.
...
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What makes a man attractive to a Mosuo woman?
Coler: When she can talk with a man, have sex, and go out, then she is in love. Love is more important for them than partnership. They want to be in love. The one reason to be with another person is love. They aren't interested in getting married or starting a family with a man. When the love is over, then it's over. They don't stay together for the kids or for the money or for anything else.
...
Coler: One woman wanted to have a child with me. I told her, no, I can't have a child with you because you live here in China and I live in Argentina. "So?" was the reaction. The children always stay with the mothers. I said that I couldn't have any children whom I could never see. She just smiled as if I took it too seriously. When they have kids, the children are theirs only -- the men don't play a role. |
It's no mistake that relationships in modern, feminist America are beginning to show the exact same pattern. Tearing families apart because 'something is just missing.' Demoting fathers to weekend-dad status, if they get to play a role at all. Hell, the only effective difference in many cases is that western women are afflicted with a greater materialistic greed and insist the father continue to hand them his paycheck after they kick him out! This is the direction in which our society is moving.
This is femininity unleashed, and unlike the person being interviewed, I would not deem this an example of men "living better." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
It's no mistake that relationships in modern, feminist America are beginning to show the exact same pattern. Tearing families apart because 'something is just missing.' Demoting fathers to weekend-dad status, if they get to play a role at all. Hell, the only effective difference in many cases is that western women are afflicted with a greater materialistic greed and insist the father continue to hand them his paycheck after they kick him out! This is the direction in which our society is moving.
|
It seems like men are paying the price for not making the right life choices. So many guys marry the first piece of steady ass they get. Or are so in love or p-whipped the ignore signs of what the future will hold.
If men chose right (and allowing for the odd girl or two who can fool you) there wouldn't be such a problem. We get what we allow. That works both ways as well for women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marriage, Horror, And Susan Reimer
Take Horror. It's A Better Bet.
by Fred Reed
Were I to offer thoughts on marriage to young American men today, in these the declining years of a once-great civilization, my advice would be as follows: Don't do it. Or, if you do, do it in another country. In America marriage is a grievous error.
And why so? Because of The Chip. The Attitude. The bandsaw whine of anger, anger, anger that makes American women an international horror. It's there. It's real.
You, a young man, may not recognize the Chip if you have never seen normal, warm, happy women. If you are twenty-something and haven't been out of the US, you haven't seen them. They exist by the billion--in Latin America, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaya, China and, last I looked, France and Holland. And of course not every woman in America carries the Chip. None of them think they do. Yet it is the default, the usual, what comes out of the box.
The following is a perfectly ordinary, everyday, bulk-lot example, suitable for poisoning a cistern:
"Other than a 29-inch waist and a full head of hair, there isn't much to recommend the twentysomething male . . . . He is living an extended adolescence -- an adult-olescence -- and every immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed thing he does is reinforced by the latest issue of his favorite men's magazine." (Susan Reimer, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun. I bet she goes out a lot.)*
Hers is the Attitude--and what they think of you. It is the defining trait of American women. Exceptions exist, and they have my apologies, but they are few and no, sport, your Sally probably isn't one of them. They're coiled to bite. As soon as problems arise in the marriage, they turn into Susan.
Susan Reimer is what is out there, guys: bitter that no one wants her (as who in his right mind could?), sure that no one is good enough for her, never having grasped that those who would be loved must first be lovable. Understand this: Susan is America. Some hide it better, springing it on you after the ceremony, but Susan is the rule.
The Susans do not like men. Sometimes they actually take courses in disliking men ("Women's Studies"). Yet they want to marry one and have babies. For them, the contradiction actually makes a kind of sense, because (and they know this, believe me) they will get the house, the children, and the child support. For you, it makes no sense. You will get raped in the divorce courts. You don't know how bad it is. Don't do it.
A prime effect of marriage is backbreaking financial overhead: the excessive house in the prestigious suburb, the pricey but boring cars, all that. But if you don't fall into the trap, keeping your expenses down means you can live in Alaska or overseas and enjoy existence. There is more to life than debt service. Although these are bad times for marrying, they are extraordinarily good times for being single.
Now, children. This is sticky. You may want them, or think you want them, or think you may want them. She wants them. My advice is to move to almost any country where English isn't spoken and women don't want their husbands to be the mothers of their children. Any country inhabited by the Chinese would do nicely.
Incidentally, remember that it is never now or never. Your prospects improve with time. At thirty-five or fifty you will be perfectly able to find a good woman if you know where to look. See above list.
Remember also that these are not good times for having children in America. It is almost irresponsible. The schools are scholastically poor, drug-ridden, given chiefly to political indoctrination, and hostile to male children. The universities are little better. Divorce is hell on children and their fathers, and nearly universal. The country lunges to police-statedom and isn't, I suspect, as stable as it might be. Worse, worst, there is Susan Reimer. Her name is legion, and she seeps everywhere, like the effluvium of unwashed socks.
Further, there is no social duty to have children. Some argue that the white population is in decline. Tough. If the country chooses to make having kids undesirable, then let it decline. It is not your problem.
Now, you might well wonder, why are American women carrying the Chip? Practically, it doesn't matter: They do carry it, and will continue. Still, it is partly because from birth they are fed the notion that they have been oppressed, battered, cheated, deprived, harassed, used as sex objects, not used as sex objects, on and on. Being rational, you are perhaps inclined to point out that never has a female population been less any of these things, but don't bother. It will have no effect. The Chip is an emotional artifact to which they respond emotionally.
The bedrock of The Attitude is that everything is the man's fault. Wonders Reimer, "What is the answer, especially if the 20- and 30-year-old male is such poor marriage material?" She does not wonder, "If I am such a grindingly awful termagant that men on three continents are crossing their legs and feeling queasy over my mere column, and won't come near me except in a Kevlar bathysphere with a disinfectant system, maybe I'm doing something wrong. Gosh. I wonder what?"
Yet something more is going on, though one does not easily see just what. Note that in recent decades we have seen the invention by women of bulimia and anorexia, which no one had heard of in 1965. Men made them do it. At roughly the same time women began getting breast implants, which men also made them do, and then suing about it. In the same period they began having induced memories of being raped or satanically abused by their fathers. Men again. The psychotherapy racket grew like kudzu, a sure sign of deep unhappiness over something.
All of this is recent. You have to be fifty to remember women who were resilient, sane, psychically strong and, within the limits of an often sorry existence, content. But whatever the answer, guys, the problem isn't yours.
Spend a year overseas, however you have to do it. For smart, classy, just plain glorious women who often speak English, try Singapore. Argentina is splendid. Many places are. You would be amazed. See what's out there before you marry a gringa with her Inner Susan, who will one day burst from her chest like one of those beaked space-aliens in the movies, dripping venom. They're death.
* Orlando Sentinel, July 1
July 21, 2003 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
