Outstanding Article

Guys -
This week the mainstream literati finally got a true glimpse of the advances in male/female relations thinking that this site and others have been evolving these last few years.

1. The controversy started last spring when the City Journal (the quarterly publication of the highly influential Manhattan Institute) published a feminist written article chiding todays young men as immature and irresponsible Peter Pans for not committing to marriage. The author was one of their senior fellows Kay Hymowitz:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_single_young_men.html


2. Following that article there was a huge backlash from the male movement in general, and young men in particular. Kay even got invited to the Tom Leykis show where she got a proper spanking from the listeners:

http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/886957.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/886984.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/887004.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/887010.mp3


3. Apparently all this activism changed Kay's (and probably the Manhattan Institute's) mind on the topic. Finally this past week, the City Journal published this article in their Fall 2008 edition. This article is much improved, and also she mentions some of the websites/blogs we frequent by name:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_darwinist_dating.html

Coming from a feminist author and being published in a magazine read by the big-money circles, this is a a huge win for the Men's Movement. Enjoy!

Hahaha, I think that chick actually used one of my quotes from when I posted on MenAreBetterThanWomen.com when Tom read the article part that she quoted which said "A misogynist is a man that hates women as much as they hate eachother". :crackup:

I'm pretty sure I then went on to say that for this reason most men are not actually misogynists as that level of hate is just too much for most of us but of course the feminist author didn't include the entire quote.

KontrollerX - That is awesome. It is pretty clear she was soaking up from this new world of ideas to whom she had never been exposed before. When they start using our words, that means they have internalized our ideas.

Those are great articles. A guy in my local lair posted the bottom one which is why I've been posting it everywhere.

Wow. That's quite a 180.

Just goes to show you just how clueless women are as to the "state of the union" these days for men. It takes a backlash to a typical shaming article for ONE woman to actually wake up and understand why men today have little desire to allow the "ideal life according to woman" to be shoved down their throats.

Man, how I would love to send both of these articles to every woman I know!

Wouldn't that be fun? I mean, who here hasn't thought about how awesome it would be to PUBLICLY state their views and opinions on relationships circa 2008?

This is why I say if we as men would stand up to woman and not always be silent we'd have influence over their behavior.

That article was spot on, though I'm not sure if she actually learned her lesson or just got engaged and stopped feeling bitter.

As she indicated, I don't believe that most community members are actually "anti-marriage." Most men get to a point in their lives where they want to raise a family. However, there is no reason NOT to put off marriage these days. A man's safest course of action is to spend his 20's and even 30's focusing on his career while casually dating LOTS of girls until he is reasonably sure he can properly "vet" them for marriage. This way, he gets to have his fun, build his financial security, marry a younger QUALITY woman, AND have the necessary experience to know how to keep her. Of course, this isn't to say the guy that marries his high school sweetheart at 19 is going to be unhappy--it's just a higher risk that he'll encounter marital and financial troubles.

Most of the guys I know that are deliberately putting off marriage are NOT the videogame-playing frat boys the author previously described; they're ambitious, hardworking men that simply don't have the time for marriage and all its associated responsibilities.

At any rate, kudos to the author's recognition of these truths and her desire to hold young women accountable for their part in all this. I know very well from living in NYC that most of the "perpetually single" girls are that way for a reason. Those types tend to alternate between an eternal search for the BBD and a paralyzing fear of spinsterhood, all the while relishing their struggles as proof that they are "modern women." Avoid these AWs and go for their hot, quiet friend that you thought was stuck up but is really just shy

It's not a perfect article. It still has its problems.

I find this critique by Roissy much more accurate:

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/love-in-the-time-of-game/

(highly recommended)

Nice find there wjh.

That woman took some notes from the PUA's Book of Negs. The article seems to be sympathetic towards men at first glance but the tone is very condescending and comes from her comfy moral high ground. The most obvious clue is the total lack of holding the women accountable for their part in the Game.

Jitterbug said:

That woman took some notes from the PUA's Book of Negs. The article seems to be sympathetic towards men at first glance but the tone is very condescending and comes from her comfy moral high ground. The most obvious clue is the total lack of holding the women accountable for their part in the Game.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. She also paints us all as Darwinians, when some of us are actually old school about woman having a proper place as the natural order, and only out of pragmatism are we playing by the no-rules-Darwinians rules, since women are acting like animals. It was women who demanded all the rules and roles be thrown out the window. Then she says maybe there should be social rules. Well no ones stopping women from following a standard of behavior or actually rewarding "nice" guy behavior. Women complain and blame no matter what.

ketostix said:

...and only out of pragmatism are we playing by the no-rules-Darwinians rules, since women are acting like animals. It was women who demanded all the rules and roles be thrown out the window. .

Click to expand...

Actually most women are the quintessential "pragmatists"...ie, self serving, amoral and contemptous of any "rules: except when "the rules" work in their favor.

Great discussions from the Doctor that called in round the 2 minute mark of 887004.mp3.

Loke said:

Great discussions from the Doctor that called in round the 2 minute mark of 887004.mp3.

Click to expand...

Yup. Basically what she was complaining about in her first article was analagous to guys complaining about women entering the work force in the 60s. Basically men are now changing the roles they want to fulfill in life and it's ticking women off. Well, the same thing happened to a lot of guys when women did the same thing. Furthermore this shift in not wanting to get married and have kids is largely in direct reaction to the feminist movement shaking up gender roles to begin with.

KontrollerX said:

Hahaha, I think that chick actually used one of my quotes from when I posted on MenAreBetterThanWomen.com when Tom read the article part that she quoted which said "A misogynist is a man that hates women as much as they hate eachother". :crackup:

I'm pretty sure I then went on to say that for this reason most men are not actually misogynists as that level of hate is just too much for most of us but of course the feminist author didn't include the entire quote.

Click to expand...

H.L. Menken said it first though.

In the interview with Lykis, this woman kept on saying that "time and time again studies have shown that men who are married tend to be healthier and live longer".

The question that no one has answered and neither is this supposed study as to "WHY"??!! - I suspect that the reason women throw studies like this in the face of men is to convince men that it is for their own benefit's to get married. As if love wasn't enough anymore??!! I guess too many men are looking at statistics nowadays and analyzing the cost-benefit of being a part of all this.

I suspect that the reason this supposed study failed to achieved its purpose was because it didn't look at the lives of these single men and could not determined if which of those unmarried men are by choice or because they didn't find anyone??!!

Those we are probably unmarried by choice constitute a small minority of the participants and they are the one's that still carry the good genes, still take care of their bodies and have the means to live long live's and health but do not want to be a part of this horrible instutition called marriage.

Dear All,
A very helpful series of articles....I have three sons,their ages and attitudes help date the social changes we are seeing described.......One is 36,the next 32,the last is 26....Son no 1 has a life with values and interests similar to those I had as a young Man,more interested in Hunting Hogs with his pack of dogs,fishing and shooting,rarely spends time on his computor,the next has some of these interests but spends a hell of a lot of time on his computor and studying,but the youngest is just so typical of the young Men Hymovitz describes in her article,I really understand him a lot better now...In their relationships with Women,Son No 1, was snared by a sexy single mum and is happily married with his own kids.Son No 2 has a long term,live in committed relationship.Following serious illness,does not want children,Son No 3 Is a Handsome DJ completely ruthless in his relationships,divides his life between Gaming Girls,boozing with Mates,playing Computor games,and Body Building,he has a healthy attitude to work,as a Mechanical Engineer he Works all round the World,I never really know where he is at any one time,still he has a very healthy bank balance...Its a great life and he looks good on it.

We don't live longer when married, it just seems like it.

How do they know that married men live longer? Assuming that the research was done properly, it must mean that the people they studied were from the older generations (i.e the married ones died at an older average age than the singles) - before feminism fvcked it all up.

Jitterbug said:

How do they know that married men live longer? Assuming that the research was done properly, it must mean that the people they studied were from the older generations (i.e the married ones died at an older average age than the singles) - before feminism fvcked it all up.

Click to expand...

This statistic historically had sample selection bias. In the old days, when marriage was the primary way that sex was licensed, the simple act of women selecting men for sex/marriage was filtering for the healthy males. Any one who was strong and fit to survive and reproduce got married. Top 80% of men and women. The remaining people who didn't find mates to get married were usually the weak, sickly men. (and similarly unhealthy women). No one was single by choice.

Hence when they quote this statistic at you: "Married men live longer", it's not a cause-effect relationship. Those men were going to live longer anyways because they were *already* the stronger, healthier, richer men. It's just that the marriage-seeking women had pre-selected these men for precisely those reasons.

Your state's board of education and media outlets however aren't going to tell you that. They prefer you do get married, so they can control you financially and in other ways.