the surplus
by rantywoman
http://www.macleans.ca/society/the-no-baby-boom/
To put those developments in historical context, Daly notes that the last time the childless rate was one in five, it was in a generation of so-called “surplus women” born at the turn of the 20th century. “The fact it took a war with unprecedented loss of life and global depression to cause such an increase in childlessness gives you some idea of the social change we’re going through now,” she says.
[…]
Today’s “surplus women” are not war widows but young professional women for whom there aren’t enough suitable male partners—a phenomenon referred to in China derisively as “A1 women and D4 men.” Yet the blame invariably falls on them for being “too choosy,” a motif of the booming advice-to-female-professionals book genre, the latest being Susan Patton’s new Marry Smart: Advice for Finding THE ONE, in which the “Princeton Mom” advises women to snag their “MRS” in university as they’ll never have access to such an elite dating pool again.
thebitterbabe 
Yet the blame invariably falls on them for being “too choosy,”
There is nothing wrong with being “choosy” so long as a woman is choosy about the right things.
Right things to be choosy about: character, kindness, maturity (including ability to manage his money), respect for the institution of marriage, respect for the female gender, work ethic.
Wrong things to be choosy about: Height, income level, profession, class/socioeconomic background, education level, physical appearance, dress sense, athleticism, popularity.
In addition to being choosy in whether a man brings the right qualities to the table, every woman should also ask “What am I bringing to the table? What qualities do I have that can enhance a worthy man’s life? Are there any that I don’t have at present but that I can work on acquiring?”
I am not saying women should shoot for a deadbeat headbanger couch potato six inches shorter than she for whom she feels absolutely no attraction. What I am suggesting, however, is that if women expands their definition of “desirable” to include men she might ordinarily overlook as “husband material” she will significantly increase her chance of happiness. If you have a doctorate would you consider dating an electrician with a G.E.D and no college? If the answer is a flat out “no” I suggest your criteria may be misguided.
We tend to complain constantly about wanting men to love us for who we are instead of just for our appearance, yet , hypocritically, we tend to overwhelmingly overlook men based almost purely on physical appearance.
Finally – on Susan Porter – I have mixed feelings about what she is saying. Donna Brazile wrote a good riposte to her, making the point that marriage and family are not the only goal for some women i.e. some of us want to have meaningful work as well, and others even find work far more important than family. Brazile’s point is well-taken, but it doesn’t negate Porter’s basic truth that statistically speaking, women who want a family should start looking in their early 20s if at all possible.
Autumn said: “What I am suggesting, however, is that if women expand their definition of “desirable” to include men she might ordinarily overlook as “husband material” she will significantly increase her chance of happiness. If you have a doctorate would you consider dating an electrician with a G.E.D and no college? If the answer is a flat out “no” I suggest your criteria may be misguided.”
WELL, here’s the thing: Let’s say I found the electrician with a G.E.D. and no college to be physically attractive and kind; not only good in bed but an all-round decent, sweet guy. OK, so far so good. But, um . . . what then? You know, after the first few months (maybe a year or two if one is lucky) when passion cools down? What the HELL do I have in common with this guy? Why, in fact, would I interest HIM any more than he would interest me? (Although I suppose my paycheck and the standard of living I could offer him would be an enticement, but putting that aside….) I’m not an advocate of couples being attached at the hip 24/7, but shouldn’t one have SOME interests in common? I’ve come in contact with a lot of professional women who, as the biologic clock ticked ever louder, “settled” for the seemingly nice blue collar guy so that they could have a family before it was too late. How is it that I’ve come in contact with them? I’m their divorce lawyer. Because, after the initial novelty (“aren’t we different and open-minded to marry across barriers of class and education?”) and exhaustion of the early child-bearing years wears off, there’s absolutely NOTHING left except a nasty child custody battle (she’s been working hard to support them and he’s been the stay-at-home dad, so he’ll get primary custody), and paying the guy half of everything one has accumulated. Unless, of course, one has had the foresight to do a prenuptial agreement, but then one still has the child-related disputes to look forward to.
I’d rather just accept the stark realities than make that mistake.
We must have been on the same wavelength.
Agree with your points, and there’s also the misguided notion that the blue-collar electrician is somehow going to be a much nicer, monogamy-oriented type of guy. Not always true. I know both myself and my friends have made huge compromises over the course of our dating lives (not just in socioeconomic status but in other realms as well), and it hasn’t necessarily resulted in better relationships.
Hi MissBates,
My responses to the points raised are as follows;
1. after the first few months (maybe a year or two if one is lucky) when passion cools down? What the HELL do I have in common with this guy?
Answer: If you are basing a LTR primarily on hotmonkeysex you are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. Hotmonkeysex is a byproduct of strong ties based on more meaningful and permanent factors (including common interests), not the glue to bind a successful marriage. If it is nearly all you and he have in common then the relationship was built on sand.
2. Why, in fact, would I interest HIM any more than he would interest me?
Answer: See response above. Moreover, in a successful marriage, you will both possess many qualities that the other admires. If such complementary qualities do not exist, the marriage should not go forward.
3. I’ve come in contact with a lot of professional women who, as the biologic clock ticked ever louder, “settled” for the seemingly nice blue collar guy so that they could have a family before it was too late.
Answer: If a woman is “settling” meaning, she feels she has more to offer than he does, it is highly foreseeable the marriage will end in divorce. She is far better off remaining single than marrying such a man. Doing so in order to “have children” simply creates misery all around.
4. I’d rather just accept the stark realities than make that mistake
Answer: It sounds like you are wise enough to realize that you are better off single than marrying in this type of situation, so well done.
Hi autumn,
I was with you until you said a woman shouldn’t be choosy about income and socioeconomic status. Those are right up there with things like kindness and maturity. Any woman who ignores a man’s socioeconomic status and income level does so at her own folly. First of all, money is often a big sticking point in relationships, particularly the lack of money. The man doesn’t have to make more than the woman (especially if she is a high earner) but he should be making a similar amount or be very compatible with her in another way.
Which brings me to socioeconomic status. A person’s socioeconomic status has a huge effect on how they see and react to the world. It will also affect their interests. If two people see the world in completely different ways, how can they have a satisfying and lasting relationship? I know there are shades of gray. For example, a couple’s shared strong religious beliefs may be able to overcome large differences in socioeconomic status. Otherwise, I fear we are entering ‘warm body’ territory. Also known as having a man just to have one with the added bonus that he won’t beat you. And maybe that’s enough for some women but I get the feeling that a woman like Ranty (and myself) need true intellectual partners. Also men and women from different socioeconomic statuses may not fit into each other’s social scenes.
And this is without including children. If a woman plans to have children and doesn’t take her husband’s income level into consideration, there is a good chance she is setting herself and her children up for a lifetime of poverty. Kindness and a good work ethic are not always enough to ensure that family lives comfortably.
I do agree with Patton that university is the best venue to meet that type of guy (that’s where I met my husband).
Agree re socio-economic status in particular. So, for example, although I earn significantly more than, say, a college professor, I would have no problem entering into a relationship with him because I would view him as my social/intellectual equal, and would hope he would view me the same way. He would “fit in” with my friends (all of whom are professionals of one kind or another) and I could hold my own in his circle as well. And although his income would be less than mine, he would still be considered a responsible, successful professional in his field, with a reliable income, pension, etc. Not so the guy with the G.E.D., however “nice” a person he was — and I agree with Ranty that it’s a mistake to think that the blue collar guy is less likely to cheat or be a jerk. Au contraire — every bit as likely to disappoint in that regard, I think maybe more so, as one’s social/cultural/intellectual differences began to create tension and he looks elsewhere for validation.
1. I was with you until you said a woman shouldn’t be choosy about income and socioeconomic status. Those are right up there with things like kindness and maturity. Any woman who ignores a man’s socioeconomic status and income level does so at her own folly. First of all, money is often a big sticking point in relationships, particularly the lack of money. The man doesn’t have to make more than the woman (especially if she is a high earner) but he should be making a similar amount or be very compatible with her in another way.
Answer: I would not advise a woman to “ignore” a man’s income. What I would advise against, however, is having a kneejerk idea about the level of income she expects a man to have (such as “he must make as much or more than me.”) If you are unwilling to budge on income requirements, your pool of available husbands is going to be considerably smaller than a woman who is willing to do so. Moreover its size will continue to decrease as you get older.
I don’t know about you, but I would rather live frugally with a kind, considerate, intelligent, and interesting middle-school geography teacher or electrician than I would live single in the hope of meeting “Mr Big.” If you consider frugal = impoverished, however, this solution will not work for you.
NB: Rigidity on this particularly issue is one of the main reasons so many successful professional women are unmarried.
2. A person’s socioeconomic status has a huge effect on how they see and react to the world. It will also affect their interests.
Answer: Socioeconomic status is only one factor in determining worldview. I would strongly encourage you to learn to approach each man must be approached as an individual. How would you feel if a group of Senior Manager with Ivy MBAs met for lunch and concluded that “Professional women, especially lawyers, are entitled b*tches, which is why I avoid them.”
I am not suggesting that you twist yourself into a pretzel so you can date Homer Simpson. What I am suggesting, however, is that “cerebral/intellectual/literate/cultured” are not adjectives that are in any way unique to high-earning men with gobs of formal education. In fact, there is very little correlation in my experience; the majority of the most interesting, cultured, and cerebral people I have known did not even finish college. My evidence is anecdotal in this regard, but it grows stronger with every year of experience.
although I earn significantly more than, say, a college professor, I would have no problem entering into a relationship with him because I would view him as my social/intellectual equal
MissBates,
I’m not sure how old you are, but if you are 30+, statistically speaking you are at a disadvantage in terms of finding this type of man. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I am saying that waiting for him to fall into your lap without taking proactive action may leave you waiting for a long, long time.
Patton’s point is that finding such a man is best done at a time when you are at your peak of attractiveness (as chickpositive did by finding her husband in college).
For more explanation see Rollo’s SMV chart:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/
The realities of the marital marketplace are harsh, and this fact is NOT taught in either college or law school. Most single women 30+ don’t have a clue and this is why Patton is issuing a wake-up call to young women.
Understanding the realities of the MMP will enable a woman to maximize her own MMV (both through self-improvement and tweaking of requirements), which will in turn significantly increase her chance of getting married if this is what she desires.
Erm . . . I’m far above 30, and indeed NOT looking, or, as Autumn so puts it, “looking to close a sale.” In fact, I haven’t been “looking” for many, many years, because I: (a) never wanted to have children, even as a young woman; (b) do not wish to marry the guy with the G.E.D. who would almost certainly be marrying me for my money; and (c) as a divorce lawyer, am only too keenly aware that such mistakes can ruin one’s life. I am equally well aware that my market value is nil, but that does not mean that I wish to take up with the G.E.D. guy with whom I have nothing in common, just for the sake of saying, “I’ve got a man.” And by the way, I live in NYC, and can tell you that while male college professors might be “in demand” or considered a “catch” in Smalltown USA, they are at the bottom of the professional class dating pool here because their very low salaries are insufficient to enable them even to afford decent apartments (which is why universities here have to offer subsidized housing for their faculties). Thus, for financially successful career women, they offer a reasonable alternative — i.e., employed with a pension, smart, articulate, and sophisticated enough to hold their own at a dinner party, but utterly unable to compete with the investment bankers and hedge fund managers in the dating world who can have their pick of women. I know a number of well-to-do career women who ended up with a partner in academia because they were smart enough NOT to hold out for the high-earning Wall Street guy when they were in their early 30s, and these women were also savvy enough to know that a marriage with G.E.D. guy would not work. They also have iron-clad prenups, of course.
And by the way, I live in NYC
MissBates,
Apologies – I thought you were a more ordinary, average professional woman like myself who do not see marriage as primarily a business deal. In sum, I am not writing for women like you.
NYC is a micro-climate where the rules don’t apply. Those who inhabit it have a different set of concerns from the rest of us and they play by a different set of rules (as Andrew Sullivan learned).
The “look at me aren’t I so vibrant, successful, and fabulous” that characterizes a lot of NYC-think tends to be very counterproductive outside Manhattan. Unfortunately, many professional women all over the Western world have adopted this identity as the default, believing that it will help them in the non-NYC MMP when in fact it has quite the opposite effect,
If the women who comment at this blog were truly content with their lives as singletons (as you clearly are), if I didn’t sense a deep undercurrent of sadness and bewilderment from a lot of what I read here (I have been lurking for awhile), I wouldn’t bother wasting my time at this thread challenging their misconceptions and offering alternatives that I know actually do work.
there’s also the misguided notion that the blue-collar electrician is somehow going to be a much nicer, monogamy-oriented type of guy. Not always true. I know both myself and my friends have made huge compromises over the course of our dating lives (not just in socioeconomic status but in other realms as well), and it hasn’t necessarily resulted in better relationships
I think you misunderstood my point. I never claimed that “the blue-collar electrician is somehow going to be a much nicer…guy.” In fact, such a claim would be ludicrous! Whether a guy is nice or not can ONLY be known through direct experience of him as an individual. Profession is not much of a predictor in this regard.
With regard to the “huge compromises” you and your friends have made – if you feel you have more to offer than a man you are dating, do both of yourselves a favour and end the relationship. A happy marriage cannot ensue if a woman feels that she is “settling.” The only alternatives are to (a) remain single until you find a man who meets your requirements or (b) do some self-examination and ask whether your requirements are in line with what you have to offer.
To expand on (b) I will use a business analogy: The market demand for “sassy, high-powered, articulate, cerebral, independent career women with impressive academic credentials” per se is next to nil. If you want to close the sale, you have to offer what the customer is demanding.
Autumn,
Why don’t the rules apply in NYC?
Hi Rachel,
The rules don’t apply in NYC because the culture, and not just the housing market, is completely different. The journalist Andrew Sullivan deconstructed NYC recently in an article explaining why he was returning to D.C. It is well worth reading.
Everything in NYC is ordered around money, social status, and “self,” including dating and marriage. New Yorkers (and you can include Westchester and much of Western CT) live in an echo chamber whereby they believe they and their friends are the most sophisticated people on the planet in all matters. Or as Flannery O’Connor once wrote: “In order to recognize a freak you have to have a conception of the whole man” (keep in mind however that she was just a hick from Georgia 🙂 ).
For example, what MissBates cites as a desirable alternative to the hedge fund manager (the tenured professor with prenup who fits in at dinner parties) makes perfect sense to the NYC mind. Outside NYC, however, the prof would be viewed by most as a “kept man” and such a marriage as “an arrangement.” I honestly don’t believe most professional females outside NYC, including lady lawyers who read Proust, are seeking this type of marriage. Ergo, MissBates’s experience is not instructive or relevant to most women. No disrespect to her, but this is a fact.
I am writing here instead for ordinary woman who seek a masculine man who wants to lead a family, even if she can’t quite articulate that need because she thinks it sounds “retro” or “antifeminist.” In order to find this kind of man and relate to him successfully, however, a woman must first understand male psychology as it is and not as she thinks it is or wishes it to be. This is an achievable task but not an easy one, especially if her views of the male gender have been shaped heavily by “SATC,” “Girls,” and similar tools of destructive but nonetheless very effective social engineering.
The following blogs and articles might be of interest to you:
http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2012/05/men-dont-care-about-your.html
http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2012/04/analogy-between-confidence-and-beauty.html
http://peacefulsinglegirl.wordpress.com/
http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/
NB: Peaceful Singlegirl is written by a successful professional woman (a pharmacist) who is also a wife and mother.
I hope this information helps 🙂
Quoting from the post above: “women who want a family should start looking in their early 20s if at all possible.” This is the kind of wisdom the older generation needs to pass onto the younger. I find it more helpful than “don’t wait until you’re 40” and teaching women how to “take responsibility for their decisions/actions.” (Suggestions made elsewhere under other posts, I believe.) Apparently this “basic truth” (women who want a family — and probably even a relationship — are advised to pursue them in their 20s) was lost in the shuffle somewhere along the line. The 1960s and beyond? Not sure.
I find a lot of men don’t want kids at that age though, and I didn’t socialize with people much more than five years older than me when I was in my twenties.
Women in their 20s could spend a lot of time socializing and getting out there meeting people in order to increase their chances of meeting the right guy. They could also marry a guy in his 30s.
I do genuinely feel sorry for your predicament. From a male perspective it’s all so simple. Nothing mysterious about any of it.
Young women have tremendous power. It traveled with you like the air you breathe and so you didn’t really notice it.
You all chased the same prosaic dream, a mix of education, work and unserious relationships. You were going to BE somebody, not just somebody’s wife. You didn’t notice or didn’t care that much of your success came from the heavy hand of government.
Young men are desperate for the attention of young women and most of them get very little. You didn’t notice that either. Despite what you may think now, many young men are ready to commit. But you weren’t. Life was intoxicating and fun and men were like buses. Remember?
I remember the woman I desperately loved in my early twenties. I still dream of her and wake with tears in my eyes more than thirty years later. She was going to BE somebody. But life is hilariously cruel and instead she found failure, childlessness and spinsterhood.
You and your peers were all chasing – and sharing – the same few men. Tremendous power met an impossible task and tremendous power came up short. You sailed right through the marriage zone in your mid twenties. Men value, youth, beauty and fertility. You squandered yours, expecting to attract a mate when you were good and ready, at the age of what, 32? 33 maybe? You just didn’t grasp that with 90% of your youth and beauty behind you, to the man you wanted you looked more like the dregs of an empty bottle than a magnum of single malt whisky.
Ladies, you have to be willing to give the majority of your youth and beauty to your husband. Why is that so hard to grasp? You can not expect to attract a husband having squandered 90% of your treasure.
So, you’re 45. Well, your match, your soul mate, the man you can attract now is 60. You will look pretty good…acceptable, anyway…to him.
I think this is a myth cooked up by men who were brokenhearted by doing the same things they accuse women of doing– chasing a few, beautiful, unavailable women.
Most of the women I know were serious about dating, although also, yes, distracted by careers (that they sometimes liked, sometimes hated, but had to have) and had their share of getting rejected and being the rejectors.
Perhaps there are those 5% of women who were the head cheerleader types and had their pick of men… but I would wager that most women never felt her options were superb, and she made the best choices she could at the time.
I understand why you see this as a myth.
I married a younger woman, though not that much younger actually. She was smart enough to snag me in the marriage zone when she was 28, though we started dating when she was 25.
Commenter autumn earlier mentions Rollo’s blog post on SMV – Sexual Market Value. In the landscape of relationships and marriage, this is the single most important thing to understand. Google “The Marriage Zone” for lots more info.
Perhaps there are those 5% of women who were the head cheerleader types and had their pick of men… but I would wager that most women never felt her options were superb, and she made the best choices she could at the time.
5% of men have their pick of all women. Most educated women have their eyes on those same 5% to 10% of men because you’re all looking up the hierarchy instead of across at the man who would actually commit to you. When you are 20 that man is invisible.
I feel sorry for women as you’re all burdened with this unsolvable problem. Many of you will not be able to get commitment from the man you want. What’s more, the old system, where men and women paired off in their late teens or early twenties pretty much guaranteed many women would be unhappy in their marriages to men of more or less equal attractiveness. In a sense the price of civilization is women’s unhappiness.
Hi Ranty,
When you say most of the women you know were “serious about dating” do you mean that they were actively looking to get married in their 20s?
This is worth its own reply. Women have difficulty understanding men because they project their own wants and desires onto men. But the situation of men and women in the sexual marketplace is completely asymmetric.
So, while it’s true that women can chase the few beautiful, unavailable men and succeed in gaining their attention, temporarily, for sex, it’s impossible for the reverse to happen. Beautiful, unavailable women do not even acknowledge the existence of less attractive men.
I know both myself and my friends have made huge compromises over the course of our dating lives
Rantywomen,
Lost in the shuffle of this thread is perhaps the single most important point on it, at least from a practical standpoint. Your quote above indicates that you feel you have high MMV, that is,
you seem to believe you are worthy of a high-value man (and yes, as Mike says, this excludes about 95% of men) simply because you are….educated?…..intelligent?…..popular?……articulate?…..have headcount at work?…..etc etc (fill in the blank). None of these qualities in and of themselves, however, will make a woman attractive to a high-value man.
So let’s look at this dilemma and break it down:
1. You know what you want i.e. a high-value man (“HV Man”) (anything less is a “huge compromise” to you)
2. HV men are in short supply (say 5%).
3. Like yourself, HV men also have strict requirements about what they want in a woman. But what are they actually looking for? Do you and your single girlfriends even know (Hint: It isn’t what you think it is)? If you do, it’s not apparent from reading your blog.
4. Once you have identified the requirements of HV men, you must then ask yourself “Do I currently meet these requirements?” If the answer is yes, you should be married by now or at least engaged. So assuming the answer is “no” you have three choices:
4a. Develop/cultivate as many of the qualities that a HV man wants as you can and market yourself to him.
4b. If 4a is something you are either unwilling or unable to do, realize that the pool of men available to you is the 95% you didn’t really want in Step 1 because they require “huge compromises.” Go back to Step 1 and go through the same analysis, but this time directed toward the 95% instead of the HV men.
4c. Keep going as you are in the hope that one of these high-value man will for some reason find you irresistible and want to commit his life to you.
My own recommendation would be to focus on 4a. During the course of this transformation, you will begin to see the beauty, desirability, and worth of the 95%. It is then that your life will change for the better.
I think these theories might apply to a small percentage of people, but most of us are dealing with much messier realities.
Most educated women have their eyes on those same 5% to 10% of men because you’re all looking up the hierarchy instead of across at the man who would actually commit to you. When you are 20 that man is invisible.
Mike,
Your posts are great. Women need to hear these truths from men, because they don’t believe it when they hear them from a woman like myself.
Unfortunately, the women at this blog don’t understand the concept you so eloquently cite above because they have been getting their dating advice from places like Sex and the City and Cosmo.
Ladies, here is a very straightforward explanation of why so many of you have been led to overvalue egregiously your own MMV:
http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2011/08/women-get-to-play-out-of-their-league.html
Hi Autumn,
Thanks for the post and the links. I haven’t checked out all the links yet, but I’m surprised that the rules (as we’re calling them) don’t apply in NYC since I thought they’re really grounded in biology. So, while they may not apply to every individual, you’d think they’d pretty much apply to people in Manhattan.
Hi Rachel,
Our natures are indeed grounded in biology, but this biology is influenced and shaped by culture. So although we are all born with innate tendencies (whether in NYC or in Nairobi), cultural influence can be so overwhelming as to suppress and even distort these innate tendencies. For example, the negative influences of feminism are cultural, not natural (NB: I am not antifeminist as a whole, as I accept certain parts of feminism such as equal pay for equal work, career opportunities for women, etc).
Prior to the 1960s, women understood the female nature, and, just as importantly, they understood the male nature and were able to harness it effectively in order to ensure family happiness. As a result, female-friendly values dominated every aspect of mainstream Western society.
For the last 40+ years, however, women have been increasingly conditioned (and yes, this was all by design) to act contrary to their own nature and contrary to their own best interests. As a result, many women are lonely, confused, and miserable, and have no idea how they got this way let alone how to escape from their predicament. They gripe about it to other women in the same predicament and take bad advice from each other, apply the bad advice which foreseeably merely extends their confusion and unhappiness, rinse and repeat. So the cycle of female misery continues.
The only way of restoring female dominance is to (a) understand the lies the current culture teaches about men and women and (b) make a conscious decision to rid your mindset (and behaviors) of these cultural lies. If you do this in your own individual life, you will learn absolute respect for yourself, and absolute respect for the male gender. Your relationships with men will change vastly and for the better. If enough women do this, the cultural will reach a tipping point and shift back to being female-friendly, and everyone will be happier. A female-friendly culture is a family-friendly culture, and this benefits all.
Your future happiness with men lies largely within your control, and this is wonderful news. The RedPillWomen Reddit is a good place to start getting your head around all this.
Mike: “Beautiful, unavailable women do not even acknowledge the existence of less attractive men.”
Which is exactly your complaint, that you didn’t get acknowledged when you were chasing some beautiful, unavailable woman. We only have your word that you were looking across the hierarchy as opposed to looking up the hierarchy, just as much as the women you complain about.
From my experience, men spend a lot of time looking up the hierarchy at the “head cheerleader types” as Ranty says. Quite a lot of women go unnoticed by virtue of not being considered sufficiently ‘hot’, even in their youth. But perhaps you don’t realise this happens to women, since the very existence of less attractive women went unnoticed by you.
“Young women have tremendous power. It traveled with you like the air you breathe and so you didn’t really notice it.” Bullshit. Some young women do indeed fit that description, but if you think it was all women, it only proves just how invisible the less attractive women were to you.
I’m going to value my life’s observations over the comment made by some person, who, oddly enough, makes the exact same complaints as I’ve read before from other men who also never quite managed to move on and get over the fact that didn’t get the attentions of a particular woman of their choosing when they were young. If you are still getting tears in your eyes because a woman didn’t want you after thirty years, you might want to consider getting professional help in letting go.
MissM
Which is exactly your complaint, that you didn’t get acknowledged when you were chasing some beautiful, unavailable woman.
I didn’t say that. I dated the woman I mentioned earlier for three years. When I met her she was initially just one of several women I was seeing. But I did fall deeply, deeply in love with her and screwed up my relationship with her as a result. She is the woman I have had the strongest feelings for in my life. In hindsight she would have been better off committing to me as I was committed to her, but at 23 she had many options and decided she could do better. That was her right of course and I would not say otherwise. I tell you this story because it is a parable of how women are led astray by the power of their youth.
If you are still getting tears in your eyes because a woman didn’t want you after thirty years, you might want to consider getting professional help in letting go.
Your cause would be better served if you would stop thinking of men as pack mules who exist to serve at your convenience and more as human beings who are capable of experiencing great depths of emotion.
Perhaps the other women you were dating at that age feel the same about you?
Your cause would be better served if you would stop thinking of men as pack mules who exist to serve at your convenience and more as human beings who are capable of experiencing great depths of emotion.
If the women on this thread actually believed men were equal human beings with needs and emotions of their own, the discussions on this blog would focus more on self-improvement than on the perceived inadequacies of the male gender.
“Your cause would be better served if you would stop thinking of men as pack mules who exist to serve at your convenience and more as human beings who are capable of experiencing great depths of emotion.”
For a start I don’t have a cause, I’m just reading a blog. Sometimes I post when it amuses me to do so.
But boy that is rich coming from someone who said: “Ladies, you have to be willing to give the majority of your youth and beauty to your husband. Why is that so hard to grasp? You can not expect to attract a husband having squandered 90% of your treasure.”
Apparently a woman’s value, her “treasure” is purely her youthful looks. Nice one.
If you cannot regard a woman as an equal human being who has emotions, ambitions and desires of her own, you have no right to expect anyone to treat you any better. I have zero tolerance of double standards.
Fortunately there are men out there who would be as appalled by your attitude as I am, and I in no way tar all men with the same brush.
autumn
Your posts are great. Women need to hear these truths from men, because they don’t believe it when they hear them from a woman like myself.
Funny you should say that because I think it’s the other way around. Women don’t hear what men say at all.
Women have a hard time accepting what you’re saying because it’s a very uncomfortable truth. Young women have tremendous power but they have to find the wisdom not to use it. For most women this is just impossible. An attractive young woman has endless options, endless choices. In fact one of the best descriptors of the behavior that leads women to spinsterhood is “choice addiction.”
If you want to marry a high value man there are two primary routes. While you still have something to trade, i.e the majority of your youth and beauty, marry either an older successful man or a young man with potential. The longer you wait, the less you have to trade, until by your mid-thirties you’re like a broken down habitual gambler, rummaging through your pockets for one last item of value to throw on the table.
This is very, very difficult for a woman to accept. I understand. The party’s so much fun you can’t bear to leave early. But when you’re ready to leave there are no men left who want to leave with you.
All I can say is most women have no idea how much emotional pain many men suffer in their early to mid-twenties. We all get a slice of the same shit sandwich, men get theirs first is all.
Mike,
Women only listen to other women when they reinforce their delusions about how wonderful and worthy the are. They do not listen to women like myself who offer uncomfortable truths. Notice the number of times on this thread that I have asked Ranty what she has to offer a man in return for his commitment. The question isn’t even on her radar. I might has well be asking what she plans to feed her pet llama for breakfast tomorrow.
I would have thought hearing these truths from men would have more impact but after reviewing this thread I think in this case it is a lost cause.
The women who are willing to look critically at themselves and realise they are the biggest part of the problem have a chance at turning things around and securing commitment (albeit within limits). Those who reject the obvious answers out there will cling to their distorted world views and be forced to live with the foreseeable consequences.
You can lead can horse to water blah blah blah.
rantywoman
I think these theories might apply to a small percentage of people, but most of us are dealing with much messier realities.
That’s just a refusal to accept the reality that you didn’t want to marry the men you could have married. I don’t blame you for that. But when you reject the only options available to you, what else is there?
Marriage is dying anyway, so the large numbers of middle-aged unmarried, men and women both, are only the vanguard of the new social order. I have a high school friend who never married and instead for 30 years has dated an endless string of younger women. I remember when I used to think he was sleazy, a moral judgment from the fading echoes of the age of chivalry. Now I just think he’s a realist.
rantywoman
Perhaps the other women you were dating at that age feel the same about you?
I think I know what you mean by that. I was raised in a different moral climate and felt a strong sense of guilt when seeing more than one woman at a time. But that’s a different issue.
Your blog is about male COMMITMENT, and how to secure it.
For a woman, the decision is whether to accept a man’s commitment when it’s offered. The tragedy – for women – is that they often don’t want it when it’s offered and by the time they do want it may no longer be available.
While you may disagree, this is not men’s fault.
“All I can say is most women have no idea how much emotional pain many men suffer in their early to mid-twenties. We all get a slice of the same shit sandwich, men get theirs first is all”
I went through a lot of emotional pain in my teens and twenties. I wasn’t one of the pretty or popular girls and I first started dating at 18. He was 10 years older than me and dumped me a year later. I was gutted. Even though my early 20s were supposed to be my prime years I didn’t get beyond a few dates with guys “in my league” – quiet guys, shy guys, socially awkward guys. They may have wanted to commit to a woman but not to me. They wanted somebody prettier and more popular.
At 27 I met another older guy and dated him for 2 years. He was in his 30s and wanted to settle down. So far so good until I moved in with him and he started hitting me. The relationship had always been verbally abusive but I took that because I didn’t think I was worthy of anything else and that nobody else would want me.
At 29 I was, in the words of red pill men, over the hill. I felt that way too!
Right now I don’t feel any different about men than I did in my teens or twenties (prime years). I still don’t reach their requirements. Back then it was because I wasn’t pretty or popular. Now it’s because I’m too old.
Don’t tar all women with the same brush. For some of us, our shortcomings in our teens and twenties outweighed our youth and beauty and nobody chose us.
I am single today because I was not willing to be beaten and abused by my partner. I am childless because I did not want my children to witness their mother being beaten and abused by their father.
I guess a red pill woman would realize that she was being beaten and abused because SHE did something wrong, that SHE provoked her husband into such an act. She would cover up the bruises and go on. Cower a bit more so as not to upset her husband.
Posts from the red pill brigade make me happy that I do not have daughters growing up in a world where men seem to hate women more than ever.
I am single today because I was not willing to be beaten and abused by my partner. I am childless because I did not want my children to witness their mother being beaten and abused by their father.
I am very sorry this happened to you. While not all men are bastards, some are. Reality is somewhere in the gray area between the black and white positions adopted by many people. Some women who wish to marry remain single through no fault of their own and some men are completely unworthy of any female attention.
I would like to thank the owner of this blog for not deleting my comments. I say this because men find censorship is the norm on women-oriented blogs.
Posts from the red pill brigade make me happy that I do not have daughters growing up in a world where men seem to hate women more than ever.
Hi Elle,
Red Pill is Feminism for Men and within it is a very strong undercurrent of misogyny. I call this the “Militant Wing.” Nearly all the Red Pill blogs fall into the Militant Wing (Rollo, Roissy, Dalrock, etc). One of the forms Red Pill misogyny takes is a failure to acknowledge the suffering of a significant percentage of women and, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of same, to rationalise that suffering or otherwise deem it wholly insignificant.
For example, the Militant Wing talks about female hypergamy but fails to acknowledge that most men are just as hypergamous as women, namely, with respect to physical appearance. Any woman below say a “5” is invisible and insignificant to them and her experiences irrelevant. Moreover any woman who survived child abuse and/or neglect is not even on their radar. She is deemed worthless and her sufferings insignificant. Much of feminism does exactly the same thing but flips the gender.
NB: Most men are not members of the Militant Wing and are not misogynistic.
The Red Pill also has a “Useful and Sensible” wing. It is much smaller than the Militant Wing and is not really misogynistic. The most prominent member of the Sensible Wing is Athol Kay. The Sensible Wing focuses on gender differences with the view that men and women are different but of equal importance and dignity. It teaches how the two genders can live in harmony. One reason so much disharmony exists is that women misunderstand fundamentally male attraction triggers. Studying the Red Pill will teach women what men (and I mean 99% of men, not just “Red Pill” men) actually want from women, much of which is highly controllable. When women apply this knowledge it is known as “Girl Game.” The RedPillWomen Reddit is part of the Sensible Wing. You can also learn a lot about male attraction triggers by reading the blogs in the Militant Wing so long as you filter the information.
Red Pill is wrong about a lot of things but it is 100% correct about male attraction triggers. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Women who ignore male attraction triggers are at a distinct disadvantage in the SMP in comparison to those who understand them. As a woman emphasizes her femininity this draws out men’s innate masculinity.
You are not “tool old” if you perfect your Girl Game and target men 15-20 years older, that is, if you are interested in a committed relationship.
NB: I am also considered “tool old” (hit the wall 20+ years ago) but I have dated a lot the last couple of years. I met a lot of fantastic men. None of them were “Red Pill” (thank God) but they were all masculine, and all responded positively to Girl Game.
Mike: “…felt a strong sense of guilt when seeing more than one woman at a time.”
Awww…. you felt bad, but you did it anyway. What a trooper!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions you know. It’s what you actually do, not how you feel about it, that counts.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions you know. It’s what you actually do, not how you feel about it, that counts.
MissM,
Your comments are out of order because Mike didn’t do anything wrong. It is perfectly acceptable morally, and even wise in many ways, to date multiple people at the same time, so long as none of them are being misled.
Mike was merely making the point that for a man raised to respect women, he felt a twinge of guilt when employing this dating strategy. This is a natural reaction for a man who is raised to be protective of women.
At least this was how I understood his post.
Instead of feeling a tinge of regret at behaviour when you suspect it disrespects women, it would have been much better to not have engaged in such behaviour at all. Then a clear conscience and the higher moral ground is all yours. You cannot claim greater nobleness because you felt “guilty” when partaking in behaviour you suspect is not quite the right thing, as opposed to not doing it at all. His feeling of guilt is irrelevant.
This has been a great strand of high quality and passionate posts. Thank you to you all!
Autumn – are you writing on this elsewhere? I find much of what you have to say convinces me that the US is on another planet – and I also suspect I’m ideologically at odds with much of it – but I’m always happy to read lucid and well thought-out prose on this issue, as yours clearly is.
Hi Zoe,
Thanks for the compliments. I am European but I lived in the U.S. for many years ergo I have a deep understanding of (and respect for) American culture.
Most of the valuable Red Pill thinking is coming not out of Europe but out of the U.S. This is because things have gotten so bad there that independently-minded Americans are searching earnestly for alternatives. Americans have always been great innovators.
i think autumn is right in her description of how to behave to get a bloke. The only but that I don’t agree with is the (red pill) school of thought that says a key component of a woman’s attractiveness to a man is in her comparative youthfulness, and therefore she always has to look for an older man. But other than that – I think she is right in what she says particularly about what blokes find attractive. The Rules Revisited is one of the sites I read. And in the middle of all the (many) dross red pill sites, there are some interesting bits of information.
autumn
One reason so much disharmony exists is that women misunderstand fundamentally male attraction triggers. Studying the Red Pill will teach women what men (and I mean 99% of men, not just “Red Pill” men) actually want from women, much of which is highly controllable.
You’re a welcome breath of sanity.
Having had a variety of relationships with variously crazy women in my twenties I intentionally chose and married a “sane” woman. While she has indeed turned out to be sane she was deeply indoctrinated by her education into believing it’s somehow demeaning to be a “traditional” wife.
The result is that while I’ve been told I have an ideal marriage, I’ve lived through twenty plus years of daily combat in a vicious struggle for dominance. If you’ve ever seen the movie The War of The Roses, my marriage has been like that minus the actual fighting.
I’m contemplating a gray divorce in one final effort to find a sweet, feminine woman who doesn’t need to prove her balls are bigger than mine.
The result is that while I’ve been told I have an ideal marriage, I’ve lived through twenty plus years of daily combat in a vicious struggle for dominance.
Mike,
My heart goes out to you. The fact is that some women, through no fault of their own, have zero understanding of male psychology simply because they have never been presented with the information. Such a woman is very, very teachable. Whether your wife is one of those (teachable) is not something you can know unless and until she has been exposed to RP teachings.
NB: RP information is NOT in any way mainstream. If a woman is ignorant of it, this is not wilful blindness on her part. Those of us who speak the language can forget this all too easily.
There is very little information available in the Manosphere about how to influence a wife to become Red Pill (which is a woman’s true nature – 99% of women are “Red Pill” at the core once you strip away the layers of deformity imposed by decades of cultural conditioning). April, who writes PeacefulWife (the best blog in the Sensible Wing IMO, and one of the only Girl Game blogs I know of, although she doesn’t use the term “Red Pill”), was a very Blue Pill career-driven type (she is a pharmacist by trade) before she woke up. I’m not sure what the catalyst was for this transformation, but she now has a very traditional marriage. She dedicates an enormous amount of time to helping other women make this leap. Her husband has a blog called Respected Husband. Could you contact either of them (I am not sure about the husband, but April is VERY approachable) and ask how to try to introduce your wife to these concepts?
Also, are you familiar with Athol Kay’s MAP and have you tried running it?
Speaking personally, I was heavily indoctrinated by second wave feminism in college and graduate school, so much so that you probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you. I stumbled across the RP purely by accident in my 40s through a Christian marriage blog. I recognised right away the missing pieces I had been longing for for so many years. I understood clearly, almost instantaneously, so many things that had vexed me literally for decades. Had I not stumbled across the information accidentally, however, I would still be totally clueless about all of this.
Every woman who is currently clueless deserves the opportunity to learn the truth about male/female psychology so she can then decide whether she wants to change herself. I truly believe that if women had access to this information that millions of troubled and mediocre marriages would be transformed. Some will reject it, but I think most will embrace it given the chance. Marriage should – and can – be much more bliss than battlefield. If someone can change as radically as I did, any woman can.
On the other hand, Mike might learn to respect the actual (rather than imagined or idealised or otherwise constructed) desires of his wife – which might not in fact (surprise, surprise) be so different to his own as an individual self-determining human being – and learn to respect and compromise as truly equal partners (as opposed to “equal but different”) do. That is the other way for marriage not to be a battlefield. Go on, Mike, give it a go, why don’t you…
On the other hand, Mike might learn to respect the actual (rather than imagined or idealised or otherwise constructed) desires of his wife
The problem Zoe is that Mike’s wife herself most likely doesn’t understand her own actual desires because she is acting not from them but from the script handed to her by the culture, which is the only script she knows.
As for respecting his wife, he does this every day through his actions by keeping his vows regardless of how she treats him. Things appear good on the outside which shows just how much effort he expends keeping his marriage together.
Just as women need love, men need cooperation not competition in the home. Unlike women, when men are denied this (this happens in a large number of modern marriages), they tend to just suck it up and get on with it with little or no complaint, even to their wives. They rarely divorce even when miserable.
Most women have absolutely no idea how much many men suffer in their marriages. The bastards who walk away and abandon their families are the exception, not the rule. All focus is on them and the suffering they inflict. Husbands like Mike are invisible,
They’re interesting blogs but I think they verge on Christian taliban territory. Ironically, most of the Christian advice for women to submit comes from the New Testament chapters influenced by St Augustine, and not Christ Himself.
I really wish I could just shake off the idea that these red pill men are just inadequate little men who feel emasculated by competent women, and their response is to pull her down rather than improve themselves. I want to, but I just can’t. What I think is being overlooked is that women over 40 aren’t prepared to settle for someone not as smart as them, or as competent or able as them, who earns less than them, may be fat or otherwise unattractive, or who needs to bring women down to feel good about themselves. The reality is that women are choosing to turn that down, it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t like to meet someone they could respect and admire – just that what’s on offer is so abysmal they’d prefer to say no to it.
They’re interesting blogs but I think they verge on Christian taliban territory.
Athol Kay is an atheist. Moreover you don’t have to be Christian or even believe in God to extrapolate the Girl Game information from PeacefulWife’s blog.
“Christian Taliban” – this is not a good analogy. The Taliban control ever aspect of women’s lives by force. Girl Game is entirely voluntary.
I really wish I could just shake off the idea that these red pill men are just inadequate little men who feel emasculated by competent women, and their response is to pull her down rather than improve themselves.
This is why I would never knowingly date a Red Pill man. Red Pill men are to Masculinity as Militant Feminists are to Femininity. I am interested only in masculine men.
autumn
Speaking personally, I was heavily indoctrinated by second wave feminism in college and graduate school, so much so that you probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you.
I believe you. My wife’s college has the unofficial motto “our failures only marry,” often misquoted as “only our failures marry.” lol.
zoe
On the other hand, Mike might learn to respect the actual (rather than imagined or idealised or otherwise constructed) desires of his wife – which might not in fact (surprise, surprise) be so different to his own as an individual self-determining human being – and learn to respect and compromise as truly equal partners (as opposed to “equal but different”) do.
In other words, heterosexual lesbianism. Women generally don’t like that as much as they think they will. The ones that do should probably be married to another woman.
Will I offend any anti feminists if I revive this thread? Maybe, maybe not.
Anyway, it is to the benefit of all people, that we listen to one anothers’ hurts, pain, and suffering, and experiences Hopefully, one day we can and then understand that feminism is not a bad thing and came about as a result of the oppression of the female gender and the exalting of the male gender, with females becoming fed up with the horrible conditions that they were expected to live in. Funny how before feminism came about, some were as happy as the chirping birds who sat on branches eating worms, because they had all the power. Now that females want equity and respect, then the anti female movement has begun. Woa people. This is not right.
Why is this so hard for us males to see? Why do some weak minded confused females lambast and belittle each other? It is evident that males oppressed and objectified females to the point where females lost all self esteem and had no power for themselves and their gender. Males cannot tell females that they are wrong for wanting respect, honor. Do we as males understand this? Or are we males really the evil gender?
And to those who referred readers to some Biblical female wife sites, please do not do that. I and many others recognize two of those sites as being cult like sites that do not have females’ best interest in mind and may be a part of something more sinister. Because, you have to ask yourselves, why would females take the time to go on the internet and write such extreme doctrines to women to tell them to exalt and worship their husbands and boyfriends?