The Transformation of Families

We aren't really witnessing "the end of men," but we may be seeing the start of something new.

The End of Men and the Rise of Women, by Hanna Rosin, Riverhead Books, 310 pages, $27.95.

Enter "Hanna Rosin" into Google, and one of the top suggested searches will be "Hannah Rosin hates men." This is unfair, but it is to be expected when you write a much-read Atlantic story titled "The End of Men" and then expand it into a book called The End of Men and the Rise of Women. While a few feminists have fantasized about the literal extinction or near-extinction of males, Rosin, who has a husband and two sons as well as a daughter, entertains no such gendercidal visions. "The End of Patriarchy" might have been a more fitting, though less catchy, title.

Rosin's main argument is that the vast expansion of opportunities for women—due to feminism, the rise of the service and knowledge economy, and other forces—has altered male-female relations in countless irreversible and often radical ways. Men have been slow to adjust and often feel "adrift." But they too can join the revolution and lead happier, freer lives.

As least for now, Rosin, who draws on academic research as well as first-hand reporting, seems to find more "male decline" than male evolution. In lower-middle-class and working-class communities battered by economic upheaval, there are struggling single men seen as unmarriageable, and there are married couples "where the husband [is] stuck in place and the wife [is] moving ahead." An associate dean at the University of Wisconsin pharmacy school in Madison (with a student body two-thirds female) tells Rosin she sees a "lost generation" of men.

One of the more memorable characters in The End of Men is a pharmacy student Rosin calls Hannah, a former minimum wage worker and now a college graduate on her way to a high-paying job. Her boyfriend and former high school classmate "Billy" is an underemployed house painter who spends his spare time fishing and watching TV. While Hannah asserts that she loves Billy for "who he is" and that they "crack each other up," the relationship shows signs of strain. Hannah notes with some frustration that Billy "has no opinion at all" on planning their future; Billy scoffs defensively at her more sophisticated cultural tastes while Hannah bristles at his lack of respect for her attainments.

While Hannah and Billy plan to marry, other young women take a cynical view of marriage and romance. Bethenny, a single mother who runs a day care center and studies nursing, thinks marriage is appealing but a fantasy. Her daughter's father Calvin, sporadically employed in various "muscle jobs," would just be an extra mouth to feed.

The "new American matriarchy," as Rosin calls it, also has its success stories. There are towns like Auburn, Alabama, which has prospered by adapting to the new "feminized" economy, where women out-earn men and even factories have embraced a less macho ethos. And there are couples that have adapted to the female-breadwinner model on a personal level. The End of Men concludes with a new beginning: Bethenny's boyfriend Calvin decides to follow in her footsteps and enroll in a nursing class rather than one in mechanical skills.

On the other side of the class divide are the college-educated couples Rosin calls "the see-sawers." For them, the debate on a traditional division of roles vs. a 50/50 marriage is obsolete: Their arrangements are about shifting roles and priorities so that the division may be "sixty-forty or eighty-twenty or ninety-ten" at any given time—which, in theory, allows for both love and career fulfillment.

In practice, at least for the two female-breadwinner couples Rosin profiles at length, things are more complicated. The men feel hopelessly outclassed by the women. David, a magazine editor, feels threatened and resentful despite his progressive values. Stephen, a former mechanical engineer who attends law school in the evenings and watches his three-year-old son in daytime, is resigned to being a "mediocre house dude" to his "superstar" lawyer wife—but has negotiated a domestic contract that lets him do minimal housework and leaves his wife with a hefty second shift. Stephen also observes to Rosin that "nothing good comes from being a man" and that he hopes their second child is a girl, "creative and good."

Other parts of the book deal with topics ranging from rising female violence to women rising (or not rising) to the corporate top to boys falling behind in schools; Rosin's discussion of these topics is generally fair-minded and thoughtful.

A particularly provocative section deals with casual or semi-casual collegiate sexual encounters outside the context of dating. While many conservatives (and others) deplore the "hook-up culture" as a sexual jungle in which romance-seeking women are used and abused by predatory men, Rosin points to studies that paint a very different picture: Women enjoy their hook-ups as much as men do, and are only slightly more likely to hope that a hook-up will lead to "more." Students are not wildly promiscuous, and three-quarters have been in steady relationships. Yet it is often the women who avoid such relationships, seen as too much of a drain on time and energy they'd rather invest in career preparation. In one study, "some even purposely had 'fake boyfriends' whom they considered sub-marriage quality" to avoid marital pressures. In the end, most of these women (not unlike the traditional male playing the field before settling down) begin to long for more meaningful and permanent relationships—which they usually find, rather than being punished for their sins with loneliness and misery.

Unfortunately, this chapter has almost no male perspectives in this sexual environment. Rosin claims that some young men retreat into partying, drinking, casual sex (or porn), and video games, and she argues that these men, not the women frustrated by the shortage of good men, are the real losers in the gender war, likely to drop out of college and get stuck with dead-end lives. But Rosin's account sheds little light on how common this phenomenon is, other than to quote a Stanford psychologist's alarmist—and evidence-free—claim that "many" young men have their brains "digitally rewired" by porn and videogames to the point of losing the capacity for actual relationships.

This omission may be connected to a larger problem with The End of Men, perhaps related to its title. Men who react to the new sexual order with confusion, resentment, or self-loathing get much more attention than those who take it in stride (such as Andrew, an IT specialist married to pharmacy student who looks forward to being a stay-at-home dad). Rosin writes that her survey did not find enough samples of such men to warrant focusing on them, since it's not clear whether they amount to a trend; but that does not stop her from focusing on a particularly sexually adventurous woman who she recognizes is probably atypical.

Rosin may also overestimate women's flexibility when it comes to men and male roles—even though she herself notes signs of such inflexibility. Lower-middle-class women tend to reject low-earning men as poor marriage material; high-earning women married to non-alpha males often end up resenting or despising their husbands. (Rosin's chapter on female violence even includes a frightening example of such resentment escalating into abuse and then murder. Ironically, the woman's defense tried to portray her as an abused wife unbearably stressed by her husband's failings as a man.) Rosin herself admits being "startled" by the sight of a stay-at-home dad volunteering at her preschool. Perhaps the truth is not just that women are more flexible, but that both women and men are more flexible about norms of femininity than norms of masculinity.

There are other omissions too. Rosin does not mention the ways in which feminist-era rules sometimes tilt against men and judge them by old-fashioned and rigid standards. Hook-ups may be roughly egalitarian, but sexual assault and sexual harassment campus codes are far more likely to be used against men when an alcohol-fueled miscommunication takes place. Women, as Rosin notes, are increasingly the aggressors in domestic violence. (Rosin's numbers are rather fuzzy and confusing, but various studies indicate that about 40 percent of victims may be male.) But most government-funded domestic violence programs are based on the presumption of female victimhood. Divorce courts still largely fail to treat fathers as equal parents. (A valuable addition to the book would be a study of fathers' rights groups, with their fascinating mélange of men embittered by the loss of male authority and "new men" who want equality for the nurturing father.)

Find this and hundreds of other interesting books at the Reason Shop, powered by Amazon.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    sarcasmic, what do you think about the end of men?

  • ||

    You mean "men's ends", right?

  • ||

    THAT'S THE JOKE

  • ||

    HURR DURR I GOT IT ME SMART

    Maybe you should just shut the fuck up before I have nicole smother you with her boobs. Wait, you'd like that. I got you confused with someone else.

  • ||

    I'll get SugarFree to straggle sarcasmic. No, wait, he'd like that.

  • Randian||

    Straggle?

  • ||

    Jesus, don't you people know English?

    Warty| 11.7.12 @ 1:32PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    It means "to suffocate with dingleberries", you unlettered fool. Didn't you ever read Chaucer?
    reply to this
  • Randian||

    Are dingleberries a real plant or am I missing something?

  • ||

    They're feces.

  • Brandybuck||

    Klingons that orbit Uranus.

  • sarcasmic||

    Here.

    http://bit.ly/uKnxoR

    Check it out.

  • Randian||

    *snickers*

  • SugarFree||

    I solved my dingleberry problem years ago with a fortnightly asshole waxing.

  • sarcasmic||

    *winces*

  • $park¥||

    That's probably a better idea than the braids Warty keeps there.

  • SugarFree||

    But the braids are part of his Battlefield Earth cos-play, and he will never get rid of them.

  • ||

    That's why they're tilted at an angle.

  • ||

    Awesome. I wish everything in life were tilted at an angle like that.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Smothering rights already fully allocated.

  • GILMORE||

    Episiarch| 11.7.12 @ 1:32PM |#

    You mean "men's ends", right?

    their stuff is so much worse than LL Bean

    wait, what?

  • sarcasmic||

    tl;dr

  • ||

    Anecdotally, I know many relationships with strong intelligent successful women in the mix. And none of the men are castrated pussies like the examples above.

  • ||

    I know intelligent, successful women who are fetish porn-grade kinky in bed, some of whom like submissiveness in the act. I guess they're just self-hating sex traitors.

  • John||

    Powerful women and men tend to be a but submissive in the sack. It is that whole I have control everywhere else, I want to lose it in bed thing.

  • ||

    No, John, it's better to be a stuck-up bitch with whom no man would last more than a day without surrendering his autonomy forever.

  • John||

    Those women end up dying alone in their upper east side apartmetns and having their ten cats feed on their bodies for the five days before anyone notices they are gone.

    See the bitch who wrote the Atlantic article last year about not being married.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do they need to get married?

    If they want to get laid they can just pick someone up at a bar. Some of these women have probably had sex with thousands of different men. A one night stand or two a week adds up.

  • Randian||

    Women don't need sex. They need company.

  • fish||

    Women don't need sex. They need company.

    See cat reference above.

  • hotsy totsy||

    But women tend to outlive their husbands, no matter how attentive and devoted. And hence still may face those hungry cats.

  • John||

    Because eventually they get old and unattractive and they can't just pick up men in bars anymore.

  • sarcasmic||

    Then they pick up old and unattractive men.

  • Randian||

    sarcasmic, women do not need sex.

  • sarcasmic||

    sarcasmic, women do not need sex.

    I know this. But, believe it or not, many actually like it.

    For some it's a power thing. The guy's not going to say no, but they can. So they're in control of the situation.

  • John||

    And don't let them fool you. At heart they all want a nice man and a baby.

  • AuH2O||

    Eh, I believe the man, but I actually do believe some women are perfectly happy sans children. I mean, I think everyone likes having a kid in their life- aunts, uncles, godmothers/fathers- but a lot of people are happy to be able to hand the kid back at the end of the day.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    I think some of them want a man, and some of them want a baby. A few want both.

  • ||

    Whaaaaaa? Nicole, you so crazy.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Well, like 90% of them just want the baby.

  • hotsy totsy||

    I wanted (and got) both! Still, kids up and move and start their own families. And hubbies don't often live forever. Even if they outlive you, they can still get Alzheimer's or some other disability, and you end up taking care of THEM.

  • ||

    And then there are actual penis-having men who want to be in relationships! Or have babies! Or both! It's a crazy world out there.

  • SugarFree||

    I would totes have your baby, Dagny. Hell, I already look pregnant.

  • ||

    Excellent, Sug. It would be a shame for your freaky mutated genes to die out. Who knows what horrors your spawn would wreak on the future?

  • $park¥||

    My daughter has decided she wants to be one of the loners. She's said a few times that she has no interest in having children and she's just not into men (read: people).

  • ||

    That's pretty much me in a nutshell.

  • Brutus||

    My wife has a college friend that's like that. A hard-charging, top-shelf lobbyist for AT&T making well into six figures for as lonng as I've known her, she can't beg, borrow or steal a guy for more than a few weeks.

    She's nothing to look at, a bit chubby, but still wants to marry "up." As I told my wife, the population of dudes making the kind of money this gal is demanding from her guy is pretty small, they pretty much have the pick of the litter, and they sure as fuck aren't picking gals like her friend.

  • ||

    If she is ruling out people because of how much money they make, her problem is that she's an asshole. Simple. Occam's Razor strikes again.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    And yet (and I find this completely confusing and bizarre), the only women I know my age who are married or engaged are the most ruthless alpha bitches imaginable, who specifically hunted down very high-income men, tossed the ones that didn't propose fast enough, and wrung truly ginormous diamonds out of the ones that did.

    Seriously. It's creepy and weird.

  • Brutus||

    If she is ruling out people because of how much money they make, her problem is that she's an asshole.

    She did before, but now being in her mid-50s, has dropped the bar pretty low. Still no takers, not at this point.

    Oh, and this ruthless money-tropic bitch is deep in the Obama tank.

  • ||

    My mother has always out earned my father, and you would be hard pressed to find someone that holds the opinion that my father is the brains in their relationship. My father is usually the one that starts and ends arguments, and in twenty four years, I can't recall him ever backing down.

  • Lisa||

    "Billy scoffs defensively at her more sophisticated cultural tastes while Hannah bristles at his lack of respect for her attainments."

    Typical man, won't even praise his woman for having excellent, refined taste and having attained a high social standing. She is so great, and he is so common and trite but he won't even revere her for being so much better than him.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You sound like a gender traitor.

  • Lisa||

    Unlike some women, I think being a raving elitist bitch is a bad thing. That probably makes me a gender traitor to elitist bitches, but I don't really care what they think anyway.

  • hotsy totsy||

    "I'm just a humble muthafucka with a big-ass dick. Oh, allright, I ain't so humble"

  • Brutus||

    I've seen plenty of guys that are the same way, lording their wealth/status/fame over their women. It's no more attractive in a guy than it is a gal.

  • Killazontherun||

    Sure, go ahead ladies, emasculate us all you want, end us and you know what's going to happen? There are thousands of species out in the wild that you can't emasculate. Your words mean nothing to them. Without our protection, they will rape you. They will make you fetch their dinners, and what they expect wont be pretty. You think its a bright future ahead but, no, its going to get ugly.

  • AuH2O||

    STEVE SMITH WELCOME EMASCULATED SOCIETY WITH RAPE!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    FTW, right f'ing there.

  • GILMORE||

    Killazontherun| 11.7.12 @ 1:52PM |#

    Sure, go ahead ladies, emasculate us all you want,

    I'm not sure its women doing the 'emasculation' thing (whatever that means, although I do not deny its apparent existence)

    I think plenty of parents - moms and dads and peers - did it all through the 80s and 90s. There was a clear dividing line between parents like mine, whose idea of parenting was to kick kids out the door and ask no questions when they returned with bruises and missing teeth or neighborly accusations of starting garbage fires.

    Admittedly, my dad was an ex-Marine DI... but I thought being woken up in the morning with a spoon banging a frying pan near your head was *normal*...or having an after-school job @ 12 was *fun*. Every other kid I knew had rules about what they could eat, what TV they were allowed to watch, who they could consort with, how they dressed, spent every summer closely-supervised at 'camp'... etc. I thought that shit was *weird*. I still do. I asked my brother why he rarely let my niece and nephew out to play by themselves... and he was like, "Oh, the world we live in today is so much more *dangerous* than when we were kids..."

    I then showed him a chart of crime rates since the late 70s to now. He still maintained that sans constant oversight, the kids would somehow devolve into sociopathic uncultured animals or something. Fuck that shit.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Yeah, I think Gilmore is right about this. I grew up middle class, but my parents didn't, and they didn't organize playdates, afterschool activities, Mandarin lessons for five-year-olds, or worry about whether TV was educational enough. We did what we wanted, and if we wanted money, we got jobs. Most of the people I know now did not grow up like that, and didn't know what to do once they went to college and mommy wasn't scheduling all their activities anymore. It's pretty sad.

  • Bam!||

    We've just had 6 months of Democrats lecturing us that evil men are oppressing women. I'm confused: Are women oppressed or are they taking over?

  • rho||

    Can't it be both?

  • ||

    TBH, I have wondered at this paradox as well.

    Which is it? Is this one of those, "We have achieved so much, but we still have a long way to go!" trips? What is the destination?

  • AuH2O||

    Groovus, you don't understand. If women cease to be victims, they will no longer need the state to intervene on their behalf. The same goes for blacks, hispanics, gays, etc. Therefore, the state will either pass well-intentioned but ultimately harmful laws that keep these groups oppressed (Lilly Ledbetter Act, or the "Don't hire women unless you want a lawsuit" Act, Welfare, etc.) or make up bullshit issues and keep moving goalposts to make these groups feel oppressed.

  • ||

    They want to be like the Asari from Mass Effect.

  • rho||

    When you're doing well, it's grrl power all the time; when you're not doing so well, it's somebody else's fault.

    Everybody does some variation of this, but feminist theory gives it a name and a smell.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yes. As they take over, they raise the bar for what is considered oppression.

  • John||

    Rosin actually has one or two sons. I feel so sorry for those kids. Imagine having a mother who hated your entire gender? Their therapy bills are going to be epic.

  • ||

    Ever watch Taboo?

  • AuH2O||

    I think you mean Adam Carolla's favorite porn, Taboo 2

  • John||

    No. Please explain that joke to me. I think I know where it goes.

  • ||

  • John||

    I know what the word means. I just don't see how it relates to Rosin and her unfortunate sons.

  • ||

    aboo is a pornographic movie series of the 1980s, which eroticizes father-daughter & mother-son incest. It stars Kay Parker, and was directed by Kirdy Stevens and others.

    The plot, which raised controversy when the film was released, involves a woman, who is left by her husband, seducing her teenaged son. It also involves a teen daughter who repeatedly has sex with her dad. Taboo became one of the biggest-selling adult movies ever,[citation needed] and spawned a number of sequels which involve other people in incestuous relationships.

  • John||

    Ah. I think Rosin is more likely to go for one of her daughters and empower them than one of her icky sons.

  • AuH2O||

    Taboo 2, according to Carolla, features both mother-son and gf-son, and I think a threeway with all those parties.

  • ||

    But what about daughter-mother, or father-son? If not, that movie's HOMOPHOBIC!1!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Rosin actually has one or two sons. I feel so sorry for those kids. Imagine having a mother who hated your entire gender? Their therapy bills are going to be epic.

    Why do you think so much Jewish comedy has characters with serious Mommy issues?

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    OK, I'll probably come across as a neanderthal on this one, but I'm surprised at what many men are putting up with/settling for nowadays. If Jezebel is correct, as I'm sure they are (barf), men still make more money than women in general. So, in most relationships there is already an income bias toward the men. Women used to make up for this discrepancy by and large by being super useful around the house, cooking, cleaning, taking on the majority of childcare, etc. From what I see now, far fewer women cook, they are almost as likely to be slobs as their male counterparts, the guys are expected to be just as involved with the kids as mom, etc.

    Of course, not everything can be valued in dollars, but I've got it so much better than most younger guys I am giddy. If anything ever happened to my gal, I doubt I would ever find anyone as caring and as useful to have around. I'm spoiled.

  • AuH2O||

    Dude, some of the Jezzies are married and have kids. Feast your earbuds on that knowledge pop.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Yeah, I'm the one feasting my earbuds on that knowledge. No, I don't want a retarded man. I don't want a retarded man. I don't want a retarded man.

  • Brutus||

    Andrea Fucking Dworkin was married. Use that as a bedrock baseline.

  • AZ||

    Actually, the pay gap really only manifests after marriage, because the married women tend to invest in their husbands and families, according to Sowell's review of the research in Economic Facts and Fallacies.

  • AuH2O||

    Remember men: As part of our WAR ON WIMMENZ! it is your duty to keep your lady barefoot and pregnant. That way they can't rise!

    Still, this book will be helpful in inducing mass false consciousness.

  • Xmas||

    Though that's not bad, because multiple pregnancies are shown to reduce the chances of breast cancer.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    evidence-free—claim that "many" young men have their brains "digitally rewired" by porn and videogames to the point of losing the capacity for actual relationships.

    I can vouch for having deja vu conversations with attractive women in their 20s and 30s who decide to vent their frustration to me about their husbands who would rather play videogames than have sex with them. I know women tend to trust me, but I'm glad I haven't had one of those conversations for a while. I prefer monogamy to be easy.

  • AuH2O||

    I don't get what they are complaining about. If they aren't too tall, I can see over them while they give me a blowjob as I play Halo.

  • ||

    What the fuck, dude? How is she supposed to be popping out kids and making sandwiches if she's performing blowjobs?

    Get it right.

  • AuH2O||

    Listen, I have it on good authority that women multitask better than us.

  • ||

    Maybe they should make an effort to be worth fucking if they want to be fucked.

  • John||

    What Warty said.

  • AuH2O||

    "Listen, babe, I'd love to do it doggy style, but I gotta finish this mission first."-No Male Ever.

  • ||

    Yeah, that remark was fucking bullshit.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    I know, seriously.

  • AuH2O||

    "Listen, hon, I'd love to, but this dragon isn't killing itself."-Nicole, more than once

  • ||

    Nicole's boyfriend: "Hey, baby, what do you say we get our threads off a..."

    Nicole: "FUS RO DAHHHHHH." *Falcon punch*

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Man I hate Unrelenting Force. He uses that shit all the time.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Dragonkilling is what I have a man for!

  • $park¥||

    I occasionally get the look from my wife, by the time I get back to my computer it's to find either a ghost standing aimlessly in a field or a "your connection has timed out" screen.

  • John||

    Did it ever occur to them that if maybe they were more interesting and adventurous in bed, their husbands might find porn less interesting?

  • ||

    No, because women are Empire, and men are obnoxious, stupid, and abusive. Don't you get it?

    Didn't you take your Feminism Pill this week?

  • AuH2O||

    But John, non missionary sex is icky!

    Actually, I will say that one cultural bias that can go: The myth that women don't get as much out of sex as men. When done well, women like sex much better than men. But for women, sex is hit or miss- you either get a five star meal or you get the dumpster. For men it is like pizza- always agreeable, even when deep dish.

  • ||

    always agreeable, even when deep dish.

    ---------

    OH MY GOD, YOU'VE AWAKENED THE KRAKEN (Episiarch).

  • John||

    The problem is that most women tie up emotion with sex. For men it is entertainment. So men tend to be willing to do what is necessary to please their girlfriends.

    Women in contrast wrap the whole thing up with emotions. You would think that would become less of an issue after they get married. For some it does. But for others, it gets worse. Their husbands are who they make love to. And the things they did for fun when they were single are not things you do with someone you love.

    Just a guess but I suspect a lot of video game porn watching men have wives like these.

    And for the record I don't watch porn and rarely play video games. So I am talking out of my ass not out of experience here.

  • ||

    And for the record I don't watch porn

    If you're not lying, you're a monster.

  • John||

    Okay I watch some. But not a lot. I refuse to pay for it. And the free stuff has too many ugly chicks and too many close ups of chicks giving head. I swear to God some that stuff borders on being gay. After 20 minutes of watching a chick give head you have to wonder just which actor most of the viewers are living vicariously through.

  • AuH2O||

    John, I feel your pain. RedTube has some professional shit, and there are always torrents, although that requires hard drive space. Also, just look for the lesbian shit to avoid dick. That's what I always do- I don't watch porn for any amount of dude.

    God, there are some advantages about being a male not in a relationship. I don't share my laptop with anyone, and can have porn on it.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    God, there are some advantages about being a male not in a shitty relationship. I don't Even if I share my laptop with anyone, and I can have porn on it.

  • fish||

    I don't share my laptop with anyone, and can have porn on it.

    Yeah and other stuff on it as well.

  • $park¥||

    People pay for porn?

  • ||

    Just wait until your wife suggests you tie her up and do new and exciting things to her. You'll be scouting the Internet looking for hot moves to use.

  • ||

    Torrent...'nuff said.

  • sarcasmic||

    Google "submit your flicks", just not at work.

  • ||

    For fuck's sake, John, just google "free hd porn", or if you're too lazy:

    hdhub.xxx

  • AuH2O||

    You really don't watch porn? Not even occasionally? I smell bullshit, John.

    The funny thing is that long term relationships are way easier to get freakier with. You know the person better and have established the trust to do kinky shit. And, BTW, kinky shit doesn't and probably shouldn't have to be an every time thing, but once in a blue moon it keeps shit fresh.

  • AuH2O||

    And, actually, to add on to my point, I think our society is starting to, but could still do a better job demystifying kinky shit.

    Tying someone up and fucking them ain't that kinky, and neither is role playing. And talking dirty is so basic that I don't see why people need to be instructed to do it.

  • John||

    I don't get it either. IF it doesn't involve a third party or something dangerous, what is the big deal? We have the most sexually repressed society in some ways. We are totally fucked up and exhibitionist about sex in public. But in private we tend to be completely uptight.

  • AuH2O||

    Well, the thing is that its perfectly okay to zoom in on Scar Jo's ass in The Avengers (and what an ass!) but it is not okay to show actual sex. And so we have a society that tittilates sex, but half the time we talk about it we do so with humor to deflect the reality ("Ha-ha! Married people don't have sex!" "Ha-Ha! They tried roleplaying to spice up their sex life and it didn't go well! How weird is role playing, right?!")

    Like, CBS can be the top network with tons of sex jokes on Two and a Half Men and 2 Broke Girls, but actual depictions of sex are the predators of SVU.

  • sarcasmic||

    And for the record I don't watch porn

    Yet just the other day you made a comment about your visiting an "adult site".

  • John||

    I don't generally watch porn. yeah, of course I do. every man does.

  • Killazontherun||

    For the record, I look at more porn now than I did single. Great sex life. She is kinkier than I am, but she has crappy hours working at the hospital, and after two thirds of a day in shift, all she wants to do when she gets home is to take that huge dump she held in from not being willing to use the public restrooms for anything calling for toilet contact, and then smoking a cig in the tub.

  • ||

    The tub's a good place to get your freak on. Just intrude and jump into the bath.

    "HEY BABY HOW 'BOUT DAT HUR HUR HUR"

  • Killazontherun||

    The tub is by the shitter so that's a no go.

  • Killazontherun||

    Dude, you identified one of the first RTS games Dune as one you were addicted to when it came out. You're a playa.

  • ||

    I'm way, way, way, way hornier than the squeeze. I just chalk it up to me being a 40 year old woman, and him being a 46 year old man. Hormone differences annat. Regardless, I can usually...errr....cajole him into putting out.

  • AuH2O||

    Its okay, you can say it. You're a rapist.

    It doesn't count cuz your a girl.

  • ||

    I'm, like, twetally no diff'rint than STEVE SMITH!

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm Latin so I have no idea what not being horny feels like and I never will. Sure, I'm promoting a stereotype, but when I use to listen to Anglos talk about sex, it would really amaze me, the limitations they expressed as normal to them. Or, the girlfriend who I just started screwing who asked me after the third cum out, 'how are you keeping that thing up?' Ten minutes and one cumming is barely worth getting the bone up.

  • Killazontherun||

    'Look, woman, I know there are plenty of women who do buttstuff; I've seen it. On the internet, and its not just actresses getting paid to do that like you use to tell me back in the 90's.'

  • ||

    I can vouch for having deja vu conversations with attractive women in their 20s and 30s who decide to vent their frustration to me about their husbands who would rather play videogames than have sex with them.

    Hopefully those young men will not devolve into candor: "Honey? I'll fuck you just as soon as you make that more fun than 15 minutes of playing Halo."

  • ant1sthenes||

    Tell them not to worry -- they have the government to take care of their vagina now.

  • AuH2O||

    Free contraception soon followed by free vibrators.

  • JW||

    women in their 20s and 30s who decide to vent their frustration to me about their husbands who would rather play videogames than have sex with them.

    "Why didn't you read my mind while you were doing other things than pay attention to me?"

  • rho||

    How much of the gains in women's pay vanishes if you control for employment in the public sector vs. the private sector?

    I'm not so sure Rosin can declare the end of men if women are out of work when we can't pay $75K/year for public makework jobs.

  • AZ||

    Also, the combination of unions and regulations shrinking the "muscle jobs" and creating private regulatory compliance and other such jobs.

  • mauricegirodias||

    so much this. Government has been where all the jobs growth comes from for a while now, women with useless degrees are of course "better qualified" for those jobs.

  • Hyperion||

    A totally feminized society like these feminazis are screaming for, cannot survive for long. It doesn't really take much imagination to easily visualize the end results of this.

    When the women no longer have any masculine males left in the society to protect them, they will all wind up in burquas and will be serving their new Muslim masters. And they will keep their fucking mouths shut and like it.

    Sorry to burst your bubble liberated ladies of the land, but I think with logic and reason, not with emotion like most of you do. Real life is not a Hollywood movie. This planet is still a harsh and dangerous place.

  • AuH2O||

    Also, in a feminized society, who the fuck is going to kill the spider that runs across the ceiling at 2 AM?

    Yeah, I thought so.

  • sarcasmic||

    Last time I found a spider on the ceiling at 2 AM it was an escaped tarantula.

    I let her catch it since they're her pets.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Bethenny, a single mother who runs a day care center and studies nursing, thinks marriage is appealing but a fantasy. Her daughter's father Calvin, sporadically employed in various "muscle jobs," would just be an extra mouth to feed.

    So why isn't the question, why are so many men drifting around like an extra mouth to feed? (And why didn't she think that about the kid?!?)

    I just think this whole book starts from the wrong premise. Y'all have heard about my issues a little bit in the past, and one of my absolute biggest frustrations was the assumption among all my female friends/acquaintances that my BF "couldn't handle" having a more successful female partner. Nothing could have been further from the truth--no one was ever more proud or more supportive of me than he has been. And he was never a castrated pussy. He was unemployed and underemployed like a shit-ton of guys in our generation, and that's hard. He was also treated to the overextended adolescence courtesy of quasi-helicopter parents. This isn't about jealousy, it's about why some people aren't growing up and being productive. Are women actually more likely to do so than men are? Are they doing so for any reason other than babies? (Most of the women I know are just as big losers, btw, but many have gotten knocked up.)

  • John||

    Yeah for every guy that is out drifting around knocking up women, there are about four or five women doing nothing but going from guy to guy leaching and getting knocked up.

  • ||

    Careful. A Jezzie will come by and pick up on your racist subtexts if you're not careful.

  • ||

    Don't forget homophobic, sexist, ageist, pedophilic, and fascist, too.

  • ||

    Please don't take this the wrong way, nicole, but there is no excuse for 1) overextended adolescence or 2) unemployed and underemployed. There just isn't. If you want it, you go and get it. That's just the way it is, and anyone who says they can't doesn't want work or to be an adult.

    I'm not trying to be a dick, by the way.

  • ||

    Of course you are.

    Also, it took me a year after graduating from college to find a real job, and you're right. It was mostly due to me being happy to mope around and feel sorry for myself.

  • ||

    Nothing was pissing me off more than the fuckers sitting around my fucking pool while visiting their friends who lived in my building a few summers ago complaining about how small (just a few hundred a month) their unemployment checks were. ARRGGGHHHH.

    At least my tan was WAY better than anyone else's.

  • ||

    I never stooped to mooching off the government, although it seems I should have. I'm such an idiot.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    There might not be an excuse for it, but it's a real phenomenon and I only see it getting realer. There's a reason for it and it's worth exploring.

    But it's cool, I don't have these problems anymore.

  • ||

    You killed and ate your boyfriend? You're a Black Widow?!?

  • nicole just can't even!||

    No, I just stopped letting people like you enable an extremely female form of insanity. I was a crazy bitch yo!

  • SugarFree||

    EPI IS MINE! BACK OFF! HISS!

  • ||

    It's true.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    I already said: smothering rights fully allocated.

  • $park¥||

    Technology. It makes life easier and more comfortable. Things exist now that didn't 30 years ago. Younger generations are growing up never having known of a life without video games and such.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    I'm thinking general prosperity. This can only happen if your parents can afford to keep supporting you. Or if the culture is prosperous enough that it even thinks parents should be supporting their adult children.

  • $park¥||

    I'm sure that's another factor.

  • ||

    Epi, we all know you don't have to try. It's just part of your nature, like Warty's.... EVERYTHING bad in the world is part of him.

  • ||

    Warty contains multitudes. Of shit.

  • Tman||

    ^^^This...

    Also, this article pretty much spells out what Rosin and others are missing about their wonderful theory-

    "A one-time Sex in the City woman writes about her lonely middle-aged life:...

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot......-city.html "

  • John||

    Check out the Daily Fail Article about her

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....e-age.html

    Timne has not been kind.

  • ||

    That's really true that alpha men don't want alpha women. Problem is, they can't have an intelligent conversation around the dining table with the beta woman in her early 20s that they settled for instead of the much more fascinating alpha woman they ditched because she was several years older. And so, when these men hit their 40s or 50s, they ditch their first wife and search for someone they can actually connect with. Many of us single women were not waiting for perfection. We were waiting for a guy who could at least consider putting our needs first every so often. And the guys I dated simply would not do that. It was always about them. Did I want to marry that? No. Single women might want to consider adopting a child. That's what I did and it certainly took care of the loneliness problem.
    - Tennessee , Jackson, United States, 07/11/2012 02:15

    Oh, excellent.

  • John||

    And the guys I dated simply would not do that. It was always about them.

    If it is about them, it can't be about me!!! Gee a narcisist attracts other narcasists.

  • Randian||

    I have to say that I love it when you misspell the same word two different ways in the same sentence. What is your secret?

  • John||

    Be tired and not care to proof read.

  • Killazontherun||

    Fuck me, what could be more fascinating than to sit through a conversation with someone who regurgitates what she has been taught without thinking any of it through with any form of skepticism, and repeats what you have already heard a thousand times out of the mouths of every other woman who was addicted to Sex in the City in the late 90's, while overestimating her charm and her intelligence? Who also acted on the impulse to adopt to compensate for being lonely. I guess getting cats instead wasn't the acceptable signifier in her circle of associates. Too bad for the kid.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Alpha status means being aggressive, demanding, and (often) charismatic; it doesn't make you smart, fascinating, or even especially likeable.

    But at least she was able to get a pet human to meet her needs.

  • Killazontherun||

    Heroic Mulatto made some interesting remarks to the effect alpha and beta typing in humans is only a metaphorical perception not supported by the science. I would love to hear him elaborate if he comes around.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Yeah, samesies.

  • Sudden||

    Actually, if you want a fascinating perspective on this, I highly recommend the following:

    Heartiste

    He is a member of the PUA community (pick-up artists). While there is certainly a reasonable skepticism of such guys as charlatans and narcissists, their techniques are generally rooted in evolutionary biology and some of the more well-read within the community have fascinating insights on the female psyche that few men, or even most women, are consciously aware of.

  • Brutus||

    And the guys I dated simply would not do that. It was always about them.

    Coastal dudes. I had an ex-g/f that went to Berkeley that complained endlessly about this.

  • ||

    I never understood this gender apportionment crap either. A household is 50/50. BUT...that 50/50 is also a function of actual time. If one's job responsibilities keep one out of the house more, then expecting a 50/50 split just because is fucking retahded. The spouse who is home more should be responsible for more of the at-home related workload.

  • AuH2O||

    Also, most women in my experience are much better at folding. Or, at the least, folding in their preferred way and not my, "Eh, fuck it, close enough" way

  • T||

    Well, if you care so much about how the laundry gets done, you do it. If you leave it to me, it gets done my way. Don't like it, do it yourself.

    On a related note, I haven't done laundery since we got married. Not my problem anymore.

  • R C Dean||

    Her daughter's father Calvin, sporadically employed in various "muscle jobs," would just be an extra mouth to feed.

    Ya know, if she wants a life partner but doesn't think he's a good life partner, maybe she shouldn't have had his kid. Because I can tell her right now, that kid is not helping her land someone else.

    Personally, nothing would make me happier than for Mrs. Dean to make serious bank. And I've never met a man who wouldn't be perfectly happy to spend his wife's big paycheck.

    But what do we get when, as here, the wife is the breadwinner? Pouting and whining about how the man isn't good enough for her. Make up your minds, ladies.

  • John||

    Getting knocked up by some dead beat is not a good way to attract men who have options.

  • AuH2O||

    That's not what the latest romantic comedy told me John!

  • John||

    I am sure Tom Cruise, millionaire sports agent, would totally go for some working class divorced mom. Happens every day.

  • Sudden||

    It also offers another point to ponder. In the end, women's greatest strides toward empowerment and equality have not come from a beneficent government—despite years of efforts to get more women into the very blue-collar jobs that have now become the bane of manhood—but from market forces, including traumatic and disruptive economic upheavals.

    But oh, Cathy, how wrong you are on this. Those traditionally male dominated industries are largely market enterprises, building and creating and managing products or services that are in high market demand and exist independent of govt action.

    The primary growth industries that women occupy, and among the only industries currently seeing gains in wages and salaries, are education and health care which rely on heavy subsidy from the emasculated male-dominated private sector. Women also are becoming a larger part of law and litigation, which is again largely related to an increasingly complex regulatory state and overly-litigious society as a whole. The emaciating of the male industries will in turn cut of the siphon funding to these female dominated occupations.

  • AuH2O||

    True, but I do feel that as we go post-Industrial, because it is cheaper to use a 3D Printer or robot than a person, a lot of jobs will be service industry based- sales, marketing, customer service, etc.

    They are industries that neither innately favor men nor women, but in a society that used to be based on turning a lathe or pushing a plow, I think that will be seen as a decline in men.

  • Sudden||

    But what you miss is that the technologies that revolutionize the world are largely male-driven. Men are inherently the tinkerers and generally the more abstract thinkers. There is some evolutionary biology behind that phenomenon as well (men as hunter had to attune their brains into more spatial reasoning). The revolutions that result in such creative destruction are male-driven, and as males become a diminishing portion of the overall economy, those revolutionary technologies will dwindle as well.

    And it's worth noting that all of those service based industries that are within the private sector require a significant enough economy and capital flow to preserve them. The current trajectory where it concerns unfunded liabilities will deal a crushing blow to the very foundations of the currency. Each day, I get closer to actually thinking we could be experiencing a Roman empire like collapse into a Western Dark Ages within my adult lifetime.

  • John||

    I think we are too rich and too advanced for that. The thing you have to remember is that the Roman empire was a bunch of cities built on the back of robbing subsistance farmers. Most peasent farmers in the late Roman empire had to pay 2/3rds of their crop in taxes and rent. When the ability to enforce that tax rates went away with the collapse of the central government, the cities that were supported by it went away too and people went back to subsistence farming themselves rather than living in cities on the backs of the peasents.

    Our situation is a bit different. We are probably headed towards Wiemar Germany.

  • AuH2O||

    Eh, I see us hitting Wiemar Germany and then quickly going Cultural Revolution, with gangs roaming killing all of those who are deemed to be holding us back (in this case, I bet rich people) from utopia.

    God, the future rolls a Critical Failure on its Not Sucking save.

  • AuH2O||

    Or I could see us getting a Peron. Obama is a bit of a Peron-lite, but the more desperate the parasite of government gets, the louder the cries to start nationalizing anything that isn't nailed down.

  • Brutus||

    Or I could see us getting a Peron. Obama is a bit of a Peron-lite

    This. A dependent class has been lovingly nurtured for the past several decades in preparation for precisely this sort of leader. The result will be the same as Argentina's.

  • WTF||

    I think we are too rich and too advanced for that.

    Right now, but that is rapidly changeing. And the electorate just voted to continue the econmic decline.

  • AuH2O||

    Yeah, but what will be our Catholicism?

    Progressivism?

    Will Martin Luther 2.0 nail a notice about how we are heretics to the government?

  • WTF||

    Each day, I get closer to actually thinking we could be experiencing a Roman empire like collapse into a Western Dark Ages within my adult lifetime.

    I think you are correct. When the British Empire collapsed, the United States was there to fill the vacuum. aS As America collapses, there is no overwhelming superpower that will fill the bill. The world will descend into a group of economoically-challenged squabbling states. America's collapse will likely take the rest of the world with it.

  • John||

    Yeah Sudden. Give it about ten years and let the higher education bubble pop and Rosin will be writing a book on how women were cheated and victimized by being told to go to college.

    When the government runs out of money, women are going to be hit hardest.

  • rho||

    Women work as well as men do in sweatshops and chicken-plucking warehouses.

    Look for a return to traditional sex roles when those are the prevailing options.

  • Hyperion||

    I would say better, much better, because women are much more suited to redundant jobs. I have seen this in more than one industry. Women can do the same thing over and over and over for years and seemingly not get bored at all if they are only able to talk to other women all day long while doing it.

    Men and women are just different, and I don't know why some women have an issue with that, or just a hard time accepting the fact. If they don't like men, they can just go Lebanese and get a woman, or just be alone and keep their mouth shut about it. The ones that want to get a man and turn him into a woman are some sick biaatches. And of course that never actually pleases this type of woman, nothing does. Guys, if they have any sense at all, should just stay away from these bitches.

  • ||

    The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated -- M. Twain

  • FD||

    It's not about gender or families or evolution or devolution.
    It's about making a buck.
    Some do it by flipping burgers, others flipping ledgers. And others do it by taking some pseudo intellectual psychosis, cobbling together a bunch of inconsisent, anecdotal, mental-masturbatory lego-links of faux trend analysis and waving the book jacket around.
    Since e-reading nudges book jackets off the stage, you need to employ a meaningless, empty but eye-popping tag -- provocative, silly titles do best.

  • Fluffy||

    This entire fantasy is based on a statistical illusion: "increasing educational attainment" among women.

    The fact of the matter is that once you throw out social work bachelor's degrees and health care related associate's degrees, I will bet you big money that women's educational attainment is still lower than men's.

    All of those associate's degrees are going towards body-servant jobs that pay $11 an hour and are often piecework. The women who have those jobs are still servants, and they aren't making much more money (or any more at all) than men employed in light industrial or warehouse work. But because they have a community college degree, we pretend that the women are "professionals" and the men are "working class". It's absurd.

    Spare me stories of the vast cultural gulf, sophistication gap, and difficulties of marital communication between personal care attendants and factory workers. Seriously, just spare me.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Yes, this is also a super-valid point.

  • John||

    This is exactly it. And as the higher education bubble bursts, those degrees are going to be worth less and less.

  • AuH2O||

    Eh, I see nursing continuing to grow. The government is never going to really ration elderly care by refusing too pay for treatments. They would lose too many votes. It actually kind of amazes me that the NHS manages to get away with it.

  • Sudden||

    The government is never going to really ration elderly care by refusing too pay for treatments. They would lose too many votes

    You need to read the provision of PPACA relating to IPAB. The entire purpose of IPAB is to ration and to set it up in such a way that the rationing is made on economic terms instead of medical terms (i.e., IPAB prohibits the majority of the panel being actual physicians) and to do so in a way that is completely insulated from political pressure, thus giving the political class a measure of plausible deniability on the decisions it makes. IPAB mandates cannot be overturned by congressional action outside of reform within a narrow window in 2017.

  • R C Dean||

    Sudden is correct, but this:

    IPAB mandates cannot be overturned by congressional action outside of reform within a narrow window in 2017.

    is a fantasy (albeit one that's in the law). If Congress passes a law overturning IPAB mandates and the President signs it, those mandates are gone.

  • Sudden||

    If Congress passes a law overturning IPAB mandates and the President signs it, those mandates are gone.

    As an federal administrative law case, it'll go to the DC circuit court, and if there is a significant amount of pressure, may get appealed to the supreme court. You are a bit more sanguine than I at the court ruling in favor of elected officials over bureaucratic edicts.

  • AuH2O||

    I think it just create favor trading by the political class. Donors will be insulated.

    And, I also believe that if people know about that window, the 2016 elections will be a bloodbath for anyone who doesn't promise repeal, and the 2018 for anyone who doesn't follow through.

  • sarcasmic||

    The government is never going to really ration elderly care by refusing too pay for treatments.

    They will refuse to allow the treatment. Don't even mention that the treatment exists. Can't miss what you never knew about.

  • rho||

    Hate to be a hater, but this is going to happen no matter what. End of life care is very expensive, and there are no cost-control measures that won't include some variation of rationing in that area.

  • FD||

    Well stated. Given the demographic here, I'm guessing most of you folks weren't around during the heyday of the branded women's lib movement and its subsequent morning after.
    Suddenly we were talking about women who would get up in the morning and go off to their careers. Men would get up the same time and go off to their jobs.

  • Sudden||

    Spare me stories of the vast cultural gulf, sophistication gap, and difficulties of marital communication between personal care attendants and factory workers. Seriously, just spare me.

    Considering that this election was swung by women voting entirely on the basis of their vaginas, the very notion that they are somehow more cultured or sophisticated reeks of lunacy.

    While many women are intelligent and knowledgeable within their particular field of study, occupation, or concerning their general interests, I have found very few to be broad thinkers in equal portions to men. Women tend to think in the most immediate terms and prioritize issues that have the most personal effects (i.e. self-centered/importance). Men, in my estimation, generally think slightly longer term and consider indirect consequences and future, less readily apparent ramifications of certain actions. Quite simply, men are more strategic thinkers and more big picture thinkers.

    There are of course numerous exceptions to this on both sides of the gender equation, but I merely postulate general trends for overall populations here based on my own observations.

  • FD||

    General trends, when used to explain or predict, (even if they could be comprehensively captured and analyzed), are anti-liberty at root. If there are numerous exceptions then the metrics are of little value.

  • Sudden||

    If there are numerous exceptions then the metrics are of little value.

    We're critiquing a book that is a work of sociology. Sociology as a study is completely built around collectivism and groupthink (hence it's general lack of allure to libertarians). That said, an appropriate critique of a work within it's field is going to necessarily be done within the parameters for that field.

    Moreover, I don't think there is anything fundamentally anti-liberty about noting trends, general group tendencies, or anything of the sort. Making specific judgements of individuals based on those or crafting policy that are informed exclusively by such judgements without recognition that what applied for the larger portion of the group may not apply for any individual member would be anti-liberty. I simply call what I observe as an overall trend, while giving the caveat as a sort of means of saying I judge the merits of each individual outside of what the rest of the people in their broader "groups" may evidence.

  • FD||

    It is fair to critique within the boundaries of the work, agreed. And while you're certainly well equipped intellectually to identify its flaws, you submit an observation without citation nor qualification; i.e., women are not, comparatively, big picture thinkers. I know we have a space limitation and you can't write a tome, but I think that throwaway generalization undermines your analysis.

  • Sudden||

    Fair enough. I never proposed it as some empirical evidence. I conditioned it as being based on my own observations, but I should have couched it a bit more in language fitting with that. My interactions with humanity as a whole haven't revealed many people to think beyond the immediate term, men or women. But I've interacted with more men that consider downstream and indirect effects than I have women. Admittedly, I live in Southern California, so I am perpetually surrounded by idiocy, superficiality, and narcissism, so it should all be taken with a grain of salt for my sphere of the world. I could delve into evolutionary biology texts for causes that have built this rift in short vs. long term perspectives, for the ability to anticipate the unseen (the ancient hunter being a prime example of needing to anticipate the unseen), and other "proofs" that would lend credence to my hypothesis, but it is ultimately difficult to prove in either case.

  • Sudden||

    But I've interacted with more men that consider downstream and indirect effects than I have women.

    I should also add that as it concerns this, I don't mean it to be a general insult or critique of women. There is some merit to the notion of preventing immediately identifiable suffering. Downstream and indirect effects are less certain and can often be overblown. I'm as doom and gloom as they come and I often find myself second guessing my general cynicism because it leads me to envisioning a world so unlike our current one that it seems almost farcical. I may be overestimating downstream and indirect effects and thereby underweighting immediate effects. Consider it as something in line with time value of money, a dollar today is worth considerably more than a dollar 10 years from now because of what can be done with it today.

  • AuH2O||

    I mean, I think women think a little more emotionally, which is probably part nature but also the fact that our society expects different things from the genders in terms of emotion. Men are socialized pretty early on not to be emotional in the same ways that women are.

    And I will say how interesting it is the response I am seeing from women who don't like Obama post-election, which basically is boiling down to, "I am truly embarrassed by my gender." Its interesting.

  • Sudden||

    The problem is conflating compassionate emoting with compassionate thoughtfulness. I am a very compassionate person, capable of sympathizing with the plight of people in all manner of situations. While that may be true, I often try to identify causes of that suffering. Moreover, while my policy preferences may be considered by some to be cruel or uncompassionate in the short term, I endorse positions largely because they are what is necessary to avoid catastrophic human suffering in the longer term. It's the difference between being reactionary and proactive.

  • sarcasmic||

    Men are socialized pretty early on not to be emotional in the same ways that women are.

    Not anymore. Both sexes are taught at an early age to emote instead of think.

    Why do you think there are so many liberals?

  • AuH2O||

    Yeah, but I'd say anger at the rich is more male, while guilt/empathy for the poor people who can't have as nice things is more female.

  • sarcasmic||

    They go hand in hand. Remember that every rich person represents a hundred or more starving people. All that wealth could be used to help the poor, but instead that greedy rich person uses it for personal enjoyment. The wealth might as well have been stolen from the poor people. In fact, it was. I mean, how do the rich get rich except by exploiting poor workers and by selling inferior products at inflated prices? They steal from the workers and then steal from their customers. It's theft all the way around. If only we could plunder the rich and give their ill-gotten gains back to the poor...

  • John||

    And you can only vote for a politician who shows empathy and really cares about people. Don't worry about all of that logic and argument stuff. Vote for the one who makes you feel most comfortable and who you think really cares.

  • Hyperion||

    Anyone who voted for Barak Obama because they think he personally cares about them, unless they are a rich donor, are suffering from an almost unbelievable degree of naivete or just plain stupid.

  • John||

    I know at least 8 people like that. And they are otherwise intelligent and reasonable people. But talk politics and they turn into children.

  • Killazontherun||

    I saw the comment that 'you can just tell he cares' maybe seven or eight times in reference to his photo-op hug last week. Ridiculous that the message sent is the one received.

  • Sidd Finch||

    http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=27

    The percentage of females (21 percent) who had attained at least a bachelor's degree was 3 points lower than the percentage of males (24 percent) in 1980, but in 2011 the percentage of females (36 percent) was 8 points higher than the percentage of males (28 percent).

    Seems like more than just SW and nursing degrees. But your last paragraph is spot on IMO.

  • Sudden||

    A comparison of B.A. vs. B.S. would be illuminating.

  • ||

    Not necessarily. My worthless humanities degree is a B.S. in something called "social sciences".

  • AZ||

    Don't forget education degrees, especially since they almost invariably push that to a Master's.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Bethenny, a single mother

    LOL

  • John||

    http://nation.foxnews.com/harr.....ster-rules

    Harry Reid says he is going to kill the filibuster rules. That will be to get the real nuts through the Senate to run the exectutive.

  • WTF||

    And I'm sure the media will shriek just as hard as if the republicans were doing it.

  • Brutus||

    What's Harry bitchig about? He can get a fucking budget passed without threat of filibuster, and he hasn't managed that in over three years.

  • Fluffy||

    My latest theory on why we're all of a sudden besieged by this "single women are dissatisfied" stuff and all the "manosphere" stuff is because of a broad-based failure caused largely by the obesity epidemic.

    (Obviously not a real epidemic but you know what I mean.)

    The growth in obese adults has created a situation where a normal, average person from 1965, who was a 5 or 6 in 1965, is now a strong 7 or even an 8 on the new bell curve of attractiveness.

    People who were dead on the mean in 1965 are now a standard deviation above the mean.

    So what happens is you have people of both sexes looking at single prospects in the assortative mating market and thinking they see 5's - but they're really seeing 8's, because of the sheer vast quantity of fat people that they aren't considering as part of the pool, because fat people are so disgusting that they're invisible.

    So these people then become frustrated and say, "Why are all these 5's rejecting me?" They're rejecting you because they're actually 8's, dumbass!

    So single women write books about how there are no marriageable men and single men write angry blogs about women or trade delusional how-to anecdotes about "Game" - instead of facing the real issue, namely, that most people are vastly overrating their own attractiveness when viewing the pool of available mates and the scarcity of thin people.

  • ||

    So you're saying that we should squat more? I agree. We must create a glorious future nation of Karwoskis, comrades.

  • ||

    Squatting does truly magnificent things to both male and female posterior chains. DAT ASS.

  • Brutus||

    I spent years as a baseball catcher. Just FYI.

  • ||

    That's not a squat. That's a stupid crouch onto the balls of the feet. Useless, just like your underdeveloped gluteals.

  • Hyperion||

    So single women write books about how there are no marriageable men

    That is one theory, but I think a better one is:

    There are no marriageable men for them because they are selfish bitches with totally unrealistic expectations. No men who have choices with the opposite sex, which is the men they are wanting, are going to marry one of these insane feminazis. Which is why they are writing stupid books instead of having a real life and a marriage. What real man is going to marry a selfish ass cunt that constantly demands unfair conditions to a relationship and tries to turn them into another woman?

  • rho||

    Needs moar cunt.

    We're suffering from runaway grade inflation, degree inflation, job description inflation and inflation inflation, which has brought us to this magical land where unwarranted self-importance rules.

  • Hyperion||

    I think it's the last one that is going to be our undoing. We already know that stopping the runaway cost of government growth and spending is totally off the table for our ruling elite in DC.

    So the only choice is going to be firing up those printing presses.

    And in the end, no matter how hard they want to pretend that inflation does not exist, the fact that it does and has brought down many economies before is going to rule the day.

  • FD||

    Huh???
    Ya know, I high-fived you above for observantly identifying the semantics gap, and how groups (clustering never a good thing anyway) are mis-categorized, and these silly new labels are ambiguous and without value.
    Here I don't know here the hell you're going. Leaps of logic, fat content assumptions, and authors' motivation derived from not enough winks at the bar. Slow down, man. You were on better footing earlier.

  • AuH2O||

    Also: Any number of colleges now require you to take some humanities classes along with some stuff like history/econ. How many women more than even 20 years ago are taking Grievance Studies bullshit classes and believing them enough that they think they are owed x, y, and z by society?

  • AZ||

    I think it's somewhat similar, but not just a result of the fats.

    We now see and are connected to so many people through media, the internet, and our public lives that we allow the apex fallacy to run wild.

    There was something on the OKCupid blog that women rated 80% of men as below average in attractiveness.

    So when we're exposed to so many more people, and dropping out the bottom 80% of what we see, we imagine a situation that is increasingly divergent from reality.

  • ||

    It's mostly the fats, though. How many people are so hideously deformed that they wouldn't be somewhat attractive, to some people, especially while they're still young, if they got in decent shape and were reasonably non-stupidly attired and groomed?

    The people who are really screwed, and it's not fair, and it's a damn shame, but it is true, are the short dudes. It's not like there's nothing they can do; they can get in good shape, and be funny, and go for short chicks. But they're the only truly disadvantaged group I can think of, looks-wise. Everyone else either isn't making an effort or their problem isn't looks, it's that they have a shit personality or no social skills.

  • ||

    Until I was about 21, I was really skinny, and being enormous and skinny makes you look weird. I managed just fine with girls.

    And one of my best friends is a short guy (5'5), and he's a player. But maybe he's the exception.

  • ||

    I am reasonably tall for a chick (5'8") and have to admit I am not typically attracted to dudes shorter than me. I have a feeling your buddy's the exception. He's probably a cool, confident guy, maybe he's got a big dick (sorry if you'd rather not contemplate your bro's junk) or some other reason he managed to escape short-man-syndrome.

    Basically, non-assholes tend to find other non-assholes and have mostly enjoyable, satisfying encounters. AMAZING.

  • ||

    I am reasonably tall for a chick (5'8") and have to admit I am not typically attracted to dudes shorter than me. I have a feeling your buddy's the exception. He's probably a cool, confident guy, maybe he's got a big dick (sorry if you'd rather not contemplate your bro's junk) or some other reason he managed to escape short-man-syndrome.

    Basically, non-assholes tend to find other non-assholes and have mostly enjoyable, satisfying encounters. AMAZING.

  • ||

    I'm 6'5", so imagine all that body length as skinny as a rake, and you have a weird-looking scarecrow-type thing. That was a young me.

    And about my pal -- he's wild-shouldered and wears expensive shit all the time, and drives a Porsche. By player, I meant he pretty much changes girlfriends like gloves, and that's been for as long as I've known him.

    "sorry if you'd rather not contemplate your bro's junk"

    Hey, not at all. The Almighty Phallus is what allows us to dominate. BACK TO THE LAUNDRY ROOM, DAGNY.

  • ||

    Oh, and he's Korean.

  • T||

    they have a shit personality or no social skills.

    Hey, you can have both of those and still be happily married!

    For a small fee, I'll tell you how...

  • AZ||

    Yeah, a significant proportion of the ignored masses is probably due to weight as opposed to deformity, but when you are exposed to 5000 people a day instead of 500, you're going to feel like the cream of the crop that you actually take mental note of is way more abundant than it really is, because you count the scalar instead of seeing the real relative proportion.

  • GILMORE||

    Cathy Young reports that the book has many flaws, from factual inaccuracies to missing perspectives...

    ...and also its fat, it looks stupid in that sweater, and it thinks it has so many friends but it doesn't really have any friends because none of them really liked it anyway, they were just pretending they did, just ask anybody

  • John||

    And its hair and makeup up. EEWWW

  • AuH2O||

    Question every man interested in females should know: "Hon, tell me about all the women in your office that you hate" or a subtler variation.

  • sarcasmic||

    I ask "How was your day?" and pretend to be interested in the answer. It works.

  • R C Dean||

    So, when my wife is complaining about a co-worker, I shouldn't ask "Isn't she the one with the nice tits?"

  • sarcasmic||

    Not only that but you should make eye contact, nod your head a couple times, and make affirmative mumbling sounds. When the noise stops give her a hug, and there's a good chance you'll get some later.

  • ||

    A tight hug, during which you're advised to draw your hand slowly over her crotch.

  • sarcasmic||

    What George Carlin referred to as "The pussification of America".

    I miss him.

  • Hyperion||

    Yeah, he was a good comedian for sure.

    I can always spot one of the newest breed of them at work(the pussies). They carry a backpack, which I do also. The difference is that they wear it with just one strap over their shoulder and clutch it like a purse. Barf.

  • JW||

    They carry a backpack, which I do also. The difference is that they wear it with just one strap over their shoulder and clutch it like a purse.

    That's how most people carried backpacks when I was in college and I can recall articles from the 90's about a supposed rise in back problems attached to this habit.

    As to the purse, I got nuthin.

  • John||

    I am currently being informed on facebook by a well meaning if doofy liberal friend that the economy is doing great and the deficit is not a problem. I am not getting through to him. And that is probably for the best. It is not like he can do anything about it. Best for him not to worry.

  • sarcasmic||

    I am not getting through to him.

    And you won't. Your liberal friend doesn't think. He feels. You cannot influence his feeling through rational discourse, you can only aggravate those feelings when what you say goes against the narrative.

    I don't have any liberal friends. I drove them all off with the truth. Liberals don't like the truth. It doesn't feel good.

  • John||

    I am not even making it a political discussion. I am just point out that there are millions of people wihtout jobs and the country's credit rating got down graded and the deficit is huge and there is no way to pay for it. Just facts.

  • R C Dean||

    Mansplaining is micro-aggression, John. Just give it up.

  • sarcasmic||

    I am just point out that there are millions of people wihtout jobs

    Well that's only because of greedy corporations hoarding cash and shipping jobs overseas.

    and the country's credit rating got down graded

    Well that was Bush's fault.

    and the deficit is huge and there is no way to pay for it.

    Sure there is. Make the rich pay their fair share.

    It's all about the corporations, Bush, and the rich. They're at the root of it. I mean, I mean, now I'm getting agitated. It's the damn corporations, dammit! And the failed policies of the past! And those rich bastards who don't share the wealth! Revenge! Vote Obama to get revenge on the corporations, Bush and the rich! Anger! Hatred!

    Facts don't matter. Emotion matters.

  • Hyperion||

    Sure he doesn't think the deficit is a problem because he probably read that in a Krugman article or heard some proglodyte say it on MSNBC. And that in turn made him feel good, so no further opinions need to be sought. It is exactly like sarc said, liberals just want to feel good, regardless of reality.

    I bet if you ask him about inflation, he doesn't believe that is real either. It's just mean stuff that Rethuglicans made up to scare people and as an excuse to cut taxes even more for the rich.

  • Trespassers W||

    But it's true -- the deficit per se isn't a problem. It's the spending that's a problem.

    That is, the problem isn't whether we finance the spending through taxation now (creating no deficit, or a surplus) or taxation later (creating a deficit), it's the spending itself.

    I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't understand that until I read Steven Landsburg's book recently.

  • Argumatronic||

    Yeah, I don't think women are going to do that well in the coming economic doom. The industries that are producing stuff people genuinely can't live without seem to me to still be dominated by men.

    Now that women apparently have bought into the message that the vagina is the most important thing ever, I think it's tough to make a case that we are the more intelligent and advanced sex, so well-suited to working in knowledge industries. Just prima facie, I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

  • Sudden||

    Yeah, I don't think women are going to do that well in the coming economic doom. The industries that are producing stuff people genuinely can't live without seem to me to still be dominated by men.

    Moreover, if the coming doom is anything approaching Mad Max proportions (as I am sometimes wont to think), stereotypical male aggression and ability to withstand other male aggression will be the dominant value.

  • Hyperion||

    What? You haven't seen all of those films where the heroess goes around kicking the butt of all of those men who are 3x their size? You telling me... that isn't real?

  • ||

    I think all y'all spend way too much time analyzing and picking over male-female relations and differences. On average, men and woman think and act differently for a variety of reasons, both biological and cultural. Sometimes these difference are compatible, sometimes not. Just like y'all think a logical, sports-loving, career-oriented woman is a needle in a haystack (she is), I think a man who actually wants a logical, sports-loving, bread-winning wife is a needle in a haystack (he is).

  • sarcasmic||

    Having too much in common can be a bad thing.

  • Killazontherun||

    She's a biter and I'm a choker. That's not so much as having something in common as having complimentary interest.

  • AZ||

    So much of the bad relationship advice and unhappiness I see seems to be the result of projection.

    Women trying to become the men they want and vice versa, when complementary pairings tend to do much better.

  • GILMORE||

    If women ran the world, globothermonuclear devastation which ends the human race would quickly follow.

    Why? Because all. it. takes. is. pushing. a. button.

    And the other bitch so deserved it.

  • Hyperion||

    It wouldn't even take that. The button pusher would easily justify the destruction of the world because of some PMS like imaginary symptoms brought on by someone delivering the wrong color of draperies to their office.

  • FD||

    Gender shall be quite unimportant. My own bold, and admittedly unscientific feeling is that the steady cultural and political movement is creating a brave new world of two classes. There is/will be the state apparatus and the dependent class.
    This is no epiphany for most of you who already recognized its coming, but whereas we had a preceding decomposition of poor (dependent), so-called middle class, and wealthy, there's now a more ominous “sectionalization.” Government is now ubiquitous and the tentacles touch all our businesses, jobs, lives. We are now all on the dole. The readers here have nobly espoused an environment that allows opportunity to be available for the so-called normal, and the, the different, anybody(!), to create economic viability in unique and innovative spheres. These same readers will be okay in the coming decades -- you're well educated and to put food on the table you will prosper, even it means your job is sadly with the “dark side,” the bloated bureaucracy. We will morph, subsumed into the bureaucracy.
    But the poor will become forever dependent on the crumbs. The best education will continue to go to the bureaucrats' kids (our kids), the state controlled jobs will go to the well-connected bureaucrats' kids (our kids). And there will be little room for the oddball who just wants to be left alone and create a market of his own. And the poor will continue to await crumbs.
    I know you know! But it troubles me deeply.

  • Sudden||

    There is/will be the state apparatus and the dependent class.

    Though I don't really disagree with this dystopian vision, I think it only the intermediate. It is the culmination of the economic Left's goal by and large. But the issue with it is that it is by its very nature of stifling private enterprise ultimately sowing the seeds of its own demise. I envision this is what happens before the wholesale economic collapse into a far more Hobbesian and cruel world, one in which human suffering will reach a level that Western civilization has not experienced since the collapse of Rome.

  • GILMORE||

    I honestly think this whole 'rise of women' thing is an optical illusion produced by the flaming, icarus-like plummet of the American Male into a morass of simpering whiny pampered self-indulgent spoiled-bratness.

    Call me crazy.

  • Hyperion||

    I just had a terrible premonition that is beyond horror.

    2016, the Democratic nominees - The Wookie and the Hildebeast.

    And they win in a landslide.

    Shudder...

  • FD||

    The bureacracy is quite safe from your pitiful little band...

  • Hyperion||

    ??? not.make.sense

  • FD||

    Wookie -- Star Wars -- rebellion against monolithic Empire -- Palpatine -- statement to Luke

  • Azathoth!!||

    I think too many women forget that women's right are a luxury item.

  • GILMORE||

    derp?

    someone explain this

  • AZ||

    I think what he's getting at is if we mean women's rights as paid-for birth control, abortion, etc. - those are at least supposedly things we can only worry about when we're already in a state of prosperity and security.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I think what he means is, if we go all Mad Max and shit, women's rights are going right out the window. So while they might not think, for example, that hyper-inflationary crack up is a "womans issue", it really is.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Winnah!

    If we go all mad max, women will go back to being property real quick.

    And all our wymyns studies majors just don't believe that--there was an ancient matriarchal culture donchaknow.

  • Trespassers W||

    David, a magazine editor, feels threatened and resentful despite his progressive values.

    Yeah, because feeling threatened and resentful is so obviously contrary to the progressive ethos.

  • GILMORE||

    ^^^DING DING DING DING DING^^^^

    They feel threatened and resentful to just about anything that isn't always patting them on the head and telling them they are just as good as everyone else.

  • mr lizard||

    Women's suffrage equals ass coverage for all my playas out there....been waiting to use that line.

  • tagtann||

    Sounds like a prety good plan to me dude.

    www.post-anon.tk

  • GILMORE||

    Whoa, makes a lot of sense, really, when you think about it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement