It will be interesting to see what backlash he gets for this one.
Feel free to discuss this piece by Pepper Schwartz, a professor of Sociology at University of Washington.
I’d say she is ignoring a couple of large elephants in her office that are crapping all over her carpet.
I’ll elaborate more later.
I had to say that, because of the headline in this article. (HT: Vox Day)
Women who have several sexual partners before getting married have less happy marriages – but men do no harm by playing the field,a study has found.
According to new research by the National Marriage Project, more than half of married women who had only ever slept with their future husband felt highly satisfied in their marriage.
But that percentage dropped to 42 per cent once the woman had had pre-marital sex with at least two partners. It dropped to 22 per cent for those with ten or more partners.
But, for men, the number of partners a man they appeared to have no bearing on how satisfied they felt within a marriage.
Researchers said the study showed that sex with many different partners ‘may be risky’ if the woman is in search of a high-quality marriage.
Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger.
Susan “Princeton Mom” Patton created a firestorm by writing this editorial for the Wall Street Journal.
The feminist establishment has their panties in the mother of all twists. If you don’t believe me, read the comments for that article.
Reinforcing Patton’s advice, Vox Day has followed up with this, where a PhD scientist, who married in her 40s and has quit her job to be a SAHM, chimes in.
“The idea that women are too focused on being intellectual, or shouldn’t have career aspirations that would allow them to earn more than their (potential) husbands is absurd and patently offensive.”
She’s wrong. It’s not absurd or offensive, it’s straight-up truth. And it’s not even so much about the money (although, for the health of a marriage I do believe the husband should be the breadwinner), but about sacrificing career aspirations to do the single most important thing a woman can do, which is to get married and raise a family.
I am a highly intellectual woman with a successful professional career, and I realize now what a mistake I’ve made by not settling down and having children early. I married 12 years ago, but put off having children in order to finish graduate school and establish my scientific career. Last December, at the age of 42, I had a baby daughter. I realize now that this would’ve been MUCH easier 10 or 20 years ago. It’s not only a struggle to care for a newborn at my age, but making the sudden shift from a woman who has, for decades, been very busy with intellectual pursuits and relatively unencumbered by responsibility to a stay-at-home mom has been unexpectedly difficult.
My own dear departed mother got married at 19 and had me and my brother at 21 and 22 years of age. I look at old photos of her with us as babies, and she looks deliriously happy. She LOVED being a mother. She had that crazy young-person energy you need to raise babies and no established adult life that she felt like she was losing in order to become a mother. Later, when my brother and I were older, she went back to university to finish her degree and enjoyed many happy years as a teacher.
I regret putting off children for so long. I wish I had put off my graduate education and career in order to have had more healthy children. (My first daughter had a fatal chromosomal abnormality and was stillborn. The risk for such problems increases sharply with maternal age — another reason to start having children young.) The one thing I did right was to learn to cook and keep house, the love and skill of which I learned from my mother at a young age. But motherhood has not come easy at 40+. For that reason, I will tell every girl I know (including my daughter) to not make the same mistake I did. Put off the career. Learn to cook and keep house, find a good man and get married young, and start having babies as soon as possible.
I really like Vox’s statement: “So, who are you going to listen to, young women? Who do you think knows what she’s talking about, the woman with both the PhD and the child or the crazy cat ladies with neither physics degrees nor children?”
Some will read what Vox and myself are saying, and think we are misogynists who seek to keep women from achieving and being their best.
Quite the contrary; while I cannot answer for Vox, I simply have observed that, as a general rule, women want to get married and have kids. In their heart of hearts, they want this more than they want a nice career. This is normal and to be celebrated.
I’ve met ZERO old fogeys who married early and had kids and ditched their career aspirations only to regret it. I’ve met plenty who forsook marriage and family life for careers and wish they had done the opposite. I’ve met plenty who forsook marriage and family life, and now cannot find a man to marry. I’ve met others who married later but now must rely on technology to conceive a baby.
I have a good friend at work who is in her early 40s, debt-free, in great condition, doesn’t (to the best of my knowledge) ride the carousel, and wishes she could get married. In her most fertile years, it didn’t work out for her. Some of that is on her, some of that is on circumstances. Sure, she’s liberal. But she’d otherwise make a good catch for someone. Trouble is, her best marriageable years are behind her. She has baggage, and has acquired cynicism as a result. Not only are other men skeptical of her, she is skeptical of them in ways she would not have been 20 years ago.
Here’s the thing, though: we put a lot of emphasis training boys and girls to prepare for adulthood. We insist that they go to college, get degrees, and pursue the professional career paths. What we DON’T do–as a society–is train them to prepare for marriage and family life. We do not teach them about the economic tradeoffs and challenges because that would appear sexist or misogynist.
And for those who don’t like what I am saying, I have some honest questions for you:
(1) If this were no big deal, then why does Kate Bolick even get any press? Why is it even a news story that women who don’t marry early will have a harder time marrying?
(2) If this were no big deal, then why the outrage over what Susan Patton is saying?
Now some might also ask why we should consider Patton–or Stickwick (the gal who wrote to Vox)–over the feminists?
I would suggest this: the feminists have more to gain with other women being as miserable as they are. It’s a strength in numbers thing.
I have met very few single women who are older than 30 who are happy. And I mean very few. Almost all of them wish they could get married. The conservative, non-feminists HATE being single and WANT a husband and kids.
But here is the thing: even the feminists want that. They just don’t want to admit. The very few happy feminists I know, have a strong husband and at least two kids.
As for the single feminists I know? They are the most miserable of people. And the thing that they despise the most: the happily-married conservative woman. Particularly if she has more than two kids. It’s unbridled envy.
So, feminists, what is the problem with Patton’s column? Is it that she expresses a truth that you don’t want to accept? Is it that she is speaking to your situation and you know she is right?
Or is she just wrong?
If she is wrong, you are more than welcome to make your case here.
Fair disclosure: I like Susan Walsh. While she blogs from a secular perspective, she has provided some good, stark perspective regarding the “sexual marketplace” and has done a good job articulating the price that feminism has exacted from both sexes. She has been excellent at exposing the down side of the hookup culture.
Still, I am having a hard time wondering why she is fighting the manosphere over something that–apparently–her own analysis has confirmed.
In the hullabaloo between Susan Walsh and the manosphere over declining “sexual market values” (SMVs), it seems that Susan has lost the forest in the trees.
First, a very brief primer on SMV, although I will frame it in terms of Marriage Market Value (MMV), as I am blogging to those who desire marriage, not those who are seeking hookups.
While the term is bandied about in pickup artist (PUA) circles regarding a man’s or woman’s sexual attractiveness, the MMV is merely a point on a scale from 1 to 10 of your desirability to the opposite sex for the purpose of marriage. In the latter respect, the MMV is useful in this: it allows both sexes an objective basis to determine where they stand on the curve and whether their expectations are reasonable, as well as determine what they may need to change to improve their respective desirabilities.
Needless to say, a man who is obese, lives with his parents, has no social skills, spends his days watching television or playing games is going to fall on the lower end of the scale whereas a man who is tall, muscular, and has a great job and excellent social skills is going to be on the higher end. The former would need to get a job, join a gym and start working out, and start developing social skills.
It also says that a woman who is 28, a veteran hookup, obese, unkempt, feminist, and tries to impress with her education and workplace accomplishments is going to be on the low end of the scale whereas a woman who is 23, fit, resourceful and smart but unassuming, and dresses well but modestly is going to be higher on the scale.
Note: I am not picking on anyone; I am simply explaining how the scale works.
Now here’s where things get dicey…
The manosphere has contended–and I agree–that a woman’s peak SMV/MMV, ceteris paribus, is going to land in her late teens and early 20s, after which it will decline slowly before–at around 28–falling more rapidly. This is driven by a number of factors. I’ll list four of them:
(1) A woman’s fertility starts sloping down after age 27;
(2) As a woman advances throughout her 20s, she will find herself competing with younger women for the same men;
(3) Once she is in her late 20s, the best men in her cohort are already married;
(4) After the 20s, a woman’s attractiveness–compared to her 20s–starts heading south.
This is why I have often contended that, if a woman desires to marry and have children, it is more equitable to cover that base sooner rather than later. This is because, if you graduate college at age 22, the clock is ticking down fast. You have 6 years before your fertility starts heading south, and–assuming you wish to date the guy for 2 years before marrying–that gives you a 4 year window during which your MMV may already be in decline. If you have a large amount of student loan debt, this puts you in a pickle.
(Oh, and two points need to be made here: (a) I’m not saying you shouldn’t go to college; I’m just saying you may need to develop a robust plan to execute this with little or no debt, and (b) Calling me names won’t change these realities, because I didn’t create them. I’m just the messenger.)
Oh, and this is not letting the men off the hook, either…
Unless a man has a really good bank account, protracted singleness will send your MMV heading south, and for some of the same reasons:
(1) While men can be fertile well into advanced age, women aren’t generally going to aim beyond their age cohorts. (Yes, a 20 year old woman will fall for a 50 year old man from time to time, but–let’s be honest here–it isn’t the norm.)
(2) Once you get past age 28, the women with the best MMVs in your cohort are going to be married.
(3) If you get sedentary and the pounds start piling up, your MMV is going to slide faster.
(4) If you are single past age 35, the women of reasonable MMV in your age group are going to have 2 strikes against you. (I can attest to that firsthand.)
Anyway, the contention by the manosphere is that women’s SMV/MMV goes down faster than those of men. I agree with that premise, as it is consistent with what I have observed. (I’m not a PUA–I never have been–but I’ve seen that dynamic quite frequently.)
Susan Walsh attempted to opine against that grain, which resulted in Vox Day and others putting her in her place. Walsh ultimately decided that, rather than this, the SMV/MMV picture looks more like this.
As I followed this back-and-forth–and especially in light of both graphs–I had a hard time understanding why Walsh was devoting so much energy to this, given that the material point by Vox and the balance of the manosphere is unchanged.
The way I see it, Vox has merely contended that women peak sooner (true in both graphs), begin their declines sooner (true in both graphs), and–due to fertility–have more to lose by playing the “game” whereas men begin their ascent later (true in both graphs), peak later (true in both graphs), and have higher MMVs in advanced age than women of the same age (true in both graphs)
Ultimately, it reinforces the point that myself–and others–have made all along: if you are a woman and wish to get married,
(a) Your optimal years are going to be in your late teens through your mid 20s;
(b) If you go to college, it can work against you if you do not plan and execute prudently;
(c) If you go to college and do not find your mate in college, your time window is going to be more limited when you graduate;
(d) Any exposure to the hookup culture is going to adversely impact your MMV in a devastating way;
(e) After your mid-20s, you are in the 2-minute warning, after which things start going south in a hurry.
This is not to slight my female friends who are older. After all, I married at an older age myself, and I had some of the same setbacks. I wish those on no one.
Still, the truth bears telling, as the younger generation needs warning.
And no, we are not shaming every single mom here. But Dalrock–picking up on a post from Captain Capitalism–has a very interesting take.
And yes, I agree with Dalrock and Captain Capitalism regarding the general situation. I’ll explain later, as work-related matters are eating my time right now.
HT to Susan Walsh. I definitely prefer MMV (marital market value) over SMV (sexual market value). I cannot say I have an issue with most of what she has written.
As for her pointers to the ladies to “Up Your Girl Game”:
1. Achieve and maintain physical fitness.
2. Dress to flatter your body shape and use makeup to enhance your features.
3. Aim for a vibe in your appearance that says “girlfriend” rather than hookup.
4. Cultivate a friendly demeanor and pleasant personality.
5. Recognize that guys will care about your sexual history, and behave accordingly.
6. Indicate interest in a relationship to filter out cads and attract like-minded guys.
The only one I would take slight issue with is #2. I would recommend that a gal dresses casually to professionally. If she has “features”, trust me: the guys are going to notice no matter how suggestively–or not–that she dresses. We’ll notice because, well, that’s what guys do.
To her credit, Walsh does balance #2 with #3. I would summarize it like this: while it is okay to dress attractively, there is also a fine line between that and dressing like a slut. I recommend taking good care of yourself, dressing modestly–but not trashily–and being affable (#4).
#5 and 6 are huge. Listen up, ladies: Any woman–no matter her attractiveness–can get laid. Go to any frat party, and–without much effort–you’ll have at least one ride.
But here’s the thing: the men–even the good guys among us–don’t have it quite as easy. (Even the most successful PUAs–think Roissy–strike out about 70% of the time.) A good guy has to work very hard just to get a woman who is interested in him for anything.
We also know that, if you have had a substantial number of partners–the studies I’ve seen indicate that more than 5 is where things start getting bad–your chances of being good marriage material start dropping like a paratrooper with a faulty chute and no reserve.
The men know this.
This is why Christian guys–generally a forgiving lot–aren’t going to be enamored with the prospect of dating a Sigma Chi Gangbang Champion. While everyone–even a virgin–is going to have some sexual baggage (in our pornified society, it’s darn-near impossible NOT to), the guys are looking for a “keeper”.
Call me what you want to call me, but a high number of partners does not say “keeper”.
So ladies, in this marathon called life, please think twice before you drink of the sex-positive cup that the feministas are handing you.
The naked truth is this: they are a pathetic, miserable herd of rabid jackals who wish to make you as miserable as they are.
Every college-age gal–and every female college grad–needs to read this.
Susan Walsh is an ally of sorts. I found her site via Vox Day’s Alpha Game site, and have referenced her from here a few times.
(While I am quite happily-married, I still take a passing interest in Game as well as other issues of interest to male-female relations. As for Game sites, I tend to enjoy Vox, Susan, and Dalrock. Occasionally I can stomach Roissy, although I think his nihilism often overshadows his brilliance.)
Tonight, looking over at Susan’s blog, I saw this exchange, between modernguy and Susan.
modernguy says (emphasis mine):
What it all boils down to is that Susan doesn’t like the idea of boys learning to make their girlfriends feel insecure about the stability of their relationship to keep them interested. Because she wouldn’t have liked that to happen to her, at least she imagines she wouldn’t. But girls live in a hot and cold world. And if you want her to keep it hot sometimes you have to make her fear the cold. As long as your intentions are good, it’s all for the good. Girls love being manipulated, as long as it ends well.
Susan’s response to that:
You’re a sick fuck.
Well, while I would tip my hat to Susan while spewing coffee through my nose–modernguy doesn’t seem all there–I will concede that modernguy’s last sentence is correct: in general, “Girls love being manipulated, as long as it ends well.“
That is part and parcel with the whole topic of women who are attracted to bad boys, who think they can change them. I’m not saying this to nail women or elevate men; it just is what it is.
Women generally go for the Alphas and Sigmas, often when they know the ride will be bumpy. Susan even referenced this herself when she pointed out that women are attracted to the Dark Triad men:
Under these market conditions, the men who come across as dominant, i.e. confident, have many admirers, and that includes the bad boys. In fact, cads now make up a disproportionate share of confident men. Recently I explained why some women are drawn to Dark Triad men. Dark traits are extreme examples of what women find attractive.
Women are attracted to confidence.
Narcissists are the most confident men.
Women are attracted to calm strength rather than anxiety.
Sociopaths are the least anxious men.
Women are attracted to men who are dominant.
Disagreeable, even violent men are the most dominant.
Women are attracted to men who embrace risk.
Dangerous men, and men in dangerous settings are the most comfortable with risk.
It’s not hard to see how many women wind up frittering away their youth and beauty on losers.
Personally, I think Susan nailed it, and modernguy–sicko that he might be–hit at least part of it out of the park, for the same reason Susan did.
At this point, the story of Tracy Clark Flory (TCF)–the sex-positive feminist columnist who once defended casual sex and is now sort of revisiting that position–is not news. Susan Walsh and Vox Day–as well as Roissy–provide scathing assessments of TCF.
My intention here is not to pile on TCF about her sexual past. She’s not a professing Christian, I don’t know her, she doesn’t know me, and–if anything–I sort of feel sorry for her. I would have more ire for her if she were a Christian, but–given that she does not claim any such affiliation–my only serious gripe with her is that she spent her most promiscuous years promoting that lifestyle for others.
That said, her story is instructive to both men and women.
For the men, it is important in that it provides a real-life portrait of the discretion that a man needs to have when dating someone. TCF–like Kate Bolick–is not immediately repulsive to men. In fact, both TCF and Kate Bolick are relatively attractive. Bolick, for someone in her 40s, has done an impressive job taking care of her appearance.
And that’s the problem for men here: APPEARANCES! Yes, men hate hearing the admonition about “inner beauty”. They dread the words, “She has a great personality!” And that’s not to say that outer beauty doesn’t or shouldn’t count: it does, and no amount of shaming tactics will change that fact.
At the same time, the men tend to forget about that “beauty is fleeting” clause in Proverbs 31.
The cases of Kate Bolick and TCF underscore the need for the guys to have discernment. This is because there are women life Kate Bolick and TCF in the Church. They have a certain charm, and even the appearance of godliness. They may not be regulars in the singles classes, but they’ll show up at special functions. They’ll dress suggestively enough to appeal to the men who are “looking”, while speaking the right spiritual jargon to make you think they are genuine. They may even play the game so well that you will not be aware of their loose morals.
How do you win against those types if you’re a guy? You have to be honest about your own lusts and desires and motives. The guys who fall for those types are every bit as depraved as the gals for whom they fall. In fact, I would suggest that they don’t “fall” for the loose woman as much as they “swan dive” into sin. They crash–head-first, with a smile–into sin.
Don’t think it can’t happen to you? That’s evidence that it can.
Now how is TCF’s case instructive for the women?
Ladies, her case is a WARNING to you. Wanna know how?
Let’s say you are wanting to get married–to a good, stand-up guy–and have kids with him. Let’s say that have the following pedigree:
(1) You are 28 years old;
(2) You started having sex when you were in your teens;
(3) Your college life was rife with “hookups”, often with alcohol involved;
(4) Even after college, your dating life was a series of short-term sexual relationships with Alpha males;
While everyone is going to have SOME baggage, this type of past is indicative of a lot of the self-inflicted type. While your chances of marrying well aren’t zero, they have gotten worse–not better–with age, due to those choices.
Now, let’s say that, instead, you have the following pedigree:
(1) You are 24 years old;
(2) You are either a virgin or–at worst–have had no more than three partners in your life, none since high school;
(3) Your college life was straight-laced: you did not play the hookup culture, and you dated with good boundaries;
(4) You work hard, and the group with whom you hang is upstanding; you don’t frequent the bar scene.
(5) While you find yourself naturally-attracted to Alpha males, you check yourself because you KNOW that those types, while interesting, are as cunning to the women as the scantily-clad hottie is to the men.
The tragedy is that, while TCF is still young (she’s 28), she has the following working against her:
(1) She probably can’t even count the number of partners she’s had;
(2) She does not seem to grasp what commitment is;
(3) She is in total denial about what she has done with her life;
(4) Her most fertile years were spent riding the carousel.
While I support TCF’s right to destroy her life–and she’s doing a great job of it–I would also point out that she’s reprehensible for teaching others to do as she has done.
And THAT is another area that women need to heed: people like TCF do what they do because THEY NEED YOU TO BE A SLUT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO HAPPY! THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!
The sluttier you are, the better it is for her ego: it allows her to feel better about herself.