Spiting their pretty faces

World Net Daily ^ | February 3, 2003 | Vox Day

[softengine]

A recent story floating around the variety section of a newspaper I still read occasionally reminded me of a conversation I had with a college girlfriend about six months ago. She's a pretty woman – slender, petite, well-educated and intelligent. She has an excellent, high-paying job and even owns her own house.

She is, in short, the epitome of feminist success. And yet, she is profoundly disappointed with her life. She has, in her own words, continued to stumble upwards while somehow missing out on the only thing she truly wanted – a husband and a family.

Nor is she alone, in anecdotal or statistical terms. Not only do the majority of women who were in our college social circle remain unmarried, but according Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, author of "Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman," a 30-something woman is three times more likely to be unmarried than her 1970's counterpart. While some might argue that this is a good thing, most demographics experts would disagree, as would, it appears, an awful lot of those 30-something single women.

While Whitehead correctly identifies the general problem, she is as clueless as the next feminist as to how to go about solving it. Instead of recommending that individuals change the one thing within their power – namely, their behavior – she advocates altering the entire system of courtship. Given this typically fascistic feminist approach, I am, of course, shocked that her six 30-something daughters and nieces all remain available.

But, as I told my friend, the root of the problem is that the kind of man she wants is precisely the man who is smart enough to stay away from her. Smart, educated women aren't willing to date down on the social scale, so the higher they rise, the more they cut down on their available pool of men. Furthermore, the smarter a man is, the more he is likely to realize that being romantically involved with an intelligent, educated, upper-middle-class American woman steeped in 20 years of feminist indoctrination is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt.

Consider the premarital professions of the women in my social circle, all of whom are now stay-at-home moms happily married to intelligent, successful men: Farmgirl. Nanny. Teacher. Office manager. Nanny. Pipeline worker. Professional student. Church volunteer. That's eight quality men who won't be marrying a high-powered career girl right there.

The advice I gave my friend was succinct: In any given dating situation, think about what your instincts are telling you – then do the opposite. It's like football … if the run is getting stuffed, then throw the darn ball.

So, in the unlikely event there happens to be a 30-something single woman reading this, here are a few pointers which might be helpful while you wait for Ms. Dafoe Whitehead and company to change the dating culture:

1. Your rights are delineated in the Constitution. Everything else is a privilege.

2. Your family has to put up with you. For everyone else, it's optional.

3. Southern belles always get what they want. Watch and learn, grasshopper.

4. Sex as an incentive is fair enough. Using its deprivation as a punishment will backfire hideously.

5. Mocking your man in public creates a no-win situation. He can either slice and dice you verbally, which is no fun for you, or keep his mouth shut and look like an idiot. In the case of the latter, it doesn't mean that you've won, or that he's forgotten.

6. Men love happy women. Act happy and you may discover how to be happy.

7. If there's a doubt, choose the most optimistic interpretation. That's what he meant.

8. Honey, honey, honey – a thousand times honey. Never vinegar.

9. Conflict is not passion. It isn't any fun, either.

10. Limit yourself to five complaints and demands a day. If you're not counting, you're over the limit.

11. If no one ever taught you the traditional arts, find an older woman to be your mentor.

12. Your feelings and objectively verifiable facts may be different. Learn to distinguish between them.

Now, I'm not saying that applying these principles to your dating scene will turn frogs into princes or anything, but they will get you in the game. And if all else fails, just tell your next first date that you're thinking of quitting your job and returning to your former career as an aerobics instructor. He'll be intrigued, trust me.

[Junior]

Could it be that they ARE afraid of those with more than two brain cells to rub together?

From your standpoint, does it matter? You are not going to change men's attitudes; you can only change yours. Complaining that men are afraid of smart women* won't get you any affection and will turn off men even more.

*Men are not afraid of smart women. We love smart women. You need to have someone who can carry on a decent conversation, after all. What we don't like are women who act superior to men. We don't want you to act inferior either (that gets tiring awfully quickly). Be funny. Be friendly. Be witty. Smile. Guys will flock to you like crazy.

[SauronOfMordor]

But the fact is women control the market. The men are the ones that have to do the courting and face constant rejection. All the woman has to do is (figuratively or otherwise) walk into a bar and sit down, and at least she'll get attention, even if she never meets the right guy there.

But here the men have an advantage: they get immediate feedback on how their reality matches up with their expectations. When five women in a row respond to you like they've just discovered a new species of fungus, it's a clue to hit the gym and improve your wardrobe and grooming habits. Guys may like looking at Victorias Secret models, but most know better than to walk up and try asking one out. You tailor your approaches to women who you think will be receptive to being asked out, and after a while you get a good feel for who's in that category.

[Joe Brower]

Regarding your post #23, well stated, as always.

Stay safe,

[cyborg]

health food store... we sell herbal viagra. Almost every time someone has to make a smartass comment. What I said really happened :-) It was an hour long discussion. I think he was more trying to see if I was lying, or something. He turned out to be a nice customer though.

[Rollee]

ROFLMAO!!! You said it. Also, if a woman in Ireland has a baby out of wedlock, big daddy government will take care of them forever. It's kind of easy to be liberal with other people's money (excessive taxes on business owners).

[Oberon]

Could it be that they ARE afraid of those with more than two brain cells to rub together?

No. They just don't want their primary personal relationship to be a continual emotional wrestling match. Who wants to come home to a power struggle every day?

[quebecois]

Well...you managed to read what you wanted to read without thinking about what I was actually saying. Put differently, my point is that the education system in america (along with our popular culture) inculcates women with certain perspectives. Among the most powerful of which is the notion that the job of wife and mother is for pathetic doormats. Even women who consciously reject the political aspects of feminism often absorb this message. This attitude works OK when women are single and when the marry and don't yet have kids. It becomes downright destructive when kids come into the picture.

I have a daughter, and I certainly intend to encourage her to seek an education and a worthwhile career. But I will attempt to send the message that such pursuits are not what matter most in a woman's life. The relationships that she has with her family is paramount. Also, the activities that are associated with being a wife and mother are critical and are no reason for shame.

My advice to my son is simple: as things are today, don't marry an educated, professional, upper-middle class white american woman. They have largely been brainwashed with a series of hostile, antagonistic attitudes that render them not good marriage material. Far better to have a working class wife (who hasn't spent as much time absorbing man-hating rhetoric in our education system) or a foreign gal.

As for boys and our education system. The system is even more destructive to boys than it is to girls, but in a different way. The system brainwashes girls into believing that their natural instincts to have and care for a husband and children are contemptible. It teaches boys that their natural boyish traits are a pathology. White boys are currently the recipients of massive propaganda that convinces them of their own inherent evil and that their natural aggressiveness is bad. The result is self-hatred, ADHD, and ritalin (see generally the book "The Feminist War on Boys).

[arthurus]

Sex and love are inexplicably related

Not inexplicably- in fact they are inextricably related.

[Lorianne]

That argument is one sided. The government is also taking care of the father's child. The child had two creators, not one. And to get nitpicky, the gov. is picking up MORE of the tab for the one who is a.w.o.l. than it is for the one parent who sticks around.

[Capitalist Eric]

My advice to my son is simple: as things are today, don't marry an educated, professional, upper-middle class white american woman. They have largely been brainwashed with a series of hostile, antagonistic attitudes that render them not good marriage material. Far better to have a working class wife (who hasn't spent as much time absorbing man-hating rhetoric in our education system) or a foreign gal.

Excellent advice. I tried the first approach- while she didn't hate men, she was shockingly immature on so many key issues, that life was a living hell. BTW, the mask came off about this aspect, the day after we got married...

I've decided to take your latter advice- and I must say, it's amazing to simply have a conversation with a true lady, who is both elegant and feminine... After my first trip outside the west (for business)....? I honestly couldn't look at American women the same way. They simply can't compete- at any level that matters...

Your advice to your son is spot-on...

Be well...

[Lorianne]

I have a daughter, and I certainly intend to encourage her to seek an education and a worthwhile career. But I will attempt to send the message that such pursuits are not what matter most in a woman's life.

If she's intelligent, don't you trust her to figure out for herself what is MOST important?

The relationships that she has with her family is paramount. Also, the activities that are associated with being a wife and mother are critical and are no reason for shame.

Isn't family of importance to men who work? Youve constructed an unsupportabe mutually exclusive argument. It is very possible to both work outside the home and be a good parent. Intelligent people (including women) can make the relavent trade offs and decisions without all this moralizing.

[Capitalist Eric]

Intelligent people (including women) can make the relavent trade offs and decisions without all this moralizing.

That so many women can't make such a decision, IS the problem...

[jpl]

the generation of women who are now in their teens won't have to worry a bit about their "biological clocks".

Sorry, but this is based more on wishful thinking on your part than on any kind of real scientific knowledge. And frankly, those who push this kind of stuff aren't doing the current generation of teenage girls any favors.

[quebecois]

"If she's intelligent, don't you trust her enough to figure out for herself what is most important?"

Two points:

1) My job as a parent is to help mold my children's values. You could just as easily use the above question to abrogate responsibility for teaching your kids anything about drugs, sex, religion, etc. Just let them be and they'll figure everything out for themselves?? Nope...not my method of parenting.

2) The educational system certainly is not taking your advice. They are using every means of propaganda available to brainwash kids into believing their PC version of social engineering. That being the case, I feel that it is entirely appropriate to present an alternate (and, I think, better) theory.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Your rights are delineated in the Constitution. Everything else is a privilege.

Oh my.

[Oberon]

You know, this may be apropos of nothing, but it occurs to me that this phenomenon of feminist-trained overachieving single career women is largely a white issue, and is primarily caused by women who have been taught to look for something that doesn't exist.

Oh, to be sure, women of color also suffer a dearth of suitable husbands... but it's a problem of a whole 'nother magnitude. Ask a white thirty-something why she didn't stay with one steady or another, and you'll often get answers like "He really wasn't right for me," or "We didn't communicate well," or "Our tastes were incompatible."

I once told a young African-American woman about a single guy I knew, whom I thought she might like. The first words out of her mouth were "Does he have a job? What kind of job? Does he have a police record?" Many black women (at least around here) are looking for a straight man, employed, who will be faithful and not beat them. They couldn't give a rat's @$$ about whether or not he's in touch with his feminine side, or prefers Mahler to Wagner.

A little dose of that kind of perspective would make all those Caucasian second-stringers look a whole lot better.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Read up a little more. It IS based on scientific knowledge.

[jpl]

The generation of women my age got fed this same bag of postmodern feminist baloney, and most of them are miserable now. Incredibly, even the ultraliberal "60 Minutes" did a story on it a short while ago.

I'll bite though. Let's see some of your sources.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Too many to cite -- I read everything I see on this topic. But there are three main routes, all addressing the fact that neither womb age (including post-menopause) nor egg nucleus age poses any significant obstacle to successful pregnancies in late middle age or beyond; the main obstacle is the age of the non-nucleus part of the egg (cytoplasm), which is not the part which determines genetic parenthood.

One method is replacing the nucleus of a donor egg with a nucleus from an egg from the genetic would-be mother -- this was done succesfully for a short time before the Luddites succeeded in getting it stopped by screaming "but that's CLONING" (in the U.S. -- it is still being done elsewhere). It will resume here in due course. A variation on this procedure, which as far as I know has not been stopped, involves tranfer of some cytoplasm from the donor egg into the would be mother's egg (called "cytoplasmic transfer"). This method does not reduce the problem of genetic abnormalities which are more common in older women, but through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, occurrences of most of those can be identified and not implanted.

The other method (already being used experimentally on women who have under cancer treatment) is removal of all or part of an ovary, freezing it, and replacing it in the body years later. The ovary then begins behaving as if it was the age that it was when it was removed and frozen. I don't believe any serious attempts at human pregnancy have been made with this method so far, but it has restored perfectly normal menstrual periods to women who had had both ovaries removed either due to the ovaries being diseased (cysts), or to prevent damage from various treatments for cancer in other parts of the body. There is every indication that it can produce normal pregnancies as well, most likely without the need for in vitro procedures. This method does eliminate the problem of age-related genetic abnormalities.

There is one fertility outfit that claims to have developed a new procedure for freezing and thawing unfertilized eggs (an approach which has had little success so far). Their claims have not been peer-reviewed as yet, because they have been unwilling to disclose the specifics of the method. If this type of approach can be made reliable, it will be ideal, as it will allow relatively simple extraction and preservation of unfertilized eggs, for use years later, without the need to choose the father in advance.

For women who marry relatively young, but want to postpone childbearing, freezing embryos is already a reliable method of buying quite a few years.

For all but the first of these methods, the important thing is to plan ahead. But I expect that will become common practice, as these procedures become commercialized and widely used.

[Jim Noble]

>>Sex and love are inexplicably related<<

My wife and I talk about this all the time.

My degrees: I have two sons, 22 and 18-I now have 3 beautiful little girls (5,3,1) and I was dating for quite a while in the 90s.

Most women act on the premise that sex and love are related. Not as many as when I was first single, but it's still rather common.

However, in the service of this premise, most women now "fall in love" just in time to do it by the second or third date.

"Loving" behavior has changed more than sexual behavior.

Of course, "falling in love" this way is not the same as falling in love for real, which takes time and a personal investment. Women who "fall in love" give away something important, and when they do it as part of a narcissistic fantasy (or to get laid, it's still unclear which is more important), only trouble lies ahead.

The boys know that if she says on the second date, "OMG, I am falling so in love with you" that this can only be a short term proposition.