Sunday, May 17, 2015

"Women are Achieving"

I occasionally look up women I knew in college. It's astonishing how many are not married and have no kids. What they have are "careers." Often those "careers" are make-work Affirmative Action hires. They never believe it, though.

And, of course, everything is men's fault. Including the fact they can't find any men.

Some of them have admitted to me they are on psychiatric medication. For decades.

I get women hitting on me on the street, in parks, in stores, and even stopping their cars when they see me with my dog. I find this astonishing.

This article is from Free Northerner.


The Guardian has an article on how boys are a mess (h/t: TRP), there’s nothing all that new there other than its the Guardian acknowledging the problem and its somewhat RP’d. But it has this little bit that comes up with all these articles:

“Men are opting out and women are opting in. Women are working harder at jobs, they’re working harder in school, and they are achieving – last year women had more of every single category of degree, even engineering. This is data from around the world. Now in many colleges there’s a big gap as boys are dropping out of school and college.”

Zimbardo estimates that there are, in Britain and the US, 5-10% more women than men at many colleges and universities. “So they’re going to have to have affirmative action for guys because obviously one reason you go to college is to find a guy.”

Every time the crisis of boys/men comes to the fore, there’s always the section on how women are achieving. The triumphalism varies, this one tones it down quite a bit compared to, for example, this but there’s always this note of woman are doing better.

Except, are they?

Women are going to school more, getting more education, and outnumber men in the workforce. So, they are achieving more, at least for the mediocre positions, men still dominate the elite positions.

But are they really better off? What exactly are they achieving?

To most men, work is/has been something they had to do so to obtain a wife, then provide for the resulting family. Most men probably took pride in a job well done or in creating, but the purpose of going in to work was to earn to provide for his family. He could have gotten the pride of creation elsewhere, not to mention in today’s white-collar, paperwork world, satisfaction from creating something tangible is rapidly disappearing. Likewise, since the growth of mass post-secondary education, getting a degree for men has primarily been about avoiding a job doing physical labour, getting a better job to hopefully attract a prettier wife, and provide a more materially rich life for his family. The main purpose of post-secondary education was to get a family and provide for it, while making provision easier.

Men did this work, not for its intrinsic own sake, but for the extrinsic good of the family.

To repeat, as an aggregate woman are achieving more, but what are they achieving? Women are now doing the work men did to support their families, without having families to support, barring (the usually poor) single mothers, who are not the kinds of women-in-the-workplace these articles are happily pointing to as signs of success. In fact, statistically speaking, these women are less likely to have families and when they do these families are smaller.

So, what are they achieving?

The only thing they seem to be achieving is more consumption and more money to be spent on the consumptive treadmill. Is that something we should be proud of? Is that kind of achievement really something we as a society should be pursuing and pushing our boys and girls to pursue?

The other question then becomes, are men really being left behind?

If a young man has no need to support a family, because he doesn’t have a wife, he might not get a wife, and when he does his wife will work and IF they have children, there will only be one, maybe two, why does he need to work?

Is he really falling behind if his part-time McD’s gig pays for his quarter of the bachelor pad’s rent, beer, and the new XBox?

Is a man really worse off spending his hours playing video games and chilling with his bros rather than spending them working hard to get a bigger (but still empty) house and a (nominally) better car?

Why is empty, high-work, high-stress consumerism somehow assumed to be better than empty, low-work, low-stress consumerism?

Either way it’s empty, but the latter is a lot easier and more enjoyable.

Maybe this ‘high achievement‘ is not some victory for women, maybe it’s simply that men know the score: Work sucks, but is (was) necessary to get a wife, regular sex, and a family. Now that men can get sex without a wife and aren’t getting a wife or family anyway, why work?

On the other hand, women seem to have been tricked into thinking that grinding away at a white-collar job is its own reward. They’re doing the shit men were forced to do and mostly disliked, while not even having the reward of a wife having supper ready for them when they get home.

Is it just the boys that are mess? Are the women really achieving?

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I get women hitting on me on the street, in parks, in stores, and even stopping their cars when they see me with my dog. I find this astonishing."

Just curious, did this just start recently? How old are the women? Are they married? Have women become more flirty and aggressive (initiating approach) with men compared to years ago?

Bob Wallace said...

It started about five years ago and I have found the ring makes no difference. They women tend to be from their 40s to 50s.

Older women who are alone tend to be more aggressive. They're also more hostile and more full of hate.

LosAngelesKing said...

"Older women who are alone tend to be more aggressive. They're also more hostile and more full of hate."

When I was in my 20's, I got approached by a woman in her early 40's dressed up in her full slut gear at a popular bar I frequented, and she was clearly trying to get my interest, offering to buy me a drink. I was trying to be polite, so I continued to talk to her, but declined the drink. I didn't want to in anyway be obligated to a washed up whore. That didn't bother her, but what came after did...oh boy.

I found out this broad was twice divorced. Judging by the way she was dressed, my probably correct assumption was she got caught cheating on her husband(s), and was now on the make for a younger guy to replace the older dude she tossed out to the trash bin. During the conversation, she asks if I wanted to come back to her pad. No thanks, I tell her. That pissed her off, and she wasn't shy in showing it...what, you just want one of these younger sluts in here, instead of a "strong, independent woman" (feminazi code right there), she asks. I couldn't help but laugh when I heard that. At that point, I tried to walk away, not needing to cause a scene, but the bitching continued. So I told her "one of the younger sluts", that's she was 15 years ago. Thanks, but no thanks.

That would be one of the first times I noticed such things like the older/alone woman hostility and hate, but couldn't put my finger on it as to why. I know the manosphere guys will say they're "alpha widows", but I suspect it's because they can't get ANY attention from men at all, regardless of their station in life or their so-called ranking. Why do you think the older/alone women are so full of hostility and hate, Bob?

Bob Wallace said...

My experience has been they've gone from a lot of attention when younger to couldn't-pay-to-get-it when older.

Then there are the divorced ones and while not all of them are full of hate there are enough to be noticeable.

Then there are the never-married ones and some of them have their anger problems.

What they have in common are men problems and blaming their problems on them.

Bob Wallace said...

Oh yeah - "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned." I suspect that saying is about 10,000 years old.

Earl Thomas said...

The few times I was approached in the bar was from women who had to be in their 40s. I politely rejected all of them.

Then there was time I worked in a nursing home as a CNA...you want to talk about older women having no filter, it was a daily hit on in that place. Some of them said things that would make a sailor blush.

Bob Wallace said...

Women are a lot nastier with their mouths than men. I once put my fingers in my ears as a joke and they didn't even laugh because they thought I was serious.

Earl Thomas said...

'Women are a lot nastier with their mouths than men.'

Yup.

Along with that...when some PUA goes on about whatever exploits he's been on, what kind of behavior do you think he's signaling?

It's got to the point I either think they are full of it...or worse it's true and the women they fornicate with have had their character rub off onto them.

Anonymous said...

Be careful when you reject the advances of women of any age. They can become extremely angry and vindictive, and they just won't let it go and leave you alone. I'm speaking from experience. They absolutely cannot take rejection like men.

If you decline their advances, they think there is something wrong with you, your gay or not a real man, you don't like sex, or whatever, it's never them. Most women are entitled and think that men were put on Earth to serve them.

Robert What? said...

@Bob, you notice no difference in women's interest in you based on whether you are or are not wearing a wedding ring? So that old story about women more likely to approach a guy with a ring, is just that: a story?

Bob Wallace said...

I haven't noticed any difference, ring or no ring.

LosAngelesKing said...

@ Robert What

So that old story about women more likely to approach a guy with a ring, is just that: a story?

Nope, I actually believe women to be worse than men when it comes to approaching/expressing interest in a man when they know or least perceive that they're taken. Several of my buddies have gone out with female friends to bars etc with female friends and they were huge hits all night long with the women.

Many girls actually hit on them in front of their "girlfriends." They just didn't care. The best wing man a guy can have is another woman. A couple of other married friends used to get hit on when the women knew they were married. They actually said to them "your wife will never know" when told that they loved their wives. Women as our moral betters is one of the largest lies ever told.

LosAngelesKing said...

@ Anony

"They absolutely cannot take rejection like men." You got that right. They're not used to it like men are. Men tend to develop thick skins when dealing with rejection, but reject a woman's advances, and their rationalization launches into orbit. You must be a queer, a loser, abnormal man who doesn't like sex etc. They drank that Kool-Aid of men are sex driven ogres that don't know how to control their impulses and are always down to bang, no matter who and no matter what.

Anonymous said...

"I haven't noticed any difference, ring or no ring."

I think there was a Seinfeld episode that addressed this issue - George Constanza started wearing a wedding ring, then all kinds of women started coming on to him. Women generally tend to like men that other women like - social proof.

Not sure if this phenomena is real or not. Somebody should try it and report back to the blog. LOL.

Bob Wallace said...

"Women as our moral betters is one of the largest lies ever told."

Men civilize women, not the only way around.

Sean Carnegie said...

I have a ring with multiple diamonds that could/has passed for a wedding ring. Was asked at my old job if I was recently married by a female customer since I had just cleaned it.
"Nope, I wear it on that finger because chicks love a man with a ring. "
(Females denying, twittering amongst themselves.)
"Baby, why would I say something untrue to you? Works like a charm. "
(More twittering)
Raised my eyebrow, smiled and had four numbers in an hour.

Anonymous said...


Here is a snippet of the episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdj9Iv4TvpE&spfreload=10

Enjoy.

LosAngelesKing said...

"Men civilize women, not the other way around."

Yep, and when we don't civilize women and bring them under control, they become feral animals and destroy everything in sight, including themselves. The idea of women civilizing men is just pedestalizing propaganda.

Anonymous said...

"Women as our moral betters is one of the largest lies ever told."


Woman makes a show of kindly handing fly ball to a disappointed little boy at baseball game ...only to be caught demanding it BACK when she thinks the cameras have moved on

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3085333/Give-ball-Woman-catches-fly-ball-baseball-game-gives-little-boy-later-demand-return-it.html#ixzz3aRplXNZg

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Rusty Shackleford said...

" Is he really falling behind if his part-time McD’s gig pays for his quarter of the bachelor pad’s rent, beer, and the new XBox? "

The best job I ever had and the only one I ever liked was working at an oil quick change place for minimum wage. The cars would come in waves, so there would be long breaks between where we'd sit around talking about cars, girls, books, movies, etc. After a year those guys were like family. The quote from the article describes those guys perfectly. A lot of them had liberal art degrees that did nothing to enhance their employability, and they mostly crashed at grungy bachelor pads with three or four other guys.

I remember one guy in his 40s at the time who'd been working the lowest position at the shop for years and was never not stoned. He lived with some other middle aged guys and played music gigs on the weekends. He was a normal, okay guy, but I remember thinking his life was kind of sad even though he seemed happy with it. After having had a real job and having seen the after effects of several imploded marriages, I can't judge him anymore. What, would he have been happier working an office job and paying alimony to some land whale? I can't even say that he wasn't living the best life available to him in a screwed up society.

Rusty Shackleford said...

"On the other hand, women seem to have been tricked into thinking that grinding away at a white-collar job is its own reward. They’re doing the shit men were forced to do and mostly disliked, while not even having the reward of a wife having supper ready for them when they get home. "

Chesterton wrote exactly the same thing a century ago, and I've been looking for the exact quote for a while now. But, yeah, convincing women that work is fun and exciting and that they're really missing out by staying at home is like Tom Sawyering on some sort of grand, societal level. Instead of doing vitally important work within the context of the family and the culture, they are now busy doing white collar office bitch work to the furtherance of some company's bottom line. It's not hard to imagine why government and business nod along and encourage feminist stupidity in the face of expanding power bases and labor supplies, despite the fact that it is of course short sighted and doomed to disaster. It really has to be up there amongst the greatest and most nefarious social schemes in human history. If you want to destroy a society, first ruin its women, and that is exactly what has happened.


I noticed this while I was reading the article about the "give me my ball back" woman:

Prince Harry confirms he's happy to be single and is NOT looking for a girlfriend

The DailyMail sometimes seems to have a sort of crypto MGTOW editorial bent. It's a non story, but I just think it's funny how much happier the single guy looks compared to his doughy, bald brother. It's like the results of a medical test where they fed some weird chemical to one group of rats and sugar water to the other.

Take The Red Pill said...

"...To most men, work is/has been something they had to do so to obtain a wife, then provide for the resulting family. Most men probably took pride in a job well done or in creating, but the purpose of going in to work was to earn to provide for his family. He could have gotten the pride of creation elsewhere, not to mention in today’s white-collar, paperwork world, satisfaction from creating something tangible is rapidly disappearing. Likewise, since the growth of mass post-secondary education, getting a degree for men has primarily been about avoiding a job doing physical labour, getting a better job to hopefully attract a prettier wife, and provide a more materially rich life for his family. The main purpose of post-secondary education was to get a family and provide for it, while making provision easier.

Men did this work, not for its intrinsic own sake, but for the extrinsic good of the family..."


Women see this, and their attitude is: "oh, that's just something that men do..."

MGTOW'd Out said...

“Women are a lot nastier with their mouths than men.”


Mere opinion. Only based on YOUR experience. Does not mean this phenomenon represents a universal truth.


“They can become extremely angry and vindictive, and they just won't let it go and leave you alone. I'm speaking from experience. They absolutely cannot take rejection like men.”

Given your knack for exaggeration, your words are taken lightly.


“You got that right. They're not used to it like men are. Men tend to develop thick skins when dealing with rejection, but reject a woman's advances, and their rationalization launches into orbit. You must be a queer, a loser, abnormal man who doesn't like sex etc. They drank that Kool-Aid of men are sex driven ogres that don't know how to control their impulses and are always down to bang, no matter who and no matter what.”

Since we are speaking anecdotally, men and women tend to react similarly when it comes to rejection. When a man is rejected by a woman, he calls her a bitch. When a woman is rejected by a man, she calls him a fag. Both men and women can be equally vindictive.


“Women generally tend to like men that other women like - social proof.”

Having been part of a social experiment similar to that Seinfeld episode, SOME women came on to our group, but it was no where near the show’s portrayal.


“Men civilize women, not the only way around.”

Corrected for accuracy—People civilize one another.


“Yep, and when we don't civilize women and bring them under control, they become feral animals and destroy everything in sight, including themselves.”

Corrected for accuracy—When we don’t civilize ourselves, we become feral animals and destroy everything in sight, including ourselves.


“It's a non story, but I just think it's funny how much happier the single guy looks compared to his doughy, bald brother.”

Happier? Hardly. Harry’s brother is married to an observably attractive woman and has two children. He is dedicated to saving western civilization.

Bob Wallace said...

It's "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned," not "a man."

I've seen it many times.

MGTOW'd Out said...

Bobby, men created the world. They are infinitely more skilled at destroying it compared to women.

It's not even close.

Bob Wallace said...

And that is why in every mythology women brought evil into the world. And men let them do it out of weakness.

You ought to read the Iliad and the Odyssey sometime and see the roll of women in it.

You don't know as much about history as you think you do.

LosAngelesKing said...

"Since we are speaking anecdotally, men and women tend to react similarly when it comes to rejection. When a man is rejected by a woman, he calls her a bitch. When a woman is rejected by a man, she calls him a fag. Both men and women can be equally vindictive."

Corrected for accuracy, Cheech and Chong troll. Men call a woman who has rejected him a bitch when she has acted like a bitch when rejecting him. You know, like going nuclear on him for having the temerity of approaching her. If she's a bitch, then calling her such is no big tragedy.

Shakespeare had a hell of a lot better knowledge than you did. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Especially if they're of the lunatic cat variety. And while I'm commenting, men may be adept at destroying societies, they are also equally adept at rebuilding them. There has never been a matriarchy that ever survived. Why? Because it's not in female nature to build, but a negative aspect of it is to destroy.

It took thousands of years for men to build Western Civilization that you're convinced can be/deserves to be saved, where it only took 50 years for women to destroy it. Our mistake was to weakly allow the women to do it.