I have known many divorced or never-married women. What they are, mostly, is crazy because of the lack or home, husband and children,
There are, obviously, different kinds of crazy.
People make mistakes, unfortunately. I know a few women, early 30s, who've ended up in a...not-good way. They learned their lesson the hard way. Don't have children out of wedlock, even if you are living with the father. These women have ended up living with relatives.
What they want, more than anything, is home, husband and children. They're not hostile about it, just unhappy. They don't seek "Alpha Fux/Beta Bux." They're not "hypergamous." They don't seek "resources." They're not loveless sluts.
All they want is home, husband and children, and they can't even get that.
I will repeat there are hostile women who blame everything on men. But there are many women who are nothing of the sort. And that is why, I will again point out, there is a lot of nonsense and bad advice in the Manosphere. Reality is a lot more complicated than simplistic concepts.
Yer out to lunch on that one, Unca Bob!
Girls are being taught now to be contemptuous and motherhood and homemaking.
They are getting this from their batshit crazy feminist teachers at school, they are getting it from the media and their friends. In fact, the exact same economic factors pushing men to avoid families are driving the women the same way. You are out of touch, you old fart! It might have been that way when we were younger...but these girls today are way different animals than their mothers and grandmothers are.
Women always 'want' something. Nothing new here - they are wired that way. So right now they want home, husband and children?
How many have got anything that a potential husband wants, a child needs, or that a home requires.
They can 'want' all they want. Until they have something more to bring to the table than their pussy, useless credentials, a pointless 'career', an over-inflated value of their 'companionship', and a never ending list of more 'wants', most high value men are going to give them a pass.
Tell them that in return for a lifetime of commitment that most quality men want loyalty, support, sweetness, compliance, sacrifice and freely available sex and most women will run a mile.
Tell them they will have to submit - put their own needs second to the marriage (which is no more than what the men are doing) - and they will be gone.
Fifty years of feminism has created a cohort of women simply incapable of being the wives men want and a cohort of men incapable of leading them.
The men are checking out, disengaging. The women are lost.
The women you mention are the leading edge of a looming epidemic - an epidemic of spinsters.
"All they want is home, husband and children, and they can't even get that."
Wrong on both counts.
They NEED home, husband and children. Those are what is best for a woman. But they do not WANT those things, until they are shown that there is emptiness and void in all else.
It is similar to the typical American living on junk food. They do not WANT to eat healthy foods. They NEED to; but they do not WANT to do these things. People do not want to eat healthily even when they are shown that they will live in sickness and disease if they do not change their eating habits.
And do not tell me a woman cannot get a home, husband and children. Yes they can. Any woman at a 4 or above in attractiveness can get married pretty much whenever she wants to. The problem is that she doesn't want to marry because she cannot marry the best looking, wealthiest, most exciting man she WANTS. She is not willing to compromise. She is not willing to take what she can get, which, in most instances, is pretty damn good.
This sounds suspiciously like shaming language to me. Sorry but it won't work. These may be decent women or they may not be. The risk is all on the man's side, and as it seems fewer and fewer man are willing to take that chance.
Where were these women when the perhaps not so exciting but decent men were looking for someone? Were they out partying? Should these men who were often cruelly rejected by these women, suddenly "man up" and marry one of these unfortunate lasses?
It ain't gonna happen!
None of these woman sought "exciting" guys. That Alpha Fux/Beta Bux is overwhelmingly myth. One told me, "I liked my nice boring life." The ways thing are these days, she could not maintain it.
And yes, almost all women need these things, not just want them.
Shaming language. I don't see it that way. Besides, sometimes people should feel shame, and be shamed. Otherwise it would not be such a powerful thing.
I don't understand what you're talking about. All women WANT an exciting, high value, high status man, the highest one they can get. That might not be the kind of guy they need, or what is best for them to be with long term, but that's what they WANT.
No, women do not all WANT home, husband and kids at all stages of life. Women come to WANT these things only when they finally see that there is nothing of any lasting value in anything else. Some women never get to that point, or never truly admit that to themselves.
And why couldn't she maintain her "nice boring life"? She's married to a nice boring guy and has a nice boring life. Why can't she maintain that? It takes next to nothing for a woman to maintain that kind of life.
What do you mean "the way things are nowadays, she could not maintain it"? What does that mean?
Your response, apparently made to me, makes no sense. Can you explain it?
With the economy permanently bad, relationship break up. No home available, no jobs available...they have to live with relatives or parents. For a while I had a niece and her son living with me. Love doesn't conquer all.
And no, not all women want an "exciting, high-value, high status man." That is another of the simple-minded delusions of the Manosphere.
I've had a lot of women after me. I was never an "Alpha." Mostly I was smart and funny. There have been enough guys consumed with envy because they couldn't figure out, why him? Why not me?
Give Bob credit He provokes thought with his none mainstream views. Good to hear different views whether you agree with him or not.
"Mostly I was smart and funny."
That's cocky-funny. That's attractive chick bait. High value, high status. That's why they were attracted to you.
What you mean by "alpha" (including the scare quotes) probably means PUA, cad, player, or thug. Those are some of the "definitions", but certainly aren't all-encompassing.
So why did your friend's relationship break up? SOmeone lost a job? Who broke up with who? Did your friend leave her husband because he couldn't find a job?
Sounds to me like he lost his job, she was no longer attracted to him, so she left him. Pretty typical, really. Dog bites man. BFD.
If it's something else, please explain.
"Give Bob credit He provokes thought with his none mainstream views. Good to hear different views whether you agree with him or not...."
I see it as yet another rollicking food-fight in the Treehouse! And presiding over all this mayhem is Uncle Bob - whom I hate and envy for his success with women! :)
Love doesn't last forever with enormous stressors. No jobs except minimum-age or slightly above, can't afford a house or apartment except in bad areas, a child or baby, having to crowd in with relatives...those things sometimes kill a marriage dead.
In one personal cases I was familiar with, it was mutual consent. I knew one case where they had to divorce because she couldn't leave the state with the kid, and his job couldn't transfer him. So they were stuck two states apart and no way to get together.
It's not all women divorcing to "trade up" (after a certain age they can only trade down) and to get "resources." No woman wants to end up alone and unwanted, no matter how many "resources" they can get.
July 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM
It pains me to say this, but I think I agree with Glenn on the first comment.
Bob, by and large I agree with you. Sounds like you and I are roughly in the same age range and we both have seen a lot more of life than the guys who like to go with the "all women are Gold-Digging Sluts" meme. There are certainly a good number of GDS, but they are not the majority or even a large minority. Besides, most guys won't make enough money nor have the personality to get on a GDS' radar in the first place. However, I think you have to distinguish between pre-wall and post-wall. I see lots of guys in my son's age range (20s) who cannot even get a kind word from a girl. I think times have changed, and not for the better. When you and I were growing up, Grrl power had not yet taken root and it was still ok for a girl to aspire to be a wife and mother. Because of that they were raised to be nurturers. Now they are raised to compete with men, not nurture them. So is it any surprise that at 30+ or 40+ they are alone and sad?
Despite the main stream media's contention that the Great Recession is over, the labor participation rates for men are still at the lowest level they've ever been. I personally don't believe that the recession (or more likely depression) is over by any means.
It may very well be that while these women want nothing more than a home, husband and children, there are quite likely not enough men capable of giving a woman a home. There are most certainly men who would give these ladies all of what they ask for, if only they could.
Americans committed economic "Hari Kari" when they gave Obama two terms. The result is a "Mancession", of which there is no end in sight.
Perhaps what you're describing is your experience, or the experience of women you have known. It is not mine, nor many of the men I've known, both in and out of the manosphere.
In my experience, "financial problems" in marriage is really just a pretense for the real problem -- she is no longer attracted to him; or never was attracted to him in the first place.
I contend that most marriages break up nowadays not because of financial stress, but because wife is no longer attracted to husband. Believe you me, I've seen enough women do anything it takes to stay with good looking dickbags to know it's true. I've seen enough women work their fingers to the bone to support a guy who can't make a living, but who can fuck them just right, to know that it's not the cash that keeps these girls happy, it's the dick.
In the case of the women you know, I find it fatuous and silly that a woman cannot leave the state with her kid and the man can't get another job or get transferred. If she really wants to make her marriage work, she doesn't marry a man such as described or she leaves the kid with baby daddy. Or new hubby quits the job and gets another one.
You either want your marriage to work, or you don't. You either are going to do what it takes to stay together, or you won't.
“It's not all women divorcing to "trade up" (after a certain age they can only trade down) and to get "resources."”
Many, if not most, divorce because they just don’t want to be married to their husbands anymore. And they divorce in the hopes that they can get a “better” man (read: more attractive, richer, wealthier, more exciting). Most do not get a “better” man. Most get a worse man, if they can remarry at all.
“No woman wants to end up alone and unwanted, no matter how many "resources" they can get.”
Agreed. Most women would be better off staying with the men who married them in the first place, regardless of how the women “feel” about it at any given time. But what happens is that they end up “alone and unwanted” because of THEIR OWN CONDUCT.
You've sure stirred up a hornets nest here Bob! Must've hit a sore spot or something!
It's true that woman Need men in there lives. Just look at single-parent households for examples of that. Or look at women with Turners Syndrome for an example of a woman without any Testosterone in her system (hint, they definitely don't have hourglass figures).
But the divorce rates show that like the Ents from Tolkiens Lord of the Rings, women don't want men in their lives, they want 'fun' & 'excitement'. Women initiate somewhere between 75% and 90% of divorces which proves that they don't want men in their lives. If they did then they simply wouldn't get divorced. And these divorcees are run of the mill women, not feminists or marxists or anything radical like that, just average Jane Does who don't want to be around their husband any more. Once they've ditched their husband they go and find another one. Simon Sheppard pointed it out and called it 'serial monogamy'.
For marriages to work it means massively overhauling the legal system so that a man has power over his home and his property and his wife. If not then the woman will just continue with what they are doing, getting divorced.
in the UK in 1986 females were three times more likely to sue for divorce than males. Marriage satisfies virtually all feminine instincts yet the modern female is still unlikely to be content with it. The widespread contemporary policy of serial monogamy is advantageous for the female because her confidence and power increases with each successive relationship. Her manipulative skills improve as they are applied each time in a different context.
And here's the wikipedia page on Turners Syndrome:
(Amongst the various symptoms are 'increased risk of obesity' and 'problems with math', 'problems with concentration'. Is that female or what?!)
If you want to put a big crimp in divorce if a woman gets divorced she loses all rights to her kids, and gets no alimony. And no welfare.
Could you write a post on finding women who just want home, husband, and children?
Or direct me to a post that you've already written on it?
Post a Comment