Steve Sailer's Law of Female Journalism is copied below:
The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.
Maureen Dowd, who last week characterized anti-Obamacare persons as racist, is one of the most consistent offenders. This week,
she discusses why men have become happier than women, using the General Social Survey as evidence. Unsurprisingly, she sees this as a bad thing. She discusses the greater responsibility woman now have since they've entered the workforce (are they starting to regret it?).
When women stepped into male- dominated realms, they put more demands — and stress — on themselves. If they once judged themselves on looks, kids, hubbies, gardens and dinner parties, now they judge themselves on looks, kids, hubbies, gardens, dinner parties — and grad school, work, office deadlines and meshing a two-career marriage.
And of course, men must have no supplementary stresses, right? Women fought for equality (and I applaud those first women who demanded equal pay for equal responsibility), but when they're given more opportunity, they grouse about the added stress. Then, Dowd ventures into her favorite subject: men should like 45 year-old strippers.
Another daunting thing: America is more youth and looks obsessed than ever, with an array of expensive cosmetic procedures that allow women to be their own Frankenstein Barbies.
Men can age in an attractive way while women are expected to replicate — and Restylane — their 20s into their 60s.
Men also tend to fare better romantically as time wears on. There are more widows than widowers, and men have an easier time getting younger mates.
You can just hear the vitriol spewing from these words. This is why feminism fails: shrill voices like Ms. Dowd's.
17 comments:
"And of course, men must have no supplementary stresses, right? Women fought for equality (and I applaud those first women who demanded equal pay for equal responsibility)"
If they did equal work the market would've responded. What people were willing to pay them tells me more than the victim narrative about the work women did. You're buying into feminist mythology.
I would imagine that Ms. Dowd had no problem revelling in the extra sexual attention she received in her late teens and early 20s.
And I bet that it did not bother her at the time that boys and men of the same age received no such "bump" in attractiveness.
Also, I bet that at the time, it never even occurred to her that the extra attention she was receiving came at the expense of older women.
That's why I don't have a lot of sympathy for these aging female pundits who complain about double standards. It seems they don't complain when the double standard works in their favor -- only when it works against them.
By the way, I was reading the article and I saw this:
"'Though women begin their lives more fulfilled than men, as they age, they gradually become less happy, . . . Men, in contrast, get happier as they get older.'"
So I will hypothesize that attractiveness plays a significant role in happiness. If other people find you attractive, they are more likely to help you and less likely to put obstacles in your way. Also, it's just a nice feeling when you meet people who (1) consider you as a potential sexual partner; and (2) you yourself consider to be attractive.
So basically I think Dowd has a point when she says that "Men can age in an attractive way"
But as noted above, she doesn't seem to think there's a problem with the fact that young men are less happy than young women.
At the end of the day, it seems likely that the increased happiness of those young women is coming at the expense of decreased happiness of older women.
"You're buying into feminist mythology."
You're telling me that prior to the 60's, there weren't some women getting shafted simply because they were women?
I find it hard to believe that there wasn't an entire market willing to lowball women. Yes feminism annoys me, but you can't just disregard that some sexism USED to exist.
The problem now is that they want equal pay, period. They want to do easier work, like administrative and government racket work, yet have the same average salary as doctors and engineers (male positions).
I find it hard to believe that there wasn't an entire market willing to lowball women.
Welcome to the real world. There are also men out there getting low wages because they have little to offer than their muscles and their desperation to earn an income.
The difference is that men generally cannot rely on their genitals to make life easier for them.
"You're telling me that prior to the 60's, there weren't some women getting shafted simply because they were women? "
Yes, I am telling you that. Was hatred of women in America greater than hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany? Because even under those conditions, Jews succeeded economically.
People don't put their ideology over their economic interest. Otherwise they'd lose out to those who didn''t. The only place wide scale discrimination can exist is in government.
It's only because of ungodly amounts of propaganda that we see women with careers. It's completely unnatural.
Men also tend to fare better romantically as time wears on. There are more widows than widowers, and men have an easier time getting younger mates.
I love this! Men die young, so her sympathies naturally go to the women who now find it harder to find dates (clearly a fate worse than death!). I'm sure it would be the same if women were dying younger than men, right? I mean, then she would say how unfair it was to the who men got to live longer and therefore found it harder to date.
I think Hoste has something of a point.
Anyway, I would guess that entry of women into the workforce is mainly a result of (1) the creation of lots of desk jobs since World War II; and (2) a change in society's attitudes towards women working such that more women actually make the decision pursue careers.
But I agree that at a minimum, a significant percentage of business owners are motivated by profit and will hire people from any group if they think it will improve their bottom line. Just as there is no glass ceiling now, there was never any glass ceiling 50 or 100 years ago.
There was discrimination against women. That doesn't change that there were also very few who were qualified for many higher paying positions. Many smart women were teachers and nurses.
It also doesn't change the fact that smart women are better mothers than the less intelligent women who are daycare workers and teachers. That is part of what helps homeschool parents be so successful. Smart, committed parents teaching able students in a healthy loving home. Duh. These smart moms could do something else and have fewer kids and make more money, but they don't want to. They are happy at home with their more than average number of kids, while female journalists are unhappy at work away from their less than average number of kids.
"entry of women into the workforce is mainly a result of (1) the creation of lots of desk jobs since World War II; and (2) a change in society's attitudes towards women working such that more women actually make the decision pursue careers"
WWII spurred a major demand for women in the workplace - see Rosie the Riveter. Unsurprisingly, when the men came back from the war, she became Rosie the Receptionist.
"Unsurprisingly, when the men came back from the war, she became Rosie the Receptionist."
I agree it's unsurprising. Generally speaking, women consistently shun jobs which involve dirty, smoky or oily tools/machinery, even if there is more money to be made.
Even today, with law school enrollment approaching 50% women, the vast majority of such jobs are done by men.
"People don't put their ideology over their economic interest. Otherwise they'd lose out to those who didn''t. The only place wide scale discrimination can exist is in government."
I know that people are very self-centered. However, they are not that self-centered. Many people might not put their ideology over their economic interests, but a lot would.
I'm not sure about her GSS numbers. I checked the mean HAPPY score over time for the two sexes and found that women's decreased from 1.82 in 1972 to...1.82 in 2008! Men, on the other hand decreased about .1 over the same period, but generally everyone stayed the same. Is she limiting this to certain age groups of women or what?
I posted about the specious nature of the claim that the GSS shows a happiness decline for women or for men.
http://feministx.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-made-women-more-unhappy.html
OneSTDV AND ALL who this pertains to,
I'm happy you are grappling with gender issues lately (the be all end all underpinnings of everything else, forever and always).
But the acceptance of so called '1st wave feminism' is dangerously confused. It is our condoning of 1st wave's that led _INEVITABLY_ to so called 2nd wave, 3rd, and ad nauseum feminism.
Economy types frame the issue incorrectly --like liberal utopians and creationists. Therefor they [all] don't see it accurately.
It is not a question of "right" to make "equal pay for equal work". There is no right to work (or education, or any other pretense or poltical conceit humans hold dear)! Work is something men do to compete over female "hypergamy" tendencies ( = discriminatory up based infidelity ['up' is case specific/caprice]).
..."Female deer have a 'right' to grow antlers" : "female humans have a 'right' to ride a horse into battle [swords a cleaving]". It doesn't make any sense. [Note male deer are fighting each in headbutt suomo competition _over_ female wandering tendencies. Antlers have been selected in only males as the unwitting tool of success. It was not a conspiracy to keep females out of anything. Same with sapien competition]
Few males win and _most lose_ --EVEN WITHOUT Feminism's amplification of that Problem. (Note 'problem' is a relative construct.)
Taking status positions away from males --as the way other males increase their own status-- simply pushes more males into the loser pit.
Then even worse, giving the status positions to females (rather than say Jackie Robinson) --earned or not-- causes females to raise "the price"[tm]. Thereby causing even more men --who weren't immediately pushed into the loser pit-- to become losers too in comparison to the ascended presumptuous --now untouchable-- females.
...Giving princess even more mattresses between her and the pea causes her to be even more of a self entitled colicky bitch.
This increase of fem sexual value (fem sexual mobility) causes men then to have to do even more to win female positive attention (given her flaws and hypergamic instincts).
But... our culture has specialized in keeping men from fighting each other directly. So the way men now try to win and balance out ever increasing female sexual value (made possible by 1st wave and its precursor prerequisites) is to defer to (and often rally around, ala Stockholm syndrome) female egomania and discriminatory caprice even more. (Male _display_ as 'mano e mano' combat: See bird social dynamics --with their well known female-run infidelity.) This creates a vicious snowball of "waves".
And here we is now...
Do you understand?
And none of this even addresses female aptitude shortcomings --and the necessary accommodations imposed by the _lucky_ typically en-hubris-ed elite men left, trying to be useful to an untouchable colicky princess. Accommodating these feminine "issues" has madden-ing-ly convoluted the previous political conceits of "equality" and constitutionality, causing mass malaise and Nihilist hopelessness.
---------
And note, replacing males of the hive vs hive caste structures with female mediocres in everything has proved itself to be more economically successful than anything in history not less. So trying to stop "2nd and 3rd etc wave" by saying it's bad for business is wrong.
Europe and diaspora has the most successful cup-runneth-over hive structure ever on this planet (excepting multi cellular bodies). I declare that untethered female hypergamic 'right' (made possible by their economic/education/political leverage) is inseparably connected to that hive success story...
...Snowballing male fear mixed with their parametrized hyper competition:
Gilligan peddling his treadmill bike faster in a desperate bid to still get laid (trying to catch a carrot that moves ever one step faster than him) ...and professor's _radio_ consequently going louder and louder and _blender_ going faster and faster. Europe's entrepreneurial inventive success in a poetic nut shell there.
But western culture's economic winfall is still bad for men. (And one shouldn't need to be Valerie Solanece to see that.)
Economic arguments are a losing pony at stopping social change in general and male marginalization specifically. Just like capitalists' strip-mining and individualism arguments have always been. So at least capitalism's losing political record will be unblemished.
And the angry lower males will try to unseat the 'winners' with even more civil war coup urgency. And disenfranchised pit males will shirk civic comportment all together. So therefore keeping men down now is much better for business and "conservatives" than stopping females. Easily.
Until the worms arrive.
All made possible by simply gullibly falling for boopsy's pouty face and the cries of "she just wants to [pretend] she's a doctor too; golly." 1st wave nonsense, Where achievement is a "right" [political conceit] rather than a competition side effect. ...Competition over boopsy's pouty little bullshit ever one step ahead.
Sean,
EXCELLENT analysis! Let's see if OneSTDV will eve acknowledge it, and stop scapegoatin' Darkies.
The Obsidian
Post a Comment