Settling for Mr. Good Enough: The Underpinnings of Feminism

As Roissy shows in this complete evisceration of a NYT article on college sex ratios, the mainstream media populated by servile beta males and cantankerous pseudo-feminists doesn't understand the current sexual marketplace. And here's yet more evidence of their glib pontifications on the basis of female attraction.

Lori Gottleib has put out a book entitled Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, or more appropriately: Marry Him: The Case for Settling for a Supplicating, Nice Guy Beta. Feminist zealots and their mainstream enablers, those female journalists forever confirming Sailer's Law of Female Journalism (ironically, I'm the first Google result), are none too pleased with Ms. Gottleib's advice. But they don't see it the way those aware of female hypergamy do:

and compromise their desires and values in a partner by putting their ovaries before their own happiness.

telling women to settle for men with shortcomings like bad breath—and not hold out for a big, heart-clenching love.

But it's a leap of illogic to suggest that the answer is for women to settle for humdrum marriages with men you tolerate so you can have a father for your children.

I have high standards when it comes to men I would share my life with and so do most of my female friends and family. But those standards are based good values.

These women actually believe female attraction is based on common interests, values, and all that other stuff. This was true of our grandparent's generation, but the sexual liberation movement has allowed female hypergamy to flourish and thus undermine the social capital corresponding to these positive personality traits. What Gottleib advises is a socially palatable way of saying: "Settle for Mr. Nice guy who treats you well, but isn't the alpha cad you really want."

And she blames this on feminism and to an extent, she's right.

The problem, as Gottlieb sees it, is that women were told they could have it all, which meant not compromising in any aspect of life, including dating (which is odd because people who can't compromise aren't feminists, they are just generally unpleasant people). Then women got so fussy that they "empowered themselves out of a mate."

Feminism represents both an economic initiative and a social one. But the two are entangled and both derive from the same female objective. Feminism started out mostly amongst ugly women eager for a more libertine sexual environment where they'd have a better shot and lesbians eager to undermine any traditional concept of sexuality in order to norm their irregular preferences. The movement morphed into what Gottleib describes above: a generation of empowered women eager to assert their independence, free from the economic burden of joblessness, and able to pursue sexual freedom without restriction. The mainstream deemed this a pursuit of equality, but it's actually a reflection of female hypergamy.

Feminism, by enervating the social stigmatization of late marriages, ultimately represents an audacious attempt to civilize the alpha male cad. Women no longer "settle" for a man of lesser value, a man who doesn't ignite their carnal desires (read: beta), instead delaying marriage in an attempt to wrangle a member of the alpha male class. Females are no longer encumbered by an early (beta) marriage merely for social and economic support; they are now self-sufficient and thus free to pursue any man of their choosing. Marriage, children, traditional homes, and the nuclear family are all obstacles in the pursuit of the alpha male fantasy. Fittingly, they delay these mainstays of the responsible female in a tortured quest to meet their alpha prince charming. The notion of equality is but window dressing for the true objective that underlies feminism.

But, of course, we can't expect the mainstream to accept or voice such stark representations of the sexual marketplace.