[Enigma]

New article in The Federalist by a female author, pointing out how feminism, promiscuity, and the decline of families are leading to a decline in American civilization.

Plenty of red pill in the comments.

Full article in the link:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/23/men-...-see-boobs

Quote:

Men also used to marry younger and in larger numbers to lock down their very own real-life woman. Now, why bother doing the decent work of marrying and raising a family if you can swipe right and see a new pair every night? “Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of ‘perpetual adolescence’ with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of ‘Marriage Matters.’”

In a bizarre gambit to gain equality, women gave away a ton of the power they had accumulated in society. They held a majority of the cards in sexual relationships and, facing a royal flush, decided to fold. Women used to set the cultural standards and parameters for intimate activity. Now often the guys wield more power over sex and the girls are working way too hard, way too soon, for no reciprocity. More widely available hookups have made men less likely to commit.

Take what happens when there are more women than men in a dating pool. Manhattan has three women for every two men in the under-30 college grad dating pool. Men in a market like this, where there is a preponderance of available boobs women, tend to not settle down and engage in productive activities like building a family. They may even start to see women as interchangeable, as the market incentives drive them to move on as soon as they need to put in some effort to sustain a relationship. Shift your focus to one of the most economically creative places in the United States for the last 30 years, and you’ll see a very different ratio of available women to men, the Washington Post reported.

Unsurprisingly, men tend to be less — I’ll say it — promiscuous when women are more scarce. Consider Santa Clara County, Calif., home to Silicon Valley and the only well-populated area in the country where male college grads outnumber female ones by a significant margin. There, it’s women who have the dating leverage. ‘I think it’s pretty good for the girls,’ one single woman told the San Jose Mercury News a few years back. ‘You can be more picky,’ because guys ‘have to try harder.’

Quote:

We are now riding on the immense technological advancement—often made by men, as Camille Paglia frequently points out—that has made us more free and prosperous than ever before. Now the risk is what to make of that new gift of leisure time. Do we take it and create even more successful families, businesses, inventions, cures? Or are many men who would have spent their twenties working hard if given the right social incentives instead spending that time watching the unrated version of “Blurred Lines” one too many times?

The opportunity cost of overly available women may mean shallower thinking from 50 percent of our populace that contributes to lower productivity. While it’s wonderful women are making strides in college education and the workplace, there’s no reason this must be at the expense of men. Less stability for unmarried men diminishes their success all through life. That loss means less success for all of us.

[T and A Man]

"and many live in a state of ‘perpetual adolescence’"

A sure sign of "man up", and "us women will determine what is approved behaviour" all in the first paragraph.

She ain't red pill, she's seeking men to underwrite female privilege in a different way.

[eatthishomie]

"Wheeeere have awwwwllllllllll the good meeeennn goowwwwwwwwnnnneeeeeee???"

[LongDongSilver]

Call me old fashioned but i would rather have one solid chick as a partner i can trust, shooting for that is a kamikaze mission now if im not playing these sluts and dogging from one to the other, playing little bullshit games then they'll treat me like a chump and scamper off.

Women are seriously insufferable, this is not coming from a place of scarcity i have fucked 3 girls in the last week but its meaningless, more like a Slightly better form of jerking off when i realize how fuckin slimey they are.

[Enigma]

(06-23-2016 07:04 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

"and many live in a state of ‘perpetual adolescence’"

A sure sign of "man up", and "us women will determine what is approved behaviour" all in the first paragraph.

She ain't red pill, she's seeking men to underwrite female privilege in a different way.

That wasn't the first paragraph. The full article is in the link.

She also credits men with basically everything good in society:

Quote:

We are now riding on the immense technological advancement—often made by men, as Camille Paglia frequently points out—that has made us more free and prosperous than ever before.

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Amy Otto

I notice in her bio it says:

Quote:

Proud mom of three.

Not "proud wife and mother of three."

I only read the article quotes in the OP, but I would venture to say that the only thing that has changed is girls are putting off their desire for marriage and family, so what's the use in pointing the finger at the men? We are simply making the best of the world we live in and trying to find happiness.

Even in days gone by, a lot of men were miserable slaving away their 20's while their wives eventually had the spotlight turned on them and were shown to be rotten fruit. At least now we get to take a bite out of as many pieces as we want before making that decision.

One other disagreement I have is with her written tone. It's not that she seems to encourage better behavior, she seems upset that the script has been flipped- but it hasn't. It's been said a million times- women hold the key to sex, while men hold them in commitment.

She should be more observant when she points that dry, bony finger our way, three are pointing right back in her direction.

This seems to be surface level writing, with no "real talk" involved. I am not familiar with her other work, just my initial reaction to the post at hand.

Edit: I read the rest of the article, and I'm Dr Kahn'ing my post above.

[RawGod]

She mentions the old canard about poor single women having to go through hoops and put out, hoping to lock down a man. Don't think she's ever been a man trying to lock down an attractive 22 year old woman with options.

And "shallower thinking from 50 percent of our populace that contributes to lower productivity". So men are thinking shallowly, women are wonderful but victims. The usual.

[storm]

T&A has it right. The entire article is about how to make things "better for women":

Quote:

Men also used to marry younger and in larger numbers to lock down their very own real-life woman.

"Why doesn't he want to marry me now that I'm ready to settle down?"

Quote:

Now, why bother doing the decent work of marrying and raising a family if you can swipe right and see a new pair every night?

"I can't compete with these other girls so they must be the problem"

Quote:

“Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of ‘perpetual adolescence’

"The only proper state for a man is working 10+ hours a day and giving all of his money to his wife and children. Anything else is simply adolescence"

Quote:

In a bizarre gambit to gain equality, women gave away a ton of the power they had accumulated in society.

"Anything that gives men more power than women is destructive to society"

Quote:

They held a majority of the cards in sexual relationships and, facing a royal flush, decided to fold.

"At this age my brain is mostly sperm and I don't know how to make coherent sentences"

Quote:

Women used to set the cultural standards and parameters for intimate activity.

"I have never read a primary historical source in my life but I am an expert on history"

Quote:

Now often the guys wield more power over sex and the girls are working way too hard, way too soon, for no reciprocity.

"Now I have to drive over to give guys a blowjob and then get kicked out, whereas in the past they would drive over here, have me suck them off, and then leave"

Quote:

More widely available hookups have made men less likely to commit.

"Thinking about supply and demand hurts my feelings so it must be wrong"

[Enigma]

(06-23-2016 07:29 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

She mentions the old canard about poor single women having to go through hoops and put out, hoping to lock down a man. Don't think she's ever been a man trying to lock down an attractive 22 year old woman with options.

And "shallower thinking from 50 percent of our populace that contributes to lower productivity". So men are thinking shallowly, women are wonderful but victims. The usual.

Literally the next sentence is:

"While it’s wonderful women are making strides in college education and the workplace, there’s no reason this must be at the expense of men."

How is saying it's at the expense of men set women up as the victims?

[porscheguy]

It's typical BS that doesn't acknowledge demographic reality. She's just twisting her own words around the preexisting narrative.

[RawGod]

(06-23-2016 07:39 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(06-23-2016 07:29 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

She mentions the old canard about poor single women having to go through hoops and put out, hoping to lock down a man. Don't think she's ever been a man trying to lock down an attractive 22 year old woman with options.

And "shallower thinking from 50 percent of our populace that contributes to lower productivity". So men are thinking shallowly, women are wonderful but victims. The usual.

Literally the next sentence is:

"While it’s wonderful women are making strides in college education and the workplace, there’s no reason this must be at the expense of men."

How is saying it's at the expense of men set women up as the victims?

The whole article talks about the effect of technology and society on male behavior, while not talking about female behavior except in response to men.

So her model of society is:
Technology>>male behavior>>poor sweet women.

To her men are the actors, women downstream. Men are shallowly swiping on Tinder, women are making the best of it.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

"Men used to be rewarded with attention from women based on their accomplishments. When homeless millennial men can find shelter by hooking up with a different woman every night, you need to question feminists’ tactical battle plans."

Perhaps instead of fixating on "boobs" she should consider why this is. I have an answer for her:

It's because from grade school onward, girls are taught to compete with boys. You don't reward your competitor. You don't praise the very people you've spent your life working hard to out-do.

As such, the whole system is broken.

In the post-feminist era, women and men are competing for the same piece of the pie. Women aren't about to reward men who accomplish things because they consider that stealing a piece of their own pie. So instead they reward other types of men.

Try fixing that. Removing boobs from the computer screen ain't gonna do it.

[Enigma]

(06-23-2016 07:44 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

(06-23-2016 07:39 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(06-23-2016 07:29 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

She mentions the old canard about poor single women having to go through hoops and put out, hoping to lock down a man. Don't think she's ever been a man trying to lock down an attractive 22 year old woman with options.

And "shallower thinking from 50 percent of our populace that contributes to lower productivity". So men are thinking shallowly, women are wonderful but victims. The usual.

Literally the next sentence is:

"While it’s wonderful women are making strides in college education and the workplace, there’s no reason this must be at the expense of men."

How is saying it's at the expense of men set women up as the victims?

The whole article talks about the effect of technology and society on male behavior, while not talking about female behavior except in response to men.

So her model of society is:
Technology>>male behavior>>poor sweet women.

To her men are the actors, women downstream. Men are shallowly swiping on Tinder, women are making the best of it.

"In a bizarre gambit to gain equality, women gave away a ton of the power they had accumulated in society."

"When homeless millennial men can find shelter by hooking up with a different woman every night, you need to question feminists’ tactical battle plans."

"Even worse, in dropping their standards women have reduced their capacity to get what they really want."

"Their random “empowerment” pictures on social media in emulating Kardashian are the only lever they have left in the arsenal because they’ve given everything else away."

She clearly states that women gave away their power by slutting it up, which gives men no reason to work for pussy or create families.

Going back to my previous post, why would she say something is happening "at the expense of men" if she thinks men are the ones causing it?

EDIT: Just look at the closing sentence.

"Kim Kardashian looks lovely, but she may be making us all less prosperous."

Kim Kardashian may be making us less prosperous. Not Twitter giving her a place to show her boobs. Not men for looking at her boobs.

Kim Kardashian, as a metaphor for slutty modern women, is MAKING US all less prosperous.

Her language is very clear in condemning women.

[RawGod]

(06-23-2016 08:00 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(06-23-2016 07:44 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

(06-23-2016 07:39 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(06-23-2016 07:29 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

She mentions the old canard about poor single women having to go through hoops and put out, hoping to lock down a man. Don't think she's ever been a man trying to lock down an attractive 22 year old woman with options.

And "shallower thinking from 50 percent of our populace that contributes to lower productivity". So men are thinking shallowly, women are wonderful but victims. The usual.

Literally the next sentence is:

"While it’s wonderful women are making strides in college education and the workplace, there’s no reason this must be at the expense of men."

How is saying it's at the expense of men set women up as the victims?

The whole article talks about the effect of technology and society on male behavior, while not talking about female behavior except in response to men.

So her model of society is:
Technology>>male behavior>>poor sweet women.

To her men are the actors, women downstream. Men are shallowly swiping on Tinder, women are making the best of it.

"In a bizarre gambit to gain equality, women gave away a ton of the power they had accumulated in society."

"When homeless millennial men can find shelter by hooking up with a different woman every night, you need to question feminists’ tactical battle plans."

"Even worse, in dropping their standards women have reduced their capacity to get what they really want."

"Their random “empowerment” pictures on social media in emulating Kardashian are the only lever they have left in the arsenal because they’ve given everything else away."

She clearly states that women gave away their power by slutting it up, which gives men no reason to work for pussy or create families.

Going back to my previous post, why would she say something is happening "at the expense of men" if she thinks men are the ones causing it?

EDIT: Just look at the closing sentence.

"Kim Kardashian looks lovely, but she may be making us all less prosperous."

Kim Kardashian may be making us less prosperous. Not Twitter giving her a place to show her boobs. Not men for looking at her boobs.

Kim Kardashian, as a metaphor for slutty modern women, is MAKING US all less prosperous.

Her language is very clear in condemning women.

She means that the capacity for looking at Kim Kardashian's boobs (technology) is making men lazy, which makes us less prosperous and women less happy. Women are having to put out to respond to men's low attention spans.

Yes, she does criticize feminism (a type of female agency). She would see herself as a conservative who is critical of some of aspects feminism. She's a female cuckservative - conservative because she believes what liberals believed 30 years ago, while conceding their entire moral framework (women's empowerment in the workplace, etc.)

But what she doesn't acknowledge is female agency in the current sexual marketplace. Simply, that young women have no economic imperative to settle down, and they don't, and they have a lot of sexual power over men. She doesn't mention that while 10% of men might be slaying it on Tinder, 90% of men are looking at Kim Kardashian's boobs because they can't get a nice, sweet girlfriend like their parents had at that age. To her, all young men are living in a sexual paradise.

[Enoch]

(06-23-2016 07:13 PM)LongDongSilver Wrote:  

Call me old fashioned but i would rather have one solid chick as a partner i can trust, shooting for that is a kamikaze mission now if im not playing these sluts and dogging from one to the other, playing little bullshit games then they'll treat me like a chump and scamper off.

Women are seriously insufferable, this is not coming from a place of scarcity i have fucked 3 girls in the last week but its meaningless, more like a Slightly better form of jerking off when i realize how fuckin slimey they are.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We can meet sluts on tinder or play marriage roulette with a "good girl". Fuck this gay earth.

[CynicalContrarian]

"Men Did Greater Things When It Was Harder to See Boobs"

Her article title alone would indicate that girls actively not 'showing boobs' anywhere near as often, would have the effect she's after.

[Enigma]

(06-23-2016 08:16 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

She means that the capacity for looking at Kim Kardashian's boobs (technology) is making men lazy, which makes us less prosperous and women less happy. Women are having to put out to respond to men's low attention spans.

Then why doesn't she argue in any way to limit or discontinue technology? In fact, she does the opposite, by implying that we need even more technological advancement.

Quote:

Yes, she does criticize feminism (a type of female agency). She would see herself as a conservative who is critical of some of aspects feminism. She's a female cuckservative - conservative because she believes what liberals believed 30 years ago, while conceding their entire moral framework (women's empowerment in the workplace, etc.)

But what she doesn't acknowledge is female agency in the current sexual marketplace. Simply, that young women have no economic imperative to settle down, and they don't, and they have a lot of sexual power over men. She doesn't mention that while 10% of men might be slaying it on Tinder, 90% of men are looking at Kim Kardashian's boobs because they can't get a nice, sweet girlfriend like their parents had at that age. To her, all young men are living in a sexual paradise.

She specifically points to the innovation from Silicon Valley and how it's caused by too many men and too few women. How does men having to work harder for women and get married earlier imply that they are living in sexual paradise?

"Or are many men who would have spent their twenties working hard if given the right social incentives instead spending that time watching the unrated version of “Blurred Lines” one too many times?"

When you picture a man rewatching a music video over and over to get a peak of boobs, is the image in your head of some suave pussy hound? Or a desperate, lonely guy?

[MikeS]

So among the few good points she makes there's a massive case of apex fallacy and blaming men in general. What a surprise.

[nek]

So did women

[kbell]

Does she have a decent rack? If not why would a guy work hard to see it?

[Gustavus Adolphus]

(06-23-2016 09:19 PM)kbell Wrote:  

Does she have a decent rack?If not why would a guy work hard to see it?

Forecast is dark and cloudy on the joyful titty fuck.

[Captainstabbin]

This broad is like most women, they recognize that something is wrong with the man/woman dynamic, but refuse to let themselves believe that the cause can be the sins of women. There are no sins for the modern woman.

If she followed this line - "Men also used to marry younger...to lock down their very own real-life woman." - with a listing of what exactly we're supposed to be valuing enough to "lock down", I might agree with her. Women need to bring to the table values, skills and the type of commitment that have a use for men. We don't have a use for "strong" women, or "career" women - or independent, liberated or empowered either. Women have wasted their youth developing skills that have no value in a marriage.

Men have a use for loyal, submissive women who can demonstrate an ability to love selflessly, raise children with traditional values and keep their commitments and obligations. Without that, marriage and traditional families don't exist. Without those qualities we have what we find today, high divorce rates with women filing 70% of the time and divorce-raping their husband who was just an average guy trying to be a traditional husband and father...exactly what Mrs. Otto claims she wants.

The reality, supported by the numbers, is that women don't want a traditional family. They want a lifetime of adventure and distractions from the crushing weight of their own bankrupt, self-centered world view.

Until cultural phenomena like Eat, Pray Love are denounced by the vast majority of women, men won't be as interested in the losing proposition of marriage.

[Gustavus Adolphus]

(06-24-2016 12:22 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

We don't have a use for "strong" women, or "career" women - or independent, liberated or empowered either.

Not to take away from a good post, but this part is basically the modern day guy definition of "dry-heave".

[RatInTheWoods]

We will never see articles in the media which lists all the faults of modern women, and why they have caused the decline of society.

Why is the mainstream media so wholly owned by feminists?

[Lunostrelki]

Of course. Tons of energy(both psychological and actual) is wasted on instant sexual gratification.

Goethe, c. 1800
Hm, time to write that tragic romance novel I have in the back of my head, it'll explain the powerful yet fleeting and often foolish nature of attraction.

Goethe, c. 2010
There's this story I could write, but I just saw a photoshopped girl on a dating site ad. Guess I'll watch some porn instead.

Even "alphas" who game endless women are in the same trap, though clearly in a less pathetic way.