The paradox of declining male happiness
Posted on November 16th, 2012
Yesterday we looked at Mary Eberstadt’s analysis (in Adam and Eve after the Pill) of perpetual adolescence among today’s males as stemming from the sexual revolution causing “an atrophying of the protective instinct in men.” Eberstadt’s second piece of evidence pointing to the child-man being the product of the sexual revolution is “the consumerization of love.”
The consumerization of love—the way that many people now go shopping for sex and romance much as they do for inanimate commodities—has had a rather major unintended consequence. It has led to more discerning consumers in an area of life where heightened discernment appears inimical to long-term satisfaction. In other words, the perpetual and often successful hunt for sexual novelty ultimately works to the detriment of longer-term romance. This is nowhere as obvious as in recent research on another aspect of the child-man of today: his use of smut, or what might otherwise be called the paradox of declining male happiness in an age glutted by sexual imagery.
Mary Eberstadt needs to take a closer look at the child-women who wish to spend their youth soaking up male attention and racking up consumer debt. Generally, when these child-women are “ready” to marry they offer a spouse far less than when they were younger. They are often emotionally scarred from many “relationships” they had with men who wanted to try but not buy. They are older and less attractive. They didn’t want to “waste” their best years with a husband. So, why should a man be excited to marry such a woman? She isn’t chaste. Her prime years are past. She may be infertile from her lifestyle or age.
Also, child-women in their quest for equality never sought to share men’s burdens. There is a reason repo men are called repo men, not repo women and the cable guy is always a guy. Women don’t want to do what men do like dangerous dirty jobs. They only want the power positions or at least safe jobs. Feminism is an upper class women’s thing. Women who can’t have careers with any upward mobility have been greatly harmed as have their husbands and families. Higher class women took their husbands’ jobs, so now they have to work more just to subsist because the spoiled child-women of the upper classes were bored at home and weren’t satisfied doing charity work and serving their families. In a society where there is less work to be done due to technology, increasing the workforce with tons of women certainly didn’t help most people.
So, no, I don’t think child-men are more to blame than child-women. They are both just as fallen. It is just more socially acceptable to blame men than women.
acapulco fish– So let’s talk about the child-woman:
1) “They are often emotionally scarred from many “relationships” they had with men who wanted to try but not buy”–Actually, in the Christian world, most of them are emotionally scarred from relationships with men they were perfectly interested in “buying”, but the girl got dumped. Or they were never in a relationship at all, since HIGH SCHOOL, because no man has EVER asked them out.
2) “They are older and less attractive.” Yep, we’ve been waiting, working, trying to be useful and getting older and less attractive. We’ve wasted our lives–not our purity–on relationships that didn’t pan out because the guy decided we weren’t perfect (in my case after 1 and a half years and then 2 and a half years–my friends tell me I’m lucky for having two serious relationships) and dumped us. Because that’s how it goes for a lot of us, we get to the point where he starts talking about rings, and then he decides he doesn’t want to give up his freedom; he doesn’t want to face the possibility you could get pregnant and therefore give up your job–and then he dumps you. And all of his Christian friends said it was fine. Because no one wanted to get involved and no one wants to pressure anyone into marriage. So yes, every year we get a year older.
3) “They didn’t want to “waste” their best years with a husband.” That’s just not true. I do know women who don’t want to “waste” their best years with children. (I don’t defend it–it’s wrong) but they would be so happy to not be single it’s not even funny. (And anyway, the number of men who really want to provide for a family in their early 20s isn’t that high. I know plenty of Christian men who dumped their girlfriends when they suggested babies early in the marriage.) What these women don’t want to do is “waste” their best years working 50 hours a week to put their husband through graduate school so he can have an interesting job and they can do all of the child care, home care, and bring in the money to pay the bills. I know women who have gone for that–but it ain’t the historical paradigm either.
4) “So, why should a man be excited to marry such a woman? She isn’t chaste. Her prime years are past. She may be infertile from her lifestyle or age.” Sure, he shouldn’t go for the unchaste one. But if he wants a women who is now 30, has been living a chaste life and waiting for someone, anyone, to ask her out on one date, I could give him a list of smart, pious, witty, educated, charitable, sociable, sacrificial women. Do you want straight or curly hair?
5) “Higher class women took their husbands’ jobs, so now they have to work more just to subsist because the spoiled child-women of the upper classes were bored at home and weren’t satisfied doing charity work and serving their families.” Yes, maybe we take our [hypothetical] husbands’ jobs did when out scored them in college so they wouldn’t ask us out. Sure, I’ve seen little feminists who put men down. But mostly, I’ve seen a lot of Christian men raised to be weak, who go for women who aren’t their intellectual equals. If a girl is smart–even if she she is humble and generous–she gets passed over.
Fact is, we have to be employed. I do charity work–in fact–more than pretty much all of my male friends do and more than my married female friends who are too swamped with their own families.
But I also have a job. Because I have to eat. And because, to hear you tell it, I’ve lost my youth and called my purity into question simply by getting old, so I’d better be providing for my own retirement. And yes, I’d rather my job be interesting since apparently no good man would want me and I’ll be doing it for a long time. Apparently, I should be regarded as a social pariah “child woman” for stealing a man’s glamorous job and getting old. Or then, perhaps you should be telling that to the guy I was dating who broke up rather than face the responsibility for a family (and I now know he did an eerily similar thing to his ex–I happened to meet her). Or that guy who did a similar thing to my friend. Oh yes, I was willing to give up all of my earning potential. I was willing to stay home. I was not willing to give up a job I loved to take a barrista job, post-poning children, simply so he would not have to change cities (but would have been able to continue the precise work he was doing). In my case, supporting him was non-negotiable for him; the only question was whether I should support him by giving up my own ability to serve through my paid work we both ostensibly believed in, or whether he should relocate.
And if you want to find more women like me, just go to any university town and walk into church. Look at the male female ratio. ‘Nuff said. Yes, there are child-women, but they aren’t in our churches and, quite frankly, there aren’t even enough churched child-men for the churched real women who are out there. And yes, my friends and I are all debt free.
Mary Eberstat is absolutely right. Yes, there are child-women, but not in the same numbers, and especially not in the same numbers within the church.
No, Mary Eberstadt is not right.
Just because there are some chaste young women who might be willing to marry young, doesn’t mean there are enough. How many parents, pastors, friends are actively encouraging young women to get married as virgins? Like zero. It’s all about college, college, college, and money, money, money. It is don’t ask, don’t tell when it comes to their private lives. There is zero encouragement or help from friends family or church for young people to find appropriate spouses. By that I mean, help young women, like age 17-18 think about finding a spouse who is like 23+ years old. It is all about wait, wait, wait. Which is insane and cruel and only leads to lie, lie, lie; unchastity and lying about it.
“3) “They didn’t want to “waste” their best years with a husband.” That’s just not true.”
Yes, it is. To be clear, let’s define best years; 18-22. These are the years that women are not available for marriage because our depraved society says they are too young. Of course, virgins over 22 are so rare that in general, they are assumed not to exist among the attractive women. However, women aged 18-22 are freely available on college campuses for hooking up. From there, they go out and get jobs spending the rest of their fading youth on “relationships” or more hook ups.
Bottom line, there are just too many attractive 18-22 year olds giving it away for an older woman to have much value. And men make the perfectly rational decision not to marry them.
As for the church, it should encourage marriage more than the materialism of college and financial security. Right now, it is just a message of don’t have sex. Well, that is not ever going to happen, so marriage is the proper position to advocate. And it is not being done. To be clear, the time to advocate for marriage is in elementary, and middle school and high school. College students are mostly already locked into their worldviews and are under brutal pressure to make money. This further depresses their interest in marriage as they are constantly told that they aren’t ready because they aren’t financially secure. Parents want winners. Having adult children who married as virgins are nothing of value to parents in this perverse age. No, we want the almighty dollar. We want successful children making money to prove we aren’t losers. So what if they are totally unchaste and miserable, they look good on paper.
I think you both would agree that the culture of sexuality and marriage is in terrible decline.
I would encourage you not to judge Eberstadt’s work simply based upon my quotation here. “Adam and Eve after the Pill” assesses the devastation wrought by the sexual revolution on our entire culture. While I haven’t finished the book yet, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
For a faithful Christian—whether male or female—finding a suitable spouse is sadly very difficult.
“I think you both would agree that the culture of sexuality and marriage is in terrible decline… For a faithful Christian—whether male or female—finding a suitable spouse is sadly very difficult.”
With respect, Rev. Esget, as parents we really need to help our children understand what the problems are and what they personally need to do to avoid the pitfalls. It is not enough to just wring our hands. I don’t want my children to be alone and fall into loneliness and despair or unchastity. It is not good for man to be alone.
I am not willing to blame young men for the debased culture our generation is passing on to them. I find the blaming of young men very offensive. I don’t think Mary Eberstadt focuses entirely on blaming young men. I looked her up and read several of her articles, however, in which she didn’t manage to get around to blaming young women for their part in all of this decline. Women are not the victims and men the guilty. As you noted there is guilt to go around. Rarely will you see any of it laid on young women where at least half of it belongs. I look forward to your noting any that Mary Eberstadt relates in the rest of the book.
Acapulco fish:
I agree that there are many women who shoulder blame for the present state of affairs. Those women, though, are feminists who hate the church and help to destroy the culture. Many of those women also were able to find husbands. I know many, many nice, catholic women in their 30′s and 40′s who lead chaste lives and always have. But it’s funny, lots of the guys in the same age group ignored those women and went and married the awful girl who, though catholic and not technically unchaste, was certainly not an example of true catholic womanhood. Or those guys went out and found themselves a nice, non catholic girl who wanted to work instead of stay home with her children and disagreed with her husband and the church on contraception, abortion and a host of other issues. Funny how that works out.
I feel sorry for any daughters you may have.
Your complete lack of charity, civility, protectiveness and chivalry towards woman is precisely part of the problem. Way too many catholic men have been raised to believe that they bear no responsibility for the present state of affairs or that they have any obligation to treat women – all women, even the fallen – with respect. It is a rare day that I meet a true Catholic gentleman. But I frequently meet catholic men who use women, disrespect their wives, treat their daughters like second class citizens and make excuses for their sons.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Many women were seduced by the sexual revolution and they are paying a dear price for it. Even the women who did not fall for the lies of the sexual revolution are paying a price for it – all those old, unattractive barren women you so callously insulted. But unfortunately, I know many, many supposedly devout catholic men who were all too happy to reap the benefits of the sexual revolution by using women who made themselves available or helping to create an environment that pressured women into behaving badly. As my sister teaches her son, all women deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, even if they behave badly. But instead the world is filled with men like you who disparage and insult us.
And seriously, the poor young women of today can hardly be blamed for what has happened – a large number of them have been abandoned by their fathers, their mothers are ridiculous floozies, and the church has a shortage of good priests so there are very few people fighting the lies with the truth.
“As my sister teaches her son, all women deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, even if they behave badly.”
Do you and your sister also teach your daughters that all men deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, even if they behave badly?
“the world is filled with men like you who disparage and insult us.”
I am not a man.
Anyway, since when does honesty constitute disparagement and insult?
Men don’t marry because young attractive women are giving it away, and the women who feel “ready” to marry are generally old and not virgins, aka not desirable as wives. That is not disparagement. That is fact.
I have no daughters, but, yes, my sister teaches her daughters to respect men. She teaches her children to respect all people, but there is a specific and quite important respect that men afford to women. In this culture where women are used and degraded, the respect that a good man shows towards a woman can make a huge difference in her life. More than ever we need strong, Christian men to stand up and assert the worth and value of women. We need their strength and protectiveness. The good men I know make such a difference in my life as I try to maintain a life of chastity and faith. It can be a hard and lonely world out there for a single woman and good men are a light in the darkness.
And if you’ll forgive me, I think you’re being disingenuous. You are claiming that your opinion is the truth and it isn’t. You are speaking in generalizations that are insulting and disparaging towards woman. Your entire premise is that women have value only because of their youth, beauty and virginity, which is not true. Because each of us is made in the image and likeness of God, we are all of infinite worth and value, regardless of what we do or don’t do. The entire abortion and euthanasia movements and the debased consumerist culture that we live in are based partly on the same premise – that human beings have value only so long as they can offer something that the world deems worthy. But as Christians we know this to be a lie. I have value because I am, you have value because you are. Men don’t marry for lots of reasons, and, I agree, that one of those reasons is that girls and women are willing to have sex outside of marriage. It makes me angry too because those women have made my life harder. But most of those women – actually statistically more women today than ever – are miserable. Married, single or divorced women are suffering gravely for the mistakes of their mothers and sisters and fathers and brothers. All of us are sinners and ripples from the sins that each of us commit flow out and affect all of us. It’s tragic. But Christ died for our redemption so there is always hope.
I’d be interested to know why you have such anger towards women and seem, please correct me if I am wrong, to hold women almost completely accountable for the present state of affairs while not holding men to the same accountability. I think both men and women are to blame and I certainly agree that women have been behaving very badly lately, but men have free will and they have freely chosen to go along for the ride. God gives all of us the grace we need to withstand temptation so please don’t claim that men are incapable of behaving better than they do.
Just one more thing, most of the girls/women I know who are getting married are not virgins. You keep claiming that men only marry virgins. I think actually it is the virgins who are getting passed over while men meet, date, sleep with, cohabit and then marry non virgins. Most guys will not stick around for a girl who won’t sleep with them before marriage unless those men are very, very strong in their faith. Virginity and the desire to maintain it until marriage are actually liabilities in our culture. Girls learn this very early from their society, schools and their parents. I don’t know of many fathers who protect their daughters anymore.
Sadly the sexual revolution has destroyed, partly, the beautiful relationship between not only men and women, but between women and women and between men and men. Love and marriage have certainly suffered a severe blow, but so has friendship. It’s why so many in our society are lonely and depressed.
Anyway, thanks for the very interesting conversation and I truly would like to hear more of your views on this.
The running dialog between Mary and Acapulco fish is quite interesting, and maybe they are BOTH right AND wrong. Who knows ?
Men and women, as the SHTF, are running fast to the gutters of Hell. And that’s being in the doing for a long time, and the usual culprits are known. This deliberate crime to civilization has to profit to busy bodies while the majority of us are trapped in this undoing, till the rock bottom is reached.
All forms of relationships are now schizophrenic because only false personas are involved. From virginity to chivalry, noble ideals are uncool. …
There’s no use to scourge oneself and the other. Simply live as sinless as possible and let the Universe purge all the sh*t out. Searching for your worst enemy, by a painfull path through oneself, will uncover your only true friend. That’s a lifetime job with no time left vainly trying to change even a little bit in anybody else.
“Your entire premise is that women have value only because of their youth, beauty and virginity, which is not true.”
I am asserting that the value of youth and chastity are very very high.
Our culture keeps screaming the lie that a 28 year old is just as good as an 18 year old, but the reaction of men to the opportunity of marrying a 28 year old shows that it is not true. Especially when he can spend years with a younger women who very conveniently are not “ready” to get married. You can repeat the feminist lie all day long. It won’t make it true and it won’t make women over 28 more desirable. Men really aren’t nearly as interested in marrying an older woman. It is reasonable and true.
Basically you seem to be defining respect for women as men being willing to marry a woman who thought she was too good for them when she was young and spent her youth on all the guys she really wanted, but didn’t want her. So, in order to show respect for women, the guys have to do exactly what women want all the time. That ain’t happening. And it is not happening because it is totally unreasonable.
“In this culture where women are used and degraded, the respect that a good man shows towards a woman can make a huge difference in her life.”
In this culture?!
Seriously, the guy you describe will not get the time of day from women who are chasing the “exciting” guys, that is until they are old. Then the nice guys they ignored will get the “privilege” of marrying one of these old used women. Why would a self respecting man go for that?
Anyway, in this culture, it appears to me that men are the ones who are used and degraded. Women are degrading themselves, and their children.
I think you need to reread what I wrote.
I am not repeating any feminist lies – I am stating that the value of a woman is inherent in her being, just as the value of a man is inherent in his being. Our worth comes from the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that men have the right to treat unchaste women or women over 28 disrespectfully?
While there are those who chose to assess the value of human beings on things like youth, sex appeal, money, etc, I am asserting that they are wrong according to Judeo-Christian teaching. Feminists and the men who love them all agree with you – they all believe that a woman’s value lies in her external qualities such as sex appeal or career. While certainly men are attracted to younger women, I also assert that many men will marry older women because they love those women. In the last few years, I’ve been to weddings for and/or known about 10 couples who have gotten married. Some of those couples were faithful Christians for whom chastity was important. Some were not. All of the women were over 30. Some of the women were virgins, some were not.
For women in their 40′s and over, yes, the chances of getting married are very slim. That being said, we all age. If a man only loves you for your youth and beauty, life will become very difficult as both of those things fade with time and health.
If you’ll reread my comments, you’ll see that nowhere did I state or imply that the way men show respect for women is by doing whatever the women want. I believe that respect is something which each of us owes to all other human beings – to treat them with dignity and charity. Do you agree that each of us has inherent worth and are, therefore, worthy of respect from others?
It seems to me that you want things both ways – you speak of the man who wouldn’t dream of marrying anyone older than 18 because he “can spend years with a younger woman” who doesn’t want to get married, but presumably is more than willing to have sex with him. But you also speak of those poor suffering men who can’t get the “time of day from women who are chasing an exciting guy”. So which is it?
A self respecting man treats others with respect because they are human beings, not because they are old or young or whatever. A self respecting man treats all women with respect, even women who behave badly.
In this culture many people – men and women – are degrading themselves and others. I know a lot of guys who are addicted to porn, frequent strip clubs and sleep around. No one is forcing this behavior on them. I also know a lot of promiscuous women. No one is forcing that on them either. There is plenty of guilt to go around.
I am not saying that men are more to blame than women. I am saying that men and women are both to blame. You seem to be saying that men have no share of the blame at all and that is just preposterous.
“I am stating that the value of a woman is inherent in her being, just as the value of a man is inherent in his being. Our worth comes from the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God. Do you disagree with this?”
No.
“Do you think that men have the right to treat unchaste women or women over 28 disrespectfully?”
The right? This is like a straw man.
All I said is that men don’t want to marry them. I said that older, unchaste women are not desirable as wives. That is just plain true.
It is not disrespectful to just choose not to marry someone for the simple fact that you aren’t attracted to her and feel no desire for her.
An 80 year old former prostitute should not be abused, but please don’t tell us that makes her desirable as a wife. She is not desirable.
“I don’t know of many fathers who protect their daughters anymore.”
Let’s trace this back. When fathers were voting for the laws, they voted to make abortion and contraception illegal. Those laws were overturned by a tiny elite group of judges and abortion and contraception were pushed by a tiny group in the media. So, yes, fathers worked together to protect their daughters and they were thwarted by the tiny judiciary in this country.
Step back for a second from your basic premise that women deserve both equality when they want it (but not when they don’t like working dangerous and dirty jobs) and any special privileges they can vote for and respect(!) for this entitled view of their position. Then consider where that leaves men. Good men pay the taxes that support all those illegitimate children from all the cads who won’t marry but women just can seem to resist. Good men should just be doormats and marry one of these women and support the children that she had with the cad who wouldn’t marry her, or wouldn’t work or whatever, but was so exciting she just couldn’t resist having a baby with him. I mean seriously? Women have to have the right to equal pay and good jobs because after they are dumped by Mr. exciting they have to support their kids. Look, many women aren’t looking for a good man. They want a fantasy. It doesn’t work even though the feminists told them it would because each woman is so awesomely super special that whoever she chooses should fall at her feet. Meanwhile, these women consider 80% of guys too boring for a super special princess like themselves. They only get more interesting when she is 30 and tired and used and finally figures out, oops, that was all nonsense. Sure, there are some chaste young women willing to marry a good guy aka not exciting.
Meanwhile the guys who had fun with the girls when they were young can still have whoever they want because they are the most attractive guys in terms of looks, personality and income. The other guys just went for porn because that was all they could get, and the women that are available are old and grumpy because they were used, used, used.
So yes, men do experience declining happiness… because of the behavior of 80% of women with 20% of men.
And yes, I reject that the 80% of men who are the good guys are to blame for all of this.
Yes, this is a fallen world and there is plenty of blame to go around. Given that, I tire of reading here and elsewhere that the problem is always men’s fault. That is not true. Most of the guys (not all) are pretty good and would be fine husbands to a desirable wife aka young and chaste. Notice I didn’t say beautiful.
Yes, you are falling for the feminist lie that starts with the true premise that women are valuable as human beings and arrives at the false conclusion that they are therefore desirable as wives. That is baloney. Saying that a man should value a woman as a wife just because she is a human being doesn’t make it so.
Please consider the is/ought problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
I am describing what is: young chaste women are desirable as wives.
You and your feminist fellow travelers in thought are prescribing what feminists think ought to be valued by men in their wives.
We have got to the point that we feel that what women want from men is reasonable, even though it isn’t. And that what men want from women is totally unreasonable, even though it isn’t.
I wish that you would stop fabricating parts of my reply and/or distorting it.
When did I mention 80 year old former prostitutes??
I was speaking of fathers now, not men from 40-50 years ago. There are wonderful fathers out there now and then there are some that are not so good, or not strong enough to stand up to their daughters and/or wives in order to protect their daughters.
When did I say that my “basic premise (is) that women deserve both equality when they want it (but not when they don’t like working dangerous and dirty jobs) and any special privileges they can vote for and respect(!) for this entitled view of their position.” Never once did I mention the word equality. That whole argument is one that you are having with someone else, not me. Men and women in the workplace is a totally different discussion than the one here, which is simply about declining male happiness. You want to blame declining male happiness on women and women only, as if men are incapable of affecting their own lives and their own happiness. I have enough respect for men to believe that they can make the right choices and have good lives. I disagree that men are unhappy solely because of women. Certainly the bad behavior exhibited by some women has made some men unhappy, but men have free will and can make their own choices. Men who choose to womanize and prey upon women, men who choose to frequent strip clubs and use porn, men who spend their lives avoiding intimacy and commitment will experience declining happiness. Just as women who make these choices will experience unhappiness. If women would stop making premarital sex available to men, things might change but it would take a long time at this point because of the internet and a million other reasons.
I pay taxes, as do all of my single female friends. I also know a number of men who are womanizers – they pay taxes too. My brother-in-law and brother who are both wonderful married men also pay taxes. My married female friends also pay taxes.
Never once did I say or suggest that men should be doormats. As a matter of fact, I never once stated who men should marry. I only stated that there are men who are willing to marry older women. So what? You can keep saying that they won’t but that won’t make it any less true that my friend G married my friend M when she was 40 and he was 38.
If you’ve read Eberstadt’s book maybe you’d have a better understanding of what she’s saying. Men are experiencing declining happiness partly because of the choices that those men are making. The fact that women are also willing to make bad choices is certainly a factor in that unhappiness but it is not the sole cause. You speak of some mythical 80% of good men. Really?? 80%? IS that why 50% of marriages end in divorce? Because men are good and women are bad? The epidemic of porn addiction, human trafficking, the sexualization of children, and all the other horrible repercussions of the sexual revolution – are all of these the result of the 80% of women who are bad? The men share no blame in that?
As I’ve attempted to convey over this exchange – I do not think that women are SOLELY to blame for the declining levels of male happiness. Who men will marry, how old those women need to be, 80 year old prostitutes, men who pay taxes and all the other stuff you keep throwing out here isn’t really the point. The point is that part of the reason, according to Eberstadt, that men are experiencing declining levels of happiness is because there is an increased use of smut, a commercialization of love and therefore, less love and romance in their lives. I agree with her. I see it all the time. Many men are making choices that have led them to be deeply unhappy. Women have too. If you read Eberstadt’s work you’ll see that she also discusses the increasing levels of unhappiness experienced by women and the reasons for it.
I said clearly that women are also to blame, not solely.
I complain that authors like Eberstadt cater to feminists like you who manage to fill page after page blaming men’s actions for these problems, but don’t manage to get around to discussing what women are doing to cause all this unhappiness and dysfunction.
Men want young chaste women as wives. Those women are not available because society says women shouldn’t marry till they are older. Rather young women should spend their youth using contraceptives and enjoying their sexuality presumably with men. Women as well as men have bought into this. Well, when women get older and are “ready” to marry, they often are no longer desirable because they are not young and are many aren’t chaste either. Plus they are still competing with women who are younger and giving it away. So, men, quite rationally aren’t buying because they can get a young woman for free, they aren’t going to take an older grumpier one at huge cost. Now some men aren’t as attractive, so they get very little either way. They may eventually settle and take the older women because there is nothing left and they are lonely. Others rather use porn. Given the women available, it is not so hard to understand why they prefer porn.
So, to be clear, as I said before, women are to blame for at least half of the problem.
Go reread your own comments starting with the first. Count how often you blame men vs. women. You, like Eberstadt disproportionally blame men for not getting with the program and defying biology by finding old and often unchaste women attractive, which is what your argument boils down to. You think that, bottom line, chastity and youth shouldn’t count. Fine, then a man’s job and character shouldn’t count either. If a man’s character doesn’t count then the 2/3′s of divorces initiated by women should not be allowed.
Women want everything their way. They want to define themselves as desirable even though they aren’t. If they were desirable, men would desire them.
18 year old virgin is top of the list of desirable. The farther you are from 18 and virgin, the less desirable you are, all other things being equal.
Women’s demands of men are unreasonable.
Men’s demands of women are reasonable.
Therefore, I would say that at least half of the blame is on women.
Women’s demands of men are unreasonable:
Women expect men to find them desirable even when they are old and unchaste and mostly care about what the man is going to do for them rather that what they are going to do for him.
Men’s demands of women are reasonable:
18 year old virgin who cares about him and is reasonably pleasant.
And I said clearly, numerous times, that women are also to blame. But in my comments, I was attempting to respond primarily, to the above quote from Eberstadt’s work that addresses the “consumerization of love”, the use by men of smut and the “paradox of declining male happiness in an age glutted by sexual imagery.” I think this is an interesting idea and a topic well worth discussing. Just as I believe her other writings that explore the behavior of women and how that behavior has to led to unhappiness for women are interesting and well worth exploring. But the topic of the post was men’s behavior.
If you read her work, you’ll see that she discusses numerous facets and repercussions of the sexual revolution in detail. She is not a feminist (nor am I). Feminists actually despise her because of what she has written.
You’ve tried to change the subject – which was basically how the behavior of the child-man has, paradoxically, led to his unhappiness -by focusing on the behavior of “80% of women” who are bad and use men. That’s a different conversation and one on which you and I would probably find much to agree.
You did write: “I am not willing to blame young men for the debased culture our generation is passing on to them…Rarely will you see any of it laid on young women where at least half of it belongs.” So, in essence, we agree. Eberstadt does also. Unfortunately, most of what you’ve written was about laying the blame on young women and not on the actual topic that was presented to us. Until both men and women look at their OWN behavior, we won’t get anywhere. Until, we as a Christians and as a society, look at the root causes of the mess we’re in instead of blaming everyone, we’ll never fix things.
I get sick too of hearing men mocked and made fun of. But I get equally upset when I hear women disparaged and insulted. We need to look honestly at what men are doing wrong and what women are doing wrong and address these issues. Eberstadt is trying to do that. I think she is succeeding.
“Until both men and women look at their OWN behavior, we won’t get anywhere.”
Is this really true?
What if only women changed their behavior and stopped giving it away from age 18-25? Would women in that age range have more success finding husbands? They had more success before 1960. I mean, in essence that is the big difference between our current situation and the situation before the sexual revolution. So, no, I think young men have about zero control over this situation. Only women can change it.
It used to be that parents would allow a man to marry their daughters while they were still young and desirable. Now they want daughters to wait till they finish college. Of course they don’t wait for sex. So, in effect there is an anti marriage ethic that turns a blind eye to young women’s promiscuity.
.
Now, parents are fine with young men having sex with their daughters but not marrying them. It is insane and harmful. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for Eberstadt or feminists like you to advise young women to marry while they are still young and virgins. Nor will either of you be advising the parents of the these young people to change “their OWN behavior” so they can marry rather than just have sex from age 18-22.
As long as the message to young women is “Don’t marry till you are older” this state of affairs probably can’t improve because there is nothing in it for men.
Eberstadt is about as far from a feminist as you can get. I fear you are arguing with straw men here.
Yes, of course Eberstadt is no feminist, but even those who reject feminism outright are still influenced by this culture which is itself influenced by feminism. Sometimes it is so insidious and pervasive, we don’t even see how much it has shifted the foundations we accept.
Acupulco fish: Here’s the problem. Although I grant you that
1) If all women refused to sleep with a man to whom they were not married AND
2) If there were stringent laws against pornography (we don’t need laws against prostitution because all women have pledged to be virtuous),
Then men would not be able to be unchaste.
Furthermore:
1) If all women were available to the first man who asked them after their eighteenth birthday OR
2) If (so as not force them into marriages with the Mr. Collins of the world) all women were dead set on marriage before the age of 22 and 26 was “washed up”
Then, yes, marriage rates would go up and there wouldn’t be infidelity.
Yes, we can say that men’s bad decisions were enabled by women. It takes two to make a baby out of wedlock. Even porn requires purveyors for the individual to access it. Thing is, the men chose these bad decisions. Even if there were possibilities, the men still made the bad choices. That means they are at least as morally culpable.
But, here’s the thing: Eberstat is saying that men who didn’t want to commit, who chose cheap substitutes over commitment, are sad. They got everything they thought they wanted and everything they chose. And now, they still aren’t mature and they aren’t very happy about it. She is saying their numbers are large, and larger than the numbers of women. And I think she’s right.
Men (and women, but we are talking about men) choose to be bad. And, unfortunately in this culture, it is the men who WANT to marry later than the women do. They dump their girlfriends, not because they are too old at 26, but because the guy at 27–just isn’t quite sure. Do you really believe that he secretly (unbeknownst even to him) recoils at the idea of her age but would marry her were she 8 years younger? One wonders, then, how the husband in your “ideal” remains loving towards his wife 10 years into their marriage. Does it require 10 years of habituation to love a 30 year old woman?
According to the major studies, men have more sexual partners than women: not the virile, alpha men–most men. And they start having these sexual partners, or using porn, in high school. Even if all of the committed Christian women started saying “no”–and holding out to 18, the committed Christian men would still have to hold out until 23 (according to your model). And now we have the internet and porn, so even 100% united front on the women would still have to deal with that. And, so far, they are not doing that.
I refuse to believe that these men fail because they were duped.
I refuse to believe that these men fail because they look ahead and say “marry a 23 year old, ew; if there were 18 year olds, well, that would be worth waiting for.” I don’t think they say that even subconsciously.
These men fail because they chose the easy over the enduring. They have sex, because sex, without commitment, is no big deal. And they keep doing that. And they keep using porn. And their marriages (if they get one) are destroyed because their wife can’t keep up with their fantasies. And that makes them unhappy. Porn use is rampant. And it’s rampant in the churches. Look at the statistics.
Because, here is the thing:
1) If a man wants to marry a woman who is a) chaste b) his age (or a year or two younger) AND
2) If he a) has a job that is truly self-supporting b) is (even a nominal) Christian
Then he has options. Real options. Real options among chaste women, at least in the “upper class”–using the Charles Murray Belmont set distinction.
Yes, these women aren’t anxious to marry at 20. But the men aren’t either. Is this a problem? Historically, no. Quite frankly, upper class women have often married later (mid 20s, with not-uncommon outliers in the late 20s). Men with a liberal arts degree often LIKE having a woman with a liberal arts degree. Women’s colleges existed in 19th century America on the theory that liberal arts education was mind-broadening education for life. That it was good for the soul. And that things which were mind broadening and soul enhancing could be given to both men and women with benefit. And women who went to Smith in 1890 weren’t on the marriage market until they were 22.
NB As a college educator, I will note that there are girls and guys who are WASTING time and money in college. They don’t want to learn anything. It’s a problem. These women should be getting married or getting a job at 18. The guys should be getting a job. Period. It’s a terrible, expensive waste–virtue aside. But, my guess is that a responsible guy who actually has his life together could convince a girl to give up that pricey, useless study program for him, or at least, figure out a way to do it much less expensively.
So what do you tell your sons? Get a job, stay in church, and ask girls on dates. If your son conveys genuine interest in the girl, there is a good chance she will be pretty happy about marriage. Growing up is tough, but it’s rewarding. What do you tell your girls? Stay virtuous and pray for the church. I’m sorry. Maybe they will get lucky. But telling them that by sacrificing their education they will get a good, strong man who actually wants to sacrificially love them isn’t true. There are those men out there, to be sure, and your girl should jump when one offers. But the sex ratio is off. And it doesn’t favor your girls. Sorry. The stats are against them.
(And, if you are concerned about the whole college thing, I can tell you about places where morality is the norm, not the exception. No, they aren’t Princeton, but you’d get a better education at a Hillsdale, Baylor, Westmont, Grove City, etc. Certainly, at those places a girl–or guy–can find some cesspool of iniquity in which to immerse themselves. But you have to look for the loose culture. More prevalent are the groups of vibrant, Christian men and women who want to talk about the great books and encourage one another in virtue. Oh, and marry their college sweetheart.)
Thing is: even if, in general, men are the problem, this is a problem fixed by one man (and one woman) at a time making virtuous, socially responsible decisions. And so, your sons can be part of the solution, simply by living in a vocationally responsible fashion. Yeah, it’s that simple.
“According to the major studies, men have more sexual partners than women: not the virile, alpha men–most men.”
.
That is impossible in the aggregate. A math professor explains:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html
.
Jeanne, you like Eberstadt still don’t blame women and feminist ideals for their part in it. Read you own comments. You drone on and on and on about how men fail to find undesirable women desirable. You insist on claiming these women are desirable. They are not. If they were, men would desire them.
“Do you really believe that he secretly (unbeknownst even to him) recoils at the idea of her age but would marry her were she 8 years younger?”
.
Yes.
She really would be ten times more desirable if she were 18.
.
Also, the choice right now is free sex with younger women or get married to an older woman. Hmm, yeah, not too hard a choice.
.
This condition is created by young women giving it away. Period. End of story. Women create the problem.
.
If a 25-30 year old good guy really could marry an 18-20 year old virgin, he would jump at the chance. Those women are not available because they have been told all their lives that the most important thing they can do during those years is get an education and a career. And yes a fraction of the most successful and attractive women can find someone to marry them, but most are having a very hard time, just like most men can’t get what they want either.
.
Men are not primarily looking for wives based on the woman’s credentials or career. They want attractive which mostly means young but also chaste and good looking. Everyone everywhere in the world has always known this. Feminists have fooled young women into not believing that youth and chastity aren’t important assets in the marriage market it, but feminists haven’t fooled men.
.
It all comes back to the same point. Men want young women. If they can get them for free, they will take it. If they have to marry to get one, they will do it. But they are in exactly no hurry to go to great expense to get something they don’t even want, an older woman.
.
Here is an analogy for you.
You can eat for free at a five star restaurant, or you can pay for your food at MacDonalds. What do you choose? Now, less attractive guys who can only occasionally or never eat free will eventually choose to pay rather than starve. Remember 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women and men lose big in divorce. Marriage is a risk for men. What is an older woman who wants kids and help to buy a house risking? By the time she is ready to get married, they guys have stopped calling.
“Thing is: even if, in general, men are the problem,”
They aren’t.
.
In general, women are the problem.
.
“this is a problem fixed by one man (and one woman) at a time making virtuous, socially responsible decisions.”
.
Yes, that is right. For women that means not giving it away and looking for a husband (25-30) while they are still young (18-22).
.
“And so, your sons can be part of the solution, simply by living in a vocationally responsible fashion. Yeah, it’s that simple.”
.
Your daughters can be part of the solution by marrying as young virgins rather than giving it away. Yeah, it is that simple.
.
My sons will be part of the solution if they marry young virgins.
Jeanne, the thing that is so wild about your argument is that you start off conceding the foundational premise that young women giving it away is the heart of the problem. Then you spend numerous paragraphs winding around discussing mens logical reaction and end up with the non sequitur that in general it is men’s fault for not being perfect saints aka doormats who do the right thing despite every incentive not to. It is a thing to behold.
This is probably your best and clearest admission that feminist ideology influences your formal and material principles:
“I refuse to believe that these men fail because they were duped.
I refuse to believe that these men fail because they look ahead and say “marry a 23 year old, ew; if there were 18 year olds, well, that would be worth waiting for.” I don’t think they say that even subconsciously.”
You refuse to believe that thousands of years of civilization and human experience are correct and feminist ideology is wrong.
Sorry, but the feminists are wrong, in both their formal and material principles.
The Bible is right and post modern feminist theory is wrong.
“But, here’s the thing: Eberstat is saying that men who didn’t want to commit,”
,
Women don’t want to commit either, at least not until they are no longer desirable.
.
“who chose cheap substitutes over commitment, are sad.”
.
Women who chose substitutes are also sad.
.
” They got everything they thought they wanted and everything they chose.”
.
Women who chose to give it away to exciting but non-committing guys also got what the wanted and chose.
” And now, they still aren’t mature and they aren’t very happy about it.”
.
Yeah, and women also aren’t mature and they aren’t happy about it either.
.
” She is saying their numbers are large, and larger than the numbers of women.”
.
Maybe, but it is not a huge difference.
.
” And I think she’s right.”
.
about what? the difference in numbers? Certainly not the cause.
Here is the deal. Women don’t want to give their husband what he values, her youth and virtue. So, when women are older and no longer have that to offer, men don’t want to give women what they want, home and family. Women are unreasonable in their demands and that is why they don’t get what they want. Men are reasonable in their demands, but women have bought the feminist lies and throw away what they have to offer.
So, do we blame adult women (who have been chaste) for their singleness because they went to college? You keep saying yes. But that doesn’t match any historical trends. The only time in the last 120 years when the median age for first marriage for women (white) was below 22 was between 1945 and 1970. For the 55 years before 1945 (1890-1945) the median age at first marriage was 23 to 24. After 1970 it goes up again. In other words 50% of the men were marrying old hags over 24. These men included all of my great-grandfathers (4), all of my great-grandmother’s siblings, and one of my two grandfathers. Also my dad. (And the other grandmother got married fresh out of college at 22, so still too old for you and old for 1949, but under 24.) So, yes, in the glory days of the 1950s men were able to achieve your ideal, at least, the median age for first marriage of women hovered just under 21 (1950) and only hit 22 again in 1970. But apparently that didn’t matter so much to the men before or after. What the marriage trends show, instead, is that the median age of first marriage for men is almost precisely 2 years above marriage for women (except for the 50s and 60s). What does this look like? If men expect to be able to work for 2 years after college, they are happy to have their hypothetical brides out of college.
Does “high” age at first marriage mean that many women don’t marry at all? No. In the 1980s women-never-married-by age 35 hit an all time low: 5%, when the average (median) age at first marriage hit a whopping 23. And what about 1950? When the average age at first marriage hit a century low—(a little over 20), the percentage of women never married by 35 remained about what it had been—around 5%. It wasn’t noticeably lower in 1960. Again, nothing against men and women who don’t go to college. But let’s not pretend that the 1950s and 1960s, with their large age gap in first marriage age between men and women (and low age at first marriage for women) are anything but what they are–a statistical aberration. (Generally attributable to an extremely affluent post war economy which paid men to get schooling at a rate that would allow them to have a family while in school–a phenomenon which has not occurred before or since.) Men marry women with their level of education and 2 years less work experience. Why? Because men value personality and education too. Somehow, I don’t think that’s a feminist lie.
Yes, some feminists are idiots. They think a woman should be able to work until her late 30s and then get pregnant. This will work for a few, but many men won’t bank on it and she is probably starting to look old by 37. Furthermore, even if she is married, she will still struggle against the biological odds related to fertility. But to say that youth only falls between the magical ages of 18-22 may be counter-cultural, but it doesn’t match the trends from the last century. If extreme youth is most valuable (and nothing else except virginity matters), we need to be marrying our daughters off at 15-17–those are the years of maximum fertility. (That’s what they did in Ancient Greece, which, by all the sources, produced fertile but unhappy marriages because you had extremely young, rather stupid women, and very mature men–over 30.) Women who didn’t want to marry at 20 but do want to marry at 23 are not the problem. (Their chastity is a separate question). Look at the trends. The question is: how did the spend the years before they got married? If they spent them in virtuous, mind-broadening pursuits, serving God and their neighbor, it should be no bar to their marriageability, at least not historically.
“They think a woman should be able to work until her late 30s and then get pregnant. This will work for a few, but many men won’t bank on it and she is probably starting to look old by 37.”
37? You mean 25.
“If extreme youth is most valuable (and nothing else except virginity matters), we need to be marrying our daughters off at 15-17–those are the years of maximum fertility.”
Peak female fertility is age 22.
We do the modern substitute of marrying off daughters at 15-17, we promote “safe sex” and contraception so they can experiment with various partners. There is no less sex just because they aren’t married. Our society just has an extreme preference for extramarital sex over marital sex especially for teens and 20′s. Ask a 15 year old girl at your church what her parents would most disapprove of her doing during high school a) having sex b) getting pregnant c) getting married. That should clarify for you what our society most despises. It is not what the Bible teaches us should be despised. It is the opposite. Our society despises young women marrying. We are debased by feminism.
Look, I am not saying women should marry at 18, or ever for that matter. It is up to them as we all know. But when women age 18-22 spend that time giving it away rather than trying to meet someone over 22 and employed to try to marry, then no, they didn’t really try to prioritize getting married because they didn’t consider men in the marrying age range while they were themselves the most desirable they would ever be. Rather they believe stupid feminist lies that they will still find someone even better later when they are older. No, they don’t, not on average. I am sure feminist authors the world over are riddled with guilt over the unhappiness of these old maids. Somehow I doubt it. More like schadenfreude.
Anyway, historically marriage ages go up in hard times and down in prosperous times. By any rational historical standard, we live in prosperous times. So, what is up? Feminism. Just FWI back in the day the rich married younger because they could afford to. Queen Victoria married at age 20 to Albert age 19. The lower classes married later because they couldn’t afford a wife until they were older. More than a few US presidents married teenagers. Oh, wait that was before the beginning of time as you see it, the last 120 years. Why is the more distant past invalid? There is nothing new under the sun and certainly human beings haven’t changed. Oh that’s right, feminism aka contemporary college education.
“Men marry women with their level of education and 2 years less work experience. Why? Because men value personality and education too. Somehow, I don’t think that’s a feminist lie.”
Actually men marry women who are their intellectual peers. Not surprising since those are also the women they are going to meet because of where they live and what they are doing. What you are doing is taking a correlation and attributing to it a cause. You invent a cause, that is that men value education of their wives rather than attributing the cause to the obvious which is that men in college meet women in college and men who are not meet women who are not. Nothing in the long history of civilization really indicates that men value education for women. Consider Chesterton’s democracy of the dead. Nowadays women value education because authority dictates it and women defer to authority and these days . So, yes it is a feminist lie.
Also, why do you think that an 18 year old married woman can’t go to college? I mean, if her husband is at work all day and so values an educated wife, why can’t she go to college?
Women already outnumber men in college despite lower achievement. Men outnumber women in the hard stuff like philosophy and STEM. The easier the college, the more women there are. Assuming men and women are equally bright, there should be the same percentage of women at Harvey Mudd as there are at community college.
Consider a young woman who has fairly good grades in school, cute, sweet etc. Does she have the option to say to her parents, “I really don’t want to go to college. I really want to get married to a good man and have a family. Mom, Dad, will you help me find a good husband?” Is this option even on the table? Would any parents invite nice men to come meet their daughter? Do you recoil at the thought of such a thing? Would doing such a thing violate any Biblical principle or standards of decency? Yet, almost no parents would even consider it. They would push any daughter who is capable of graduating college to go sign up for a ton of debt, live in the debased college hook up culture, and shame her into going rather than help her find an appropriate husband aged 25-30.
Look, feminism has such a grip on us constantly telling us, this is really what you want, really it is. Remember you want this. This is the only normal. Everyone thinks so and if you don’t, you are mentally ill. Anyone who tells you different is oppressing you. We have been hearing this for so long, we just think it is true for everyone everywhere. We put our trust in education our debased cultural norms and we hold as true all that the world tells us and we put our faith in it. And even when it doesn’t work, we still believe it.
It seems you believe in feminism while you at once claim to disown it. It appears that your first and highest principle is your own experience as a woman:
God or Goddess?
by Manfred Hauke
The Experience of Women as “Formal Principle”:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xk1EBAYQZNYC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=material+and+a+formal+principle+feminist+theology&source=bl&ots=rU–FrV98B&sig=u_eec3Mxgj3iWWeunuVHjO7W7fs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PPK3ULCAD47bqQGZoIHwAw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=material%20and%20a%20formal%20principle%20feminist%20theology&f=false
I realize that you call everyone who disagrees with you a feminist. If by “feminist” we mean Gloria Steinem, then no, Mary Eberstat, “Mary,” and I are not feminists. If, however, by “feminist” we mean the belief that God has uniquely gifted women with respect to their being and especially mental powers as distinct from, equal to but complimentary to those of men–if we believe that in many situations women are any man’s equal (or superior) in character and virtue–if we believe that those virtues are worthy of cultivation through education, then yes, I, Thomas More, Theresa of Avila, Erasmus, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, John Paul II, and Abigail Adams are feminists. I wish you would be one too. Oh, and maybe the author of Proverbs was too when he cautioned men that “charm was fleeting and beauty is vain.” Oh right, because some people, you know, feminists, think that character matters. And ultimately that it matters more than hotness although all sensible feminists (on all sides of the political spectrum) accept that hotness matters. But conservatives–and by that I mean people who are truly conserving a culture as oppose to reacting against anything that might be feminists–think that virtue matters most. It is prized more than virginity or being young and hot.
.
You want to play democracy of the dead? Fine. By democracy of the dead, only men in celibate, monastic/priestly careers get to study literature and theology. You think that is good for your boys and that reading Plato and Aquinas might broaden their souls? Too bad. They can’t get married if they want to be scholars. They can’t go to college unless they take vows of celibacy. That’s democracy of the dead. Or, perhaps you want to take the argument of the sixteenth century humanists that learning is good for the soul and done best within communities, rather than private homes. Well, some of them actually started making those arguments for girls. And some of them, like Erasmus’s best bud, argues that this kind of training makes a girl a better, more virtuous, wife and mother. (He wrote that in 1520????) Structurally, that was pretty difficult in the sixteenth century we have more options now. That’s why the anti-abortion, pro-marriage feminists of the nineteenth century founded women’s colleges. And, actually, among the affluent the age at first marriage has been extremely widely discrepant. Women who marry latest tend to be affluent; women who marry earliest (like 12) tend to be affluent–at least in the English aristocracy for the last 6 centuries. I just edited Ph.D. thesis on that.
.
I agree that sex belongs in marriage and only in marriage. I just don’t get how you believe that a man can remain chaste until 30 if he has to, but a woman who isn’t married by 20 is going to become a slut. I just don’t get it.
.
You just can’t pin this on women in general. There have been and always will be women of easy virtue. There will always be dingbats and floozies. There will always be girls down on their luck who want to get money for sex. There will be girls forced into sexual servitude. We call prostitution “the world’s oldest profession” for a reason. It preceded the feminists. It was there in Israel. Whores make up the line of Christ. But: no man (or woman) is EVER compelled to sin by its availability. I granted those premises to show their ridiculousness: there will always be dumb women, and for the foreseeable future, there is going to be porn. (Please look up the difference between the “mean” and “median” for averages.) And we have a culture where a majority of men have fought a porn addiction. And they got addicted before they (the men) were ever marriageable age. Lowering the age at which women marry won’t fix that. Lowering the age at which men marry might have some effect (this was Luther’s idea) but that violates the democracy of the dead principle that men be established before they wed. Bother.
.
I give men a great deal of credit. I don’t think that any amount of cheap eighteen year olds could cause a moral man to sleep with one of them. A moral man would not use a woman like that, even if she made herself sexually available. Whether a man chooses to use the available resources to sin is on his conscience and his alone. Eve was held culpable for her sin. Adam was held culpable for his. God did NOT give Adam a pass because Eve gave the temptation to him. The fact that men are unchaste is. their. fault. Period. (And when they are unchaste with women, the woman’s unchastity remains a sin on her head). To be clear: I freely grant that women have a responsibility to dress modestly and behave with dignity—to express their own self worth if nothing else. But we don’t have to start wearing burkas because some man somewhere is going to find some part of our anatomy hot. Men (and women) choose to be bad. And in a world where naughty pictures are one click away, and girls willing to put out are available at many bars, that kind of moral fiber is more essential than it ever was. Even if 90% of the women of America would never sleep with a man without a ring, that would leave millions of women offering sex without commitment. Millions. If you blame this on women, in general, then no man will ever have the incentive to grow up.
.
The men I know who are behaving in morally reprehensible ways are extremely flexible about the age of their chosen partners in fornication. Extremely. 18-35. Doesn’t matter. What they engage in is, of course, use. And they don’t have high physical standards about whom they are going to use. And this attitude destroys marriages. If your 18 year old daughter marries a man who has chosen her because of her looks and looks alone, it will still be use. It’s not like 27 year old women can’t get laid. They can’t get a guy to marry them. Actually, the 18 year olds don’t do much better. Since you invoked my church, most of the moms would like nothing better than to get their daughters married by twenty–it’s a pretty anti-college group actually. And several of them are still unmarried by 25 because the ratio is off.
.
The question is, why won’t the guys commit? And I don’t believe that men fail to commit because they can get sex. (They’ve always been able to get that, actually, at least the rich ones have.) I think that they fail to commit because there is a social stigma attached to the failure to commit. The problem is that we tell them that the “feeling” they get being with a woman, is love, when actually, they are just using her. The problem is the man, two years older than a girl is who will happily sleep with her, or an eighteen year old, or a woman five years older, but not commit to any of the above. If he can’t get that, he’ll use porn. Unfortunately, I know a lot of those guys. Those are the secular ones.
.
But the nice Christian version is there too. The case in point would be one of the guys I’ve known for a long time: he dumped his 21 year old girlfriend when he was 23 because “he wasn’t ready.” Dumped his 24 year old girl-friend when he was 25 and dumped his 28 year old girlfriend when he was 27 (after 2 years) because, wait for it, he wasn’t ready. And, for the record, none of them put out. That’s the kind of man we’ve got a lot of. They don’t commit. (But the formerly 21 year old girlfriend who is now 26 has just started a serious relationship with a mature young man of 31, so apparently he wasn’t put off too much by this old piece of merchandise.) And his parents are good with that, regardless of what the parents of the three young women think. And the thing about him is, he’s a “nice” Christian guy, so he knows that it doesn’t matter when he calls off the relationship, he can just go find someone else. The Christian churches are full of women, of any age, who want get married. If he wants to go under 22, he can even find one of those, but he’s kind of an intellectual snob, so I’m pretty sure he won’t. Just a case.
Alice von Hildebrand in an interview on her book, “The Privilege of Being a Woman”
Q: What inspired you to write this book?
“The poison of secularism has penetrated deeply into our society. It did so by stages. Men were its first victims: They became more and more convinced that in order to be someone they had to succeed in the world. Success means money, power, fame, recognition, creativity, inventiveness, etc.
Many of them sacrificed their family life in order to achieve this goal: They came home just to relax or have fun. Work was the serious part of their life.
Innumerable marriages have been ruined by this attitude. Wives rightly felt that they were mere appendixes — a necessary relaxation. Husbands had little time for loving exchanges, as they were too busy. The children saw very little of their fathers. That wives suffered was not only understandable, but also legitimate.”
Q: Why do women need to be convinced that it is good to be a woman?
“The amazing thing is that feminism, instead of making women more profoundly aware of the beauty and dignity of their role as wives as mothers, and of the spiritual power that they can exercise over their husbands, convinced them that they, too, had to adopt a secularist mentality: They, too, should enter the work force; they, too, should prove to themselves that they were someone by getting diplomas, competing with men in the work market, showing that they were their equals and — when given opportunities — could outsmart them.”
Q: How can women’s purported weakness be seen as a source strength?
Von Hildebrand: Granted that from a naturalistic point of view, men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive — most great works in theology, philosophy and fine arts have been made by men. They are the great engineers, the great architects.
But the Christian message is that, valuable as all these inventions are, they are dust and ashes compared to every act of virtue. Because a woman by her very nature is maternal — for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother — she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them — for maternity implies suffering — is infinitely more valuable in God’s sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.
Read the article, read the book, read everything Alice von Hildebrand and her husband have written.
It is true that women are the key, unfortunately too many Christian parents and young men treat women disrespectfully, as if their only worth is in their ability to snag a husband, too many people – secular and Christian – teach young girls that their worth lies in their youth and appearance. This lack of respect for the true beauty and worth of women helps to perpetrate the feminist lies. Young girls and women need to be taught to develop all of their virtues (virginity is not a virtue, chastity is and it needs all the others to hold it up), to develop a strength of character that helps them to fulfill God’s will for them and to deal with the suffering and strife that life often brings, as well as to take joy in life’s gifts
“A man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae
“Oh right, because some people, you know, feminists, think that character matters.”
.
Uh, define character. Feminists are fine with teens using contraception and lots of extramarital sex. So, no, feminists don’t think character matters.
.
“The poison of secularism has penetrated deeply into our society. It did so by stages. Men were its first victims:”
.
Ah, yes classic feminist, blame men first.
.
“Granted that from a naturalistic point of view, men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive — most great works in theology, philosophy and fine arts have been made by men.”
.
Yeah, I agree 99% does count as most.
.
” woman by her very nature is maternal — for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother — she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them — for maternity implies suffering — is infinitely more valuable in God’s sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.”
.
Classic feminism again. Praise what women could be instead of what they are, because what they are is far less praiseworthy. Over a million abortions a year. Hello?
.
“The amazing thing is that feminism, instead of making women more profoundly aware of the beauty and dignity of their role as wives as mothers, and of the spiritual power that they can exercise over their husbands,”
.
Remind me of the Bible passage that exhorts women to seek “the spiritual power that they can exercise over their husbands,”
.
“It is true that women are the key, unfortunately too many Christian parents and young men treat women disrespectfully, as if their only worth is in their ability to snag a husband, too many people – secular and Christian – teach young girls that their worth lies in their youth and appearance.”
.
What a load of crap. Parents teach young lovely daughters to squander or defile the gifts of youth and beauty with abstinence or debauchery, anything except giving it to a good husband who loves her and cares for her. It used to be people actually wanted their daughters to marry good men who would treat them well. Now the message to young women, is you’re on your own honey. Mom and Dad won’t be lifting a finger to help you find a husband. She can look for one in the debased college hook up culture. Yeah, good luck with that.
.
“I give men a great deal of credit. I don’t think that any amount of cheap eighteen year olds could cause a moral man to sleep with one of them. A moral man would not use a woman like that, even if she made herself sexually available.”
.
So, after she been with a bunch of other guys who wouldn’t marry her, should this moral man marry her? Or should he wait for a chaste girl who also failed to get any of the guys she really wanted and now that she is old has to settle for a nice guy?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fz3zFqLc3E
.
“(But the formerly 21 year old girlfriend who is now 26 has just started a serious relationship with a mature young man of 31, so apparently he wasn’t put off too much by this old piece of merchandise.)”
.
Were his friends or coworkers inviting him to dinner to meet their daughters aged 18-22 so that he could consider them as wives? Yeah, didn’t think so. So a 26 year old who is chaste is better than a 26 year old that isn’t. I grant to that. She is probably the best he can get.
.
“The men I know who are behaving in morally reprehensible ways are extremely flexible about the age of their chosen partners in fornication. Extremely.”
.
Well, duh. We will take lots of stuff for free that we wouldn’t pay for.
.
“But the nice Christian version is there too. The case in point would be one of the guys I’ve known for a long time: he dumped his 21 year old girlfriend when he was 23 because “he wasn’t ready.” Dumped his 24 year old girl-friend when he was 25 and dumped his 28 year old girlfriend when he was 27 (after 2 years) because, wait for it, he wasn’t ready. And, for the record, none of them put out. That’s the kind of man we’ve got a lot of. They don’t commit.”
.
Marriage is a risk for men and none of those women were worth the risk. Maybe too bossy or otherwise unfeminine. Of course feminists don’t think those are valid reasons. Feminists keep insisting that overbearing women are just oh so attractive to men. They have fooled women into believing it, but they haven’t fooled men.
.
“The fact that men are unchaste is. their. fault.”
.
Yes, you keep harping on that point. Now, the fact that women are unchaste is. their. fault.
.
“They came home just to relax or have fun. Work was the serious part of their life.
Innumerable marriages have been ruined by this attitude. Wives rightly felt that they were mere appendixes — a necessary relaxation. Husbands had little time for loving exchanges, as they were too busy. The children saw very little of their fathers. That wives suffered was not only understandable, but also legitimate.”
.
Women come home just to relax or have fun. Work is the serious part of their life.
Innumerable marriages have been ruined by this attitude. Husbands rightly felt that they were mere appendixes — a necessary relaxation. Wives had little time for loving exchanges, as they were too busy. The children saw very little of their mothers. That husbands suffered was not only understandable, but also legitimate.
.
Look, your whole point is that women are the poor suckers and men are the main ones to blame first, last and everywhere in between. When someone says that women bear half the blame for the situation. You say, “only some women, now, let’s get back to blaming men. Let’s enumerate in detail all of mens faults and women’s sufferings and just briefly gloss over women’s because, like, no one is perfect.”
.
“The men I know who are behaving in morally reprehensible ways are extremely flexible about the age of their chosen partners in fornication.”
.
You’ve supplied plenty of detail on guys you think are bad. Now describe for us the women you know who are behaving in morally reprehensible ways and how extremely flexible they are about the age of their chosen partners in fornication. Please use several paragraphs to point out how they are snobs for not going for different men.
Acapulco fish:
At this point I don’t know what to say. Both Jeanne and I have said, time and time again, that women are also to blame. In your ungraciousness you have refused to acknowledge this. Clearly, Jeanne and I take issue with the fact that you have spent large portions of every one of your comments maligning women – when the topic presented to us was the paradox of male unhappiness not what’s wrong with women! I think both topics are interesting and worth exploring, but this post was about men!!
Your obsession with only 18-22 year old girls being worthy of marriage seems strange to me, but that isn’t my main issue. My main issue is that you hate women and blame them almost exclusively for the present state of affairs. All you’ve done is bash women – you haven’t discussed or explored or even engaged in debate regarding the topic presented to us – the paradox of male unhappiness. If we were speaking I imagine that you would shout us down with the insult, You’re feminists, as if you saying it makes it so.
I think there are bad men and bad women and good men and good women and, most importantly, there is hope for us all. As a Catholic, I believe that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and are therefore of infinite worth. I believe that redemption is available to all who accept it, even those who have led unchaste lives. I believe that God calls each of us to holiness, to be saints. He came for sinners, of which I am one. I look at others and I see the sons and daughters of a king. That’s where I start and when I fail and treat others badly or get offended by their behavior I try to remember that I am called to love others, that I will be forgiven as I forgive, that no matter what I do, if I do it without love then it’s worthless.
Personally, I think artificial contraception (invented by men, taken by women, prescribed by doctors, the list of those who are to blame goes on ad nauseam) is the main problem – take that away and a lot of the behavior we’ve been speaking of does too.
Alice von Hildrebrand is so far from a feminist that you calling her a “classic” feminist is beyond laughable. The situation we find ourselves in now did not materialize out of nowhere. Actual men and women behaved in ways that helped to create the world as it is now. I guess at the end of the day original sin is to blame for all of this, but von Hildebrand was making an observation about an historical cause. Also when von Hildebrand comments on the strengths of women she is commenting on their nature – God made us a certain way. Yes, many women sublimate this part of their nature, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You keep throwing around the accusation that everyone who disagrees with you is a feminist. Well, to be perfectly honest, the one overriding characteristic of radical feminism is hatred of woman and her nature. Funny enough, that seems to be your overriding characteristic. Not once have you acknowledged that there are good and chaste women of all ages, nor have you acknowledged that women deserve respect because they are made in the image and likeness of God. You keep harping on the fact that all the good boring guys are just suffering so much, as if the nice, boring women aren’t also suffering. And frankly, Jeanne is right. A lot of “nice, boring” guys did not want the nice girls. They spent there youth looking for a supermodel in church. The plain girls, the smart girls, the average girls were passed over as these guys chased someone way out of their league, someone who, chances are, wasn’t interested in entering into a christian marriage. And most of those guys behaved that way because their delusional mothers told them that they were a real catch and that any girl would be lucky to get them. I’m not sure if you have daughters, but if you do wouldn’t you want her to have the opportunity to marry even if she was older than 22?
I am thinking that you may have young sons for whom you’d like to find young, chaste wives. And that it hasn’t been easy to do that. There aren’t many nice girls out there. My sister and her husband have many young daughters and they lament the fact that there are not many good, chaste young men out there for them to marry. I certainly pray for all of you and for all of the young, chaste lovely young men and women who’d like to get married and fear that they won’t. It’s a hard and lonely world when you’d like to be married but can’t find someone who shares your values. I know because I am in that situation, as are many of my friends. You asked frequently why should the nice guy marry the girl who has been unchaste and didn’t give him the time of day when they were younger. I agree with you, but what I’ve seen is that nice guy is all to willing to marry the girl who has not been chaste and has squandered her youth. You may not realize this but the really nice girls often get passed over – at 18. 22. 32. 42, even by the nice christian men. I’m not sure why. It’s a shame.
“In your ungraciousness you have refused to acknowledge this. Clearly, Jeanne and I take issue with the fact that you have spent large portions of every one of your comments maligning women – when the topic presented to us was the paradox of male unhappiness not what’s wrong with women! I think both topics are interesting and worth exploring, but this post was about men!!”
.
Of course it is about men!! It is always about men. No matter how much women do wrong, it is still men’s fault. Look how people malign men as “child-man” but do you ever see criticism of women for what they are doing? No, you don’t. You just see all this pity for old maids and single moms and money for single moms. I mean come on, most of these women weren’t virgins on their wedding night and abandoned or abused by their husbands. In other words, they caused their own problems.
.
“All you’ve done is bash women – you haven’t discussed or explored or even engaged in debate regarding the topic presented to us – the paradox of male unhappiness.”
.
The bad behavior of women has made men unhappy, and women, too.
.
“Personally, I think artificial contraception (invented by men, taken by women, prescribed by doctors, the list of those who are to blame goes on ad nauseam) is the main problem – take that away and a lot of the behavior we’ve been speaking of does too.”
.
Well, if a truly moral man is expected to forgo sex with attractive willing 18 year olds, then truly moral women should be expected to forgo the pill..
.
“Also when von Hildebrand comments on the strengths of women she is commenting on their nature – God made us a certain way. Yes, many women sublimate this part of their nature, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”
.
So, what. She notes achievements and contributions men actually made with their gifts and then basically says those are worth nothing compared to the gifts women have, uh, but she forgot that part about the extreme lack of faithfulness in using their gifts. Over 1 million abortions a year. Over 50 million killed by women. Bigger than the holocaust and the holodomor of the 20th century. Gee, not exactly very faithful with those gifts.
.
“I’m not sure if you have daughters, but if you do wouldn’t you want her to have the opportunity to marry even if she was older than 22?”
.
So, like if I imagine in my mind that she “should” be attractive when she is older, will that make guys find her attractive enough to marry? No. So, no, I would tell her the truth that age matters, a lot. And that if she wants to marry, she needs to make it a top priority and not imagine that she is so awesome that the best guy ever is going to treat her like a princess. If she wishes to marry, she should concern herself with serving her closest neighbor, her husband. If she doesn’t want to do that, then she shouldn’t expect him to either.
.
“I’m not sure if you have daughters, but if you do wouldn’t you want her to have the opportunity to marry even if she was older than 22?”
.
It doesn’t matter what I want. What matters is what her would-be husband wants. He decides whether or not he wants to marry her. I don’t and I can’t.
.
“I certainly pray for all of you and for all of the young, chaste lovely young men and women who’d like to get married and fear that they won’t.”
.
Yeah, well it is really hard when they have parents cooperating with this corrupt materialist culture against their interests. Parents are constantly pushing material success ahead of marriage and family.
.
“You may not realize this but the really nice girls often get passed over – at 18. 22. 32. 42, even by the nice christian men. I’m not sure why. It’s a shame.”
.
Were their parents helping and encouraging them?
.
“Alice von Hildrebrand is so far from a feminist that you calling her a “classic” feminist is beyond laughable.”
.
Who cares? I evaluated her statement. I explained its feminist premise. You may not think she has been influenced by feminism. She may not think she has been influenced by feminist thinking, but that doesn’t matter. If the content of the statement comports with feminist thinking as opposed to an unbiased parallel structure, then, duh, it is still feminist. Should men be evaluated on what they have done or on what abilities they have but haven’t used? Parallel to that, should women be evaluated on what they have done or on what abilities they have but haven’t used?
.
Look, I don’t think all women are at fault any more than all men are at fault. My complaint is how there is endless blaming of men and a detached from reality vast vacancy of criticism of women.
If you took the time to read von Hildebrand or Eberstadt you’d see that both of them spend a great deal of time discussing what women have done wrong. Unlike you they take a balanced view of the situation and look at what both men and women have done wrong.
You say that you don’t think all women are at fault, yet pretty much all of your statements blame not just some women but all women.
Von Hildebrand does NOT say that men’s contributions are worth nothing, she only notes that our spiritual lives are more important than worldly contributions, which is true. The idea that our success in the world is of paramount importance has led people away from God.
It doesn’t matter if young girls’ parents encourage them to seek out husbands, if their potential mates don’t want to marry them. You place all the responsibility for marriage on girls and their parents. If young men don’t want to marry nice, chaste girls then it doesn’t matter what the girl wants or her parents encourage. If the man doesn’t ask, there isn’t much she can do about it. The parents of boys have not been teaching their sons to respect women, much less marry at a young age.
I totally agree that the secular culture bashes men unfairly, which angers me to no end and I can’t even tell you how many of my friends would be shocked if they read my previous comments because I normally have a lot to say about the behavior of women. But in the Christian blogosphere both men and women are held accountable.
“The parents of boys have not been teaching their sons to respect women,”
.
Totally disagree. However, it doesn’t work on all men. Most men are too respectful. That is why many end up stuck with sloppy seconds if anything.
.
“The parents of boys have not been teaching their sons to respect women, much less marry at a young age.”
.
Youth is not an asset for men. Youth is an asset for women, like everyone already knows but it isn’t PC to say so.
.
“I normally have a lot to say about the behavior of women.”
.
Of course, I can’t know, but you didn’t say it here.
.
“You say that you don’t think all women are at fault, yet pretty much all of your statements blame not just some women but all women.”
.
Not true. I blame women who give it away, especially young women. There is also the matter of feminism which promotes it and parents who turn a blind eye negligent of their duty as parents.
.
I fundamentally disagree with an assessment of our situation that evaluates it as “bad” when women don’t get what they want from life aka a man who will “commit” and then incredibly doesn’t even notice all of the men who don’t get what they want. This culture is preoccupied with elevating the status of women’s desires and nearly oblivious to any dissatisfaction of men. When folks like Eberstadt manage to get around to noticing that men aren’t happy, they predictably blame men. Of course, everything is men’s fault.
Nope, not buying. Unchaste women are the ones wrecking it for themselves and others.
“von Hildebrand or Eberstadt you’d see that both of them spend a great deal of time discussing what women have done wrong. Unlike you they take a balanced view of the situation and look at what both men and women have done wrong.”
.
Not in the statements you quoted. Did you have to look hard for those unbalanced statements among all the more balanced ones?
.
Feminism is so pervasive that even those who really try to oppose it still use it as a basis for at least some of their thinking and worldview.
Still waiting for the chapter and verse of the Bible passage that exhorts women to seek “the spiritual power that they can exercise over their husbands,”
First, copious copious thanks to Mary for quoting Alice von Hildebrand and Paul VI (Personal note: when I first read HV five years ago, I thought to myself, “well, I’m not sure I agree with the pope that all artificial BC is wrong–in marriage–but, well, he was absolutely 100% right about what the Pill would do to the culture. . . maybe I should look into that. . . .) Also for your comments that have been much more charitable than my own. (Plus you’ve also invoked the Personalistic Norm, which I couldn’t work into anything so neatly as you did). So thank you so much for keeping up this conversation.
.
Second, Acapulco Fish, I believe that you misunderstand von Hildebrand’s statement, taking the idea of “spiritual power” to be “spiritual authority” or perhaps “spiritual control.” Power is not authority, although they are often used together. Women have power–that we all agree on. A woman, especially a godly woman, can be a very powerful force, even and actually especially when she is at her most submissive and gracious. She can influence behavior without even a word. And men are susceptible to that. And therein lies her power. As you have made abundantly clear, women can exercise their considerable power to influence men into sin. Well, they are also capable of exercising their considerable power to influence men to pursue paths of virtue. The apostle Peter speaks to this in 1 Peter 1:3, for in submission is incredible power. Submission does not make women a “doormat,” any more than following when dancing means that the woman doesn’t have to know what she is doing because the man can do it all.
.
All von Hildebrand is saying is that a woman’s power is much, much more than the power to seduce–a fact recognized by many great philosophers and moral theorists back to the ancient world and esp. the Early Church. Yes, you wouldn’t get that from reading a woman’s fashion magazine (which is why I don’t bother with that), but many women know this as well. It is the “spiritual power” of women that the Jews recognized so pointedly that the children are considered “Jewish” if, and only if, the mother is Jewish–not the father. Thus the spiritual power that women exercise over their husbands. It is not a controlling, coercing, browbeating, or manipulating power. It is the power of a woman’s faith in God and love for her husband that draws him closer to her, and closer to the cross, and encourages him in the pursuit of virtue. That is all von Hildebrand is saying. St. Margaret of Scotland would be a preeminent example of this as would St. Monica.
“Well, they[women] are also capable of exercising their considerable power to influence men to pursue paths of virtue.”
.
Maybe in your imagination; the same place were older women are desirable as wives.
.
“women can exercise their considerable power to influence men into sin.”
.
Um, is that their power, or the enemy’s?
Aculpulco Fish, I assume you are married (since you refer to your children). I have to ask: Do you really think that you, as a wife, have no value to your husband in terms of beauty and desirability once you hit the age of 25? Do you really think you have no intellectual and spiritual offerings to bring to your marriage?
.
I understand that you are reading a lot of rant-y “nice guy blogs” or something like that. Are you only hanging out with men with an ax to grind against women? Did you marry at at 18 and now feel worthless at 27? Or did you marry at 25 and your husband made clear that you were “the best he could get”? What’s going on here?
.
Most men HAVE older wives. In times of history without rampant disease, most men have always had older wives because wives age. Even if they married them at eighteen, those wives probably became 30 one day. Do the husbands only stay married because they are legally required to? Now, do these husbands only stay married with resentment (and a little porn or adultery on the side)? I sincerely hope your husband places more value in you and the person you are than that. And if he doesn’t, please PLEASE find a pastor to talk to.
“Do you really think that you, as a wife, have no value to your husband in terms of beauty and desirability once you hit the age of 25?”
Actually men age at the same rate as women. For example when a 20 year old woman marries a 30 year old man, after 5 years, when she is 25, then he is 35. When she is 30, he is 40. See how this works? Anyway, the point is not that men only want to marry young wives, they do. Rather, it is that they want the joy of the best years like 20-40, with 20 being the best of those and each year kind of less than the previous year. Like I said, men are reasonable. They know that a wife will get older, but they would just like to start at the beginning of the line, rather than at the end of the line behind all her other “relationships.” So if he marries a woman 30, he automatically loses all those good years. Plus most women sustain a fair amount of emotional damage from age 20-30 even if they remain chaste because they can’t help but notice that others are being chosen as wives and they aren’t. For those who would at least like to be asked, the constant rejection gives them a case of attitude which doesn’t make them more attractive.
Jeanne, if you’re interested, there’s a great website called The Personalist Project that presents essays, discussions, etc on personalism. Really interesting and well done.
Also, I think your comment about HV and the Pill is interesting. Obviously, there are lots of reasons for the sexual revolution and all of the changes that have happened culturally. I think, though, that the acceptance – especially by Christians – of artificial contraception in marriage played a big part. That denial of the procreative purpose of marriage was hugely damaging. I can understand why so many couples were anxious to believe that they could control childbearing, but it seems to me that the willingness to not only have children, but to take a chance, to not try to control everything in your life or your marriage, made marriages stronger because the couples had to trust each other more. And it was one more way that human beings “denied” the all powerfulness of God, one more way that we said God is not in control, we are.
Also, there’s growing evidence that the Pill (aside from all the other damage it does to a woman’s body) creates a hormonal alteration that actually makes women attracted to men they would not normally be attracted to if they were not on the pill, specifically less “manly” men. So a woman may be on the pill when she is single, meet and marry a guy and then go off the pill to have kids only to find that she isn’t so attracted to her husband. I think history will show that the pill was just a disaster for all of us.
Obviously, I am single but would prefer to be married with children. It hasn’t worked out thus far, but I’m not bitter like Acapulco claims all over 30, single women to be. I have quite a few single friends (some older than 30, some younger), some chaste and faithful Christians, some not. It’s very interesting because I would say that all have been hurt, but only one or two are bitter. We all come from close families and have really good, supportive friendships so I think that helps. But ultimately, I think that if you are a naturally happy person that’s sort of where you balance out in life regardless of the circumstances (unless some terrible,traumatic event has happened, maybe then you don’t go back to baseline). Some people just like to be miserable and complain and look at their lot in life as worse than anyone else’s. So my friends who tend to be unhappy would be unhappy in marriage, I think.
Personally, I believe that God has a plan for me. I can’t be 100% sure what that is, of course, but I know what I am drawn to and long for. In the meantime, I try to live the best life I can, make the most of my opportunities (volunteer work, enjoying my free time, spoiling my nieces and nephews, my job as a nurse, traveling, reading all day on a Saturday, sleeping in) and live the life that I have now. Of course,it is difficult at times and lonely, but God knows where I am and I have to believe that His hand is guiding me. I see many people who are miserable in their marriages, clearly having married someone they don’t love. How awful that must be!! My parents were extremely happy and had a wonderful marriage so I know what the joys are. I just offer up my loneliness and struggles for those who are in difficult marriages and for my friends (esp the ones who are not practicing Christians – they are missing out on so much!). But the point of life is to love God, love your neighbor and get to heaven.
There are a lot of people who try to make us feel like “less” because we are single, as if there is something wrong with us. Of course, there is something wrong with us, there is something wrong with everyone – it’s called original sin!! There’s one couple I know from church who always make snide, mocking comments to the single girls – you know the type, embarrassing people with their stupid, insensitive comments. There’s been all sorts of scandal with their children and their one son is like a Christian predator. He’s like the guys you spoke of who date a nice girl for a year or two and then just when he should propose, he drops her. He presents himself as something he is too cowardly to be – a good and decent man. He has hurt so many women and I feel so sorry for him. I’m sure he feels guilty now and doesn’t have the strength of character to just apologize and I hope and pray that he becomes the man he pretended to be. When his parents make these comments, I just have to shake my head. I think they are heartbroken and probably feel a huge amount of guilt for their failures as parents.
The world is like one, big, open wound at this point. Think of all the abortions and the souls that have been lost, think of all the poor women who work in the sex industry and the men addicted to porn, the horrible scourge of human trafficking and the evil that has engulfed its victims. And these are just the big things. Hopefully with prayer and sacrifice and grace things will change. Obviously the internet can be used for some really bad stuff, but it’s wonderful that there are blogs as this one where people can connect and discuss these issues. I think it helps in many ways. I’m really enjoying the conversation and so appreciate your comments and insights!
“but I’m not bitter like Acapulco claims all over 30, single women to be.”
.
straw man
.
I didn’t say all, and I didn’t say bitter. You just read that into it rather than consider what I actually said.
.
I did say attitude.
.
It is hard to describe, but the closest word is probably disappointed. Actually bitterness would make one more like repellent instead of simply not improving upon the previous conditions. Bitter is a far more negative than I what I suggested, attitude. Having a disappointed attitude doesn’t make you more attractive. Important word, more. So, if you don’t attract a guy who wants to commit to you when you are 20, what is going to have to change to attract that kind of guy? You could get a more attractive personality or richer or better looking and hope that would help.
.
“He’s like the guys you spoke of who date a nice girl for a year or two and then just when he should propose, he drops her.”
.
This is utter misandry. Who are you to decide that he should fall in love with a girl he has dated for a year or two? Once he decides he really doesn’t want to marry her, isn’t dropping her the right thing to do? Or should he date her for five years before he drops her? Personally, I tell my older son he should never date more than six months without making a decision one way or the other and telling her either that he wants to get married or they are strictly friends and he won’t marry her now or ever. If he doesn’t love her after six months dating her, he never will. Further I tell him that dating someone he knows he would never marry is stealing from her (and her potential husband) one of her prime assets in finding someone who will love her. That asset is her youth. I think many parents never give any more guidance to their kids than to tell them to go to college, graduate and make money, and oh yeah, whatever they do, don’t marry before they have done all three.
I guess I should have elaborated more on the just when he should propose part. I am speaking of someone who has proclaimed his love and led the girl and everyone who knows the two of them to believe that he will propose. He was always using her, he just didn’t let on for awhile.
The advice you give your son is wonderful and it is too bad that more parents don’t give the same to their sons.
My mother used to say to my brothers, “don’t bring a girl you aren’t serious about home because it will just lead her on.”
“My mother used to say to my brothers, “don’t bring a girl you aren’t serious about home because it will just lead her on.”
.
Nah, all girls must be brought home, because girls aren’t just for dating/entertainment value. They are real people that can become lifelong friends of the whole family. Also, through gatherings of various families, she might meet someone who will want her and that she would not have met otherwise. I am very pro social and think more connections are better. Kind of like facebook but in real life where you actually get to meet all those friends of friends.