Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High-Priced Emancipation [Book Review: Why There Are No Good Men Left]
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, January 3, 2002 | MEGHAN COX GURDON

Posted on 01/03/2003 7:50:23 AM PST by TroutStalker

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:47:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Anyone who has ever struggled to find a house to buy should intuitively understand the difficulties faced by the legions of accomplished, educated, 30ish women currently roaming society in search of a husband. They are the stuff of mass entertainment now, these handsome, quick-witted graduates of higher education. On TV, they're the saucy females of "Sex and the City" and "Will & Grace." They surface in fiction as lovelorn Bridget Jones and the hapless heroines of Pam Houston's best-selling short stories.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next last
To: Poohbah
Was she hot? Probably not. Hot women don't shop at Home Depot without their OWN husband or boyfriend.
51 posted on 01/03/2003 9:41:04 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Was she hot?

Not really, mostly because she was so aggressive.

Hot women don't shop at Home Depot without their OWN husband or boyfriend.

My own wife being a case in point.

52 posted on 01/03/2003 9:42:50 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cynaman
You ever see the Sam Kinison routine about the "Honeymoon Killer"

He pitched it as a movie idea. A serial killer shows up at weddings, shoots the bride, and makes his escape with his signature exclamation "you'll thank me later". Seems the police are less than enthusiastic about tracking him down since most of themare married.
53 posted on 01/03/2003 9:44:04 AM PST by E.Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E.Allen
Thanks. I came THIS CLOSE to spewing coffee on my keyboard!
54 posted on 01/03/2003 10:10:17 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
We are no longer willing to make the compromises and sacrifices necessary for a successful marriage, and are left with those same "Sex in the City" types to choose from, of which we say "No thanks", and are called women-haters for our trouble

Man, you hit the nail right on the head with that one. I've noticed with myself, that I am no longer willing to put up with the changes imposed on my friends by their wives. I'm not getting rid of my guns, changing my magazine subscriptions, shaving my beard off, etc etc. I'm not going to have any of this "what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own" crap.

55 posted on 01/03/2003 10:15:25 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
I think you should do that. Our young women are sold such a sack of $hit today in our colleges. Virtually nothing their feminist radical professors say is the way things really are.
56 posted on 01/03/2003 10:22:10 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RooRoobird14
They're also either divorced single moms or single mothers of b*st*rd children---and are mad at the world (and men in particular) because they're "stuck" raising their kids alone.

That's one of the things to scare guys like me away from the single moms--the anger. Another is the revelation that some have made to me: they would marry a man they don't love "for the sake of my children"--i.e. the man would just be a life-support system for his wallet. Maybe I'm just weird but I was kind of hoping to find a woman that loves me.

57 posted on 01/03/2003 10:23:28 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: alpowolf
It is my married friends who are the strongest in advising me to never get married.
58 posted on 01/03/2003 10:25:04 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Likewise. They have all told me about putting the beans in the jar and so on. My favorite came from a fellow sailor: "Me and da old lady are into S&M. She Sleeps, I M....bate".

Seriously, tho, what you say is true. We just seem to be thought of as so much cattle these days.

59 posted on 01/03/2003 10:31:22 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: alpowolf
Maybe I'm just weird but I was kind of hoping to find a woman that loves me.

Oh, she will love you, right up until she discovers that she can have your stuff, your money and your house WITHOUT you, with a single phone call.

After that, you will be public enemy #1.

60 posted on 01/03/2003 10:34:11 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Yeah, I was taking off on the other 3 postings, but I agree that 35 is too far along; that's why I used the phrase "it seems". But 25 is probably too low, I'd use 28, myself.
61 posted on 01/03/2003 10:39:27 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Kinda takes the romance out of it, don't it?
62 posted on 01/03/2003 10:43:32 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: alpowolf
"I'm not getting rid of my guns, changing my magazine subscriptions, shaving my beard off, etc etc."

There are women out there who have DONE THAT to their husbands....??? Wouldn't the men kinda know this going into the marriage?

63 posted on 01/03/2003 10:50:37 AM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: alpowolf
These days, romance is not as satisfying as a good credit rating. Why trade one for the other?
64 posted on 01/03/2003 10:51:53 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
No. There are a lot of subjects kept under the rug until the fish is gaffed and in the boat.
65 posted on 01/03/2003 10:52:45 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: expatpat; goodnesswins
Exactly. Some of the guns in my house actually belong to married friends...the other shoe wasn't dropped until he was roped and branded.
66 posted on 01/03/2003 10:55:34 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
I can't think of a woman who could pass a pencil test at 28. Not too many 25 y/o's either. Beyond 22, you would have to replace the pencil with a big fat sharpie to get that sucker to drop.
67 posted on 01/03/2003 10:55:58 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Single women in their mid30's and up have got all of the associated trauma and anger of your average Vietnam veteran. They are the walking wounded.

I call them "casualties of the sexual revolution". Sad things, really. I met one the other night at a party. We struck up what I thought was a freindly conversation and even though I was wearing my wedding ring she flew into a maniacal rage when I told her I was married. Totally psychotic. I had the mind to tell her how much of a crazy *itch she was, but I pitied her instead.

68 posted on 01/03/2003 10:56:07 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dark Wing
ping
69 posted on 01/03/2003 10:57:23 AM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
But you had the unmitigated nerve, to not fulfill her desires, you cad!!

How dare you not grant her entitlement? Don't you know that you are supposed to come clean about being married within the first 30 seconds, or never mention it at all, so that she can have plausible deniability?

That's it; you are going on the N.O.W.'s enemies list. You, you, you.....MAN!

70 posted on 01/03/2003 11:01:57 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
>>. But as I have always said, guys should be cautious of women in their late 30 who have not married because there is usually a reason why this is so<<

I did a lot of fishing in this pond from age 43-46.

Truer words were never spoken.

71 posted on 01/03/2003 11:03:45 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
I would say 22-32, not 25-35, but in general, you're all correct.

34, 35 and unmarried can be quite problematic.

72 posted on 01/03/2003 11:05:40 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RooRoobird14
>>But the good men are NOT interested in "Sex in the City" style sluts, and don't like to be with ball-busting single women who lead promiscuous, unhappy lives<<

When I was a boy, we called girls who slept around "ruined".

We were right.

73 posted on 01/03/2003 11:08:04 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: equus
You mention that there are many hostile comments about women. I think you are correct, and I think the comments are warranted. In point of fact it hasn't been that long that women were taught some basics of life (such as what was mentioned by one poster above). Women threw it away hand-over-fist, and are now crying the blues because they cannot get a man. Ultimately it is the woman's responsibility to make herself "saleable," if you will. By "saleable" I mean attractive enough to induce the committment of resources and time and energy that marriage entails. Most women do not do this until it is too late. (Inducing a man to have sex with you is much easier, as you may suspect.)

By too late I mean early thirties. You stated that "after 35 we know women's fertility starts to decline a bit." Actually, by 30 a woman's fertility starts to decline dramatically. The caveat here is the time of first conception. Women who started having children young are, on the main, more fertile throughout their lifetimes (meaning that they ovulate more regularly, have more regular periods, produce more viable eggs, and remain fertile through their 40's, etc.). Women who wait until after 30 to conceive for the first time have many more problems than women who had their first child in their early to mid-20's.

You may ask why I am harping on this. It is simply that by the time that these professional women begin to want hearth and home (because they have spent the first 10 years on their career), it is too late to find husbands and start the families. These women think of themselves as being catches but in reality they are damaged goods. They have usually had one or more abortions, they have political and ideological beliefs that are inimicable to a happy home-life, and they are "past the expiration date," age-wise.

74 posted on 01/03/2003 11:09:33 AM PST by Under the Radar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: equus
>>Women are expected to work in two career marriages<<

By whom?

75 posted on 01/03/2003 11:10:18 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: equus
>>So many hostile comments about women<

Can you show me a few?

76 posted on 01/03/2003 11:11:20 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
If a man is going to settle down with a woman, he had best get hold of her before she can experience her first:

Abortion,
Beating,
Rape,
Job Firing,
Drunken orgy,
Child,
Marriage,
Divorce,
Best Friend's Divorce,
Best Friend' Abortion,
Best Friend's paternity case,

which means usually you are stuck with those 23 or under.

77 posted on 01/03/2003 11:12:57 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
>>which means usually you are stuck with those 23 or under<<

I did OK with 26, but I agree with your exclusionary criteria.

I could never get into 18 and 19 year olds, but by all means, be my guest.

78 posted on 01/03/2003 11:17:41 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
I could never get into 18 and 19 year olds.........

The brain fogs, with all the different responses I could make from that statement, but I will behave myself today.

79 posted on 01/03/2003 11:20:14 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker; fuente; Poohbah; Dark Wing; BuddhaBoy
Troutstalker,

This is not necessarily true. "To all those quick-witted graduates of higher education, here is something we guys have always known: Why buy the cow, when the milk is free? "

Fuentes has a better point - that men suitable for long-term marriage do so before they hit 35. Many men develop, at varying ages but almost always before male fertility starts to seriously decline, an intense desire to get hitched. My high school Spanish teacher, a Mormon, described that to my class and I didn't believe it until it happened to me 13 years later.

I had joined a small firm in the San Joaquin Valley after graduating from law school and working in political campaigns for a year, then had a fine time for about a year dating ladies desperate for an eligible batchelor, with absolutely no expectation of marriage by me.

Then BANG! it hit me. It Was Time. Somehow I woke up one morning with a completely different attitude. I considered all the ladies and thought, no. A few days later my secretary said there was someone at her church I should meet. Anna Margaret must have been telepathic - somehow she waited to introduce us until I was ready.

Candy wasn't much to look at but was easily the smartest of the bunch I'd seen since moving to the Valley, sweet, and I thought I could put up with her for 50-60 years. What I wanted was companionship. Lust had nothing to do with it, nor love. Something inside was screaming at me to get hitched Right Now, and she was the one I was most likely to stay with. Love came by degrees.

That was 25 years ago. I drove one son back to college Wednesday and she's driving the other today. Our daughter is a high school senior.

I've paid some attention to this since and the pattern I see around here is definitely that almost all men marry before they're 35 - and generally before they're 32. This means that the pool of suitable men for never-married women over 32 is quite small. Even divorced men tend to stick with their first marriage for at least 4-5 years, so they're generally still in it at the ages when they're age-suitable for never-married females over 32.

80 posted on 01/03/2003 11:23:09 AM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud
That tracks with my own experience. Married at 30.
81 posted on 01/03/2003 11:24:46 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Thud
>>This means that the pool of suitable men for never-married women over 32 is quite small<<

Particularly when you consider that men of any age, but particularly men in their 30s, can marry any women their age or younger, of any financial station in life, whereas unmarried women over 32 usually insist on a man who is a) older and b) richer.

The higher on the income scale she is, therefore, the smaller the number of potential partners.

82 posted on 01/03/2003 11:30:06 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: cynaman
your post in #18 is more enlightening on the title subject than the WSJ article was.

I'd just add though that american women like to vote for politicians who destroy jobs for american men and push wages down. But a man who doesn't do well financially doesn't want to get married and women don't want to marry him either. I wonder how many american marriages were either destroyed or were never formed because of the h1b program. There have been one million h1b visas issued, that is we as a nation have decided that foreigners can do our jobs better here in our own country than we can and so far one million americans, primarily men, have been displaced out of an opportunity. It drives wages down for many more than a million. It causes lots of divorces, it causes lots of marriages that would otherwise beformed to not be formed. and american women cheer for it as far as I can tell.

We as a people just plain don't believe in ourselves, we don't want our own people to succeed and prosper.
83 posted on 01/03/2003 11:32:12 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
LOL! You forgot "STD" and "Human Sacrifice"
84 posted on 01/03/2003 11:35:31 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I even tried to be polite and save her the embarassment of being interested and obviously attracted to me (why else he psychotic response) and not noticing that I was waving my wedding band in front of her, but all synapses were not firing, apparenntly.

Regardless, I am pretty sure I have been on the NOW hitlist for over about 7-8 years now (since the first time I voted Republican) for my many offenses.

85 posted on 01/03/2003 11:43:44 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Under the Radar
gee, what you said bears emphasizing; that women can have babies into their 40's, but are much more likely to be able to do so if they started having babies early. But if they don't start early, then by 40 they frequently can't conceive. American women in 1950's had a very strong birth rate in their 40's. But it was women having their 3rd, 4'th or 5'th child.
86 posted on 01/03/2003 11:50:32 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Why are so few good men left? Good is based on a standard. The Feminists wanted all the good women for themselves so they changes the standard and threw out all the rulesets that one can use to determine a good man.

With no good rulesets, how do you judge?

It used to be a bunch of does and doesn'ts. This usually boiled down to... he does treat you like a lady and he isn't a womanizer.

It must be rough for women these days... not having any standards to determine good by.

87 posted on 01/03/2003 12:41:13 PM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Why are so few good men left? Good is based on a standard. The Feminists wanted all the good women for themselves so they changes the standard and threw out all the rulesets that one can use to determine a good man.

With no good rulesets, how do you judge?

It used to be a bunch of does and doesn'ts. This usually boiled down to... he does treat you like a lady and he isn't a womanizer.

It must be rough for women these days... not having any standards to determine good by.

88 posted on 01/03/2003 12:46:58 PM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E.Allen
You ever see the Sam Kinison routine about the "Honeymoon Killer"

He pitched it as a movie idea. A serial killer shows up at weddings, shoots the bride, and makes his escape with his signature exclamation "you'll thank me later". Seems the police are less than enthusiastic about tracking him down since most of themare married.

OMG that is hilarious !!!

89 posted on 01/03/2003 12:52:52 PM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
pencil test ??????
90 posted on 01/03/2003 12:54:57 PM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
The pencil test, is when a pencil is placed under a woman's breast. If the pencil falls, then she is blessed with the best of genes, and should remain perky for quite some time, even though she wont always pass the test.

If a young woman cant pass the pencil test, then you can bet that her mammaries will be down around her knees someday.

91 posted on 01/03/2003 1:00:23 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
I agree with you, what you are now seeing is the fruits of the evils of feminism.......there are way too many 30 something females out there who have finally figured out that this precious 'career' they have been brainwashed to have, is simply, well, a job..........in 20 years, there are going to be plenty of unhappy spinsters out there.
92 posted on 01/03/2003 1:04:21 PM PST by matthew_the_brain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
If a young woman cant pass the pencil test, then you can bet that her mammaries will be down around her knees someday.

Hmmm .... I think I'll go try that on someone later ... thanks. I'm pretty sure she'll pass.

93 posted on 01/03/2003 1:06:57 PM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Wow. Just amazing.

To Jim Noble: Hostile comments--just read through it, if you can't tell the comments are hostile, then I can't explain it to you.

To the other poster: Most of my friends married in their late 30s and had children in their late 30s and early 40s. We all had careers and we enjoyed them. We did not regard ourselves as damaged goods--what makes you call them damaged goods? In retrospect the next generation is a little smarter, in terms of time, and maybe doing so in their early 30s. But in any case, all these women are interesting women with significant careers. Why should they forego that?

The problem to me is that as the writer of the book seems to be pointing out indirectly, men gained a lot more from feminism than women did. From my perspective, women still earn less on the dollar. Meanwhile, as she points out, men have a big pool of available fascinating women to choose from. Particularly true in big cities.

As for making oneself "saleable"--there's no point to being with a man if he can't offer security. Really. If women can offer themselves security, then a man had better sell himself too. As women talk among themselves, men would be horrified perhaps to hear. We talk about men's looks and virility and how it fades with time. We talk about their money. We talk about their success in the world. All this is important to us and increasingly important to women as they judge which men they want to be with. And I think that makes men really insecure and there is the resulting hostility.

At the same time, women are really insecure too, because we're living in a hybrid time. They want male protection/security but they want freedom to express themselves too. And there are no rules in this new time. So we each forge our own path.
94 posted on 01/03/2003 1:19:56 PM PST by equus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
She can get plastic surgery to lift her "mammaries" as you put them. But as for men, the size they're born with is the size they die with. And many women do care about that.
95 posted on 01/03/2003 1:21:12 PM PST by equus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: equus
But as for men, the size they're born with is the size they die with.

You'll have to take that up with the asian and white men on the thread. I don't know what you are talking about.

96 posted on 01/03/2003 1:33:41 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Hmmm. My wife is the second woman I dated. My house is the second house that my wife and I looked at. I'm seeing a pattern here...
97 posted on 01/03/2003 1:59:21 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: equus
It's called biology.

"Most of my friends married in their late 30s and had children in their late 30s and early 40s. We all had careers and we enjoyed them. We did not regard ourselves as damaged goods--what makes you call them damaged goods? In retrospect the next generation is a little smarter, in terms of time, and maybe doing so in their early 30s. But in any case, all these women are interesting women with significant careers. Why should they forego that?"

Like it or not, the fertility of both sexes declines with age and both, like it or not, consider prospective mates based on potential fertility as well as child-rearing characteristics (including money/security) even if both already have children. Fertility is less of a factor if both have children, and little if any of a factor once they're past child-bearing age, but it is a major, major factor when neither has children and both are under 40. We're hard-wired that way even if neither party wants children.

Then throw in demographics. The pool of suitable males (not available males) is so small for successful females over 35 who still want children that the author is right.

And, if children are desired, one of the spouses will have to sacrifice an early career for them. We're hard-wired so that this should be the wife - mothers are far more important to young children than fathers.

So most women flat out have to either choose between children and their careers, or make major, major sacrifices to have both which are perilous to their marriages. Biology means that much. Denying it produces the results this author describes.

98 posted on 01/03/2003 2:32:24 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: equus
>>At the same time, women are really insecure too, because we're living in a hybrid time. They want male protection/security but they want freedom to express themselves too. And there are no rules in this new time

There are two rules:

1) If you're getting the milk for free, why buy the cow

2) Why keep Maureen Dowd if you can have Catherine Zeta-Jones.

99 posted on 01/03/2003 2:40:05 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Three more of the new rules:

3) Don't marry or live with a single mother.

4) Get DNA tests for any paternity claims.

5) Suitable men don't find suitable women in bars and clubs.

100 posted on 01/03/2003 3:27:04 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson