High-Priced Emancipation [Book Review: Why There Are No Good Men Left]

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, January 3, 2002 | MEGHAN COX GURDON

[TroutStalker]

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.

[Poohbah]

That tracks with my own experience. Married at 30.

[Jim Noble]

>>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.

[Red Jones]

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.

[KC_Conspirator]

LOL! You forgot "STD" and "Human Sacrifice"

[KC_Conspirator]

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.

[Red Jones]

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.

[sr4402]

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.

[sr4402]

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.

[Centurion2000]

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 !!!

[Centurion2000]

pencil test ??????

[BuddhaBoy]

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.

[matthew_the_brain]

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.

[Centurion2000]

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.

[equus]

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.

[equus]

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.

[BuddhaBoy]

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.

[Question_Assumptions]

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...

[Thud]

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.

[Jim Noble]

>>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.

[BuddhaBoy]

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.