I’ve been a fan of City Journal since my interest in Harry Stein led me to the website back in 2000. The quarterly’s masthead features the names of numerous esteemed and intelligent social commentators. Looking back over the last eight years I can honestly say that there has not been one essay they’ve published that was not worthwhile. Kay Hymowitz’s recent endeavor, “Child-Man in the Promised Land: Today’s single young men hang out in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood,” is no exception to this rule—if only due to the way that responding to it sharpens the mind.
As an overview, I’ll first mention that “Child-Man in the Promised Land” is a critique of single young males (SYM’s) within our culture. There is nothing wrong with that and I only mention it as a means to illustrate that critiquing the behaviors of one sex does not, in itself, suggest that an author hates that sex or has designs “to bash” them. There is no pathology to be found in critical analysis, but there is much to be found in the practice of showering isms—such as misogynist, sexist or misandrist—upon those who document the, occasionally unflattering, characteristics of the opposite sex. Just as there is nothing misandric about highlighting male deficiencies there is nothing misogynistic about outlining the flaws of women [assuming both sets of observations are true]. All are human and none are gods. Recall the words of Kant, “From the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight can be made.”
I thank Ms. Hymowitz specifically for calling to our attention the booming fascination with video games on the part of SYM’s. I have not been a member of that particular marketing niche (18 to 34) since 2004 but I have always regarding gaming as a habit of the young. I can see here though that my assumption was incorrect. One of the statistics was particularly discombobulating: “according to Nielsen Media, almost half—48.2 percent—of American males in that age bracket had used a console during the last quarter of 2006, and did so, on average, two hours and 43 minutes per day.” While I can safely say that none of my friends or associates is enmeshed in Nintendo-mania, there’s no question that three hours a day chasing Sonic the Hedgehog around does not make for a productive life.
I was less enthusiastic about Ms. Hymowitz’s other conclusions. Her definition of adulthood I found tenuous. The idea that owning a home is integral to the maturation process is accurate [although perhaps unwise at the present time], but I have not seen any data suggesting that a larger percentage of young homeowners are women rather than men. It seems rather unlikely even within the parameters of a world the author dubs the “New Girl Order.”
With marriage, termed another aspect of adulthood, I believe Ms. Hymowitz’s propositions are misguided. This may be due to her making the mistake of analyzing men in isolation. This is a precarious method by which to reach a conclusion regarding the sexes. Males and females are symbiotic and their behaviors have a direct effect on one another. She states:
“Consider: in 1970, 69 percent of 25-year-old and 85 percent of 30-year-old white men were married; in 2000, only 33 percent and 58 percent were, respectively. And the percentage of young guys tying the knot is declining as you read this. Census Bureau data show that the median age of marriage among men rose from 26.8 in 2000 to 27.5 in 2006—a dramatic demographic shift for such a short time period.”
This data is highly believable. Yet, for what reason do fewer men wish to get married nowadays? Ms. Hymowitz’s answer, immaturity, is spurious. Relying on group pathology is not legitimate. Indeed, these young fellows appear to be perfectly happy and fulfilled. The author errs here by failing to take into account the changed nature of the modern woman.
Let us contemplate the essence of this “New Girl Order.” Yes, the phenomenon is new, certainly it is female, but unquestionably it is disordered. The transcendence of women is nothing I will deny, however. In fact, I believe that America is a land imbued with female privilege. Affirmative action promises them the best jobs, placement at the best schools, and ensures that, should they be incompetent for the positions they are granted, it may not be held against them as firing them is not easy. The rise in the size of the government promises more and more competition-free jobs. In these settings, efficiency and productivity are not requirements; oftentimes, such traits will even be frowned upon. Should the vagaries of life become too apparent then the notion of “discrimination” will sooth them and become a purifier for any personal inadequacies they may possess.
The system will continue to be termed “anti-woman” even when that same system is led by a female president which may transpire in less than a year’s time [no doubt, in February of 2009, we will hear claims that the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House are just “figureheads” and “tokens” within the larger patriarchy]. The end result of the transformation wherein women reign supreme is the creation of individuals who are empowered, less feminine, and highly unconcerned about the way males perceive them. In light of this eventuality, why would any men want to marry them? Alas, this is a question Ms. Hymowitz does not pose.
Perhaps the “Odyssey Years” are not an odyssey at all but an end in themselves. Is a permanent “new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance” preferable to being an indentured servant to a headmistress of the New Girl Order? To ask the question is to answer it. The author states that “Women complain about the ‘Peter Pan syndrome’—the phrase has been around since the early 1980s but it is resurgent—the ‘Mr. Not Readys,’ and the ‘Mr. Maybes.’” Given the nature of the present crisis how could it be any other way? Submission is not a state most of us wish to enter.
Ms. Hymowitz equates becoming a husband and a father with growing up but this is no longer the case. Government has taken sides in regards to the sexes and it has summarily abandoned the sex that urinates from the standing position. With its abuse of males in divorce and custody court [for example, consider a legal doctrine like “equitable paternity” for a moment] the Leviathan has effectively turned marriage into a juridical charnel house. It is the immature, as opposed to the mature, who fail to take public affairs into account before saying “I do.” Avoiding the manage et trios which is the union of man, woman, and law is advisable and indisputably a decision made by a sober mind.
That “marriage and children” used to “turn boys into men” is granted, but I’d argue that it does no such thing today. Becoming a juridical offering, morphing into an ATM which dispenses “empowerment” for decades, and being held up as a neutered display that embodies the victory of our social engineers over biology are not outcomes in keeping with manhood. The situation illustrates the way in which boys are turned into serfs.
I do not know whether Tucker Max was right about female insecurity being “a gift that keeps on giving,” but I do know that male ignorance about the social injustice of marriage in our new millennium is a gift upon which millions of women rely.
Ms. Hymowitz’s discussion of Judd Apatow’s Knocked Up seems to me a poor choice. The depiction of the marriage between the characters of Pete and Debbie in the movie is nothing but horrific. Pete made a dreadful decision by marrying her and when we meet him he is chained to a woman who regards him with the contempt most of us reserve for con artists who prey on the elderly. Pete is criticized at every turn. He is a sensitive father, a good provider, and puts up with a maelstrom of abuse, but none of these traits placate Debbie’s need for domination.
Ms. Hymowitz appears oblivious to this dynamic. Indeed, she even has the audacity to blame Pete saying that he “…frequently disappears to play fantasy baseball, get high in Las Vegas, or just go to the movies on his own, chronically wields irony to distance himself from his family.” What a strange depiction of this film’s events. Pete went to Las Vegas after his wife told him to get lost. His fantasy baseball session with his buddies was yet another attempt to escape her domination. He fled to an all-male environment where he might be criticized…but only for things he actually said or did. Pete is so thoroughly emasculated that he must go to great lengths just to fit a few vivisection-free hours into his day.
His wife caught him in the act of playing fantasy baseball after following him to an unknown house with the other couple in tow. She was convinced that he was having an affair. The discovery that he is merely trying to get a few moments of peace infuriates her far more. She does not apologize for breaking into another citizen’s home, for spying on her husband or for causing a scene. Instead, she maintains that his playing fantasy football is a crime worse than adultery [!]. This is the height of irrationality, but, astoundingly, her sister agrees with her.
Compared to living with the likes of Debbie, Nick Hornby’s protagonist, Will, in About a Boy [mentioned by Ms. Hymowitz] is experiencing heaven on earth via his relations with women which are a “fantastic carnal alternative to drink, drugs, and a great night out, but nothing much more than that.” I will not defend Will. In my view, neither hedonism nor slavery are acceptable lifestyle choices, but certainly the former is preferable to the latter.
Ms. Hymowitz concludes that Knocked Up is “a fairy tale for guys” but this is simply preposterous. To most guys the fairy tale would have ended indelibly the moment Alison reappeared in the main character’s [Ben Stone’s] life and announced that she was pregnant. The real fable here is that Ben failed to learn from the toxic, festering example of his bride-to-be’s sister and got married to Allison anyway. Now that’s an ending straight out of the Brothers Grimm!
Ms. Hymowitz goes on to compare young take-charge females with underperforming males, saying that they pack their “leisure hours with shopping, traveling, and dining with friends…Single Young Males, or SYMs, by contrast, often seem to hang out in a playground of drinking, hooking up, playing Halo 3, and, in many cases, underachieving. With them, adulthood looks as though it’s receding.”
This is a conclusion reached by illogical premise. First, who exactly does Ms. Hymowitz believe these young men are hooking up with? Martians? Xboxes? Polar bears? If you said female age-mate peers then chances are you’d be right. As for the heavy drinking it is a very real problem for both sexes, and the internet is awash with websites devoted to the results of women frolicking in the pleasuredomes of our modern era.
Again, I concede the video game argument as it seems to be an attraction for males alone, but what does one make of shopping? Membership in the cult of materialism is not illustrative of maturity, but is a prime indicator of one being self-obsessed and oblivious to the spiritual aspects of life. With Maxim magazine I can offer no defense. It offers little that is intellectually redeeming, but once again Ms. Hymowitz has neglected to compare it to popular female equivalents like Lucky, Cosmopolitan, People or Marie Claire. Assuredly, none of these offerings is The New Criterion. Frankly, from what I recall, apart from the lack of visual imagery, I’m not sure Cosmo is less devoted to sex than Maxim.
This sentence was confounding as well: “Sex and the City chronicled the frustrations of four thirtysomething women with immature, loutish, and uncommitted men for six popular seasons.” I recall that program somewhat differently. In fact, its run documented the self-injurious meanderings and proclivities of four immature, loutish, and uncommitted females. The men in the story were largely peripheral. City Journal’s Wendy Shalit described the drama fittingly in “Sex, Sadness, and the City” with the following passage:
“So during half of the Sex and the City episodes, the women complain about insensitive men; for the other half, they coach themselves to imitate such men. The result is that by the time the sensitive men appear on the scene, the women have become insensitive, too, and incapable of appreciating them.”
Their example underscores the deleterious impact the sexual revolution has had on male/female relations since the sixties. Apart from a need to cure those diseases which necessitate a trip to a state of the art medical facility, what civilizing influence could these women have upon the men who marry them?
Regarding television, that so few Single Young Males watch it is a boon for their future. Is there anything redeeming about most network sit-coms, talk shows, reality TV and soap operas? Nothing at all. It is far better to watch sports and be invigorated by legitimate competition than to be subjected to politically correct plot themes and time slots so drenched in emotion that one feels the need for a shower by the time the credits roll. Unlike the real world, sports remains one of the few areas in which talent and effort are consistently rewarded. Indulging in them is both a joy while serving to remind us of nobler things.
The impeccable South Park is also mentioned here. That there is a great deal of bathroom humor on the program is regrettable but the show remains indispensable due to its persistent slaughter of leftist sacred cows. Ms. Hymowitz is wrong to suggest that South Park was “like a dog whistle that only SYMs could hear.” It is a clarion call that inspires anyone disgusted by the self-righteous, smug, PC manikins who patrol our cultural Konigsplatz. The satires of celebrities are absolutely exquisite, and, if one gets past the 4th grade bodily function stuff, they’ll soon discover that creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone are comedic geniuses.
Certainly men are not “unfinished as people,” [Ms. Hymowitz is quoting another writer here] but this essay does suggest that the process of morphing males into beasts of burden may not be proceeding at the recommended pace. This is fortunate because the rank-and-file of the New Girl Order will not view us as being finished…until we’re finished. If being an adult mandates the discontinuation of men believing that their needs and desires should shape the course of their lives then I think we should redefine the meaning of adulthood. Free will is not something God bestowed upon women alone. Should the new brew of the New Girl Order return to the state of being “worthy aspirations” then the definitions of the past may once again become applicable.
Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island and a series of video podcasts called “Chapin’s Inferno.” He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Bernard Chapin said,
February 5, 2008 at 5:09 am
Roger F. Gay said,
February 5, 2008 at 5:28 am
redrajesh said,
February 5, 2008 at 9:18 am
galacticlove said,
The real reason this “trend” is happening is because the Feminist have indocrinated Women to see Men as enemies and this has caused Men to naturally take up defensive positions that get them as far away from commitments as possible.
You are right.. the chickens are coming home or roost after all of the years of this cultural marxism and feminism being shoved down our throats.. Here is another perspective on this problems too..
http://russianwomen.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/russian-women-want-real-men-part-1-walking-away-from-the-feminist-re-education-camps/
February 5, 2008 at 9:34 am
Artfldgr said,
http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=121359481
bascially humans make some VERY complicated decisions about their environment.
the fact that MEN are not getting married is a result of those decisions. we dont keep going when the wind changes, we change tack, and so the men are changing tack. marraige is not rewarding anymore. (it used to be despite its sacrifices, and now its not, so sacrifices arent worth the investment for most).
the fact that men are choosing to play video games though is not a sign of immaturity, in fact its the OPPOSITE.
wake up!!! men use visual outlets to do things that their biology requires, but even they think are no longer acceptable as a common practice in the real world.
what is is a sign of is that as a society, our opportunities are so small, or percieved to be so small that the rewards of the game are considered to be greater than the other rewards on offer.
if one cant be a hero in real life, then one endeavors to be a hero on film
anyone remember james thurbers “the secret life of walter mitty”?
[film version with danny kaye]
what do you all think thoreau was talking about when he said
“Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.”
even the greeks knew that man was kinetic, that man was the action to thoughts, the realization of dreams.
In these games they can be the hero that life denies them now.
they can fight and win, and they can then be liked because of it. they can work like a synergistic team (something that men do better because men hunt - and internalizing differences is what women do since their groups are static as they are all valuable. only the top men are valuable, so the others are expendible)
men get a big reward by succeeding..
the reward that women get from babies, is the reward that men get from success…
is it no wonder that successful women dont like it and pine for family and such?
is it any wonder that when men are home with the kids they do better as they can be successful, and so get their jollies.
in other words men are tied to abstract success that translates to familial benifits. women are tied to specific successes, that also translate to familial benifits.
what this does is create one half that risks its life trying to find anything that can translate to a success, no matter what…
and this is why when women try to be successful in what guys do, they arent happy. they are not made to get a reward from abstract success… they CANT, as they HAVE to be able to judge absolute successes to figure out which of the males doing wacky and dangerous stuff is worth hitching her cart to.
take a lot of time to read the good sciecne that we have on how we work, and all this stuff isnt very mysterious. try to figure it out by imagining you know, and extrapolating from false ideas to something, doesnt work, and while you might have an explanation that sounds good, its connection to reality is only through random luck.
all these crap articles are not explorations into the ‘facts’
they are explorations in trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, and they are bouncing it off the public to see which form of inanity is palatable.
its an intellectual form of throwing your undewear at the wall to see if it sticks.
February 5, 2008 at 9:39 am
Denis said,
Exquisite.
“I do not know whether Tucker Max was right about female insecurity being “a gift that keeps on giving,” but I do know that male ignorance about the social injustice of marriage in our new millennium is a gift upon which millions of women rely.”‘
Ms. Hymowitz is a deluded American female. Big surprise there. It is really amazing to watch the lengths to which American women will go, and have gone, to make any “analysis” with regards to men fit the usual desired outcome: Men bad-Women good. They have been doing this for decades. Most of this is female narcism, but the other part of the equation is the total saturation of this culture in feminist idealogy. The women are continuously having their narcism reinforced and enabled. Oftentimes government supported as well.
It is stunningly amazing to me the degree to which there exists “male ignorance about the social injustice of marriage” - most especially baby boomer men.
“If being an adult mandates the discontinuation of men believing that their needs and desires should shape the course of their lives then I think we should redefine the meaning of adulthood.”
Exactly. American women have nothing to offer men that men would want.
By 2030 (in 22 years) there will be 80 million retired baby boomers. Our birthrates are (and have been) dropping. Marriage is gradually becoming extinct. This has huge repercussions down the road. Economic growth depends on a growing workforce and on growing productivity. Our workforce will not grow at the rate that India’s and China’s will. Our large and growing percentage of retirees will put a heavy drag on our national productivity. The point I am making here is that, while a man’s only useful role to an American woman is to be her “beast of burden”, the future economy will make it very difficult to maintain a growing standard of living for everyone except the very well off and super rich. It’s double-whammy: men finding it increasingly difficult to be a provider (aka: beast of burden) while coming home to a bitch who only values you as a man for being a provider (aka: beast of burden).
I think the reality of what the radical feminists, the narcisstic American females, and the baby boomer men and other chivalrist’s and mangina’s, have wrought will one day have to become abundantly clear eventually to even the least intelligent amongst us: that screwing over future generations of males will destroy America’s greatness.
I predict that one day the young American men of today will be the real winners in all of this in the end. They will have gone their own way and defined their lives as they decide. They will determine that it is better to live life on their own terms rather than try to “make their lives right” in a system that works against them everywhere, and makes that impossible. It will be the women, and the mangina’s, and the chivalrist’s who will be disappointed that life did not turn the way they intended it to, despite having the government, and the culture at large, all on their side.
February 5, 2008 at 9:54 am
Lycurgus said,
Feminists have spent 40 years telling men they don’t need us. Now they are annoyed because men have said “OK. I will just go off and entertain myself, then”.
I guess they expected us to grovel, begging to be needed. Tough.
February 5, 2008 at 11:21 am
GreatMRNI said,
SYM’S are passively rebelling against a feminist society that treats them as cannon fodder. They/we have few choices and are denied their/our basic rights.
Spot on Bernard! (below)
“That “marriage and children” used to “turn boys into men” is granted, but I’d argue that it does no such thing today. Becoming a juridical offering, morphing into an ATM which dispenses “empowerment” for decades, and being held up as a neutered display that embodies the victory of our social engineers over biology are not outcomes in keeping with manhood. The situation illustrates the way in which boys are turned into serfs.”
A friend of a friend of mine shared a story about a woman who divorced her husband after she had an affair with a co-worker. She got $750.00 a MONTH IN CHILD SUPPORT for one child, which she laughingly used to make payments on her new BMW. She would smugly boast about her extortion to every guy she met. She made over $65k a year and her ex-husband made about the same. She got the tax deduction for the child and he could not even write off the support payments. I’m not sure if child support is considered income, but I suspect it is not. If not, it is tax free income.
More of this type of injustice will occur if the hag gets in the White House.
A vote against the Republican nominee or a no vote, is a vote for Clit-ton the hag
(hag = Hatred Against Guy’s)
February 5, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Elusive Wapiti said,
Denis wrote,
“It is stunningly amazing to me the degree to which there exists “male ignorance about the social injustice of marriage” - most especially baby boomer men.”
I guess we can take heart in the fact that young men are pushing back from marriage. No doubt their education has been helped along by men like us and those similar to us.
“”If being an adult mandates the discontinuation of men believing that their needs and desires should shape the course of their lives then I think we should redefine the meaning of adulthood.”"
Agreed. Indeed, the notion of maturity is being measured these days with a female yardstick, which grades male maturity on how well it enables their comfort and behavior. I think men are slowly waking up, if only sub-consciously, to the reality that “being a provider” is a Faustian bargain at best, serfdom at worst.
When men allow their masculinity to be defined by women, they should not be surprised when their manhood is truncated. Thus it is good to see MGTOW regarding women and feminized society. But I must admit to being a little disheartened to see men continue their retreat in the face of male-abetted female aggression, but I guess the (not unreasonable) conclusion for most men that it is better to turtle-up than fight the FemBorg collective directly.
February 6, 2008 at 6:07 am
Bernard Chapin said,
2. Denis, good to see you’re still around! Hope you’re well. How’s Montreal? I love that town.
3. Art, that’s an excellent study and I’ve passed it on via email. Excellent comments too.
4. Great, thanks and with the speaking, it’s really tough doing those podcasts. I thought it would be much easier but 9 minutes takes me like 3 hours to put together. If I rev it up people don’t seem to like it though but no I won’t be on Fox anytime soon, lol.
5. I wrote 11 last night but may not be able to tape it until the weekend. We’re getting 7 inches of snow tonight and I might not get home until 7 pm and will have no concentration left. I’m doing 3 Infernos on this. The new one is “Real Men Obey” and yes Elusive I’ll be talking about some of the same things you do here. 12 is “Status Slaves” and 13 will be “Sex, and Conformity, in the City.”
February 6, 2008 at 7:26 am
PolishKnight said,
Couple things: I have posted a few articles and URL’s back on the old chapin blog that’s no longer being maintained about young career women being homebuyers during the boom and the drive-by media trumpeting them as visionares while stupid young men played video games in rental apartments. Later, the washington compost featured an article about singles winding up in massive condos they had tried to flip with an example of a young career woman who bought a, get this, $900K condo in Alexandria. The interest alone on the place is $5K per month. I can rent a two bedroom next door for $1500.00. I can look up the URL if you’re interested.
Next, shopping versus video gaming. Both are vices even if women like to think otherwise but video gaming is a lot less expensive. It’s a vice, but far less harmless than drinking or going to strip clubs. I was shocked to see the stats about so many older young men gaming and this indicates a possible real change in young men’s behavior due to the anti-male culture.
The reason the women want the men back is that they like the idea of an ATM machine as a backup. No matter how much a career woman makes, they know in the back of their mind that they can spend every penny of it on crap marketed towards women. Prada bags, jewelry, designer clothes, vacations, expensive cars. Women are less likely to use public transportation by choice than men. They have great financial needs. They’re now trying to whip a dead-horse, the traditionalist patriarch, to ride to their rescue. Now that they’ve killed him, they’ve decided to whip harder since that’s all they know how to do.
I haven’t seen Knocked Up but now I’m curious for socialogical reasons. This sounds messed up. I’m amazed it was lauded by conservatives as a “pro-life” movie which indicates how easily pro-lifers can be used as tools by the leftists and feminists. But enough about Hucklebee/McCain.
There’s a show on Bravo called “Millionaire’s Club” where the yenta matchmaker is often yelling at the millionaire men she’s setting up that they aren’t serious about relationship commitment and the players often don’t care. In theory, with the number of “millionaires” in Los Angeles (anyone who owns a decent home, basically), she should be flooded with clients but she has to struggle for a living. The women don’t make a good case for marriage either. Most of them are shallow, unattractive, and passive.
Sex and the City was often as hard on the women as it was on the men and portrayed them as selfish and unready for a relationship. Like with Knocked Up, a fake fairy-tale ended had to be conscrued. Both of these programs do have entertainment value in a sociological manner. Kind of like watching a train wreck.
Sports? I never got into sports with a ball since I think they’re more immature than video games. I probably shouldn’t have said that here. I do enjoy “sports” that teeter on the arts such as skating, skiing, gymnastics or take competitiveness to the highest level: “The World’s Strongest Man” series. Those guys are hardcore.
South Park’s bodily humor is funny as a side-effect. Whenever something gross happens, my wife runs out of the room screaming in horror. It takes me 5 minutes to stop laughing. It’s kind of like Beavis and Butthead where the humor wasn’t funny on it’s own, but on the reaction it elicited from others who casually saw it.
In conclusion: I married close to the end of my 30’s not due to immaturity, but caution. But even so, a young man taking his time to grow up and not rush down the aisle makes things more competitive for women who are on a timetable. Women have both a biological clock as well as a set of demands and status requirements that grow with age rather than decrease while for men their options grow. It’s like a marathoner competing with a sprinter. It’s important to play the right game.
February 6, 2008 at 11:54 am
Denis said,
Thanks Bernard. I’m well. Also, I live in Massachusetts not Montreal. We’re not all left wing loons here. The one benefit for guys like me is that it offers a target-rich environment.
Take care man.
February 6, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Elusive Wapiti said,
BTW, I neglected to attribute on my blog who pointed me toward the Facebook and Law.com article (you). I’ve rectified those errors with ‘Hat Tips’.
February 6, 2008 at 5:41 pm
tico said,
- can hardly feed themselves, let alone make a meal
- are unfamiliar with the concept of keeping house
- expect you to pay - always
- don’t want to be bored by hearing about your life
- expect you to be endlessly fascinated with their life
- expect you to always have cash & status
- do not want to hear that you need to work a lot to have cash & status
- expect you to be ideally groomed & dressed at all times and be hung like a pornstar
In short, they are spoiled & unrealistic beyond belief, and feel they are being mistreated if they do not get EXACTLY what they desire immediately. So, regardless of the deeper social analysis of feminism, etc. the basic fact is, depending on how badly you feel you need female companionship, your life will be much less complicated & expensive without it. About the only concrete thing I actually need a woman for is a sexual partner, I was raised to be self sufficient and can certainly cook, clean, do laundry, handle my finances, and so on. The women I meet have no interest in the sharing of all kinds that constitutes an adult relationship, although they often claim to want just that. The depth, the unquantifiable things that make it special just don’t exist. Mainly, as far as I can tell, they really want a stooge with money at the ready for whatever they need right now. It’s kind of depressing if you still cling to the idea of finding someone to share your life & time with.
Equal rights my ass. You want to be treated better than others, and still get to complain about it.
April 27, 2008 at 3:08 am