To Single Men on Today's Women: Caveat Emptor

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Contemporary
Woman leaves few good deeds unpunished. Not that She would regard
my last column as
such, but She did show up in sizable numbers to savage me for it.
There were a few sisterly waves of support, but the tide of condescending
cattiness flowed from all across the spectrum, both left and right
as I would have predicted.  Many of my conservative male friends
(who know few women well beyond their wives) assume that fiscally
conservative women are also socially conservative in their personal
lives. 

You’d
have thought the Tanya Tuckers, Sandi Pattys, Amy Grants, Bo Dereks,
and Shannen Dohertys would have taught them something by now. 
Even Ann Coulter noted the recent promiscuity that has overtaken
ostensibly conservative Beltway women. On Judith Regan Tonight
on Fox News she confessed to being shocked when, at a small
gathering of couples, the women confessed that they would have had
sex on the first date but didn’t initiate it because they thought
the men wanted to wait.  This means that in some circles
the continued shift in sexual tendencies has now made men
the prudes.  How unbelievably depressing. 

(On
the amusing side there is Shannen Doherty.  She’s now been
booted off two television shows [90210 and Charmed]
for prima donna grandstanding and a nasty attitude.  
She answers few calls these days because she thinks she’s still
a huge star, forgetting that her last show was a brainless stinker
on the WB channel.  After being fired from 90210 she
had taken to changing men like underclothing and even threatening
some of them with a .38 revolver [poor Judd Nelson was one of these.]
  It’s a mystery to me why she attended the Republican National
Convention in 1992, given the flack she’d take in Hollywood for
doing so.  Maybe she was denied a right-to-carry permit for
her .38 revolver and was angry about it!)

What
I wrote last month never elicits any objection in countless off-the-record
conversations I’ve had with women. It seems my capital crime was
to air the sisterhood’s dirty laundry in a mixed venue where many
male eyes saw it and voiced agreement. Reeeeoowww! Out came the
cat claws! I so detest hypocritical victimology, and this reminded
me so much of the "principled" black people who refer
to each other with the N-word like it is going out of style, and
then flare their nostrils in umbrage the instant a white person
uses the epithet.

(It’s
a measure of how far political correctness has gained ground in
our culture that men who make even playful, joking generalizations
about women are quickly savaged by women (if not men first) for
"sexism" and "misogyny." And yet I hear women
constantly make the ugliest, broad-brush generalizations about men
[either in front of them or behind closed doors] and yet it’s seldom
that either men or women will speak up to challenge them. This is
exactly why sexual and racial hypocrisies and the double standards
that emanate from them will get worse before getting better, guys.)

The
dominant theme of the Angry White Females (after perfunctorily admitting
that maybe a few women long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away
made some mistakes) is that it’s all men’s fault, it’s all men’s
fault, it’s all men’s fault.  And there were confused gems
like this:

How
can you say that women like guys who cheat?!!  When did this
sudden change come about?  Isn’t the problem really one of
men having less and less class?  Your characterization of
yuppie men as being perfect, reliable creatures was laughable.
  As if these darlings would never think of cheating. 
If you wanted to be helpful to women you should have stressed
that marriage requires commitment (which men can seldom seem to
muster these days) and hard work on the part of both spouses.

Re-read
my article, dear.  You better believe women will tolerate (though
not necessarily accept) cheating if it’s part of their Pygmalion
project; i.e., if it’s one more shortcoming from which they’re going
to redeem the jerk.  This was no generational change.  
Women have pursued jerks since time immemorial.  They’ve catered
to them, had their babies, cleaned their homes, cooked their dinners,
and wasted decades of their lives with them.  And then one
day they suddenly decide they’ve Finally Had Enough! and (flying
to the other extreme) join the Rosie O’Donnell Resentful Dike &
Bitter Soccer Mom Brigade.  (On so many relational fronts many
women so seldom ever find the rational middle ground.)       

My
point was precisely that jerks come in all varieties and women will
probably never tire of pursuing them.  They provide a real
life soap-opera drama of tension, mind games, and histrionics that
women seem to be hopelessly addicted to.  On marriage, my article
wasn’t on the subject per se.   (I’ve noticed that
it’s become an all-too-familiar tactic to pick a topic that I didn’t
write about and then criticize me for not covering it.)  Here’s
another gem from a self-described conservative woman:

Such
a childish rant.  You don’t come close to what the real problem
is, the caustic consumer capitalism that is eating away at our
lives and relationships.  Of course that’s the last issue
anything written on LewRockwell.com would ever explore.  
In an online discussion I’ve been following it was pointed out
that even Allan Bloom said that women have it much worse than
men in today’s relationships.  I’d recommend you read him,
but I’m sure he’d be above your level.

Consumer
capitalism?!  Wow, I guess we gals just never had it so good
as those women of the Brezhnev era.  Bring back the old Soviet
Union!  I have read some of Allan Bloom’s material and have
difficulty believing that he made such a carelessly subjective assertion
as you’ve stated it (though wonders never cease).  There are
certainly men who exploit women.  There are also women who
exploit men; just because this is an unspeakable truth in the omnipresent
culture of female victimology promulgated on daytime TV, in major
newspapers, in women’s magazines, and in college humanities departments
doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.  Talk to the 50-year-old physician
I know whose wife left him some years ago for a 26-year-old pro
tennis player she met at a country club.  How long will a 26-year-old
tennis player stay with a 49-year-old woman after her divorce settlement
money runs out?   Try 2 months.  Suffice to say the Doc
didn’t take her back.      

Now
for the men:

I’ve
been in the ministry for 20 years and can tell you that pursuing
jerks is definitely alive and well even among evangelical Christian
women.  They marry outside the faith about 6 times the rate
of men because they think it’s their will (not God’s) to
not only civilize the men but convert them to Christianity as
well.  No amount of reasoning will sway them.  The end
result is yet more broken families that the church has to take
care of.  Hence most 30s Christian singles classes are composed
of 5-7 never-been-married men and 15 divorced women, a complete
incompatibility.  The women usually end up leaving after
I point out that the New Testament (Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11)
forbids re-marriage for anyone divorced for a reason other than
adultery and state that I have every intention of honoring this
command.  The wonderful result is that they burden liberal
churches with the fallout of their past misadventures while I’m
able to use my limited resources to preach the Word of God to
people who are really interested in what it says.

Good
for you.  You can take comfort in the fact that things aren’t
much better on the Catholic side of the fence either.  It amazes
me how ministers, priests, and rabbis – the very people who
God ordained to protect marriage against the perversions of a secular
culture – have willingly participated in the institution’s
complete bastardization.   (Tonight – 6/24/01 – I’m
watching Fox News’ Only on Fox where a female minister
in Seattle is actually holding ceremonies that have the look and
feel of a wedding, but are for couples celebrating their divorce! 
At the end of the ceremony the parents, children, and minister all
gather in a circle for one big "hug-in."  How thoroughly
twisted.)     

A
truly Christian society where everyone (outside of infidelity and
death of a spouse) had one and only one shot at marriage surely
wouldn’t be perfect, but would definitely force people to choose
their mates much more carefully.  In post-Christian America,
where Elizabeth Taylor gets married and divorced 8 times, the institution
of marriage is a long-running joke from which either spouse can
easily bail.  Unlike most of today’s brides, though, at least
Liz Taylor had the class not to wear a white gown after the first
marriage.        

I’m
31, single, and never-been married. In college women wouldn’t
give me the time of day. Now that I’m a securities analyst with
a new Z3 convertible, the "twice divorced, with children,
and half their looks gone" women my age are suddenly coming
from every direction with compliments about my "wonderful
personality." They seem to be using a variant of the tactics
"the jerks" used to successfully bait and plunder them. 
Then there’s the second group with the same traits as the first,
but for reasons I can’t fathom, is out looking for movie stars
(as if the Brad Pitts would ever be interested in them). What’s
going on there?

Denial
of reality.  When the grandparents finally tire of providing
free babysitting and child support doesn’t cover a growing list
of "necessities" for her children (cell phones, Pokemon
cards, Playstation II), then she’ll hold her nose and "hit
up the nerds."  The disingenuous compliments on your personality
are a delicious irony. In the 1970′s, when a man complimented a
woman on her looks it became fashionable for the woman to retort,
"What about my brain, you pig?!"

I’d
love to see once-spurned men like you and my brothers answer these
women with the retort, "What about my looks, you money-grubbing
freak?!" Then, if you’re in a public place, pour a drink over
her head and shriek, "You just DON’T get it, do you?!"
and leave in a supremely self-righteous huff. I’m convinced that
if women were the tit-for-tat recipients of just half of the petty,
prima donna antics they dish out to men, there would be a
seismic shift in today’s relationships.  Most men today are
just too kowtowed and addicted to sex to ever take a principled
stand on anything for long.  They’re putty in the hands of
women wielding the threat of sexual deprivation.

As
I just mentioned, two of my brothers are currently navigating through
the Hades of never-been-married thirties singlehood. They’re tall,
handsome, incredibly sweet Italian-American men (nothing like the
ugly stereotypes on The Sopranos) with graduate degrees and
good jobs.  They’re also good Catholics who take seriously
the Church’s imperatives about living a clean and moral life. 
Yet none of these qualities comes even close to satisfying the turned-up
tastes of Contemporary Woman.   Thankfully my brothers are
now starting to see the reality that what they’re really missing
out on are some very bad things indeed.   

This
was made evident by recent wire reports highlighting a study from
the May 2001 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology. 
The study reported that the annual number of Americans with HSV-2
(genital herpes) skyrocketed 82% from 1970 to 1985 with the sharpest
gains among women and twenty-somethings. Women had higher rates
of infection than men (9.9 per 1,000 versus 6.9 for men) and among
men and women in their twenties, women outpaced men by a substantial
amount (22.5 per 1,000 versus 14.6 for men). The study also found
that a steadily increasing fraction of women were infected during
pregnancy putting their infants at risk for neonatal herpes which
can cause permanent brain damage in surviving infants.

Although
the transmission process makes HSV-2 easier for women to catch than
men, there’s also no doubt that women’s increased willingness to
embrace the promiscuous lifestyle is also a factor given the huge
increase in the annual rate of infections.  One problem with
the study is its sample period ending in 1985.  To call this
study a lagging indicator is to make a heck of an understatement,
although no one with a straight face could plausibly claim that
in the past 16 years sexual standards have become stricter, plenty
of evidence suggests just the opposite.  The study’s authors
voice their doubts  as well, citing another study showing increases
in HSV-2 antibodies in the early 1990s.  They provide the mind-blowing estimate that
35-50% of college students are infected with HSV-2 with 80% of the
infected group not even knowing it!!

None
of this even gets at the already-well known correlations between
increased risks of cervical cancer and women who have had sex in
their teens, three or more sex partners, and sex with males who
have had multiple partners.  Other dandy jewels making the
rounds among Spring Break bed hoppers are HPV (genital warts) and
Hepatitis C (which frequently destroys the liver causing its victims
to need a transplant).

Despite
the worsening dangers, the majority of dating women today persist
in behaving like little more than prostitutes.  In fact they’re
worse since (according to police reports) prostitutes are now usually
earning at least $150 per customer for intercourse. The average
dating woman today puts out for dinner and a movie that aren’t even
worth a third that much.  And yet popular culture steadily
pushes the envelope to ever-lower lows: MTV’s Spring Break, Sex
and the City, That 70s Show, not to mention the loads
of trashy soaps on daytime TV. 

E-mailers
like the woman above can blame "consumer capitalism" all
they want, but the beauty of capitalism is that it reflects what
people actually value, not what they dishonestly say
they value.  In that sense it’s a brutally honest system. 
To pretend that men and women were any less shallow and materialistic
under communism displays an astounding ignorance of human nature. 
Just because the poverty of communism effectively suppressed outward
manifestations of materialistic preferences and tendencies hardly
means they didn’t exist.  It was a system that, while hypocritically
championing women’s rights, was dominated by men who used draconian
political power to procure for themselves the best goods and the
most attractive women.  If socially conservative women now
think that socialism is the answer to the current problems between
the sexes, I’m afraid the situation is much worse than I ever thought.
    

As
I said before and will say again (and women will agree with me as
long as it’s off the record), women hold far greater potential power
in relationships because their consent makes possible every crucial
juncture, from the first date, to engagement, to the wedding day. 
Female consent also controls the timing of these events as well
as the nature of the man with which the woman chooses to spend her
life.  Yet this phenomenal power is continually used in such
an irresponsible way and the end results are either a blanket hatred
of men or a perplexity as to why they "won’t commit."

This
latter point is endlessly examined in supermarket checkout line
magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Vogue, Glamour,
and Bazaar which print articles every month trying to unlock
"the mystery" of why men won’t commit to women and what
to do about it.  The articles are typically written by career
women who have had few, if any, long-term relationships themselves. 
Hence the advice is that women are always just one makeover, one
sexy outfit, one new "in" hairstyle away for snagging
their forever beau.  The magazines sell well despite the fact
that the advice never works.

Today
marriage is increasingly seen as a bad deal for responsible men
like my brothers who spent their 20s earning degrees and building
their careers as opposed to participating in Spring Break orgies. 
Sold on the lie that most women desired stable, faithful providers,
they have no interest in trading away their standard of living for
psychological baggage and numerous financial burdens not of their
own making.  Why would anyone be flattered to be someone else’s
last resort? 

As
far as the jerks go, men who get the benefits of marriage without
marriage don’t find marriage very appealing.  It’s not much
more complicated than that.  If women are really interested
in getting men to commit, for starters they should put their pants
back on.

June
28, 2001

Angela
Fiori [send her mail]
is a contributor to the Web's hottest investment letter, AgainstTheCrowd.com.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts