A big part of the problem is that women want too much from men these days. I don't mean expecting him to be employed and not abusive, I mean this, which I found online somewhere:
"It’s often impossible to navigate her mile-long list of contradictory requirements.
You need to be strong & stable but only when appropriate, and not too much or you’re a soulless rock, but you also need to be vulnerable & emotional - but similarly, only when appropriate and not too much, otherwise you’re not worthy of respect. You need to be sensitive, but only when she wants you to be, and not when it makes her uncomfortable.
You need to be independent and put together, able to handle all of your own shit without outside help, but you also need to open up and be open to being dependent on her in exactly the idealized way she imagines you should be, but not at all beyond that capacity.
You need to be in good shape and fit, but also not in the gym all the time.
You need a decent social life & friends to display you’re functional and not a serial killer, but you also need to not spend that much time with them or place so much importance on them that they might ever take precedence over your relationship with her.
You need to be funny and charming and entertaining and appealing and make every effort to go the extra mile, but you also need to temper how interested you appear to be - otherwise you’re coming on too strong. But also, if you don’t appear sufficiently interested, she’ll think you don’t like her at all, even if you keep making all the effort to interact with her regularly.
You need to make the move, but only when she’s comfortable and not a second beforehand, because that will make her uncomfortable, and she won’t tell you when you’re on the right side of that line - and if you ask, there’s a decent chance that can and will ruin the moment. But also, you need to respect her autonomy and boundaries and not do anything that could be perceived as pushy, so you better thread the needle, but also, if you don’t make a move when you’re supposed to, then the responsibility is entirely on you.
And if things fizzle, that’s your fault and not hers, and she will immediately assume you aren’t that interested in her if you didn’t make a move when you were supposed to, so you had better get good at reading minds.
You have to just know that there is a mile-long list of other requirements unstated by a woman that she may not even be consciously aware of - like you need to seriously hit the gym for those impressive gains and always be hustling for more green."
What's a man want? Well, she has to be pretty, nice to him and not a psycho.
I think I saw that same article you read and came away thinking that us guys can't win for losing. Like John wrote in one of his essays, we don't want to marry up a slut. either. I didn't ever want a woman who slept with some "superhunk" who had slept with a hundred women before her. I did not expect or demand virginity, but I wanted a woman who was attractive, smart, kind, hard-working, and responsible with money. It didn't matter to me if she worked as a janitor or a typist or in a restaurant, or how much money she made. The idea of "leveling up" is something a woman can and should do if they plan to be single. A "girl boss" that works 80 hours a week maybe doesn't need a husband, or have time for a family anyways.
There is much - well merited - concern about the low level of marriages, the dearth of babies being born, the high rate of divorce, etc.
I'm very interested in the subject of boy-meets-girl problems and I've followed what Hawkins says on the subject with great interest. I learned from his self-help book the different attitude of women on solving problems and I recommend to all subscribers that they looks at this. I guess I was vaguely aware that men and women differ in their attitudes toward problems but Hawkins set it all out clearly.
Unlike a lot of people, I am not surprised at the low figures of marriage, the birth rate dropping to a little more than 1/3rd replacement level and so on.
On the contrary, given how poisonous - or, better put, poisoned - the atmosphere is on relations between the 2 sexes, my surprise is that the figures aren't lower.
So here's my observation:
I think the System, i.e. the liberal/leftist nomenklatura that rules or misrules us, very cleverly set out to poison the well on marriage, children, etc. decades ago when I was a college student in the 1960s.
When I was a college kid, there were 2 very different ideas being pushed by the establishment, both of which were chic, cool and socially acceptable.
But both of which were utterly antithetical but somehow never clashed and ran on parallel but separate tracks , so to speak.
These 2 conflicting but both cool and chic theories were:
1. The Playboy philosophy.
2. Feminism.
Each of these philosophies encouraged and promoted the worst features of each sex.
The Playboy philosophy was "pump and dump." To behave in what we had previously considered to be the way a "cad" behaved.
The Playboy philosophy told us guys to engage in the promiscuity that young men desire. To seduce women. To prey on women. To be cool by not thinking about life seriously....about marriage, having children, the woman whom you wanted to be the mother of your children, behaving responsibly about going old, etc. Even being concerned about the possibility of incurring a sexually transmitted disease, possibly infecting a woman with such a disease and so on was either ignored or even ridiculed as the thinking of a "square", an uncool guy.
Feminism encouraged women's selfishness. Not to ruffle the feathers of the women who have posted comments here (because I am most certainly NOT a misogynist) but I do think women are less idealistic, less inclined to put the opposite sex on a pedestal and more focused on themselves and their immediate needs.
Feminism encouraged women to be cold and "professional", to demean their boy friends and husbands.
These 2 conflicting philosophies ought to have been at each other's throats.
The Playboy guys ought to have opposed feminists but not so. Playboy magazine featured flattering, suck up interviews with feminist men-haters like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. (I know, because, to be completely honest, I liked to look at Playboy and like all boys I liked especially to look at the pictures of the "Bunnies" in the fold-outs, even though I knew it was wrong. So, I read the Steinem and Friedan articles and I did not like them. To be fair to myself, I also did not approve of the Playboy outlook on women and the glorification of "cad" behavior.)
The feminists should have targeted Playboy's soft porn. They should have denounced Playboy and tried to shame guys who were hooked on it.
But that didn't happen either.
Oddly enough, these 2 conflicting philosophies shared one thing in common:
They were cool. They were chic.
I was puzzled by this strange playout on the 2 philosophies.
Only as I grew older and became more aware of how the liberal establishment string-pullers are adversarial to our country, our race and our society did I come to understand why these 2 conflicting philosophies did not collide but instead, as with the flattering, groveling interviews in Playboy with Friedan and Steinem, usually functioned as mutually reinforcing and both of which were socially accepted.
The reason for this?
Both philosophies appealed to the negative features of each sex.
Both philosophies were calculated to disrupt lives, marriages and the birth and rearing of children...all of which are things the liberal establishment wants.
I have really enjoyed the comments on this article. You are all thinking....very unamerican thing to do.
I have a couple of additional comments but I will add them as postscripts for those few who might want to read further, since this comment is already too long
Sam Dickson
PS #1:
My father was a Presbyterian minister. He had all the behavior patterns of Calvinists - he was well educated, smart, shrewd in business. He was #1 in his seminary class and was #1 in all of the classical liturgical languages - Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He was an independent thinker and an admirable citizen. He also was a hard - even harsh - and demanding and rather chilly father. I always admired him....more than I loved him and I did love him, although at times this was hard to do.
Father had a wry, humorous, shrewd side to him.
When I was a boy at about puberty age, Father explained something about marriage to me.
He said:
"Sam, we are Christians and we have a Christian family. Just as the Bible says, I am the head of the family as you will be one day if and when you get married.
"As head of the family, I decide all of the big issues. I decide whether Red China gets in the UN. I decide how many sacraments there are. I decide whether the Pope is infallible.
"Your mother is not the head of the family and she does not decide big matters as I do.
"Your mother decides the little things. She decides where we live, what cars we drive, what we have for dinner and what we wear.
"This is how marriage as a practical matter works out. We guys decide the big things and our women decide the little things."
Behind the humor, I think this idea is also profoundly true of the 2 sexes. Men are better at long term thinking. Women are better at short term thinking. But nowadays, this is all screwed up.
P.S.#2:
For you women out there, I hope I can assuage your anger at what I wrote in my main comment that kind of put you down by saying that my experience is that you are more selfish (and less forgiving) than men.
This is a piece of "practical" advice.
You must understand that living in a marriage with a guy inevitably and unavoidably comes with problems.
You should think of it like having a cat.
If you have a cat to cuddle and love, the litterbox comes with the cat.
The husband comes with his own sort of litterbox.
You learn to cope with it and it doesn't prevent you from loving your cat.
You should accord the same attitude toward your man.
If I had allowed it to occur like so many of my divorced friends, I would be divorced too. Females initiate divorce more often than do males, so my not allowing it to occur was more defense than offence, and it was more helpful to my wife than me... even though feminists would brand me a jerk.
The thing that I did not allow was my wife treating me like a subordinate child and controlling me as was in her nature.
Here is how that usually plays out.
She wants to control and uses mood swings to get her way. Her husband capitulates because of the "happy wife, happy life" mythology. She gets her way but then loses respect for her husband being a wuss. The husband, being bossed and not cared for by his wife, wanders off to have affairs to get the attention he craves. She files for divorce.
I trained my wife as to what the line was and what I expected as her husband. I constantly reinforced what I was willing to do, and what I was not. However, I also pulled my weight in household chores, etc. I reminder her that I was her husband and not one of her kids. It led to fights and her being temporarily miffed at me for her inability to control me, but in the long-run it reinforced her attraction to me as being a strong and independent man that she respected.
Frankly, a lot of female behavior with respect to a romantic partnership relationship is largely dysfunctional. It is driven by emotional impulses that are likely keyed to evolutionary biology but can be toxic if not externally regulated. Traditionally the male in the relationship provided this external regulation.
Now, my approach likely worked because I have been the primary breadwinner, and my wife the stay-at-home mother (she worked half time for her entire career after the kids were born).
Take the situation where the wife is the primary breadwinner... the head of the family. She absolutely will not allow any external regulation. She rules the roost and is entitled to her dominance. She can attract weak men, but she won't be attracted to them. She is mistaken in her belief that her academic and career achievements moved her into higher status where she deserves the best of everything including the best men. But the best men are not interested in a life where they would be dominated and controlled by a girlboss woman... the gender lacking relationship destroying impulse control. Just look at the educated chicks protesting in rage about almost everything and, if a good man, ask yourself if you would want to date or marry one.
Here is the thing... it isn't that good men reject a woman because she has decided to focus on career. It is because the good men know that a relationship with a career girlboss is similar to living in an asylum run by the head inmate. Her academic and career achievements have not at all altered her fundamental requirement for external control, but it has given her the power to reject it.
Frank, you continue to impress me with your courage in speaking your mind. Because when it comes to criticizing a woman, truth is not a defense, in their eyes. In WI, we have had three Supreme Court races in the last 5 years, and everyone has been won by a left-wing white woman beating a more conservative man. The fact that they have all lied about the same bogus issue doesn't seem to matter; they all campaign on the same lie; "if my opponent (a man) wins, he will vote to send abortion doctors to prison under an 1847 law." Of course this has never happened and wouldn't, yet the current female candidate Chris Taylor will probably win by getting hordes of women to vote to preserve women's rights, even and disgustingly when that means the right to kill their babies. The one superpower women have over men, and they don't even cherish that. Yes, I get dirty looks when I mention that in mixed company. The feminization of America is ruining our nation but it has all the momentum right now; even that blockhead Kamala almost won. Thanks for your insights, Frank, I will take your words to heart.
Thanks for posting this essay, it's well written and interesting. I'm really look forward to reading your next essay after your interview with Dr Helen Smith. I want to commend you on your courage, as a man we have to walk through a mine field with our ladies. Jason Whitlock likes to talk about how a sports talk show loses its edge or truth when an attractive woman is included, because they don't want to burn any bridges just in case there's even a remote chance that there might be a hook up. I see the feminization of America as a huge problem, but am reluctant to express that in mixed company lest I trigger a feminine discourse about my "toxic masculinity." It has always been a challenge, but it's gotten so much worse since the 1980's when I first started dating that I feel for these guys. Yeah, the Girl boss craze continues; how many guys do you think will go see "Supergirl" in the theater, (no matter how hot she will probably look...)? Sheesh.
A big part of the problem is that women want too much from men these days. I don't mean expecting him to be employed and not abusive, I mean this, which I found online somewhere:
"It’s often impossible to navigate her mile-long list of contradictory requirements.
You need to be strong & stable but only when appropriate, and not too much or you’re a soulless rock, but you also need to be vulnerable & emotional - but similarly, only when appropriate and not too much, otherwise you’re not worthy of respect. You need to be sensitive, but only when she wants you to be, and not when it makes her uncomfortable.
You need to be independent and put together, able to handle all of your own shit without outside help, but you also need to open up and be open to being dependent on her in exactly the idealized way she imagines you should be, but not at all beyond that capacity.
You need to be in good shape and fit, but also not in the gym all the time.
You need a decent social life & friends to display you’re functional and not a serial killer, but you also need to not spend that much time with them or place so much importance on them that they might ever take precedence over your relationship with her.
You need to be funny and charming and entertaining and appealing and make every effort to go the extra mile, but you also need to temper how interested you appear to be - otherwise you’re coming on too strong. But also, if you don’t appear sufficiently interested, she’ll think you don’t like her at all, even if you keep making all the effort to interact with her regularly.
You need to make the move, but only when she’s comfortable and not a second beforehand, because that will make her uncomfortable, and she won’t tell you when you’re on the right side of that line - and if you ask, there’s a decent chance that can and will ruin the moment. But also, you need to respect her autonomy and boundaries and not do anything that could be perceived as pushy, so you better thread the needle, but also, if you don’t make a move when you’re supposed to, then the responsibility is entirely on you.
And if things fizzle, that’s your fault and not hers, and she will immediately assume you aren’t that interested in her if you didn’t make a move when you were supposed to, so you had better get good at reading minds.
You have to just know that there is a mile-long list of other requirements unstated by a woman that she may not even be consciously aware of - like you need to seriously hit the gym for those impressive gains and always be hustling for more green."
What's a man want? Well, she has to be pretty, nice to him and not a psycho.
I think I saw that same article you read and came away thinking that us guys can't win for losing. Like John wrote in one of his essays, we don't want to marry up a slut. either. I didn't ever want a woman who slept with some "superhunk" who had slept with a hundred women before her. I did not expect or demand virginity, but I wanted a woman who was attractive, smart, kind, hard-working, and responsible with money. It didn't matter to me if she worked as a janitor or a typist or in a restaurant, or how much money she made. The idea of "leveling up" is something a woman can and should do if they plan to be single. A "girl boss" that works 80 hours a week maybe doesn't need a husband, or have time for a family anyways.
There is much - well merited - concern about the low level of marriages, the dearth of babies being born, the high rate of divorce, etc.
I'm very interested in the subject of boy-meets-girl problems and I've followed what Hawkins says on the subject with great interest. I learned from his self-help book the different attitude of women on solving problems and I recommend to all subscribers that they looks at this. I guess I was vaguely aware that men and women differ in their attitudes toward problems but Hawkins set it all out clearly.
Unlike a lot of people, I am not surprised at the low figures of marriage, the birth rate dropping to a little more than 1/3rd replacement level and so on.
On the contrary, given how poisonous - or, better put, poisoned - the atmosphere is on relations between the 2 sexes, my surprise is that the figures aren't lower.
So here's my observation:
I think the System, i.e. the liberal/leftist nomenklatura that rules or misrules us, very cleverly set out to poison the well on marriage, children, etc. decades ago when I was a college student in the 1960s.
When I was a college kid, there were 2 very different ideas being pushed by the establishment, both of which were chic, cool and socially acceptable.
But both of which were utterly antithetical but somehow never clashed and ran on parallel but separate tracks , so to speak.
These 2 conflicting but both cool and chic theories were:
1. The Playboy philosophy.
2. Feminism.
Each of these philosophies encouraged and promoted the worst features of each sex.
The Playboy philosophy was "pump and dump." To behave in what we had previously considered to be the way a "cad" behaved.
The Playboy philosophy told us guys to engage in the promiscuity that young men desire. To seduce women. To prey on women. To be cool by not thinking about life seriously....about marriage, having children, the woman whom you wanted to be the mother of your children, behaving responsibly about going old, etc. Even being concerned about the possibility of incurring a sexually transmitted disease, possibly infecting a woman with such a disease and so on was either ignored or even ridiculed as the thinking of a "square", an uncool guy.
Feminism encouraged women's selfishness. Not to ruffle the feathers of the women who have posted comments here (because I am most certainly NOT a misogynist) but I do think women are less idealistic, less inclined to put the opposite sex on a pedestal and more focused on themselves and their immediate needs.
Feminism encouraged women to be cold and "professional", to demean their boy friends and husbands.
These 2 conflicting philosophies ought to have been at each other's throats.
The Playboy guys ought to have opposed feminists but not so. Playboy magazine featured flattering, suck up interviews with feminist men-haters like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. (I know, because, to be completely honest, I liked to look at Playboy and like all boys I liked especially to look at the pictures of the "Bunnies" in the fold-outs, even though I knew it was wrong. So, I read the Steinem and Friedan articles and I did not like them. To be fair to myself, I also did not approve of the Playboy outlook on women and the glorification of "cad" behavior.)
The feminists should have targeted Playboy's soft porn. They should have denounced Playboy and tried to shame guys who were hooked on it.
But that didn't happen either.
Oddly enough, these 2 conflicting philosophies shared one thing in common:
They were cool. They were chic.
I was puzzled by this strange playout on the 2 philosophies.
Only as I grew older and became more aware of how the liberal establishment string-pullers are adversarial to our country, our race and our society did I come to understand why these 2 conflicting philosophies did not collide but instead, as with the flattering, groveling interviews in Playboy with Friedan and Steinem, usually functioned as mutually reinforcing and both of which were socially accepted.
The reason for this?
Both philosophies appealed to the negative features of each sex.
Both philosophies were calculated to disrupt lives, marriages and the birth and rearing of children...all of which are things the liberal establishment wants.
I have really enjoyed the comments on this article. You are all thinking....very unamerican thing to do.
I have a couple of additional comments but I will add them as postscripts for those few who might want to read further, since this comment is already too long
Sam Dickson
PS #1:
My father was a Presbyterian minister. He had all the behavior patterns of Calvinists - he was well educated, smart, shrewd in business. He was #1 in his seminary class and was #1 in all of the classical liturgical languages - Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He was an independent thinker and an admirable citizen. He also was a hard - even harsh - and demanding and rather chilly father. I always admired him....more than I loved him and I did love him, although at times this was hard to do.
Father had a wry, humorous, shrewd side to him.
When I was a boy at about puberty age, Father explained something about marriage to me.
He said:
"Sam, we are Christians and we have a Christian family. Just as the Bible says, I am the head of the family as you will be one day if and when you get married.
"As head of the family, I decide all of the big issues. I decide whether Red China gets in the UN. I decide how many sacraments there are. I decide whether the Pope is infallible.
"Your mother is not the head of the family and she does not decide big matters as I do.
"Your mother decides the little things. She decides where we live, what cars we drive, what we have for dinner and what we wear.
"This is how marriage as a practical matter works out. We guys decide the big things and our women decide the little things."
Behind the humor, I think this idea is also profoundly true of the 2 sexes. Men are better at long term thinking. Women are better at short term thinking. But nowadays, this is all screwed up.
P.S.#2:
For you women out there, I hope I can assuage your anger at what I wrote in my main comment that kind of put you down by saying that my experience is that you are more selfish (and less forgiving) than men.
This is a piece of "practical" advice.
You must understand that living in a marriage with a guy inevitably and unavoidably comes with problems.
You should think of it like having a cat.
If you have a cat to cuddle and love, the litterbox comes with the cat.
The husband comes with his own sort of litterbox.
You learn to cope with it and it doesn't prevent you from loving your cat.
You should accord the same attitude toward your man.
If I had allowed it to occur like so many of my divorced friends, I would be divorced too. Females initiate divorce more often than do males, so my not allowing it to occur was more defense than offence, and it was more helpful to my wife than me... even though feminists would brand me a jerk.
The thing that I did not allow was my wife treating me like a subordinate child and controlling me as was in her nature.
Here is how that usually plays out.
She wants to control and uses mood swings to get her way. Her husband capitulates because of the "happy wife, happy life" mythology. She gets her way but then loses respect for her husband being a wuss. The husband, being bossed and not cared for by his wife, wanders off to have affairs to get the attention he craves. She files for divorce.
I trained my wife as to what the line was and what I expected as her husband. I constantly reinforced what I was willing to do, and what I was not. However, I also pulled my weight in household chores, etc. I reminder her that I was her husband and not one of her kids. It led to fights and her being temporarily miffed at me for her inability to control me, but in the long-run it reinforced her attraction to me as being a strong and independent man that she respected.
Frankly, a lot of female behavior with respect to a romantic partnership relationship is largely dysfunctional. It is driven by emotional impulses that are likely keyed to evolutionary biology but can be toxic if not externally regulated. Traditionally the male in the relationship provided this external regulation.
Now, my approach likely worked because I have been the primary breadwinner, and my wife the stay-at-home mother (she worked half time for her entire career after the kids were born).
Take the situation where the wife is the primary breadwinner... the head of the family. She absolutely will not allow any external regulation. She rules the roost and is entitled to her dominance. She can attract weak men, but she won't be attracted to them. She is mistaken in her belief that her academic and career achievements moved her into higher status where she deserves the best of everything including the best men. But the best men are not interested in a life where they would be dominated and controlled by a girlboss woman... the gender lacking relationship destroying impulse control. Just look at the educated chicks protesting in rage about almost everything and, if a good man, ask yourself if you would want to date or marry one.
Here is the thing... it isn't that good men reject a woman because she has decided to focus on career. It is because the good men know that a relationship with a career girlboss is similar to living in an asylum run by the head inmate. Her academic and career achievements have not at all altered her fundamental requirement for external control, but it has given her the power to reject it.
Frank, you continue to impress me with your courage in speaking your mind. Because when it comes to criticizing a woman, truth is not a defense, in their eyes. In WI, we have had three Supreme Court races in the last 5 years, and everyone has been won by a left-wing white woman beating a more conservative man. The fact that they have all lied about the same bogus issue doesn't seem to matter; they all campaign on the same lie; "if my opponent (a man) wins, he will vote to send abortion doctors to prison under an 1847 law." Of course this has never happened and wouldn't, yet the current female candidate Chris Taylor will probably win by getting hordes of women to vote to preserve women's rights, even and disgustingly when that means the right to kill their babies. The one superpower women have over men, and they don't even cherish that. Yes, I get dirty looks when I mention that in mixed company. The feminization of America is ruining our nation but it has all the momentum right now; even that blockhead Kamala almost won. Thanks for your insights, Frank, I will take your words to heart.
Thanks for posting this essay, it's well written and interesting. I'm really look forward to reading your next essay after your interview with Dr Helen Smith. I want to commend you on your courage, as a man we have to walk through a mine field with our ladies. Jason Whitlock likes to talk about how a sports talk show loses its edge or truth when an attractive woman is included, because they don't want to burn any bridges just in case there's even a remote chance that there might be a hook up. I see the feminization of America as a huge problem, but am reluctant to express that in mixed company lest I trigger a feminine discourse about my "toxic masculinity." It has always been a challenge, but it's gotten so much worse since the 1980's when I first started dating that I feel for these guys. Yeah, the Girl boss craze continues; how many guys do you think will go see "Supergirl" in the theater, (no matter how hot she will probably look...)? Sheesh.