Wintery Knight recently posted an article from the Weekly Standard describing the whorishness of today’s women.
[T]here’s currently a buyer’s market in women who are up for just about anything with the right kind of cad, what with delayed marriage (the average age for a woman’s first wedding is now 26, compared with 20 in 1960, according to the University of Virginia-based National Marriage Project’s latest report); reliable contraception; and advances in antibiotics (no more worries about what used to be called venereal disease). No-fault divorce, moreover, has pushed the marriage-dissolution rate up to between 40 and 50 percent and swelled the single-female population with “cougars” in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond. On top of it all is the feminist-driven academic and journalistic culture celebrating that yesterday’s “loose” women are today’s “liberated” women, able to proudly “explore their sexuality” without “getting punished for their lust,” as the feminist writer Naomi Wolf put it in the Guardian in December.
Urban life, furthermore, turns out to imitate Sex and the City. A survey reported in the New York Daily News around the time of the film’s release revealed that the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. By way of contrast, the median number of lifetime sex partners for all U.S. women ages 15 to 44 is just 3.3, according to the Census Bureau’s latest statistical abstract.
Just 3.3 partners on average. Hmm, well I guess that number could be worse! Of course, the study’s age range (15-44) probably fails to include a good number of widows and divorcées who remarry.
Overall, I would agree with the basic sentiment of the post — essentially, that most “women” these days are hardly worthy of the term.
But regarding how to interact with these unwomanly women, I find a danger in some of the complaining. For example, Wintery laments that women typically only judge men based on the following list of somewhat superficial attributes:
Being aloof and disinterested
Playing a musical instrument
A deep voice
Here I will come to the aid of women who care about these aforementioned factors. Most of these factors are actually natural and proper:
Being tall — Signifies physical power
Being aloof and disinterested — Signifies options
Playing a musical instrument — Signifies intellect and depth of soul
Being well-dressed — Signifies discipline and social awareness
Stylish shoes — Probably the same as above, although as far as I can tell women don’t really care about this factor
A deep voice — I’m not sure how much women care about this factor either, but it also signifies testosterone and power
Handsome face — Signifies healthy genes
The lament continues:
Consider confidence. Confidence is something that women often say they want. The problem is that an attitude of confidence can be faked when it rests on nothing.
This critique is absolutely true. But it is also absolutely true that a man without any confidence is still a boy. Confidence is not everything, certainly, but it is something. (Likewise, money is not everything, but it is something.)
Overall, therefore, I see nothing wrong with this list except its incompleteness. A woman should also take into account a man’s moral character, for example, as well as his earning capacity. Moral character is particularly important if she wants a marriage to endure and wants to raise her children properly. But of course, while moral character is something, it is not everything!
And so while I completely agree with condemning the sexual insanity of American culture, we must also maintain a realistic outlook and not attempt to create some bizarre “utopia” based on unnatural ideals. As mentioned above, we should not expect women to completely ignore their instincts. We should not expect them to be argued into love logically. A person wistfully dreaming about the day when women ignore their instincts is like a failed CEO crying at his desk over the fact that customers rejected his “brilliant” products. The products may have been brilliant and enlightened — but people will only pay money for products that they want.
A lot of guys (particularly the intellectuals) whine that women fail to appreciate discussions about important matters. Whereas men might turn to the History Channel while bored (and actually learn something), a woman will instead turn to something pointless like TLC or The Bachelor. Anyone who has attempted discussing politics or religion or science with a woman has learned that these topics generally lead no where. There are a few women who enjoy discussing these matters logically, but not many.
But just because a woman fails to appreciate important logical matters does not make her unvirtuous. It does not even make her useless. Women have their own qualities; affinity for important discussions simply is not one of them. Moreover, it is possible to be rather virtuous, yet also rather foolish. A relatively virtuous woman might foolishly marry a violent thug who beats her, leaves her, or winds up in prison. Although she made a dumb choice, she technically did nothing morally wrong. And if a nobler man managed to snag her instead, she would probably turn out to be a virtuous partner (although still unwise).
Ultimately, while wisdom among women is useful, I think virtue is far more important. If a woman is unwise, it just means you cannot leave her in charge of very much without worrying about her dumb decisions. But if she is immoral, it means you absolutely cannot trust her whatsoever. (Think: Audiotaped conversations, Legal fees, and Home DNA-hair-test kits.)
And aside from dreaming that women will turn into manly intellectuals, a lot of dreamers also hope that women will suddenly respond well to the outdated flattery of “chivalry.” Personally, I think the whole “gentleman” idea is a bit ridiculous. This is 2010, not 1310. Chivalry arose during a time when the governments were weak and women did not pretend to be men. Women could actually get physically attacked because they were weaker. Nowadays, governments are strong, crime is low, both sexes can own guns, and women generally try to act as though they were men. It is human nature to hold in contempt those who give us unneeded and undeserved help and flattery. Therefore, desiring a return of chivalry in modern society is like dreaming for communism. It is unnatural and just doesn’t make any sense.
Personally, I like to treat women with the same amount of respect with which I treat men. If I would open a door for a girl, I do it for guys as well! These women do not need any more affirmative action. Perhaps if a woman EARNS my continued respect and admiration by demonstrating friendliness AND virtue AND femininity, THEN I might consider treating her like a lady/princess — but not before.
Now some of you might be asking, “Drew why are you posting about women? How full of yourself you are! Do you think you’re an expert or something?!” Of course not. In fact, I do not believe anyone can be an expert over today’s women — not in the modern climate. Women today are far too diverse, unpredictable, legally overempowered, and dangerous! But I still post about things that need to be said, regardless of whether I have mastered them. After all, this is the DREW BLOG, where you can always find 100% pure truth. Also, I am posting because the UT Federalist Society is having a feminism panel this Thursday and giving out high-quality pizza, but they wouldn’t let me be on the panel to give my own views about women. So there you have them, Kimmie!