Various thoughts about women

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 tall
  • Being aloof and disinterested
  • Playing a musical instrument
  • Well-dressed
  • Stylish shoes
  • A deep voice
  • Handsome face
  • 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!

    Advertisements

    14 Responses to “Various thoughts about women”


    1. 1 McSpinster February 23, 2010 at 7:57 am

      Drew,

      Enjoyed your post until we got to the two paragraphs on women failing to “appreciate discussions about important matters” and not appreciating “important logical matters.” Wow. So that’s what all your smart analysis was leading to: the conclusion that dumb broads can still be virtuous?

      Surely, you do not know all women, and your focus on the less intellectually gifted says more about your preferences than half the human population. What kind of women have you been pursuing to make such a statement, exactly?

      Same deal with Wintery Knight, who appears to conflate his subjective experience (or lack thereof) with women with objective truth. But I guess that’s what one might come to expect from someone who uses a poll in the Daily News as a basis for making sophomoric statements on what all New York City women are like. Honestly, this is like getting relationship advice from Spitzer callgirl Ashley DuPree, now writing for that other paragon of NY journalism, The New York Post. Come one fellas. Dumb broads? Unvirtuous ladies? You reap what you sow.

      Here’s a thought based on another piece of wise Biblical teaching. Cast the beam out of thine own eye before writing another column about women.

      The view, I assure you, will be completely different.

    2. 2 phlebotnum February 23, 2010 at 10:35 am

      “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.”

      Wait…so because of scary unwomanly illogical feminism a woman isn’t vulnerable to a person determined to dehumanize her in a way that scars her for years to come? If I own a gun, stay “virtuous,” stop trying to act like a man (whatever that means) and attach myself to a logical and chivalrous male (and never, ever make him watch TLC) I will be safe from harm? Because I was raped in the year 2003, not the year 1103 and that has nothing to do with my sexual behavior and everything to do with my rapist’s actions. This Christian feminist thanks her lucky stars every day that there are progressive Christian men who love a strong woman.

    3. 3 Drew February 23, 2010 at 10:38 am

      @McSpinster

      I believe I mentioned specifically that “[t]here are a few women who enjoy discussing these matters logically, but not many.” As thus alluded to briefly, there are limited exceptions to that generality which I did not detail. For example, most girls with sociology/religious/political blogs tend to enjoy serious topics more than the average female. Here are a couple instances:
      http://pursuingholiness.com
      http://drhelen.blogspot.com

      But then again, this is also the internet and not the real world!

      Another exception is if you are talking about an important matter that has just directly impacted a girl. E.g., if a girl gets a ticket from one of those red-light ticket cameras, she will more likely listen to your rant about what a corrupt scam they are.

      @Phlebotnum

      I did not mean to imply that crime no longer exists. Nonetheless, if we take appropriate measures (such as arming ourselves and avoiding bad areas) we can frequently avoid it. Also, men are more likely to suffer from violent attacks than women. Thus, I do not believe crime requires that we reintroduce chivalry.

    4. 4 McSpinster February 23, 2010 at 5:08 pm

      “[t]here are a few women who enjoy discussing these matters logically, but not many.”

      That’s the problem. You’re generalizing the intellect of most women from the few you know. And it doesn’t sound to me like you’re palling around with Einsteins.

      You chose them. They’re your connections. What does that say about you??

      I’m not saying this to be provocative. But you’re speaking with a beam in your eye. Why not admit it and cast it out? You’d probably find a lot more intellectual women without that clouding your view.

    5. 5 McSpinster February 23, 2010 at 5:12 pm

      PS: more women than men graduating from college for several years now means that you should have a large pool of educated scholars from which to find new friends.

    6. 6 Drew February 23, 2010 at 9:44 pm

      I don’t believe I even said that I would prefer women to be intellectual or to discuss important matters; you’re just drawing that assumption. In fact, I have read that college-educated women are significantly more likely to file for divorce, so I’m not even overly keen on them.

      Of course, your assumption is *slightly* correct: All other things being *equal*, I would somewhat prefer a woman who liked to discuss important matters. But I wouldn’t put that characteristic high on my list of priorities because I don’t consider it a feminine trait. (In fact, I even criticized Wintery Knight’s view once by telling him that his emphasis on intellectual topics made it sound like he was looking to marry a man!)

      Overall, it is useful to have a woman who is wise, but being wise is different from being intellectual. I probably should’ve been more precise in distinguishing those two concepts in the initial post. For women, virtue is more important than wisdom, and wisdom is more important than intellectualism — which is actually not very important for them at all.

    7. 7 McSpinster February 23, 2010 at 10:36 pm

      “Women have outpaced men in acquiring education for a few decades now, with 185 women earning college degrees at age 22 for every 100 men, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

      Quoting the NYTimes here. SKipping down a paragraph, there’s this:

      “This new model of marriage thrives when households have the resources to enjoy their lives. Not surprisingly then, marital happiness is much higher among the college-educated and divorce has fallen most sharply for them.”

      You can check the article out here:

      http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/for-women-redefining-marriage-material/?scp=1&sq=marriage&st=cse

      THe conclusion of the authors of this blog is that divorce rates are higher in “traditional” marriages in which wives are not as educated as their husbands. This seems to be the model you favor, so be forewarned: the kind of relationship has less chance of success. A smart woman, in other words, is good to find.

    8. 8 Foxfier February 27, 2010 at 1:13 am

      Most of the women I know who have NEVER been married have no college…that would skew the results….

      Drew- from this side, and the right generation (no idea how old you are), drawing from the folks who didn’t consider sex to just be exercise-
      Woman’s first partner: guy who says he loves her, generally when alone; used and tossed. Maybe another one of these on the rebound, depending.
      Next: marriage to someone who is “fun” or “acceptable” or who they can fix.
      Find out it isn’t so, or they decide that you’re not what they wanted: divorce.
      Start cycle again.

      The good guys usually burnt by women in stage 1b or 2, or those who just see it as exercise; bad guys feeling justified because the general morality sucks, and since they’ve been wronged (and always, always, ALWAYS both sides can point out where the other side has wronged them) by a woman, they’re justified in wronging women in turn….

    9. 9 Drew February 27, 2010 at 3:05 am

      I’m a little undecided on whether college actually influences women *negatively*. For example, I’ve read that 90% of divorces among college educated couples are initiated by women, compared with 2/3 initiated by women for divorces in general. But I’ve also read that college-educated couples get divorced slightly less, perhaps as much as 1/3 less. (So doing the math, it would seem that women are roughly just as likely to initiate whether educated or not, whereas college men are less likely to file.) But suffice it to say that I don’t see that college does much to *improve* women in terms of relationship material.

      And yeah, I think it’s good to stay away from women who are caught in that cycle altogether. Basically, a lack of wisdom has led these women to a lack of virtue, which became a downward spiral. Men used to steer clear of women who weren’t virgins, unless they were just looking for a romp with a prostitute. Nowadays many people have forgotten the old wisdom.

    10. 10 McSpinster February 27, 2010 at 7:40 am

      Are you mulling this over because it’s interesting to do so? Or is it going to influence in some material way what you do today or tomorrow?

    11. 11 Foxfier February 27, 2010 at 10:32 am

      Don’t forget the other side of the equation.

      For that matter, don’t forget that there’s a need to fix the culture if you’re going to complain about it.

    12. 12 Wintery Knight February 28, 2010 at 5:09 am

      @Foxfier

      Thanks for giving us a female perspective on the problem.

    13. 13 Foxfier February 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm

      WK-
      I keep thinking of a gal I worked with. Cute girl– about 22 when I met her– who was sweet, affectionate to her friends, outgoing with a touch for dealing with people that I couldn’t manage with decades of practice, fun-loving with a joyful nature… who will sleep with anyone she finds even a little attractive if they show interest, because she’s been told that’s all she’s good for, and the only way she’ll ever get affection.
      The same guys who are delighted to make use of her body are happy to turn around and tell her that she’s basically used goods.

      I think of a guy I worked with– funny, quick-witted, insanely devoted to his wife…she then sold their house and everything they owned, bought a car in her own name, drained their accounts and left him while he was over seas. He found out when the mortgage bill bounced. I saw the insanity that drove him to, and suspect I know what he did on the rebound while he was too damaged to notice. I can’t condemn a woman that might go too far trying to stop that pain, when both sides have been told their entire lives that sleeping together is the only way to do so.

      Folks are being lied to, in a way that matches up with our impulses. Just as I wouldn’t look down on someone who converted to my faith just because they were once something else, I wouldn’t look down on someone who was harmed and came around.

    14. 14 McSpinster February 28, 2010 at 2:06 pm

      Nice, balanced response from Foxfier without the normal fingerpointing. Thanks.


    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s




    ANALYSIS
    YOU WON'T
    FIND ANYWHERE ELSE

    Author


    %d bloggers like this: