Quote: (05-22-2011 08:23 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
This article is just an exercise in shaming, one designed to get men to "sign on the dotted line" so to speak and enter contract en masse with women.
The problem is encompassed within a few of financial analogies I personally am fond of using: return on investment, risk, and the role incentives play in driving behavior.
1. Return on Investment(ROI): Most modern American women have a very poor ROI, especially for a reasonably successful, financially secure (or affluent) single guy in his 30's/40's. That guy is in his prime: with the affluence, experience and confidence he has attained over time, he can (assuming he's stayed in decent shape) pretty much have his pick of women.
This guy (rich, older, in shape) is the "Mr Big" that all the women want to snag, but they fail to realize that he has no incentive to let them snag him. To do so, he'd need to give up his sexual access to a wide variety of women, give up his financial freedom(tying much of it to her) and give up his independence. This all amounts to a massive investment, so we have to ask: what is the return? What does a woman bring to the table in return for all of the investment Mr. Big makes by committing to her?
To put it simply: Women are depreciating assets. This episode of the Tom Leykis show is a perfect descriptor of the topic. If you guys don't know about Tom Leykis, get on Youtube and start listening, there are hundreds of his shows recorded and posted there. He's like Roissy's father.
To summarize the video: The average American woman, even when attractive in her mid-20's, is a depreciating asset who would give Mr. Big a negative return on his investment. They just don't bring much to the table aside from their looks(which will deteriorate), and are thus better off rented or leased than bought(read: married).
American Mr. Bigs (and even the Mr. Above Averages or Mr. Somewhat Larges) are figuring this out, and they are selling their stock en-masse. The author of this article can't change that reality.
2. Risk: As noted above, men give up a lot and expose themselves to a lot by getting married. Marriage is a great deal for women: it provides them with more security, minimizing the risks that they would otherwise face. Men don't get those benefits, but instead receive more risks, which come primarily in the form of rather unfavorable divorce laws. By signing on the dotted line, they give a woman the opportunity to take half of his assets, his home and his children whenever she pleases, regardless of what he does and how good he is.
Does your average financier regularly take on extremely risky investments? Not often, especially when they don't offer the potential for extremely high returns(as noted in point one, ROI). Men aren't going to do things any differently.
3. Incentives drive behavior: This is a common saying in the financial world and it applies elsewhere as well. The female empowerment movements that began in the 60's and 70's accelerated the death of the patriarchy. Patriarchs(male heads of the family, "family guys") are no longer valuable, respected or widely appreciated in this society.
The "nice guys" who often evolve into the best "family guys" (the ones who would be most willing and able to get married and stay that way) are frequently avoided by women in this society in favor of men with less of a "nesting" demeanor (men generally referred to as "bad boys" for their lack of pedestalization of women and their unwillingness to embrace the traditional family man role). Guys who were raised to adhere to this role are, in quite large numbers, voicing their disappointment with their treatment by their female peers who don't seem to appreciate or respect them.
Why don't American women appreciate/respect them? Because while men have been raised to be "respectful" of women and pedestalize them (lest they be labelled misogynists), women have been raised to shake off those old traditional gender roles.
In other words, we've created an entirely new game with new rules that we allow women to play freely, but we haven't brought men up to speed. They're still playing by the old rules, and are thus getting caught off guard when they realize that "being nice" and doing everything a woman wants isn't the way to her heart. This society creates "nice guys" and then summarily makes it very difficult for them to succeed. This naturally breeds resentment, further eroding any incentive to play by the "traditional" rules and marry.
Watch American TV and you'll see many patriarchs portrayed on sitcoms and other shows as bumbling morons, outsmarted by their small female children and all of the women in their life.
In other words, what we are seeing is a society where men who want to marry, become family men and adhere to that type of traditional role and commitment are rejected, cheated on, and roundly insulted. The women don't appreciate them and the divorce laws are punitive.
There is ZERO incentive in this society to become a patriarch. Every card is stacked against them form the word "go" (childhood, when he's told how "being nice" wins women's hearts).
Of course, zero incentive to marry creates a lot of incentive to go the opposite route: play the field, and remain free. That path breeds a far happier existence in this society than "being a nice guy" and "manning up" to marry a woman does, which is why so many guys are taking it.
Nothing short of a widespread and fundamental shift in the way this society views and treats men (especially patriarchs) and how women behave and view men will stop this trend.
Quote: (05-23-2011 03:47 PM)babelfish669 Wrote:
Can someone write an article, "5 types of guys who get married before they are 35"
1. The Boring Loser that Snagged an Average Chick
2. The Guy That Has Only Had Sex with One Girl, His Wife
3. The Guy That Does What All His Friends Do And Doesn't Want To Get Left Out
4. The Poor Short Term Decision Maker
5. The Guy Whose Parents Still Tell Him What To Do
Quote: (07-06-2012 07:00 PM)Nonpareil Wrote:
Take it from a guy who has been single for over 3 years but has been in some LTRs; they are overrated, and you know who overrates them the most? The people who aren't in them.
5 misconceptions people who aren't in long-term relationships have about them:
1) LTRs are about effort-free sex (maybe at first...)
2) It's nice to be with someone who cares about you (most women don't care for men as much as they just don't want to be alone, most men don't care about women as much as they like fucking them.)
3) Long-term relationships are cheaper than chronic dating (again, maybe at first...)
4) It's wrong to sleep with someone you don't care about (hahahahahahahahahahaha!)
5) It's nice to be with someone that's loyal to you (most women [and men with game] are to loyal as dog is to polka-dot umbrella.)
And of course I hear 'But don't you want to get married someday!?', and I laugh; getting married in North America is like taking all of your shit and all of your money to Vegas and betting it on black.
But yes, this article, and people out there, act like choosing to be single (while slaying a bunch of ass) is a disease, and now this goofy beta is too (I love how many men out there are buying women's bullshit, less competition). I'm a partier-type, so that must mean I'll be relegated to an address book full of 'friends with benefits', oh no!
Quote: (07-07-2012 12:07 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:
On a deeper level, we should always be aware of what the media is trying to sell to us. Articles are written for a reason, and they are funded privately by individuals with an agenda. I wouldn't call myself paranoid, but the more I extricate myself from mainstream media, the more it all seems incredibly manipulative to me when I do encounter it. I haven't had a T.V. in about 10 years, and when I see it now, it blows me away that people can sit in front of this thing for hours at a time.
