NY Times Defends Single Motherhood

by W.F. Price on August 14, 2012

Katie Roiphe wrote an apologia for single motherhood that displays a distinctly different tone from what we might have seen a few years ago, when they were lionized as the true heroes that will bring forth a better world.

First, she admits that she, herself, is a single mother:

I happen to have two children with two different fathers, neither of whom I live with, and both of whom we are close to. I am lucky enough to be living in financially stable, relatively privileged circumstances, and to have had the education that allows me to do so. I am not the “typical” single mother, but then there is no typical single mother any more than there is a typical mother. It is, in fact, our fantasies and crude stereotypes of this “typical single mother” that get in the way of a more rational, open-minded understanding of the variety and richness of different kinds of families.

It’s all well and good that Mizz Roiphe can partake of the sperm buffet, fertilizing her eggs with multiple men, and still write for the Times and keep her job as a journalism professor at NYU. But it isn’t as much of an accomplishment as some might think. There’s a kind of socialism for cultural elites in cities like NY and San Francisco, largely pioneered by “alternative lifestyle” proponents (lesbians), that keeps these scribblers in decent digs while they do Bohemian work. The vast majority – and I mean VAST – of the US has no access to the subsidized daycare, student housing and flexible hours that characterize these people’s lives.

Perhaps this is why she denies the existence of the “typical single mother,” who is actually very, very real. There’s a slim sort of difference between Roiphe and the ghetto mamas if you take into account public benefits, and in this matter women like Roiphe probably make out better than their dimmer counterparts, but the behavior of their respective progeny tends to be different. Where Roiphe can probably expect that her children will at least make the lower middle class (although probably not much better statistically speaking), the typical single mother is raising future inhabitants of our overpopulated penitentiaries.

Yes, there is a “typical single mother,” and she’s a very common breed. Roiphe can try as she will to erase the stigma, but that bloody spot just won’t wash out.

Furthermore, she claims that she’s creating a family of sorts. Her son, she says, has started to identify with his half-sister’s father (to whom she is not married):

At 2, my son, Leo, started to call his sister’s father, Harry, “my Harry.” When he glimpsed Harry’s chocolate-brown 1980s car coming down our block he would say, “My Harry’s car!” To me this unorthodox use of “my” gets at the spirit of what we’re doing: inventing a family from scratch. There are no words for what Harry is to him, but he is definitely his Harry.

The other day Leo brushed his mop of blond hair in front of the mirror and announced, “Now I look like Harry.” People are quick to tell me that this is not the real thing. But is it necessarily worse than “the real thing”? Is the physical presence of a man in the home truly as transfiguring, magical and unadulteratedly essential as people seem to think? One could argue that a well-loved child is a well-loved child.

How sweet… A fatherless child is identifying with some dude who comes around every now and then for a quickie with his mother. We all know the good that does for little boys. According to Roiphe, this is how you “invent” a family. I used to sometimes visit friends in the projects when I was a kid, and there was a lot of “invention” going on there, if you want to call it that.

Roiphe says that the studies pointing to poor outcomes for children of single mothers are really worthless after all. Feminists have long relied on (questionable) studies to prove a lot of things. For example, that fathers are unnecessary. That lesbian couples make better parents. And so on and so forth. Problem is, as empirical research catches up to feminist fabrication, these earlier studies are falling like soldiers at Stalingrad.

So what’s a single mama to do? Why, dismiss the studies, of course:

Studies like those done by the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan, who is one of the foremost authorities on single motherhood and its impact on children, show that conditions like poverty and instability, which frequently accompany single-mother households, increase the chances that the children involved will experience alcoholism, mental illness, academic failure and other troubles. But there is no conclusive evidence that, absent those conditions, the pure, pared-down state of single motherhood is itself dangerous to children.

Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a “pure, pared-down state of single motherhood” — least of all “pure.” It’s more like a filthy, welfare-bloated state of single motherhood.

But never fear, Roiphe tells us what the real problem is:

Attention should be paid to the serious underlying economic inequities, without the colorful surface distraction of concerned or judgmental prurience. Let’s abandon the fundamentally frothy question of who is wearing a ring. Young men need jobs so they can pay child support and contribute more meaningfully to the households they are living in.

That’s it, fellas. If only the guys could fork over more child support, single motherhood would be a dream.

{ 79 comments… read them below or add one }

George B. August 15, 2012 at 00:08

I’m actually glad the misandrists aren’t waking up yet. The longer they take to wake up, the more time men have to see them for who they really are (and be disgusted and disattach themselves from women emotionally and psychologically and culturally) and the less likely men will be to go back to “playing house” with women when matriarchy finally collapses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH August 15, 2012 at 00:09

It is becoming apparent that human society has evolved to funnel as many resources to women as possible, because until recently, funneling resources to women had a direct correlation to the survival of children.

But two things changed very recently by historical standards :

1) Women went from using their full lifetime reproductive capacity, to just 10-20% of it (and with many women using zero)..
2) Economic prosperity has now risen above a level where child mortality was a daily occurance.

Hence, the principle of funneling all resources to women (and the fact that women have evolved to endlessly demand these resources), are obsolete.

Resources being funneled to women today represents a huge misallocation of resources. 95% of the things we see in any department store are things no straight man would ever buy, and certainly do not correlate to the survival of children. That is huge evidence of resource misallocation to women.

I think the androsphere is a portent of something even bigger than we think. It represents the earliest stages of an event that will re-arrange the very fabric of humanity.

The traditional/biological reasons for funneling *all* resources to women no longer exist, and the beings who were the most expendable in the past (average males), also happen to be the beings who create all new technology and infrastructure. It is no longer feasible for the producers to also be the most expendable…

We, the androsphere, are the earliest stages of a major re-adjustment. This is THE biggest adjustment humanity will have ever seen to date.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
jaego August 15, 2012 at 00:12

I remember her stand against the date rape hysteria. She had some real clarity and charity. Too bad she couldn’t maintain it. But most people can’t be better than their circumstance. She had kids out of wedlock and/or divorce – and now she tries to justify her estate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian August 15, 2012 at 00:36

TFH wrote, “Resources being funneled to women today represents a huge misallocation of resources.”

False because the free market says so. People don’t continue to produce things that nobody wants. Lots of buyers are women and women buy womanly things. This is no surprise and is not a misallocation of resources.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
wobbegong August 15, 2012 at 01:01

“My Harry”

I find this part of her article very interesting. My mother was associated with one of Australia’s leading feminists in the late 70′s to mid 80′s.

This butch dyke was the ‘father’ of a girl with her feminine GF. A gay male friend provided the necessary genetic input.

My parents would sometimes look after this sweet and very girly little girl. She would snuggle up between them point to either in turn and say “mummy and daddy”. She did this despite heavy programming from her mother and ‘father’.

You just can’t beat nature!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Madvillainy August 15, 2012 at 01:25

It’s tough to get used to the inherent solipsism of women. Sure men are solipsistic too, just not nearly on the level of women. Proof of that are the infinite white knights and male feminists carrying women on their backs for nothing in return, directly or indirectly. While we can’t say the same for women, who show virtually zero concern and empathy for men as a group or individually, unless that man is directly helping her of course.

They can’t help it. Just like Ralph Kramden’s mother-in-law: she’s a blabbermouth, a blabbermouth! She was born that way.

The problem is the majority of men don’t learn and understand the true solipsistic nature of women until they get burnt, sometimes badly and permanently. Society lies to men to prevent them from getting uppity and living a life liberated from the female imperative. It’s crucial they control the cultural narrative, keeping men manned up and in line. Free speech on the internet is making them nervous.

A lot of men, even blue pill men, sort of roll their eyes at the stuff women say in these types of articles, and at most of the complaining women do in general. We know they rationalize their choices because they can, we know deep down they’re held much less accountable for their actions. We know they’ll never admit that they do need men, at least indirectly. For some reason it’s a blow to female pride to admit that.

Just be thankful you found the Spearhead and the manosphere and are an unapologetic, guilt-free man liberated from the female imperative. What a weight off!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TiredGuy August 15, 2012 at 02:18

Having lived in several countries where there is no child-support or welfare, I know that there is only one way to end this stupidity. Let the economy crash – when the cold hard facts of life can no longer be ignored, suddenly you’ll find every woman clamouring for traditional gender-roles.

This has happened before (the fall of Rome) and it took about 1500 years for men to forget what happens when you let feminism take control of the government. So a few single mothers are going to go hungry, oh well. The world will keep on turning…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 15, 2012 at 02:40

When I read Katie’s article it made me physically ill. Katie the, bastard breeder, has no concept of what harm she is bringing upon men and children. Furthermore she is a professor of journalism, and so is in a very powerful position to propagate her “Franken-family” as a warm and fuzzy lifestyle choice.

The New York times has traditionally focused as a social engineering tool and oracle. One can see which direction our elite masters want to take society by reading between the lines of the Grey Lady.

I don’t understand how elites can profit long-term from promoting bastard breeding, because in the end, the population must decline. Men will not risk slavery and the bastardization of their children and will stop having children. This population decline reduces the tax base and potential consumers; something against traditional elite goals.

What gives? Is population decline the goal?

Or are elites trying to re-define the father, mother, two children family into a father, father, mother, two children Franken-family?

Demented. Absolutely demented. I wish I were younger. I would exit this hell hole.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus August 15, 2012 at 03:09

I hope Mr Price will forgive me for this (well if you can see, it he must have) for although it is off topic, it is so priceless (and funny) that I cannot resist. I came across it rather accidently last night.

There is a Facebook page entitled Run with Tina – it is run entirely by women for women [Is that legal?].

At 06.55 on the 11th August, Run with Tina, made a status update which read:

“I have just updated our ‘instructors page’ [on their web-site] check out our lovely team here ps We are always looking for new instructors…”

After two brief responses on Sunday, a man – Andy Gibson – left a message at 12.44 on Monday. It reads as follows:

“So members of your current team include a fitness instructor, a choreographer and a physio. I’d say none of them are qualified to be a running instructor. Where are the Athletic Coaches?!

You’re charging 135 Euros for eight weeks of instruction for complete beginners, when many of those type of programmes can be found by using a search engine on the Internet.

I’d suggest this is simply a money-making enterprise run by people who know little, or nothing, about running.

Ladies, if you want to learn to run, approach your local running club, who will teach you for free!”

There are so far eight, lengthy, angry, replies to Andy Gibson from members of Run with Tina. Andy Gibson has not responded further.

A visit to the web-site is even better as it includes testimonials from happy-punters including the priceless: “This is like running with a Hen Party.”

Watch those Hamsters squeal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 15, 2012 at 03:12

“What gives? Is population decline the goal?

Or are elites trying to re-define the father, mother, two children family into a father, father, mother, two children Franken-family?

Demented. Absolutely demented. I wish I were younger. I would exit this hell hole.”

Revisit. As Katie’s Franken family is already the norm in the ghetto (except for extreme poverty and incarceration), I think the goal of this piece is to make Franken families socially acceptable OUTSIDE the ghetto.

If you look at Katie’s photo, she appears to be biracial. This is a subtle hint: Katie can act as the spokesperson that can bridge the gap between the ghetto, and what is left outside the ghetto. She can lead the social engineering clear cutting

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 15, 2012 at 03:22

“What gives? Is population decline the goal?

Or are elites trying to re-define the father, mother, two children family into a father, father, mother, two children Franken-family?

Demented. Absolutely demented. I wish I were younger. I would exit this hell hole.”

Sorry, didn’t mean to hit the submit button.

I’ll revisit my own post. As Katie’s Franken family is already the norm in the ghetto (except for extreme poverty and incarceration), I think the goal of this piece is to make Franken families socially acceptable OUTSIDE the ghetto.

If you look at Katie’s photo, she appears to be biracial. This is a subtle hint: Katie can act as a spokesperson that can bridge the gap between the ghetto, and what is left outside the ghetto. She has credibility because she is a “professor.”

She can lead the social engineering clear cutting teams, and finish off what is left of any father-mother-two children ideology.

“Yes we can!” We can redefine the family and in Katie’s own words create something that is “Messy, bohemian, warm.”

As long as the “new” family is two bastards, the elites still get their same tax and consumer base. As long as the new family has two fathers (slaves) the states get their title funding and lawyers stay busy.

Yikes!!!!

What is even more chilling about this article is it’s treatment of men. Men are completely out of the picture except as sperm donors and money. If you believe the Grey Lady is the oracle of American social engineering, we are in for some even worse times: mass ghettofication and incarceration, and no future for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ode August 15, 2012 at 03:30

Studies like those done by the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan, who is one of the foremost authorities on single motherhood and its impact on children, …

So this is where my tax money is going huh?
To subsidize a college education system that hands out doctorate degrees in single motherhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TLM August 15, 2012 at 04:25

The wall of truth starts hitting these women when their kids are at the age to start playing sports. Without fail, you can always tell the spawn of the single mom. They lack the confidence and assertiveness that comes from having a manly father presence growing up. You can see it clearly in their body language and group interaction. And the more you have on a team the worse the season will be. The moms body language also signals that she now realizes that something if off about her child. Doubtful she’ll ever admit it, but the bewildered expressions give it away.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eincrou August 15, 2012 at 04:40

Brian: “False because the free market says so. People don’t continue to produce things that nobody wants. Lots of buyers are women and women buy womanly things. This is no surprise and is not a misallocation of resources.”

You have not understood his arguments. That isn’t what TFH said was a misallocation of resources. He was talking about the ways, many of which are not free-market at all, that resources are “funneled” to women.

It is with these resources that were intended to help ‘women and children’ that women are using to buy this junk. Women’s unnaturally high spending power distorts the market to the point where, as he said, “95% of the things we see in any department store are things no straight man would ever buy…”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut August 15, 2012 at 05:12

Bloomberg still hasn’t found a way to give birth through his anus.
That fact must make him even crazier than he already is.
Very sweet of the taxpayers to provide eggs and sperm to the unnatural non-breeders.
Meanwhile hetero men must leave the country and pay a fortune for a child free of legal bondage to a commie legal system.
Money in action!
That’s why they harp so incessantly about “tolerance”-it’s to make you shut-up whilst they pick your pocket and shit on God’s laws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus August 15, 2012 at 05:40

Even though he will blush to read it, I really think that TFH is probably the most perceptive writer in the Androsphere – as at 00.09 above.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rocco August 15, 2012 at 06:24

I wonder how Harry or the other two fathers feel. I’ll bet they would love to find a place like the manosphere to share their pain at being used as a sperm donor and walking wallet for this NYU and celebrated NYT author.

I think the content here is more original and honest than the NYT’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Two August 15, 2012 at 06:25

What are Daddy Issues?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-daddy-issues.htm

Provides anecdotes mostly from women who grew up without father at home. It is heart-wrenching.

Women who still believe the utility of the father is his wallet, and wallet only, are in for rude shock. Those women, like the author referred to in this article, who have high incomes, then think, what is a man for? I have income, I can love my children, all the love my children need. Why would they need a father?

Any mother who deliberately separate a child from child’s biological father, that is bordering child abuse. A “classy” woman like author of referred article can safely be assumed to only date and get ‘her’ children from similarly “classy” men. Right? So, there should be no reason a classy mother to excise a daddy out of her beloved children. Isn’t it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian August 15, 2012 at 06:28

Brian:

TFH wrote, “Resources being funneled to women today represents a huge misallocation of resources.”

False because the free market says so. People don’t continue to produce things that nobody wants. Lots of buyers are women and women buy womanly things. This is no surprise and is not a misallocation of resources.

I read you post and my first impulse was to respond quite rudely.

I think you need go back educate yourself about economic history starting after the new deal and especially after the “great society”

We have not had something resembling a free market in many decades.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Thomas Tell-Truth August 15, 2012 at 06:29

Notice how she basically reduces the role of men and fathers to a simple financial contribution.

I sometimes volunteer at my eldest son’s school. He is autistic developmentally delayed, so he is in a special program. Of course nearly every teacher is a woman. The first thing that happens when I walk in the door is that I am MOBBED by the boys all of whom are chattering nonstop at me looking for attention from me.

Fathers and male role models are more than just a fucking wallet and cheque.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel August 15, 2012 at 06:42

There’s a bit more than meets the eye to Katie Roiphe, Bill. She had her ass handed to her by mainstream feminists when she argued that women bore some responsibility for their own actions in her first book, The Morning After. Quoting from The Morning After, via Wikipedia:

“One of the questions used to define rape was: ‘Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?’ The phrasing raises the issue of agency. Why aren’t college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs? A man may give her drugs, but she herself decides to take them. If we assume that women are not all helpless and naive, then they should be responsible for their choice to drink or take drugs. “If a woman’s ‘judgment is impaired’ and she has sex, it isn’t always the man’s fault; it isn’t necessarily always rape.”

Katie directly challenged the narrative. She illuminated the outrageous hypocrisy in the position that women are strong and independent until a man hands them a beer, when they become helpless and defenseless widdle girls.

So Katie’s a New York ball buster, but she does (did) have a shred of integrity. She’s still trying to recover her feminist credibility after the Morning After debacle. This article is a brick in that particular wall.

But what does it say about our culture when a woman who was educated at Brearley (a top private school for wealthy Manhattanite girls), Harvard and Princeton is bragging in the New York times about behaving exactly like the underclass?

And can the crazy bitch not grasp what she’s done to her bastard son, Leo, when the poor kid tries to fill the emotional void created by his absent father with “my Harry?” My guess is she can. She’s smart enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray Manta August 15, 2012 at 06:52

Brian wrote:
False because the free market says so.

That assumes rational choice is always the basis of the free market. Which is questionable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

It also assumes that the results of the free market are always good. Obviously not true, otherwise we wouldn’t have tragedy of the commons problems such as overfishing or pollution.

People don’t continue to produce things that nobody wants.

They do if it’s subsidized. It’s a departure from the free market, but I don’t know of too many countries whose governments give the market completely free reign.

Lots of buyers are women and women buy womanly things.

Much of that is enabled by a transfer of wealth from men to women. What happens when that income stream goes away?

This is no surprise and is not a misallocation of resources.

It’s very difficult to see how the purchase of designer handbag #20 provides a significant benefit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ode August 15, 2012 at 06:55

conditions like poverty and instability, which frequently accompany single-mother households, increase the chances that the children involved will experience alcoholism, mental illness, academic failure and other troubles. But there is no conclusive evidence that, absent those conditions, the pure, pared-down state of single motherhood is itself dangerous to children.

So basically what this “Quackademic” college professor is trying to say is that it’s not single motherhood per say that is unhealthy for children it’s the poverty. Therefore a man’s role as a father is absolutely irrelevant. If only single mothers got enough welfare from the state to live a comfortable middle class lifestyle then children will grow up to be perfectly fine.

Wow, I mean seriously wow straight from the horses mouth!
Gentlemen this is what feminists think of you. YOU serve zero purpose in a child’s mental and emotional development. The only thing you’re good for is your wallet. Yikes, who the hell wants to “man up” and sign up for that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost August 15, 2012 at 07:07

Brian
It is an artificial “demand” demand is the desire for and ability to pay. The mis allocation is the artificial ability to pay. Also children for a woman like everything else for a woman is a burden on their be true to themselves and so less of what women have is spent on children including time

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jungle August 15, 2012 at 07:34

Harry, how is alimony and child support “free market”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jungle August 15, 2012 at 07:34

Meant Brian sorry…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Towgunner August 15, 2012 at 07:35

@ Brain:

TFH wrote, “Resources being funneled to women today represents a huge misallocation of resources.”

False because the free market says so. People don’t continue to produce things that nobody wants. Lots of buyers are women and women buy womanly things. This is no surprise and is not a misallocation of resources.

Pardon, TFH has it right. At present, your observations are correct; a market is demanding these products. But, we don’t have a free market any longer. The financial markets? Ahem, reference the manipulation of LIBOR among many other things such as the entire crony corporatism structure we all now live under. All that aside, malinvestment does occur even in the most freest markets, in fact it is inherent to the cyclical process. Simply, people in a free market are free to make the most optimal economic decision based on their own unique wants and needs…that is true, but that doesn’t mean we humans don’t make mistakes. Indeed, the genius behind free markets allows for human fallibility; it doesn’t disregard it i.e. today’s dogmatic meme that women are superior (and therefore make no mistakes). Importantly, in as much as free markets allow for malinvestment it also provides the mechanism for natural correction. That brings us to today. We haven’t seen the very necessary flushing out of malinvestment in our system…yet. You may hear sound bites like “kick the can down the road”, which refers to the reluctance of policy makers to implement the right policies, such as the re-pricing of our debt. Worse, they also have implemented policies to keep the perverse status quo alive thus we all (via taxation, inflation etc) have effectively invested more in our aggregate malinvestment. Ergo, that is why the department stores are littered with useless items – the vast majority aimed at women. When our systemic correction hits us, and it will, you will finally see the natural process of flushing out malinvestment in its fullness. Considering that we’ve been at this for ~ 30 years per our accommodative monetary policies, look for a very big correction. When you conceptualize the vastness of our current systemic malinvestment…it is indeed dizzying. I’ll touch on a couple examples. feminism itself is malinvestment. Never mind department store inventories and kindly put aside any MSM drill bits about today’s economy being better suited for women. The simple fact of the matter is that in no small way there have been huge qualifiers put on our once free market for labor. The fact that today our sedentary workplaces are better suited for women versus the more physically demanding times before, matters not because it might be true that many jobs can now be performed by women, but that also means they can be performed by men. What matters is an exogenous force such as the government, n.o.w., the media, academia etc, has mandated that women be included thus interfering with a process that is best left for a free market to determine i.e. let companies hire who they want. As such, you now have legions of women in the workforce. Of course, labor is a particularly unique and important component to production…after all everything we see was first created by humans. As such, manipulating the labor force has vast implications and carries the potential for incredible consequences. Consider this quick litmus test…what do you hear behind the advocacy of women’s inclusion into the workplace? Discrimination, equality, justice, fairness…yes? Concentrate on what you don’t you hear…no reference to things like efficient, productive, etc. Thus, the feminists themselves are giving us an ipsofacto admission that their “fight” for women in the workplace isn’t about the betterment of production. Anything that doesn’t augment production is malinvestment. So, let’s examine this narrow pathology regarding department stores etc. The MSM will tell it like this, women proved themselves by being better than men at working, because men are inferior dogs who kept women down for eons out of jealousy etc, and because of women’s new prominence over everything women-only products rightly dominate the economy. Actually it’s more like this. We have maintained a dovish monetary policy manipulating interest rates lower than they should have been, as such the price of money has been kept low for decades. That said, it invites any number of farcical “projects” to be undertaken. Concurrent with the rise of statism and other ideological “justice” movements, feminsm being one of the biggest, these movements had access to huge streams of capital, many times provide via the state via the state borrowing money. With this capital and the sanctioning of our government(s) these activists were able to demand women be included to 1. higher academic institutions, which leads ultimately to 2. the workplace…note many times skipping step 1, the point being the modus of action was artificial and not a manifestation of market forces. After years of this “intervention” we now have a dominant presences of women in the workplace and with that a higher percentage of discretionary income in the “able” hands of women. So, it stands they’ll be consuming more female products, which taken in isolation is seemingly a good and healthy thing, except had it not been for the un-free labor market this wouldn’t be the case and that’s what truly matters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray Manta August 15, 2012 at 07:37

jaego wrote:
I remember her stand against the date rape hysteria. She had some real clarity and charity.

Her book “The Morning After” was the voice of reason against cackling crones such as Catherine MacKinnon.

Too bad she couldn’t maintain it.

She was much younger then, and had the perspective of an outsider looking in. Now she’s embedded as part of the established order.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
George August 15, 2012 at 07:45

The 70% are right. Single moms are bad. Roiphe’s plan is to subsidize more illegitimacy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 15, 2012 at 07:49

We, the androsphere, are the earliest stages of a major re-adjustment. This is THE biggest adjustment humanity will have ever seen to date.

There average fertility rate needs to be 2.1 children per woman to maintain population levels. It is now 1.8, the lowest in history. With shrinking population comes shrinking economies and “unsustainable government spending” due to lowered tax revenue. This is the period we’re entering. A growing less productive older population with a smaller tax base of young to support entitlements.

We’ve grown government in anticipation of population growth, and yet it’s that same government that destroys the family and incentivizes women to work, while offering “free” birth control and abortion. We’re constructing a society where fewer women reproduce, and those that do will be indirectly supported by men.

The married man and women with more than two children is an anachronism. If you don’t need children to help you work the farm, what good are they?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Phily August 15, 2012 at 08:07

Is anyone even surprised by the deflection approach these female journalist take anymore when it comes to accountability? Plus she has two baby daddies……………..Give me a break.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ActaNonVerba August 15, 2012 at 08:41

Roiphe is a single mom writing this article.
TRANSLATION: Duh. Women only think of the world in a completely selfish way and spend all their time justifying their gimme gimme gimme attitudes.

“I happen to have two children with two different fathers”
TRANSLATION: More insurance the max amount of free cash comes in.

“I am lucky enough to be living in financially stable, relatively privileged circumstances”
TRANSLATION: My whole life has been geared around gimme gimme gimme. I’ve got a lot which helps me feel superior but I still want more, more, more.

“to have had the education that allows me to do so.”
TRANSLATION: Going to college allowed me to be around and manipulate higher earning men.

“I am not the ‘typical’ single mother, but then there is no typical single mother.”
TRANSLATION: I am stupid and completely self-abosrbed. That’s why I write nonsensical sentences like this. In reality, however, I am like every other single mother. I am self-centered and use my kids for free cash.

I (ActaNonVerba) couldn’t read any more. It’s harmful to my brain to listen to women’s crap.

Note: As always, for the tiny minority of women for which my comments don’t apply, please realize they aren’t about you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JFinn August 15, 2012 at 08:48

And here’s another recent nytimes article about the decline of boys … actually agreeing this is a crisis … and actually blaming the school system. (with many expected comments conveying the hatred of boys.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/honor-code.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous August 15, 2012 at 08:49

She had kids out of wedlock and/or divorce – and now she tries to justify her estate.

Justification for buying into the whole feminist she-bang that sexual liberty is a GOOD thing. If its a good thing, than my little mis-matched family is a good thing, too. Even if my sexually liberated self bangs with a guy who probably won’t be sticking around for a kid that isn’t even his. But no matter, my kid is happy NOW and that is ALL that matters.

Someone needs to point her to the stats that show that un-related booty calls are one of the top contributors of child abuse. Put that sexual liberty where it belongs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Highwasp August 15, 2012 at 09:04

“Just be thankful you found the Spearhead and the manosphere and are an unapologetic, guilt-free man liberated from the female imperative. What a weight off!”

Amen-!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nugganu August 15, 2012 at 09:41

I can’t believe she got laid twice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
CajunQm August 15, 2012 at 09:42

Kind of off topic, but is this woman in the same kind of situation? Can’t get a date or keep a relationship. According to this article, women in New York have a really hard problem, due to their attitudes!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/more-rich-high-powered-women-are-turning-to-matchmakers-to-find-love.html

Elmer should appreciate this comment from a high power male being interviewed by a Matchmaker:

“A young woman happened to walk past him—she was probably 27 and was a friend of his daughters’—when she backed up into a table and knocked over a $50,000 vase. Now anybody else, an older woman would have been so embarrassed, apologized, or been shocked. This young girl starts laughing, looks at me, laughed and said, ‘Look at that—I come to introduce myself and I make a klutz out of myself!’ She walked away and my client said, ‘Did you see what just happened? That’s what I want! That type of fun!’ And that’s what it is—women lose that fun. Women who are high powered are not very fun. They offer a job, an education, looks, but there’s such a hard edge. All guys want is somebody who is soft, feminine, who feels good. They don’t need to feel protective or challenged. A 50-year-old man doesn’t want that.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Szebran August 15, 2012 at 10:22

Somebody should ask Roiphe why the hell she isnt the one paying child support. She works, buck up!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jaego August 15, 2012 at 10:39

Extraordinary the idea that the Free Market is the key to everything. Where did the Founding Fathers ever say such a thing? They did talk alot about morality, decency, and integrity though. Now how does that square with sending our jobs to China and India? And importing countless Asian IT workers to replace us? And allowing tens of millions of illegal Central Americans in to undercut our blue collar and manual laboring class? That’s all the “free” (oh, the cost!) fucking market.

The free market is the law of the jungle. Real Nations use it but aren’t used by it. There’s more to a Nation than just the economy in other words. Dying Nations are used by free market – and the beasts who control it.

Does this all mean tariffs? Anything but tariffs – everyone know how wicked they are! Yes, tariffs are Nation builders and preservers – a fine antidote against the Nation Killer Globalism. But that will just be the begining – after that the expulsions. Libertariansim is a cancer, just like Communism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cynical Youth August 15, 2012 at 10:42

@ Walking in hell2:

Don’t assume that the elites are long term thinkers. All of this insanity is likely a case of vultures trying to pick at the corpse, the goal being to make out like bandits. The bankers and CEO’s aren’t exactly chained to the U.S. and the politicians, in particular the president, don’t NEED to think for the long term, only the next 4-6 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Two August 15, 2012 at 10:42

@CajunQM,

The article you linked shows that successful women have trouble getting matched to partners they want. May be the NYT article discussed at Spearhead is a way to encourage successful women to join ‘the fun’ of being single mothers.

From the article you linked, commentary and emphasis added:

Griffith adds: “The best type of match for a high-end woman is someone at [least] the same financial strata, if not higher. It can be really threatening for a lot of guys who don’t make as much money [ It is never about 'love', character or 'chemistry']. They[women] can say they’re cool in the beginning, but it catches up to them and bites them [men] in the butt in the end.”

Classical Hypergamy 101 lesson.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Coastal August 15, 2012 at 10:51

Ah, wimmin, the empathic sex…

It’s heartbreakingly obvious that the poor lad babbling about ‘my harry’ is starving for a father figure. The self-obsessed slag isn’t ‘inventing a family’, any more than locking your son out in the back garden in winter counts as subverting the social construct of warmth.

That’s the crux of the argument: these wimminz claim to love their kids, but they deliberately deprive them of the father they desperately need. And now they think the rest of us should reward them for that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom936 August 15, 2012 at 10:55

Katie Roiphe used to be considered one of the few non-feminist female writers. On the various men’s rights forums, she was frequently cited and praised for it.

After this article, I can not longer respect her. It’s sad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jaego August 15, 2012 at 10:58

Yes, true – but I’d also want her to apologize just like an older woman. I mean what if she broke it?

Everyone hear about the TSA woman who insitsted on probing an urn filled with the ashes of a man’s father. She dropped it and it spilled on the floor. She laughed hysterically as the man tried to pick the ashes off the floor.

The woman who poisoned her boyfriend with visine is getting some sympathy – her story is believed and commentators say things like “that is not the way to get a man’s attention”. If not pure malice, then perhaps not attention seeking per se, but Muchausen’s by Proxy? She gets to feel strong and nurturing when he’s sick as a dog. Just a thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer August 15, 2012 at 11:05

Guys, lighten up. It’s the New Normal. There’s even a TV sitcom about it.

It’s funny cause it’s on TV :

http://www.nbc.com/the-new-normal/video/the-new-normal—extended-preview/1412937

Just an observation, but the actress does not look like the mother of an 8 yo.

The gay dudes look like real homos though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andrew August 15, 2012 at 11:30

Katie Roiphe said “Young men need jobs so they can pay child support…”

My response: Young men need to get a vasectomy and remain child free.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Big Ern August 15, 2012 at 13:24

That NYTimes article was a whole lot of waving people away from the accident scene. “Nothing to see here folks! Accident, what accident? Heh, who even says car accidents are bad?? We need to rethink them!”.

But, I look past her and take a gander at the scene and see:

“53 percent of the babies born to women under 30 are born to unmarried mothers”

This is actually astounding. This country is going to collapse soon. Grab the popcorn!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH August 15, 2012 at 13:32

Eincrou,

You have not understood his arguments. That isn’t what TFH said was a misallocation of resources. He was talking about the ways, many of which are not free-market at all, that resources are “funneled” to women.

100% correct.

Society is built to funnel resources to women, since for the first 99% of human existence, this correlated to the survival of children, and no surplus beyond that (the number of children was large, and prosperity was low).

Now that women only produce 10-20% of the children they could (and many produce none), the allocation-towards-women spigot represents a huge misdirection.

Just like the norm of having average men being the most expendable cannot remain, as these very people do the important work of running civilization.

We, the androsphere, represent the very first awakening of his huge, unprecedented shift. There has *never* been a shift more fundamental than this, in the human condition.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TFH August 15, 2012 at 13:44

Opus,

Even though he will blush to read it, I really think that TFH is probably the most perceptive writer in the Androsphere – as at 00.09 above.

Thanks! The highest praise I could receive..

I don’t know about that :) …… I knew nothing about the intricacies of misandry until late 2008, after which I started to read Roissy, and then Welmer, Zed, Roosh, and Dalrock. I would say these are the five I have learned the most from.

But I was a Singularity blogger before that (since 2006), and combining androsphere and singularity ideas brought up the all-important question :

If we are advancing technologicially at an ever-faster pace, those who produce the technology cannot possibly be the most expendable going forward, and those who, frankly, do nothing to produce it, cannot possibly be the most worshipped, appeased, and protected group….

Hence the unprecedented juncture we, humanity, are at now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Soapwort McFuggletoes August 15, 2012 at 13:44

>> of the variety and richness of different kinds of families.

Well here we have it…brain washing of the self. Say it enough times and you’ll believe just about anything, but it doesn’t make single motherhood wonderful or ‘rich’ as she wants to relabel it. Self delusion using variations of such mantras is but one hallmark of an Orwellian approach to justifying the fundamentally unjustifiable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American August 15, 2012 at 14:25

We live in a time in the US, where the orderly / educated patriarchy, calls themselves the matriarchy, and the violent / broken / uneducated matriarchal underclass is being called “Patriarchy”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 15, 2012 at 14:31

“To really appreciate the Sting, you must be in on the setup.”

“The Sting” here is establishment of the female imperative as the norm. It involves replacing successive generations of pair-bonded men and women, called “the family”, with a multi-generational matrilineal social group similar to the “pods” which are the basic social unit among whales and dolphins.

This has been accomplished in 3 phases –
1. Severing the pair bond between husbands & wives
2. Severing men’s bond to their children
3. Establishing legal mechanisms which controlled the productive outputs of former husbands and “former” dads and redirected them to maintenance of the pod, and extending those legal mechanism to be able to seize the productive outputs of unrelated men and redirect them as well to providing for the material needs and luxuries of the pod.

The theoretical framework for this attack on the family in contemporary western culture was laid down by Kate Millet in 1970 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Politics

Millet argues that “sex has a frequently neglected political aspect” and goes on to discuss the role that patriarchy plays in sexual relations, looking especially at the works of D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, and Norman Mailer. Millet argues that these authors view and discuss sex in a patriarchal and sexist way. In contrast, she applauds the more nuanced gender politics of homosexual writer Jean Genet.

Millet was married to a man for 20 years, but had many lesbian affairs. In 1971, Millett started buying and restoring fields and buildings near Poughkeepsie, New York. The project eventually became the Women’s Art Colony/Tree Farm, a community of lesbian artists and writers.

Susan Brownmiller picked up the ball of severing the bond between men and women in 1975, when she “Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.”

“rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.

Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon took things further and deliberately conflated normal heterosexual intercourse with rape – with the enthusiastic participation and support of the religious right. The RR probably did not know that they were being hoodwinked because they thought Dworkin and MacKinnon were talking about that “sinful non-marital sex.” It was only when the first “marital rape” cases started surfacing that some people woke up to the fact that something which had been almost as much a part of the human experience as eating and breathing, was headed for the criminal justice system for resolution.

As the concept of human rights has developed, the belief of a marital right to sexual intercourse has become less widely held. Feminists worked systematically since the 1960s to overturn the marital rape exemption and criminalize marital rape. (Hasday, Jill Elaine (2000). “Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape”. California Law Review 88: 1482–1505.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

“Many United States rape statutes formerly precluded the prosecution of spouses, including estranged or even legally separated couples. In 1975, South Dakota removed this exception.[25] In 1993, North Carolina became the last state to remove the spousal exemption.”

After serving 24 years in prison for “marital rape”, on October 27, 2009, Hetherington was finally granted a parole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hetherington_case

In 1982, Mary Koss, then a professor of psychology at Kent State University in Ohio, published an article on rape in which she expressed the orthodox gender feminist view that “rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.”

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

In 1988, Ms published a book, I Never Called It Rape, reporting on Koss’ findings.

The women who had the experience did not call it “rape”, but Mary Koss did, and the MS Foundation picked up the ball and ran with it. Hardly a week goes by these days without hearing some variation of the “1 in 4″ canard, or that “we live in a rape culture.”

I don’t know that Rollo covered these developments in his post “Pathologizing the Male Sexual Response”, but this was exactly what was being done.

http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/pathologizing-the-male-sexual-response/

From there – severing the fundamental bond of marriage – it was only a short step to severing men’s bond with children. And, the mechanism was the same – paint all men as sexual abusers of children. And, just as Mary Koss looked into the past lives of women and found “rape” there that the women themselves did not realize (perpetuating the double-think of feminism – that women are “as strong and capable as men”, but are totally lacking in cognitive function and agency), therapists looked into the pasts of thousands of women and found “recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.”

So, now, in 2012, John McGirr, a fireman, gets on a Virgin Airlines flight, and gets “stung.”

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/the-virgin-pedophile/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/responding-to-the-virgin-airlines-misandry/

The assassination of men’s characters, and painting us as all deadbeat abusers, has been been going on for more than 40 years. And, now, lots of men are getting stung pretty badly.

And, “heroic single moms” withdraw into their own “pods” of “mother and HER children”, supported by men, and here we are.

And, when someone says “how did this happen?” – well, I just told you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH August 15, 2012 at 14:46

zed’s comment above shows exactly why democracy has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminist police state.

This is because while men vote for what benefits all people, women vote for what only benefits women.

It is assumed that women having the right to vote is ‘normal’, when in fact, it has only existed for 90+ years in 5-6 countries, and for 60-90 years in 10-15 other countries. That is FAR too little of a track record upon which to conclude that it is normal. In fact, there is no society 2-3 generations into female suffrage that is *not* hugely distorted…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno August 15, 2012 at 16:40

In this day and age of abortion and so many birth control methods, women have children for one reason only: for the money.
From the moment she gets pregnant, she knows that the father must fork over a ton of money to her, for the next 20 years.
The government must too.
It is the law.
Plus tax reductions, all kinds of benefits,…
She knows she won the jackpot.
And all that complaining about how hard it is to raise children: that’s all nonsense: if it was really so hard, then why do they want it then?
But it’s easy to see why it’s hard: they want to get the money, but raising the child, oh what a heavy burden.
But when they start counting their money, then they know: it is well worth it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 August 15, 2012 at 18:36

The Book, Garbage Generation, probably available online free does have statistics which show that failed kids is totally independent of family income.

I remember when Kennedy divorced. His son was in major trouble with the cops within a short time. Does anyone else remember this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 15, 2012 at 18:42

There’s a bit more than meets the eye to Katie Roiphe, Bill. She had her ass handed to her by mainstream feminists when she argued that women bore some responsibility for their own actions in her first book, The Morning After.

So Katie’s a New York ball buster, but she does (did) have a shred of integrity. She’s still trying to recover her feminist credibility after the Morning After debacle. This article is a brick in that particular wall.

- Charles Martel

And, I think there is a little more than meets the eye to the juxtaposition of the two stands she has taken. I think a lot of guys here may have been somewhat mislead by her position on “the feminist position on” rape, and may have believed that she held far more conventional beliefs than she actually did.

In her stance on rape, while she did reject the “victimism” portion of feminist thought at the time – most of which was a charade to sucker the White Knights into intervening on women’s behalf – she did embrace the “empowerment” side of the feminist message. Clearly, she was saying that women had agency. I do think she is showing some integrity, because I believe that her two positions are entirely consistent with each other.

Yes, she wanted to sleep with all those boys she slept with – it was not “rape.” And, yes, she wanted to sleep with the men who fathered her children, and get pregnant with them. In both cases she is asserting agency.

The biggest problem among men is that if they do not agree with an agenda, they just can’t see it. A lot of men just can’t wrap their head around the fact that having different fathers for their babies is exactly the same for women as guys who sleep around and have different baby-mommas for each of several kids.

In short, it is quite literally “don’t put all of your eggs in the same (sperm) basket.”

She has genetic diversity for her offspring, combined with a guaranteed supply of Beta resources, without the bothersome detail of having to accommodate another person in her life full time.

She wins – according to the game SHE is playing.

She is living out the female imperative by building her own little pod. Given the luxury of her job positions, and her family ties, she could decide to diversify even further and have a 3rd and maybe a 4th child, by still different fathers.

When the boys hit puberty, they will be pushed out of the pod, while the girls will follow their mother’s pattern. We see this pattern with 2-3 generations of single baby-mommas all over the ghetto.

Also, what I have seen in it least 2 instances among people I know, if one of the sons gets a baby-momma pregnant, she may let the couple rejoin the pod for a short time, and then eject the male again. Thus, the matriarch gathers children, grandchildren, and sometimes great grandchildren (or at least the female ones) under her protective skirts.

Disagreeing with something does not prevent it from happening.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 15, 2012 at 18:48

There’s a slim sort of difference between Roiphe and the ghetto mamas if you take into account public benefits, and in this matter women like Roiphe

That’s not true and in fact it’s like two different worlds and Ropey hasn’t a real clue about the other 99% of single mothers or how they live.
She has two jobs and likely perks like good daycare with other upper class kids in a nice environment.She may have a fimily with money too for support and also two stable men who fathered the kids who give her money if she needs it without even having to drag them into court. In a million years Ropey wouldn’t find herself filling out applications for benefits at the welfare office with the other dregs. And those benefits are barely enough to eat and have some craapy small apt.(assuming there’sone available and you don’t have to live in a shelter)in some dirty crime infested area and where her kids would go to shitty daycare run by some idiot degenerate and then go to some really substandard school staffed by affirmative action teachers. And I don’t think that her blonde kids would like it very much getting pushed around and bullied and having their lunch money stolen because NYC public schools are almost all non white. White people send their kids to private schools either in or out of the city;some may go to Catholic schools; and the others may go to the handful of top public highschools that require an entrance exam and where your fellow students are civilised whites and guys with names like Chang who study all the time.
Ropey is just one of these females who is out of touch with the reality of 99% of unwed mothers and has no idea how they live. Ropey lives in NY but unwed mothers in the country live in country versions of the slums and in areas where the benefits and resources may be even worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH August 15, 2012 at 19:13

I think that the women who are hornier or otherwise want to be single moms, will put less weight on sustaining the ‘all men are rapists’ meme, and focus more on the ‘all fathers are deadbeats’ meme, so that she can get money extracted and sent to her…

The women who are lesbians or otherwise extremely ugly (Dworkin) are the ones who prioritize the ‘all heterosexual sex is rape’ idea, since the child support payment stream does not quite apply to them. I notice that the uglier a woman is, the more obsessed she is with exaggerating the incidence of rape. We notice that women who are 7s or higher in looks, presumably more at risk of rape, don’t seem to be all that worried about it. That tells us volumes…

Just a subtle note on which subset of feminists prioritizes what, and why..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian August 15, 2012 at 20:18

I guess I should’ve elaborated more on my previous comment to TFH. I’ll try to respond to responses (appreciate your feedback). Actually, I agree with a bunch things ya’ll wrote.

@Eincrou, Justinian
I understand that our system now isn’t completely free. Harmful bureaucratic regulations have been piling up damage and misery to Americans for decades. But it is still free to a fair extent (IMO anyway).

Were it not for the government trying to control people’s lives, women might have a lot less money to spend today. In that sense, I agree that production that is geared to women’s demands today is a misallocation of resources. The resulting exchange of goods and services today is based on market distortion . However, all I mean is that it’s not a misallocation of resources to cater to people’s wants. In a free market, if people want those things that make up 95% of department stores’ inventories, then that’s what people will produce. Even if all those things are “junk.”

@Ray Manta
People can and do behave irrationally. I don’t deny this.

I don’t assume a free market always produces “good results.” I’m not sure what you mean there. A free market is a human institution and bad results can occur. People can make mistakes, and the fact that a market is free doesn’t mean a market failure can’t happen.

On problems like the tragedy of the commons and overfishing, these aren’t entirely because of the free market. In a sense, they aren’t at all. They happen because of a lack of property rights (or having bad ones) working with the free market.

As for pollution, you raise a very good point. It’s very complicated issue in free market economics. If a factory produces smoke as a byproduct that dirties my shirt, then I’ve suffered a negative externality. But in practice, how could I be compensated? I don’t know much about possible solutions here except for a pollution permit trading system. I’m not sure how that’s turned out. If you can share information about this topic, I’d love to hear it.

@greyghost
I basically agree with you. Demand is artificial if it would not otherwise exist in a free market. But put this in the context of real human history and you can only realistically wish for a market to be so free. 19th century America had a very free market. There were tariffs, but it was very much a free enterprise system. Hong Kong is another example. It has complete free trade.

@Jungle
You have a very interesting question. I don’t have a good answer for you, but for what it’s worth, here are my thoughts. Our political system allows people to vote themselves money. You’ll never stop hearing about this group or that one crying for government to divert resources to their cause. Lawmakers support any legislation, no matter how bad, when it’s politically profitable to do so, including things like child support and alimony. I highly recommend this guy’s youtube uploads: http://www.youtube.com/user/BasicEconomics/. The videos focus on free market economics and many of them are Milton Friedman lectures (with Q&A sessions, too!). Several videos, and I can’t remember which right now, address bad legislation.

Right, so do ya’ll feel friendlier now?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 15, 2012 at 20:47

““The Sting” here is establishment of the female imperative as the norm. It involves replacing successive generations of pair-bonded men and women, called “the family”, with a multi-generational matrilineal social group similar to the “pods” which are the basic social unit among whales and dolphins. ”

Thanks Zed. Now I get the bigger picture.

America is now a pod (bastard) nation. The last I looked there were something like 11 million (maybe more) bastard children in America.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Myshkin August 15, 2012 at 21:36

walking in hell2 August 15, 2012 at 02:40
What gives? Is population decline the goal?

Yes. Population decline and concentration of wealth are the two main pillars. The powers that be know we have finite resources and they’re fed up with the plebs consuming them. Of course, things might have gotten out of control and perhaps the PTB are just winging it.

TFH August 15, 2012 at 13:44
If we are advancing technologicially at an ever-faster pace, those who produce the technology cannot possibly be the most expendable going forward, and those who, frankly, do nothing to produce it, cannot possibly be the most worshipped, appeased, and protected group….
Hence the unprecedented juncture we, humanity, are at now.

There is a way. But the size of the worshiped / appeased / protected group needs to become much smaller, and technology doesn’t need to advance much further, but it could advance indefinitely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gouverneur Morris August 16, 2012 at 01:39
Alex F August 16, 2012 at 01:46

I read that article, and it made me want to put my fist through the computer screen. Ms. Roiphe claims that we can’t pay attention to what children themselves say about being brought up in single-mother homes, as they are “notoriously unreliable narrators” (so next time we see one dragged out to babble “I grew up with a single mother and I turned out great!”, we can safely ignore them), and I interpret this to mean, “they won’t confirm my twisted, self-serving version of reality”.

For most children, when their parents split up (or when they don’t have a father in the first place), it is and remains the biggest tragedy of their lives. What kind of parent willingly and knowingly inflicts such suffering on their kids? In my view, a bitterly jealous one.

I have noticed that most kids, boys and girls alike, start to show a noted preference for their dad after a certain age – about five. They want to do things with him, get his approval, run excitedly to meet him when he comes home, and pull away more and more than their mothers. This is perfectly healthy and natural – they’re growing up and want to explore the world, and it is expected that they would turn to their father to guide them in this, rather than the mother, whose primarily role is nurturing.

In my experience, most women (including my own mother) hate this. They want to be the centre of their child’s universe forever, and can’t stand the fact that the validating state of infantile dependence is over. So all this prosletysing over the wonderfulness of single motherhood is, in my view, little more than a scorned, jealous ego shouting “ME ME ME! I’M the only important one in my child’s life, I’M the only one they need, and I’M the one they like best!”

Unfortunately, the family courts conspire with them in this ridiculous delusion, as do schools, the media, government etc. Millions of children’s lives have been shattered as a result, as, while clearly the best possible arrangement is to have both biological parents stay together as a family unit, if this is not possible, then infinitely less damage would be done to the children if they were raised by a single father.

Men have always been tasked with turning their children into functional, responsible adults – and so now we have removed them entirely from so many children’s lives, the logical and only conclusion is complete social devastation; as we can see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam August 16, 2012 at 03:28

“Young men need jobs so they can pay child support and contribute more meaningfully to the households they are living in.”
If they’re living in the household, why are they paying child support? To whom?
Wouldn’t that just be called “being married” (/cohab/partnered/whatever)?

Or is she talking about sending the wretched male offspring out? On account of that’s all males are fit for.
Hers can get in the brown car with Harry, after he’s performed his conjugal visit, and put in a shift or two. Because she’s worth it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam August 16, 2012 at 03:42

Oh wait I get it. Hadn’t dropped my ethical sights low enough. I’ll never learn …
She is possibly envisaging the male calves sticking around in the Pod (brilliant, TFH) and splitting their income between Mama for rent/board, and paying Child Support (along with several other guys) to a female member of another Pod.
In the same way as some random blokes a.k.a. Harry and his own dad stump up for his lot.

Thus improving Mama’s take, dependent on no. of otherwise useless male spawn she deposits, over old-fashioned and just plain wrong get job>get wed>leave home>spend it all on wife & kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam August 16, 2012 at 03:48

I’m so sorry zed, I meant you, not TFH. About the pod thing.
I’m not used to having so many truly intelligent men around at once, and I get confused and alarmed. In a “good grief, Carruthers, you mean there’s more than one of them !?!” fashion ..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray Manta August 16, 2012 at 06:30

Brian wrote:
People can and do behave irrationally. I don’t deny this.

Good, but it kind of throws a monkey wrench into the idea that a free market always generates optimal results.

I don’t assume a free market always produces “good results.”

TFH stated that the (huge) women’s market for frivolous purchases was a misallocation of resources, you said no it wasn’t because it was based on the free market. That has just a bit too much of free market fundamentalism for me. It also doesn’t address the issue of transfer of transfer of resources of men to women.

On problems like the tragedy of the commons and overfishing, these aren’t entirely because of the free market. In a sense, they aren’t at all. They happen because of a lack of property rights (or having bad ones) working with the free market.

There are many situations where it’s impossible to enforce personal property rights. No one stake a claim on a bolus of air. So personal ownership and free market economics cannot possibly cover all bases.

If a factory produces smoke as a byproduct that dirties my shirt, then I’ve suffered a negative externality. But in practice, how could I be compensated?
I don’t know much about possible solutions here except for a pollution permit trading system.

We already have a system of laws in place to punish companies that engage in pollution. The same is true for cars – they have to pass emission tests to be legal to drive on the road.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 16, 2012 at 07:27

@ JFinn

I wouldn’t trust the Jew York Times to be getting on board with men’s rights if in July 2012 it might say there really is a problem with boys’ academic performance only to put out some trash from a feminazi professor from NYU (disparagingly called N Y Jew) that plays defense for single motherhood.

Remember, Jews can always walk away from Judaism at any time, as they are a religious affiliation. They need to stop treating their religious affiliation as if it were an ethnicity or a biological race. They would never extend the same courtesy to any other religious affiliation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 16, 2012 at 08:03

The women who are lesbians or otherwise extremely ugly (Dworkin) are the ones who prioritize the ‘all heterosexual sex is rape’ idea, since the child support payment stream does not quite apply to them. I notice that the uglier a woman is, the more obsessed she is with exaggerating the incidence of rape. We notice that women who are 7s or higher in looks, presumably more at risk of rape, don’t seem to be all that worried about it. That tells us volumes…

Feminism could accurately be called an alliance between the queer and the ugly. For lesbian women, all heterosexual sex actually is rape – nothing could be more traumatic to them than being penetrated by one of those “awful men.” On that point, they are in total agreement with the “slut-shaming” religious right. For ugly women, it is just a case of envy – since they aren’t getting any male attention, no other woman should get any either.

I’m sure most people have heard the old saying “politics makes for strange bedfellows.” People normally would think that the queer and the ugly would be diametrically opposed by traditionalists. However, the hatred of the religious right for sexuality makes them and Q&U-feminists natural bedmates. Rape/sin – what’s in a name? Both the same concept, both bad – on that, both groups agree. And, both groups also agree that everything bad is men’s fault.

Without the brain-dead, knuckle-dragging, White Knight goons enforcing the female imperative on the rest of men, slut-walking would be a very dangerous pass-time, and single-motherhood would be a one-way express ticket to poverty.

If the only way a religious man in today’s culture can have a reasonable expectation that sex will be part of his marriage is to have and practice Game – http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/why-christians-need-game/ – and a married father has absolutely no expectation of being able to be part of his kids’ lives, the twin pillars which used to hold up the institution of marriage are gone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Common Monster August 16, 2012 at 14:39

Sarah Hrdy wrote a big thick book on motherhood, and estimated the optimal reproductive strategy for women in prehistoric times (the Stone Age and the long even earlier era during which humans evolved) was for women to have about half a piece of two different men as (loosely) husbands.

So Roiphe has devolved to her true inner cavewoman, and is working tirelessly in her little grove to drag us all back there. She hasn’t the slightest clue that 1 >> 2 * 1/2 in this particular instance. English major chicks like her totally suck at math. They do however excel at patting themselves on the back for “inventing” the Stone Age (again).

It’s probably a miracle that they’re even able to understand the Roman numerals in Title IX. People in our feminized schools are now semi-seriously entertaining the option of doing away with algebra as a requirement for HS — since it’s only required for 5% of the jobs, none of which team woman understands or has much interest in — so they really are trying to bring about a four-function world equal to their limited capabilities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 16, 2012 at 14:56

@ Common Monseter -

“They do however excel at patting themselves on the back for “inventing” the Stone Age (again).”

This expression pretty much sums up feminism. Good job.

As far as their interpretation of the Roman numeral IX is concerned, I doubt they understand it. To them it is Title “ix” (“ichs” – just capitalized).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 16, 2012 at 17:19

@ Bee
They need to stop treating their religious affiliation as if it were an ethnicity or a biological race. They would never extend the same courtesy to any other religious affiliation.

But according to the Israeli government it is a “race” or whatever word you choose to define the group. The actual old Hebrew or Talmudic cult you may follow is secondary. You’re a Jew by desccent not because you’re a member of some religion You can be a Catholic,a Buddhistor an atheist and still be a Jew, That may sound a bit paradoxical but there’s a very simple answer. The word Jew was used not just for a religion but for an ethnic group who followed this old cult and who were from a area on earth. The people were originally Shamanists and had a name for their group. When they adopted Judaism/Talmudism their original name sort of became secondary and they commonly were referred to as Jews (from their religion). If they all went back to Shamanism people would probably still refer to them as Jews unless they made an effort to be called by their original ethnic name or some new invented one. None of this changes your ethnicity anymore than the followers of the old gods changed when they adopted Christianity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-ostrer/observing-my-jewish-legacy-in-my_b_1601273.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 16, 2012 at 18:28

@ The Whammer

I’ve heard that BS many times before from Jews. I was raised Roman Catholic in upstate New York state and I hear their BS all the time.

I am no longer Roman Catholic but am currently unaffiliated with any religious affiliation. This refutes the theory of religious affiliation as an immutable characteristic as does other people’s renunciations of their respective faiths.

There is no way Jews are going to consider a Filipino Catholic, a black Catholic from Equatorial Guinea, a half-Native American, half-black Catholic from Colombia, a mestizo Catholic from Mexico, and a white Catholic from the United States to all be from the same “race.” That was my argument.

To add to that, notice how the Israeli government can only manage to win recognition from two Arab governments (Egypt and Jordan) and not very many other non-Arab governments of supermajority-Muslim countries.

The welcome mat for converts is also far less frayed for both almost all Christian denominations (and Islam for that matter) than for Judaism. The welcome mat for converts to the Jewish “race” (sarcasm clearly intended) is almost entirely frayed beyond recognition (if there was one to begin with).

Jews also use the past participle “chosen” for themselves, and not without obvious supremacist undertones. Hmmm, wonder why the Israeli government is unable to win the hearts and minds of most nearby Arabs (the democratic process, if allowed in Egypt or Jordan, could very easily wipe out both of those countries’ recognition of Israel).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American August 16, 2012 at 21:18

Gender feminists have forced perversions into American law enforcement to such a degree that hetero-relationships have become a legal liability for the guys involved.
Gender feminists have usurped a huge stroke of “Empowerment” from this perversion and manufactured statistics Alliance that vilifies the nasty hetero-male, but Immediate gratification and Empowerment of American gender-Raunch, will have long term consequences that are not so favorable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 16, 2012 at 22:24

I really hope that your spelling is a lot better than your reading comprehension because you completely misunderstood. You sort of remind me of the Blob and his Boobettes whereif I write something they all seem to get the opposite meaning and then attack me based on their failure to understand.
I was not agueing about politics but was simply saying that certain religions are tied exclusively to an ethnic group where they are virtually the same. Sort of like being a Sikh. No one becomes a Sikh or a Jew. The converts are never really accepted because they are not the same ethnically.
The , a Jew,who did the gemetic testing found that Jews regardless of where they are from have more in common genetically with each other than with the people in the area where they live. A Jew in Sweden has more in common gemetically with a Jew in England than either one has to the area where he lives and its peoples. This means that they are a distinct people and the religion they follow is secondary.
You can become a Catholic because it is not tied to an ethnic group and whatever ethnic group you are remains the same regardless of your religion whether you worship Jesus or Jupiter. Catholic does mean universal.
It’s really not the same with Jews where the religion and ethnic group are recognised as the same. There are probably 5-6 major types of Jews from around the world but they are genetically more alike than they are different. If they all began to practise different religions and forgot the Talmud they would still be ethnically the same. Sort of like Englishmen who may be Catholic, Anglican, Muslim or whatever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 17, 2012 at 03:24

Sorry, the Whammer, but I still am not buying your argument. Biological race/ethnic group is mutually exclusive with religious affiliation. If Jews are not going to allow other religions to use the religion-as-a-”race” (again, sarcasm clearly intended) premise that they use for themselves, why should I massage their egos and go along with their BS premise?

Just out of sheer curiosity, what is your religious affiliation, if any?

Also, FWIW, I do not think Palestinians should have gotten the screw job for a Holocaust that clearly was not their fault, nor do I blame them for their venom towards Israel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 17, 2012 at 16:49

I’m an atheist. What was I baptised? Anglican.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 17, 2012 at 17:36

Also, FWIW, I do not think Palestinians should have gotten the screw job for a Holocaust that clearly was not their fault, nor do I blame them for their venom towards Israel.

This has nothing to do with the point I made about ethnic group. Practically no modern Jew has any connexion to Palestine or the Middle East. Any living in the area or surrounding countries were a small minority and are not a Nation.
Sure, maybe a few went north to another area and in this area the natives adopted this old Hebrew cult a 1k years ago but whatever that group from the East was(some say Kazars from the former Kazar Empire) they had a racial identity whether they call themselves Kazars or by the name of their new religion, Jews. Since they were the only ethnic group practising this religion they became commonly known as Jews. And even though they may have divided and settled in various places with perhaps even some intermarriage, they still have more in common with each other from other parts of the world than they do with the local population.
Let’s assume for the moment that a Sikh through always marrying within their group can be identified by certain DNA markers as belonging to this group which differs from the other people in the Punjab and they all practise the Sikh religion. People stop referring to them as Punjabians and start calling them Sikhs after their religion. Whether they live in the Punjab or London or NY etc they can be recognised through DNA as being part of an ethnic group who are referred to as Sikhs (the name of their religion) Even if they all decided that they wanted to become Catholics they would still be the same racial group and perhaps people would still refer to them as Sikhs for a long time which although it was the name of a religion it had become known as an ethnic group as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 17, 2012 at 17:50

@ GBFH -

I’m in upstate too. Fingerlakes wine country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: