“The End of Men” by Hanna Rosin – review by Evan Marc Katz

The End of Men and the Rise of Women book by Hanna Rosin
3 Shares

I know, I’m a little late to the game in reviewing Hanna Rosin’s “The End of Men”, which came out on September 11, 2012. That’s what happens when your day job is coaching smart, strong, successful women and your night job is being a good husband and father. And so it goes.

As you may know, I’m a big reader, but tend to only read books for pleasure. If they feel too much like homework, I’m not going to bother. Which is generally why I have a lot of trouble reading most relationship books. Too close to home. But when it comes to accessible, scientifically researched, mainstream nonfiction, I’m a sucker. I’ve read most of the seminal books on behavioral economics like “Predictably Irrational”, “Nudge”, “How We Decide” and “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. And I really enjoy books that talk about larger societal issues revolving around gender and relationships: “Marry Him” by Lori Gottlieb, “Committed” by Elizabeth Gilbert, “Unhooked Generation” by Jillian Straus. Which brings me to “The End of Men”.

Women have become more traditionally masculine. Men haven’t become more traditionally feminine.

Rosin starts with some unassailable premises: women are gaining ground in education and the workplace, gender roles are fluid, and both genders are confused about what this means.

So is the author, I would suggest.

“Men could move more quickly into new roles now open to them — college graduate, nurse, teacher, full-time father — but for some reason, they hesitate…Men do a tiny bit more housework and child care than they did 40 years ago, while women do vastly more paid work. The working mother is now the norm. The stay at home father is still a front page anomaly”.

This is true. But Rosin’s built-in suggestion to men is a bit one-sided: the answer to these dilemmas is for men to change. Rosin points out that “women have become more masculine in their traits — assertive, independent, willing to take a stand. Men have not come towards the center, seeing themselves as tender or gentle.”

Yes, and that’s my point. Women have become more traditionally masculine. Men haven’t become more traditionally feminine. And so we find ourselves at an impasse – one that we’ve broached many times on this blog. Women’s answer to men: you need to change. Men’s reply to women: we like the way we are! Accept us.

Screaming back and forth at each other – as we often do – doesn’t serve a purpose. In a perfect world, we’ll try to meet in the middle. But Rosin spends a lot more time reflecting – on how men are falling behind than she does telling women how to adjust to the new world order. To be fair, this new world order, with women at the top, is the central premise of the book. And, to be fair, Rosin does a good job weaving a narrative based on anecdotes and statistics that support her case. Except they don’t entirely do so.

For example, “Among college graduates 25-39, women make up 45.9%.” Women earn 60% of masters, half of all law and medical degrees, and 44% of all business degrees.”

I find this information to be amazing. Inspiring. Heartwarming. Groundbreaking. Yet Rosin is arguing that these statistics represent not just the rise of women but the “end of men”.

Huh?

That’s not the end of men. It’s the BEGINNING of true equality! Now, for the first time, there will be just as many women who will be able to choose men because they are cute, kind, and loyal, not because simply because they’re educated and wealthy. Now, for the first time, a woman who makes $300K/year will have no trouble picking up the tab for a lavish European vacation with her boyfriend who makes $50K, just as men have been doing for their wives for a hundred years. This is good news, and it requires two shifts:

1) Men have to not feel emasculated when there are many women are smarter or wealthier.

2) Women have to not look down on men who are less educated or less successful. Just as men (like me) don’t look down on our stay-at-home mom wives; we cherish them for what they DO bring to the table – kindness, generosity, warmth, laughter, companionship, love, sex, and 100 other things that don’t involve money.

The author continues much of the book on this path, “The number of women with six figure incomes is rising at a faster pace than it is for men. 1 in 18 women working full time earn 100K or more in 2009, a jump of 14 percent over 2 years.”

The hard-driving businesswoman may mute her natural tenderness and vulnerability, two traits that men find both attractive and accessible.

Rosin calls this “the last gasp of a vanishing age” — when men had all the top jobs and wealth. But this is progress. This is as it should be. The number of women with six figure incomes SHOULD be rising at a faster rate because there’s a lot further for women to come to break thru the glass ceiling. Again, this doesn’t represent the end of men. It represents the closest we’ve come yet to a gender-blind work environment – and even that is far away.

Of course, I’m leading with my criticisms, not my praise, but Rosin does take an even hand – not just talking about the “end of men” but shining the light on the contradictions of the modern, smart, strong, successful woman – who makes $200K, but still wants a man to make more. Not only is this a challenging crossroads for women, but Rosin points out another dilemma that comes with equality: the hard-driving businesswoman persona may mute her natural tenderness and vulnerability, two traits that men find both attractive and accessible.

“With sex, as with most areas of life, women tend to preserve a core of their old selves — romantic, tender, vulnerable — even while taking on new sexual personas. The women at business school no longer needed a man to support them, but that didn’t mean they didn’t want one. And years of practice putting up their guard made it hard for them to know when to let it down. As Meghan Daum writes in My Misspent Youth, “the worst sin imaginable was not cruelty or bitchiness or even professional failure but vulnerability.”

Such shifts have only made the already murky dating world even murkier, as gender roles get blurry. And women who choose to put career first do quite well. Reports Rosin, “There is hardly any earning gap between women who don’t have children and men. Mostly, what happens is obvious: women with children start cutting back hours or seeking out situations that are more family friendly.”

So, if you’re a woman who chooses to go all-in on your career, no one’s judging you – certainly not on this blog. I would just hope that you follow the wisdom of the men who do the same; choose a partner who puts the relationship first. The high-power women interviewed in the book came to the same conclusion; a less ambitious husband enables a successful partnership. Writes Rosin, “The powerful women I spoke to all admitted being utterly dependent on their husbands. All described this as the first rule of success: “Choose your spouse carefully…”

Rosin and I both agree that the rise of women necessitates change. And while I disagree that this signals “The End of Men”, I do agree that men have to come to terms with a new world in which, potentially, 50% of the women they meet will make more money. But since this blog is for women, my directive isn’t to tell men how they need to change; it’s to remind you that you can only control your own actions and reactions. Thus, the onus is on you to adjust to the new world order that you’ve created.

Concludes Rosin, “If diversity is good in the workplace, then it’s also good at home. In a massive Dept of Education study, a child’s grades were more closely correlated to how many times the dad showed up at a school event than any other factor. Children with involved fathers measure as having higher IQs by age three, higher self esteem and in the case of daughters, grow up to be less promiscuous.”

And if you’re a woman working 60-hour weeks and pulling in a half million a year, you know what kind of Dad will be a perfect fit? Not the high-powered brain surgeon/marathon runner, but the high-school English teacher who makes $60K, gets home at 4:30, has summers off and pulls in a generous pension.

That’s the model for success. Which means no more clamoring for the male version of yourself.

Do what successful men have done for eons; marry “down” a little bit and find a happy marriage with complementary (not necessarily “equal”) roles.

Join our conversation (188 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 81
    Karmic Equation

    @Ellen

    This is what I perceive modern-day feminism to be:

    The original feminists wanted equality for women; they did not want extra rights for women, nor to take rights away from men. In the eyes of a growing number of people, modern feminism has taken the banner of equality, and used it as a smokescreen for radical activities.

    (Excerpted from
    ——————–
    I’ve never written anywhere on this blog that women cannot be alpha and feminine. I’ve never even written that women cannot have both feminine and masculine qualities. What I do say is that women need to let their feminine side out when they want to attract masculine men…as YOU wisely did yourself.

    “Now, the alpha part I slowly reveal to guys to see if they can handle it.” — YES, wisely done. Very femininely smart of you!

    It’s not ME that’s assuming anything. YOU are the one assuming that strong, smart, successful (“SSS”) women are being feminine and revealing their alpha-ness over time (as you and I do, btw). They’re not. If most SSS women did as you and I do while dating, Evan would be out of a job.

    Main Entry: fem ·i ·nism
           1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
           2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

    Being a feminine, alpha woman, doesn’t make you a feminist. Because that’s what I am, and I don’t consider myself a feminist. I PARTAKE of the benefits of feminism (see #1). But if feminism is also #2, then feminism failed women as it pertains to sex and relationships. How is it in women’s best interests to present men with more women to have no strings sex with? Does that benefit women? How? How does giving a man a free pass to sex without commitment in a woman’s best interest, when most women yearn for committed relationships before sex?

    “They want to return the US and females back to 1950. So Lia and Karmic, uh, YEAH, we need to be vigilant at least. And I won’t even go into how underrepresented we are in Congress and on corporate boards of directors.”
    Don’t blame men for that. Women vote too, and aren’t there just as many, if not more, women in the voting population than men? Shouldn’t women candidates win, at least the popular vote, if not congressional district votes?

    @Lia 81
    Agreed completely. Well said.

    @Selena 82
    “The wedding business is gigantic.”
    That’s commercialism, not indication of commitment. Are there more marriages now than pre-sexual revolution? (percentage in proportion with the population then and now?)

    “The stats for people who choose not to marry, but cohabitate are large and seemingly growing.”
    So, would you be happy just living with your next bf or would you want him to eventually marry you? If marriage is the goal, cohabitation can be detrimental to that goal. Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?

    “And that would apply to ‘players’ as well. Better a single guy to not commit than to become a cheating husband.”
    A player with integrity who decides to marry isn’t any more likely to cheat than a non-player without integrity who marries. In fact, I would bank on the ex-player with integrity to stay faithful (a la EMK). It’s not whether the guy you marry was a player, but rather whether he has integrity.

    @Ruby 83

    I would agree with you if all the smart, stong, successful women on this blog say they don’t need to marry to have children. That they never felt the need to marry to have children. Today, we can have children out of wedlock as well as sex. So why do women want to marry? Why not just have boyfriends or a string of flings and booty calls?

    Women haven’t changed that much when it comes to relationships. What women wanted then and now are the same: Committed relationships. Getting that is not only more difficult, but also there is still no guarantee of success even though BOTH men and women have more choices to select from, in theory.

    But do YOU really feel you have that smorgasbord of men to select from to marry? Have you earned a marriage proposal from each man you dated? So, who actually has the smorgasbord to choose from when it comes to relationships now? It’s not women.

    So until Feminists tell women to go forth and propagate ALONE (i.e., “Single mothers are powerful. Become a single mother!”) in addition to going forth and prosper ALONE (i.e., “We don’t need men for their money. We can earn our own money!”), they’re not helping women when it comes to sex and relationships.

    The sexual revolution shifted the power of relationships from women to men. Pre-sexual revolution WOMEN often had choices amongst multiple suitors to marry, because that was the socially-accepted way for good men to have consistent access to sex. Today good men can delay marriage or choose not to marry at all and still have consistent access to sex. Most women then and now want marriage and children.

    So who gained from the sexual revolution? Tom10 would say the 9’s and 10’s of both sexes. And I would agree. But they had that advantage back then too, so that’s not really a gain. The gain is by high-value men (and even low-value men, ‘cuz ladies we’ve all slept with losers) who no longer have to marry to get consistent access to sex.

    Yes, forcing men to marry for sex didn’t mean the marriages were good back then. But that doesn’t mean that all marriages were bad either. Consider that you wouldn’t be alive today if your parents didn’t marry, whether by choice or design. And today, when there is no external force exerted on people to marry and they do, those marriages still end in divorce. So having more freedom to choose our mates didn’t mean we’ve been making better choices. Another sexual revolution fallacy.

    So, remind me again, how did feminism help the average marriage-minded, family-oriented woman reach her objective?

    Happiness aside, pre-sexual revolution more women reached that objective.
    ——————-
    Just to clarify my position:

    1) Women should present their best feminine self on dates. Does that mean they cannot be masculine at other times? No. Just don’t be masculine on DATES and certainly not first, second, or third dates with men they’re attracted to. If not attracted, be as masculine as they care to be.

    2) Women can have masculine traits, and even LOVE their masculine selves, and still be considered women. Just don’t show the masculine stuff during the INITIAL STAGES of dating. Reveal that part gradually.

    3) Feminism did women a great service for equal rights.

    4) Feminism failed women when it comes to sex and relationships.

  2. 82
    Ruby

    “The business and educational benefits we gained because of feminism are great! I acknowledge that wholeheartedly.”
    One more point: the business and education benefits are also what has given women more financial independence. With that independence comes the freedom to marry when we choose, to not marry at all, to take care of our children, to have a stay-at-home partner. So I believe it’s all inter-related.

  3. 83
    Lia

    And Lia I think we still need feminism or something similar given the abysmal tendency of the male psyche to want to regress and conveniently forget(unless we persist) how capable we are
      
    Really?   Men would just backslide into the old ways of their fathers before them if we don’t persist?   Do you really see men that way?   Granted the Republicans were bat sh*t   crazy but their guy didn’t get voted in, did he?   There is always going to be some ignorant slob who wishes for the days when women were second class citizens.   Do all men get to bear the burden of that stupidity?
      
    I believe there is a difference between being aware and being vigilant.   Aware is defined as having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.   Vigilant is defined as keeping careful watch for possible danger or difficulties.   Look at those two words and if you will just take a moment to FEEL how different they feel.   If I am aware of what goes on around me I can make judgements about whether or not everything is okay.   If I am vigilant there is a stance of defense as if the attack were probable. If I am waiting for an attack so I can defend against it is it possible that I would see danger where none exists?

  4. 84
    Michelle

    I don’t understand how anyone can  get the idea  that  there are those  in the U.S. (other countries is another story) who want to hold down and suppress women? Women have NEVER had more educational, sexual  and professional opportunity than today.  
    Just because someone believes in morals and values that may conflict with others, does NOT mean they want to suppress women.   Believe me, experience, knowledge and a paycheck, viewpoints, beliefs and values often  change over time.

    @Karmic, another excellent post!   When feminism is about hurting men (which includes our son’s by the way) to gain advantage or to equalize everyone (impossible), that’s where I part ways, which is pretty much all the time with today’s feminist movement/business.

  5. 85
    Karmic Equation

    @Rose 86
    “With that [financial] independence comes the freedom to marry when we choose, to not marry at all, to take care of our children, to have a stay-at-home partner. So I believe it’s all inter-related.”

    Yes, feminism did give us more freedoms in general and to our benefit. However, when it comes to sex and relationships those seeming freedoms didn’t free us.

    Point by point:

    -The freedom to marry when we choose
    From your posts it sounds like you’re looking to marry. So if you have the freedom to choose when you marry, and you’ve wanted to be married for a while now, not just when you wrote this post, why aren’t you married already? Did you turn down marriage proposals from men you’ve dated in the past? Or did none of them propose? And if they didn’t propose, why didn’t YOU propose yourself? So do you REALLY have the freedom to marry when you choose? Or do you have the freedom to choose to marry the man who chooses to marry you? Who has the power?

    -The freedom to not marry at all
    Is that really a freedom if no one has proposed to (generic) you?

    -The freedom to take care of our children
    That’s not a choice. It’s a law. If (generic) you have them you’re obligated by law, if not by maternal instincts, to take care them.

    -The freedom to have a stay-at-home partner
    In #10 you wrote “…we’ll just be looking for a man who makes a decent income and wants an equal relationship.”

    Sure we do, but yet we don’t, do we? Women still want that man with some income, not no income. There was a whole thread about this, right?

    This freedom sounds awesome. So awesome in fact, that almost all financially independent women are champing at the bit to find and marry their potential stay-at-home partner. NOT.

    The reality is men who are willing to be the stay at home parent aren’t the alpha men most women on this board are looking for.

    ———————-
    The freedoms feminists tout regarding the sexual revolution didn’t help women. The sexual revolution SEEMINGLY helped women, but in fact helped MEN. That is the fallacy of the sexual revolution. Just be AWARE of that. And being aware of this doesn’t neutralize all the good that feminism HAS provided to us.

    More food for thought: the sexual revolution did NOT free women, it just enslaved them in a different way.

    Whereas once upon a time, women could withhold sex for marriage (and were expected to do so) — now women have to “settle” and withhold sex until “exclusvity” with no assurance that exclusivity will become a marriage.

    Whereas society once frowned upon pre-marital sex, now society looks askance at those who abstain. You and your boyfriend are not having a “normal” relationship if you’re not having sex with each other (unless for religious reasons).

    Whereas you were once a good-girl if you abstain, now you’re a prude.

    Amongst the young, Whereas there was once peer-pressure to remain chaste, there is now peer-pressure to “do it.” 13yo’s giving/getting oral sex think there’s nothing wrong with that.

    The list goes on.

    Just as the alcholic/gambler who doesn’t acknowledge their problems, can’t fix their problem, feminism cannot fix this until they acknowledge it. Which they have yet to do. Which folks on this board who aren’t feminists are loathe to do. I don’t understand why.

  6. 86
    Frimmel

    re #89 feminism not admitting it has a problem
      
    Feminism is stuck with its characterization of the traditional female sex role as oppression and the traditional male sex role as privilege. Anything that challenges that notion such as being on the losing end of sexual freedom as Karmic describes MUST be ignored. As soon as a traditional male sex role is not a privilege (having to get married to get sex for instance) but an oppression then all of the foundation of Patriarchy theory starts crumbling.
      
    Any re-examination of what is expected of men that doesn’t support men’s traditional sex role as privilege is anathema.

  7. 88
    Ruby

    Karmic #89
      
    I’m not sure why you are personalizing my post as being entirely about me, when I meant it in general terms. In other words, I’m talking about the collective “we”.
      
    Of course, women today have the freedom to marry or not marry. Some women choose not to, some choose to live with a partner. Most women still do marry. I wasn’t too interested in marriage when I was younger, and I’m still not sure how I feel about, so don’t jump to too many conclusions about me.
      
    As far as the freedom to take care of our children goes, I probably should have used the work “ability”, but I suspect you knew that’s what I meant.
      
    Stay-at-home dads? Don’t know about you, but I’ve known quite a few of them, and I think that their numbers are growing, even if they never become the norm. Most of the men I’ve known who did stay at home only did so while the child or children were very young, not indefinitely. This wasn’t acceptable in my mother’s generation at all. My father expected my mother to stay at home and not work, and she never questioned that.
      
    “Women still want that man with some income, not no income.” I don’t see where I’ve disagreed with that. Actually, I don’t believe that most women want 100% alpha men, even if they could find them, and I’d argue that most men have a mix of different traits anyway.  
      
    I think that in the early days of the sexual revolution, people explored their sexuality without always knowing what the consequences would be. And with the advent of AIDS and the increase in STDs, not being careful in terms of your sexual health could be deadly. There were emotional consequences as well, and they didn’t affect only women. But just because there have been bumps along the way doesn’t make the sexual revolution bad for women or a complete mistake.
      
    The days when gentleman callers appeared on women’s porches to vie for their attention are gone forever, yet most people still marry. You seem to believe that the ability to withhold sex for marriage got women better marriages, but i see no evidence of that. Again, even if your marriage was bad, you usually toughed it out anyway. I also believe that sexual compatibility is a component of most healthy marriages, so abstaining until the wedding night is no longer going to cut it for most women. If that’s another woman’s choice, however, good for her. The goal isn’t simply marriage, though, it’s a healthy marriage. Should there be more marriages? Or should there be better ones?
      
    “Whereas there was once peer-pressure to remain chaste, there is now peer-pressure to “do it.” 13yo’s giving/getting oral sex think there’s nothing wrong with that.” I don’t think you’ll find many feminists who think that’s a good idea, and I don’t think feminism ever advocated for children having sex. The media and advertising, and the peer pressure that arises from that, are more to blame than “feminism”, because sex does sell.
      
    Even among women who consider themselves feminists, you won’t find 100% consensus on every issue, and you’ll find some feminists to be more conservative in their beliefs and some more radical. It was true in the early days of the movement, and it’s still true today.
      

  8. 89
    Karmic Equation

    #92

    “But just because there have been bumps along the way doesn’t make the sexual revolution bad for women or a complete mistake.”

    I never said that the sexual revolution was a “complete mistake” but I know that it has not been the wonderdrug that feminists have marketed it be.

    On the flip side, feminists and many others can’t acknowledge that the sexual revolution was in any way bad for women.

    And how do you measure “healthier” marriages objectively? If people are marrying for the first time, they have nothing to compare against. And if they’re on their 2nd+ marriage, then they’re adding to the divorce statistic, which proves my point that they’re not making better choices with their freedom. So the only way to infer it, is by quantity or by longevity. On both those counts, I believe modern marriages do NOT measure up to marriages pre-sexual revolution. But really, there is no way to measure “healthier.” So this is not an arguable point.

    And your point about gentlemen callers being gone forever proves my point. Men don’t have to vie for women’s “favors” any more. Women no longer have a selection of men to choose from who offer to be her husband before ever having sex with her. Basically men used to offer marriage for sex, now women offer sex for mere “sexclusitvity.” Which obligates the guy for what? While you’re giving up the goods he desires. You really don’t think that’s a downgrade as well as a loss of power for women?

    If you’re a democrat, you can be a liberal democrat or a conservative democrat (although I think “conservative democrat” has become an oxymoron) — and if you’re a republican, you can be a liberal or conservative republican. But you will rarely mistake a republican for a democrat or vice versa. So either you’re a feminist (conservative, liberal, centrist, whatever) or you’re not a feminist. You don’t get a get-out-of-jail-free-card by saying there are no consensus amongst feminists on various issues.

  9. 90
    Ruby

    “And your point about gentlemen callers being gone forever proves my point. Men don’t have to vie for women’s “favors” any more. Women no longer have a selection of men to choose from who offer to be her husband before ever having sex with her.”
      
    In another post, you mentioned that you didn’t want to be stuck with a lousy lover. Has it occurred to you that other women may feel the same way, or that they might not view their sexuality as “goods” to offer in trade for marriage, even if they might be affected emotionally by the consequences of pre-marital sex? Can you not see women as emotionally fragile beings who can’t survive if a relationship doesn’t end in marriage, especially when most relationships don’t? Can you imagine that not all women want to get married? But somehow, 90% of the population still marries despite it all. Interesting.

  10. 91
    Karmic Equation

    @Ruby 94

    You’re missing the forest for the trees. In this blog, most women are looking to get married, and many want to be married because they want to have children.

    Wanting to be married and have children was a need pre-sexual revolution, too. And women were able to more readily achieve that objective because women THEN were gatekeepers of BOTH sex and commitment (i.e., “marriage”). The sexual revolution changed that dynamic such that women are now ONLY gatekeepers to sex, while men have become gatekeepers to commitment, because men no longer need to give commitment to get sex.

    That shift in power, which I consider to be detrimental to women, but of course, you can have a different opinion, goes unacknowledged by feminism and that lack of acknowledgment is what I have an issue with. Because lack of acknowledgment means that a fundamental need of WOMEN has been disregarded in favor of acquiring ever more “male privileges” instead of preserving “female privileges” that are necessary to women.

    So what’s the solution? My solution has been to reset the sex/relationship dynamic with men. I have sex with a man once I’ve determined he’s worthy to have sex with me. I have sex because I like him and think he’s a good person and find him attractive. He knows this because I’m having sex with him without asking him for anything in return other than his company.

    And when I’m in his company, he gets peace, emotional support, a happy, secure, relaxed person to spend time with. He gets a person who accepts his faults and admires his strengths. A person who makes him feel like he can go off and conquer the world.

    That feeling he can get only from me when in a relationship with me. So guess what? He’s more than happy to offer me a relationship in exchange for those feelings.

  11. 92
    Ruby

    Karmic #94
      
    Many younger people are delaying marriage, many choose to live together instead, rates of marriage among those who are educated have declined much less than among the less educated. People are waiting longer to get married, but those marriages tend to be longer lasting. Access to birth control has given women the opportunity to be more selective about who they marry. Some women realize that they’d prefer to stay single, even if they have a child. Fewer people may be marrying, but the divorce rate is lower today than it was in 1970. The recession may have had an impact, as well…We all have choices today regarding how we want to live our lives, and while choice may make things more complicated, we’d surely miss it if it were taken away.
      
    You say that men no longer need commitment to get sex, but aren’t you contradicting yourself when you say the solution is to give casual sex with no expectation of commitment? I don’t say this as any sort of judgement of you personally, just that it contradicts your criticism of the sexual revolution.

  12. 93
    Paula

    I just feel humans tend to unnecessarily complicate their lives. I of course want a strong man who is living a life he enjoys and is passionate. I am back at school and it would be foolish to think I wouldn’t want a man that was successful. I think we should just let people be free to explore their goals and dreams and pursue what happiness means to them. If it means having to go against typical gender stereotypes, who cares as long as you are happy. I am in comedy which typically is male dominated. I’m funny and enjoy it. Or men who like to cook. Who cares, just create a happy and fulfilling life. If you want a long term relationship you will have to learn how to be a team player and compromise but I don’t see that as a bad thing. We all have to be team players and be cooperative. It’s a good thing, not a bad thing

  13. 94
    Karmic Equation

    @Ruby 96

    “You say that men no longer need commitment to get sex, but aren’t you contradicting yourself when you say the solution is to give casual sex with no expectation of commitment?”

    It does sound that way, doesn’t it?

    I had to think about what I meant when you phrased it this way…LOL

    The fact that men no longer need commitment to get sex was not of my doing. That took a period of time for this shift in behavior to become entrenched. So I’m just stating a fact.

    So the question is what am I solving if I’m “giving” sex without commitment?

    Well, I think it’s kind of Freudian that you use the word “giving” sex. I usually use the word “having” sex. That difference in word choice tells a lot about your and my difference in mindsets regarding sex. “Giving” sex without commitment isn’t the same as “having” sex without commitment. One feels obligatory(? for lack of better word). The other hedonistic.

    So my solution is actually HAVING sex without commitment. But what am I solving <rhetorically to myself>?

    I guess I would define the problem as how to create a relationship with a man without making sex an issue.

    So my solution is to take sex of the table by HAVING it. In other words, by having sex, I make it a non-issue for the genesis of a relationship. By making sex a non-issue, the man and I can focus our energy on determining whether or not a relationship is worthwhile not whether or not sex is worthwhile.

    I believe that men are usually on their best/most-romantic behavior BEFORE “first time” sex and revert back to their “real” selves after the novelty sex with you has worn off. So the sooner I get to see who they “really” are, the sooner I can determine whether they really are worthy of having a relationship with.

    You would say, well, you couldn’t do that before sexual revolution. YOu’re right. Neither could YOU. And you STILL DON’T 🙂 If the sexual revolution was to liberate women to be f*ck like men (pardon the crudeness), and women’s mindsets PREVENT them from f*cking like men (because we bond to men we f*ck), then the sexual revolution didn’t free MOST women…most women are like you not me, so the sexual revolution serving ME doesn’t matter to womenkind in general.

    However, if women can get themselves to separate sex from commitment, my solution works. The men I date aren’t earning “sex” from me, I’ve reset my bar so that men earn a “relationship” from me. They know they can get sex from other women, but they only get a relationship with me only with me. And a relationship with me is nothing like relationships they’ve had before me or after, it appears. As the men I’ve recently dumped (6yr guy and ex-player) continue to reach out to me.

    Lest we get confused again, having sex without commitment DOESN’T mean sleeping with a man the minute you meet him and find him attractive. I don’t sleep with a guy until I’ve “deemed him worthy” to have sex with me. That deeming takes time. But once I’ve deemed him worthy, then it doesn’t matter if he’s my bf or not.

  14. 95
    Ruby

    “The sexual revolution changed that dynamic such that women are now ONLY gatekeepers to sex, while men have become gatekeepers to commitment, because men no longer need to give commitment to get sex.”
      
    I simply picked up the word “give” from your statement here, which states that men don’t “give” commitment to get sex anymore. Following through with that semantic logic implies that women “give” sex to get commitment.
      
    I think you are viewing the sexual revolution a very narrow way. As I’ve already posted, it was about much more than freeing women to have sex “like men”, which, I agree, most women do not want to do. And frankly, I’ve met quite a few men who weren’t interested in non-committal sex either. Players tend to get a lot of attention on sites like this because they can be so insidious, but they are not the norm among men.

  15. 96
    marymary

    Ruby, 99
    True, they aren’t the norm. Since I cleaned up my roladex I don’t know a single one.   Yes, I know they don’t care and it’s just my experience, but if you don’t want that in your life, you don’t have to. Maybe I   should rather say they’re the norm for some people, but not for me.
    Many good men out there.   Of course, not many of us are commenting or blogging about them or writing books about them. They go under the radar in a “no news is good news” sort of way.

  16. 97
    Selena

    marymary#100
    “They go under the radar in a “no news is good news” sort of way.”
    LOL. Yes. I hear more about ‘players’ on blogs than I’ve ever heard anywhere “in real life”.

  17. 98
    Ruby

    Oops, my earlier message was referencing Karmic’s post #95, and her comment to me in #98, “Well, I think it’s kind of Freudian that you use the word “giving” sex. I usually use the word “having” sex.”

  18. 99
    Helen

    Applauding Ruby here.
      
    Every change brings both good and bad with it.   No one expects any social or political  change to be 100% for the good.   To look at things in absolutes is naive – that it must be 100% good for it to be good at all.   Feminism, in either its first, second, or third waves (however we collectively define them), brought so much good to women in general that I am certainly happy it occurred, regardless of whatever changes in “gatekeeping” took place.

  19. 100
    Karmic Equation

    Every change brings both good and bad with it.

    That’s all I think feminism needs to do. Acknowledge the bad that went with it.

    If we are given the “freedom” to lick the backs of our own knees, but it’s not physically possible to do by anyone but a contortionist, how much does that freedom actually count? Is it even a freedom? If a freedom granted to me frees the other side as well, in a way that goes against my feminine need (a committed relationship), who really gained? Didn’t we just gain a supposed freedom and lose another we already had? Feminists can’t admit that they freed men in a way that was counter to the interests of most women. But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised? It’s the nature of most women to be unable to admit fault. and feminists are female at heart.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *