In which Charles Murray's cowardly refusal to take on female hypergamy is correctly criticized: Women’s improved employment numbers, education and earning power (some of it contributed by government largesse) has had the effect of SHRINKING their acceptable dating pool. Material resources and occupational status are one way women judge men’s mate worthiness (not the only way, but the one way that viscerally matters to most beta males), and the innate female sexual disposition to be attracted — ANIMALISTICALLY ATTRACTED — to men with higher status and more resources than themselves necessarily means that financially independent women and government-assisted women are going to find fewer men in their social milieu attractive.
Result? Men slowly discover that the effort to win women’s attention via employment is not rewarding them the way it did for their dads and granddads, and that now only herculean efforts to make considerably more than women will give them an edge in the mating market. The male fecklessness that Murray lambasts is actually a rational male response to a changing sexual market where the rewards of female sexuality go disproportionately to charming, aloof jerks over meager beta providers.
And make no mistake, the jerks are exactly to whom women, particularly lower class women, are dispensing their favors. When earning power and employment as a male attractiveness criteria has been subconsciously debased by women who don’t need male provisions, then women will shift their sexual adaptation algorithm to sexy cads for their thrills and romantic chills.
Knowing this, it makes more sense to shame women equally as vigorously as one shames men for social and family breakdown. In fact, as I have argued, if a prosperous, civilized, self-reliant society is your goal it actually makes sense to shame women MORE than men, because women are the gatekeepers of sex, and as such their combined sexual marketplace decisions carry more import in the direction the culture takes.
Read the whole thing. Roissy is absolutely correct. Murray has made a mistake in focusing on a consequence instead of one of the primary causal factors. Murry himself needs to man up and target the real problem, which is the sexual liberation of women from the civilized standards that are required to maintain the continuation of civilization.
The logic is impeccable. Consider:
1. IF women are permitted to have sex with whomever they please. 2. AND women show an observable preference to have sex with men who do not exhibit civilization-building or civilization-maintaining behaviors. 3. THEN men will increasingly cease to engage in civilization-building or civilization-maintaining behaviors.
After that, it's just a matter of time before the civilization collapses and it's back to the barbarism of mud huts, rape, and pillage. Or, alternatively, preventative action is taken regarding points (1) and (2). Which one is more feasible? Women often like to angrily demand of men of sufficient foresight if they want to control women's sexuality. That's the wrong and irrelevant question. The correct one is: do you like electricity, a reliable food supply, and the ability to live peaceably without having to shoot strangers on sight?
Poster Comment:
What is in bold I've been saying for a long time: men created civiliation. Camille Paglia, although a lesbian, has pointed out that without men women would still be living in grass huts.
If the men who create and maintain civilization are not given their just due, few will engage in it, and therefore, civilization goes backward, including as far as collapsing.
Contrary to the hallucinations of women I know who blame all the bad in the world on men...the truth is that without civilization, women are worse than men.