Connie said (February 16, 2017):

Amen to ditching the window shoppers! A woman who agrees to shack up with no commitment is making a big mistake, and it is something "everybody" knew in the old days. Remember the saying, "Why buy a cow when you can get the milk for free?" Twice, I've seen this arrangement drag on for years, then end with a sudden tragic break-up, the couple in their mid-30s. He is simply blindsided when one day she wakes up and wants a ring and a baby, something he never signed up for.

Dave said (February 16, 2017):

Women who missed out are still going to live longer and have the government look after them far more than unmarried men.

Sheila said (February 16, 2017):

Henry, I appreciate your perspective, but given that women are victims of their programming, can't you spare just a smidge of compassion? With phrases like "thread bare and hard bitten" you seem to be gloating over the lot of women past their prime, and it seems mean spirited.

--

Thanks Sheila

I guess men are angry and it shows

henry

Steve said (March 16, 2009):

One other factor you should consider is also the economic position of more and more men. Marriage is seen as an expense that has been priced out of reach. Wages are so low in workplace or stagnating so much men like me just don't have that extra cash to date and do the "entertaining" women expect anyway. Never mind paying for the expensive wedding ceremonies women want to celebrate "their day".

God fearing straight men like me who have been "on the market" give up eventually.

Amy said (March 13, 2009):

I just had to comment on this article and say thank you yet again.

I was 19 when my eldest son was born and 2 more later, I am still in my mid 20's. My husband and I chose to start straight away. So many older women ask me all the time "why didn't you want go to university? or start your career first? or wait until you've traveled and seen the world?"...

My answer is pretty simple- a career can not hug you and say I love you. By the time my children are ready to 'leave the nest' I will have plenty of time to study or travel or work and enjoy my husbands companionship as I will still only be in my mid 40's... Yeah lady, still think I made a dumb choice?

Reading this article this morning before I took my son to school, put a huge smile on my face and I held my head high as I walked passed all the other 30+ years mums who (because of feminism) feel they have the right to judge me for being "old fashioned".

Tony said (March 13, 2009):

Henry, I must disagree with your statement that "women were designed to marry and have children in their late teens and early twenties." That seems logical these days because of the utter lack of preparation for either of these things in the lives of young girls.

Little princesses (and princes) used to be raised by at least three governesses, each speaking a different language. Before puberty they were fluent in each. That's just one item from the old monarchies.

For the average family, mothers used to have their girl children with them most of the time as learning helpers. "Formal" education was considered wasted on them - and that consideration is absolutely proved correct in the vast majority of cases. Girls in school are interested in anything but an education. I observe every day that, especially for girls, school is one long playtime. Some girls "excel" (by today's lack of real standards) in subjects they enjoy, which, in reality, is just more playtime. Girls who graduate from dumbed down colleges usually end up as dead end secretaries anyway. As some woman mentioned to you recently, they don't have the balls to "make it" in the world the way men do. To them a level playing field is being handed a man's job by court enforcement.

All that said, women were DESIGNED to marry and have children at or shortly after puberty, not when society has decided it is convenient to society. In a saner age they were prepared for their purposeful lives by then instead of being converted into self-centered, worthless, rude, uncultured users; void of any common courtesies, and unprepared for anything beyond being babied. Believe me, this is not an exaggeration.

Boys are not being prepared for life either but they become more mature for the simple reason of being mistreated by schools simply because they are boys. This forces them to gain some sense of self protection; survival, if you will.

In that saner age, boys became established in some manner before being able to afford marriage so they were older when they married - the age difference between husbands and wives was much greater than now. There was no nonsense about "equal partners" in marriage, there were separate roles as demanded by nature and common sense.

This (marriage situation) is another area wherein "change" - always the byword of communism - was not required because, by sticking to the dictates of nature, marriage worked - modern day propaganda concerning the supposed helplessness of those wives of yore notwithstanding.

How many young lives today are destroyed before they begin because society has set back the time for marriage but puberty remains as God made it? Society compounds its insanity with its double standards about sex, generating more and more idiot laws against early marriage and at the same time saying any perversion goes when one hits the magic age? And teaching the perversions to school children. The sexual urge is never stronger than when puberty hits. One would think the puritans would be able to understand that. Or at least the politicians, too many of whom have a continual history of being highly sexed in an illicit manner.

Dan said (March 13, 2009):

In my youth during the 70's college women did such a good job of showing no interest in marriage or motherhood that neither I, or they, suspected homes, ie husband and family, would ever matter to them. It wasn't till I was over 40 that every woman my age I met had been those women 30 years ago. And every one of them were still single and expressed openly their regrets. Quite bitterly.

I understood then that the sex 'revolution' and feminism had conned them as effectively as 'sex drugs and rock n' roll' had conned me.
I think I see now that the trick is, when you're 21 male or female, a lifetime seems forever, so you can try on a 'lifestyle' and if you don't like it later you can do something else. Women didn't realize things look very different from 40. And 40 creeps up on people in their 20's, before you know it -- you're there.

Another thing I realized, is because women lose the possibility of having children by 40 (if not sooner), they're still in a relatively young mind set when they learn they've missed that possibility - and that's forever. A man may begin feeling a fleeting moment of regret at never raised a family when he's invited to a college buddy's daughter or son's college graduation, or wedding. It's often not till such a happenstance that it occurs to a middle aged man the children he might have had would already be grown. But that's a 'guy' thought that doesn't have the same 'finality' that a woman realizing she's infertile forever can have. As a man, I think childless men think of not having been a father the way they might occasionally regret a profession they wanted to be, but didn't pursue till it was too late. It doesn't seem to have the same impact that a woman feels realizing she'll never be a mother.

And does have. Rather often. I know it does, I've heard it from too many women my age who's photos from the 70's tell me they could have had their pick of men. And they did! They picked ALL of them, one a month. Like shopping. These were the girls who had that bumper sticker, "So many men, too little time" back in '77". Well, time's up.

So my advise to young people whether male or female is, don't let this happen to YOU. Don't be conned.

Paul said (July 12, 2008):

I applaud your articles week after week, your insight and perspective.

The missing ingredient is love. The solution is conservatism. We get there by self-denial.

It seems to me that by undermining the man, the family is challenged to fall apart because if this "micro-government ; i.e. man as leader of household" goes away, it would (path of least resistance) fall away to a large and powerful entity, government...one that seeks to drastically reduce the population.

I've come to realize though that their plan is completely manufactured and thus cannot stand. The devil and socialism go hand in hand. This go around is most likely to be the most refined effort in the history of man. As for the chip, this would mark ( no pun intended) the 2nd attempt at numbering the people ( refer to 2nd Chronicles Chpt 21). Satan is up to the same thing now.. albeit more subtly. And as long as the world is full of its' own stanky arrogance, it will be none the wiser.

I'm certain you see the femanization of man taking place ("soyafied") and how it has drastically changed our world. I have found that provided we hold on to the "old world" values, we are the rich ones. This is the torch that we need to pass on with no shame.

Men are to be spiritual leaders rather than sexual followers ( discovered this in a most difficult way) and that by continually gawking and oogling so many attractive females only reinforces the lie. They need leadership rather than, well you know!

Lorna said (July 11, 2008):

I'm a 32 year old beautiful, educated, but divorced woman. My husband no longer wanted me after I was seriously injured in an accident. Now that I'm well and back on the dating scene, it's like this. Men only want sex and no commitment. So many women will lay down for any man, that good women with morals have no chance.

We are told by dating "experts" that we have to be mysterious, not needy but fiercely independent, emotional rocks, sexy and wild in bed whether we have a relationship or not, and myriad other things that do not equate into being a good partner or wife. Kind women, such as myself, are repeatedly never called back because we weren't enough of a "challenge." I was recently dumped by a man that I went out with 5 times (I didn't sleep with him or anything like that). I thought we were having a great time getting to know each other slowly. I gave him a book on our last date, and he never called me again b/c I showed too much "interest" in him.

You are correct that feminism has ruined the family and the chances that I will find a nice man who would appreciate a kind, loving wife. Feminism is easy to swallow for many women b/c they had mean fathers who treated their mothers terribly. So the bankers have had an easy time of brainwashing women, because even in my own life, I knew I could never count on a man to make my living for me as I saw my mother, sister, and I abandoned and abused by my own father.

In the end, I believe it's the fault of both genders and the gullibility of the public in not researching where these ideas come from. We all need to stop blaming one another and fight back against the global banking cabal. As Ghandi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world."

Miri in Jerusalem said (February 24, 2008):

It's pitiful what has happened to men, also women, I am not a man basher, I am still hopeful for myself for a partner, but for someone who wants a traditional family, it's like men don't want the pressure of being the head of the family and the provider and protector. They don't understand that concept!
I tried my best to raise my children this way, and I was like Martha Stewart on speed,
but my husband bought the femenist lie and was totally irresponsible in his role. As it turns out, my children have established their homes this way, and my 2 daughters are homemakers and having children with wonderful husbands, and my 2 sons wanted this, but they got hooked up with typical women, because they themselves wanted immoral women! I think that is the key to failure. In general, women are driven to fit into the feminist mold of getting degrees and wearing the pants in the family, incidentally having babies along the way and spoiled rotten and lazy. It takes a lot of hard WORK to be a homemaker. It's like the majority of men want hell raisers before marriage, then they get them and expect all the traditional things from them. ha Why are they surprised when they don't see what Mommie did??
Needless to say, one of my sons is in divorce recovery; yet he still dreams of a wife and family.
I pray that it works out for him, as he is a real homebody, and "domestic" in his expectations. I think you should write about this point: if the man is looking for dating a hell raiser, what do you think will happen when they marry? And if the man is looking to have the job taken off his shoulders of being the head of the family, for which they were built that way, there is from the beginning a sandy foundation and everything onward is out of order. Like "Who's in charge here?"
I told my children, "Anything with 2 heads is a freak."
This is the problem, rebellious women and wimpy men.

Wiiliam said (February 17, 2008):

In most societies marriages are arranged. Not the “find your soul-mate” drivel of New Age, or even “love”. Rather, the two are thrown together in an arranged marriage. Yet these produce long lasting, loving marriages while the American scene produces divorces by the number.

Women were not made to be alone. The early Church provided for widows who wished to devote themselves to Religion, but bemoaned the fact that most women wanted to remarry as they missed the companionship and the sex.

The wife is the heart of the family. She bears the ultimate responsibility for its success or failure. In a loving home, the husband honors and appreciates her. With a shrew (feminist) it is a daily hell. If she wants companionship she must be a companion. If she wants love then she must show love. If she wants the marriage to blossom, she must plant the seeds therefore.

The modern fiction of “falling in love”, and living “happily ever after” is simply not true. The husband is fixated on externals to the marriage. Creativity, work, making a living, etc. to support the family. He should indeed show support for his wife, and honor her, but he cannot make up for a wife's deficiencies because it is she who is the heart of the family.

Gottlieb's recognition of the barrenness of feminism and the desire for companionship is bringing her to the recognition of companionship and molding herself to be a wife. Perhaps she is not there yet, and perhaps it is very late, but it sounds as though she is on the right path.

As long as there is not mutual repugnance between the man and woman, a marriage can be built even against strong personality differences if she will “settle”, enjoy what marriage gives her and change herself to be a wife.

Maurice said (February 15, 2008):

Family is the oldest Human institution. In many ways it is the most important. It is Society's most basic unit. Entire civilizations have survived or disappeared, depending on whether family life was strong or weak. Families have existed since earliest times, and will undoubtedly exist as long as man lives on Earth.
Families make up the basis of every Society, because they serve three vital Human needs found everywhere:
First - the family is the means for producing children and continuing the Human Race.
Second - the family provides for the protection and early training of infants. Human infants are perhaps the most helpless of all living creatures. They must be fed, washed, and dressed. They cannot move far by themselves. As they grow older, they must be trained to become responsible members of Society.
Third - the family sets up a division of labour so that each member contributes something. The Man usually earns the living while the Woman looks after the household. Both parents care for the children, who also assume responsibilities as they grow up.
No one really knows how the family began. It probably came into existence because of the protection it gave its members.
Early men also organized themselves into Clans and Tribes. A Clan consisted of several joint families that banded together to share certain ceremonies and traditions. A Tribe was made up of several Clans living in the same territory and sharing the same culture. Tribes were self-governing and protected their members against attacks from wild animals and enemy Tribes.

-The World Book Encyclopedia, 1976-

Mary said (February 15, 2008):

You should read the book "Pottenger's Cats" By Francis Pottenger Jr. By feeding cats a deficient diet, they were able to create quick degeneration in cats. They developed many of the same diseases and problems we are facing. Cats started showing sex role reversal where the male cats became extremely docile and the female cats became extremely aggressive. They also started having "unnatural sexual relations with the same sex", something previously not seen in cats. It was never seen in the control group of the cats eating the nutrient dense diet. So, think about it. We are able to turn cats homosexual by depriving their mothers of certain nutrients while they are in utero. By the third generation, the cats on the deficient diet were all unable to reproduce. That's right-they were all sterile! Hmmmm..... The food we eat is a big part of it. Make no mistake. The few of us who realize this are finding it harder and harder to get nutritious food. They are taking CONTROL of our food supply. NAIS (National Animal Indentification System-they are putting RFID chips in all the farm animals) GMO foods and pollen drift (pretty soon there wont be any more natural seeds left), the U.N. and their war on all vitamin and herbal supplements (they want to get natural medicine "banned")flouride in the water,the list goes on and on. (check out www.ppnf.org -Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation website)

Tony said (February 14, 2008):

Your latest article and the responses it has generated are really gratifying fun to read. More women are seeing the mess they've created
- both for themselves and men - by chasing the plastic rainbow of stupidity misnamed "feminism." A little late for old geezers like me to gain a decent marriage but it's good to see the pendulum finally stop its wrong direction arc. Now it can only swing back to reason. Sweet.

But I must add that schools, from kindergarten up, are pushing the lie harder and faster than ever onto unaware little girls. (TV too. Girls
on tv now forever do "boys' activities" - almost never anything feminine.) Most teachers - k thru 12 anyway - are women, and the huge majority of them are thoroughly frustrated but adamant feminists.

Pretty much brain dead followers of fad. Therefore emotionally damaged upcoming women will continue to ruin life for themselves and men their
age for some time to come. Home school. It's really easier for parents than for them to forever try to fight and right the nonsense put into their kids heads by the mis-education empire. And toss the tv.

Becky said (February 13, 2008):

I was so lucky in my choice of parents. I remember my mother saying how sad she was that the 'experts' of the time taught that if a baby is crying it should be left to cry(this was in the '40s). She always regretted following
that advice. But it taught me a valuable lesson--never listen to the 'experts' on any subject. Use your own head.

Social engineering has destroyed our society. Just look at bilingualism, multiculturalism and all the other isms that have been foisted upon us. The feminist rabblerousing is just another brain dead ism. I could never understand why women demanded to be 'equal' to men. What was stopping them?

Do they not realize that if they are patronized because of their gender that only proves that they are not equal? Stupid is as stupid does, to
paraphrase Forrest Gump?

AS said (February 13, 2008):

While I agree with your basic premises, I think the application of the feminist social engineering you speak of may not be spot on. I'm a single man in my late 30s with my own car (an SUV), no debt, a good job and interesting hobbies - I make my own music and target shoot among other things. Yet I have had almost no luck getting with someone in a marriage minded way. Why? Because I'm an individual who doesn't readily conform to what the mass media says I should be, therefore women don't consider me marriage material.

Women are raised in this culture to expect everyone marriage worthy to be either a celebrity, lawyer, doctor or cop; just look at sitcom TV - you don't see working joe's or cube farm workers as often as you see the wealthy or the state's enforcer-class minions.

And invariably women are portrayed marrying wealthy old men in shows like Ugly Betty in order to 'get ahead,' not to actually have a positive couple experience. If you're not school-boy pretty, from a rich family or a gansta rapper-- most women just aren't interested in working stiffs.

Most women I know are wrapped up so tighly into consumerism that they equate only vast material means as being capable of true love - that's why the Bachelor was promoted so heavily, to make average girls truly unsatisfied with average guys. That's why 'He went to Jared' is shoved down our throats, because if a man won't or can't shell out enormous sums of money for baubles then he is not a 'prime contender.

Women get so worked up over make-believe TV reality that the real thing almost always is a let-down for them. American women have become greedy, power hungry vampires who look at men exactly the same way men supposedly look at women according to feminism - like objects. So I've come to the conclusion that barring an act of G-d I will probably have to go overseas to find myself a decent woman who will take me for who I am. It's sad but true.

---

A--You have well described another aspect of the social engineering designed to undermine marriage and family. Thanks

Emma said (February 13, 2008):

THANK YOU for the above titled article. I'm a female, divorced, baby boomer in my mid-40s who unexpectedly finds myself in the upside down nowhere-land of midlife dating. I have struggled with the "cow/milk" syndrome for ten years and it's a lose-lose proposition for all women, either way. If you don't sleep with him, he won't marry you and if you DO sleep with him, he won't marry you.

I also had read Lori Gottlieb's article just a day before I read this one from you, and it turned my stomach (that's putting it mildly).

From your article:

"Sexual liberation is part of this agenda. Men see no reason to marry now that unfettered sex is so plentiful. I advise women to consecrate sex for long-term loving relationships and end them in 6-8 mos. if marriage is not imminent. Don't waste time on window shoppers.

Feminists have been neutered by adopting the male role model and eschewing the feminine one. They need to rediscover their natural feminine instincts. This involves finding a man they can believe in, and nurture, and not settle for less. True love stems from the sacrifice that women make for the person they love. Let him lead and keep your mouth shut about all his faults. But don't let him take you for granted and dump him if he doesn't love you back big-time!"

That is BY FAR the best advice I've read for women like me. Feminism robbed me of the family I always wanted and then left me alone out in the cold competing with men for the same jobs at half the wages. I look around me and cannot believe how STUPID women were to fall for this obvious scam to double the tax base and destroy the family unit.

Please keep writing! Shout it from the rooftops if you have to! You give women like me hope.

Richard said (February 13, 2008):

Well, it's all absolutely true. And that advice (or marching order) coming down from Lori Gottlieb must be in the latest sitcoms or where ever women are getting their inputs this year, for it's been filtering to me through local women's talk. A 43 year old woman actually said friends told her that just the other day.

“Ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she longs for in life...what she really wants is a husband...” Gottleib confesses.

Now, they tell them!
I don't know Gotteib's work, but if she's in Atlantic Monthly I suppose she's a spokesman for the category of feminism directed at the confirmed heterosexual women. Those that were told that it's best to wait for marriage until the career's well established at 35, have the baby at 36 when they've earned the year of pregnancy leave and get back to work before somebody else takes their job.

The formula looked great on paper, especially since it was re-inforced by movies and television.
There's only one thing they overlooked - "it takes two to Tango". Marriageable men are autonomous human beings. Not something marked off the checklist like, "Undergrad degree: check. Grad degree: check. Fast track entry level: check. Junior executive: check".
The results are in. Marriageable men have their own formula, and .... well, how to tactfully put this ... feminists - in this case I mean women who will put themselves and career, even their Pilate's classes, before the man in their life and their children, before their family - don't fit the profile marriageable men have for marriageable women. .

This has been well known in Houston for at least two years. It's already been announced in the Houston Business Journal in 2005. Statistics show that the men these women had profiled in their marriage business plan - financially secure, motivated, healthy and reasonably attractive - have been marrying nice reasonably attractive young women from service professions. Nurses, elementary school teachers, secretaries. The sort of girls who never pursued college further than associate degree, who's real goal in life has always been making a home and raising children.
Houston career women, who've been at this for 30 years here were stunned. "What? The alpha males are marrying beneath their status???" They didn't get it at first. It's really a question of perception of value.

Charlie Sheen's character on the male-depricating sitcom "Two and a Half Men" had a line, "If you pay a housekeeper to straighten up things and cook, and have as much sex as you want from women you can take out dinner, why would you want to marry one may end up getting half all you own?"
The most obvious reason is children - most mature men do reach an age -- mid 30's to 40's, at which they want to be fathers of their own children.

Career women weren't allowed to consider how poor a choice they appear through men's eyes. They might consider that a woman that's been taught to demand to split the check at the first dinner, who's primary focus in introduction is asserting her business acumen and competitive equality with a man on the first date, a woman with a law practice or feminist friends with law degrees....well, a man who's established a fair income with property might see her as 'high risk for putting his name on the dotted line of a marriage 'contract'.

Feminism is very legalistic. It's all about 'balance of political power' in every human relationship. Feminism trained women don't offer to become part of the man's vision, much less offer surrender in trust. They negotiate, they barter. They offer a 'partnership', and when you read the find print it's a limited partnership at that.

Such women have always come off as high pressure salesmen to me on a first date. There generally hasn't been a second date. Men get plenty of this kind of 'relationship' from men every day in business!

I think most men are more comfortable feeling that the woman may actually need him and what he can do, they tells him the makes her feel secure - not one who's always telling him she doesn't.

So now the word's out that these women must 'settle'. I suppose that means marrying what they were trained to think of as the 'beta' males. The less 'successful', though hard working and maybe less educated. Service career guys. There's a bit of 'if the alpha males have been marrying the beta girls...maybe that will work for us too'.

But when a man marries a so-called 'beta' woman...the kind that surrenders devotion and is happy with her home and family in spite of not having the MBA from Texas A&M, and a closet full of designer ensembles, it's not the same thing as a woman attorney or CEO marrying "beneath" them. They'll find out soon enough. The dynamics are still out of whack.

Marcos said (February 13, 2008):

About this last article of yours, I want to call your attention to a different situation we have here in Brazil, one that I can see very well in my errands with my boys. It is what I call soccer-mom envy. I routinely meet these upper middle class soccer moms, and it is amazing how much they envy professional women. These ladies in their 30s and 40s dress sharply, usually with those huge sunglasses that Paris Hilton likes, and are very aggressive. They drive like crazy. They don't have the natural gentleness that lower class mothers have. They just look nervous and anxious, taking their kids from swimming classes to judo classes. Interestingly, they look at me with my kids as we meet in school as an alien from planet X. No, they don't want a caring man who helps with the tasks; they want a rich man who can afford two nannies.

I believe their problem is all about fear of losing their husbands. They are usually pretty ladies, or at least ladies who used to be pretty before too much sun wrinkled their skins. I bet they were the kind of prize girls that successful guys with nothing in their heads marry to show society how successful they are. Now they are getting older and beauty is fading. Their husbands also got used to their tantrums and their problems. The spell is gone.

It is really funny to see them at the pool. Here in the condo I live, we have a very large pool. During weekends, many families get together as the kids have fun in the water. However, we don't see ONE lady in modest dress. All of them are wearing tiny bikinis that show everything, sometimes even the cellulites from child bearing. I mean, it is up to a point when you get uncomfortable...you know, when you just get concerned that they may think you are looking, even though they are flashing it in your face. So these married soccer moms who probably never cheated their husbands are still playing a pathetic game to impress who knows who with their exposed asses (their husbands, other men,, their friends?).

What is interesting is that women who work here don't have this kind of attitude. Maybe because life for them is just hard? Maybe because in this third world country women work not to only to assert themselves, but to make a living? Probably.