IN THE DISCUSSIONS this week about a man who said it was difficult to find a woman who didn’t already have a child by another man, I answered that I thought it might be possible for him to find a decent wife who was a single mother. However, in the heat of the conversation I failed to clarify one aspect of my position. I don’t think a woman who has refused to marry the father of her child, as Bristol Palin has done, or who has divorced the father of her child fits into the category of suitable prospects.

In years past, men who did not want to marry the women they impregnated were compelled to, largely by other men. That is no longer the case. Naturally, I don’t view marriage to single mothers as an answer to the cultural dilemma of men. There is no answer to their cultural dilemma that falls short of the restoration of patriarchal values, the return to traditional sex roles, and the end of the sexual revolution. 

                                                     — Comments —

Jesse Powell writes:

Now what is this dilemma that men face, what is “Asher’s Dilemma” exactly? It seems what Asher is complaining about is that there are not enough single women without children, and he doesn’t want to marry a woman who already has children. This is not a dilemma; this is a choice or a preference. Asher wants to get married, supposedly, but he complains there are no women “up to his standards,” namely, women who don’t already have a child by another man. 

Now of course, there are single women without children in this country, why doesn’t Asher go after them? There is talk about whether a woman with a child by another man is “marriage material” or not. Truth is, such a woman will be marriage material for some and not marriage material for others. Different men have different preferences; different men have higher or lower status levels. One man will reject a woman because she already has a child with her and another man won’t.  

I guess what is annoying me about the conversation surrounding Asher’s comments is there seems to be this effort to place women into “deserving” categories and “undeserving” categories, those who are worthy of marriage and those who aren’t. Asher seems to be saying that large swathes of the female population are undeserving of marriage due to their past choices, so the only thing he can do as a man is live it up, party, have sex outside of marriage, and let the world be damned. Then Asher contends that in order for a traditionalist movement to be “relevant” to him it has to address his needs and concerns. What are his needs and concerns, by the way? To deliver a woman to him that meets his standards? 

To me, Asher seems to be condemning American women wholesale, making demands that women change their behavior on a wide front to better suit his preferences, and claiming that in order for political movements to gain his support, and others like him, they have to cater to his particular interests and provide some specific benefit to him. 

The agenda should not be to browbeat women into “better behavior” to please men who do not show initiative themselves in making themselves better men, the agenda should be for men to reject feminism and subservient behavior to women, to take on their duties as men, to offer themselves to the women they desire in hopes that they rise to the woman’s expectation of them, and to take on their rightful role as leaders of the families they create. 

In other words, the onus of responsibility is on men to make themselves better men. Then and only then will the women follow and make themselves better women in return, in order to be good enough to win the heart of the newly desirable self-sufficient, assertive, caring and idealistic man who will place the needs of his wife and his family first. 

It is Asher’s job to make himself into a better man and to support political movements that assist him and encourage him to become a better man; it is not the job of women or of political movements to cater to Asher’s weaknesses.

Laura writes:

It is normal for men to be reluctant to marry women with children by other men. In years past, women who became pregnant when they were unmarried typically put their children up for adoption. Many women fail to consider this route today. When single motherhood is no longer shameful, women do not seem to have the same incentive to consider adoption and adoption itself seems to become shameful. This is unfortunate. There is a high demand for babies to adopt.

Brendan writes:

I have to say that I was a bit troubled, if not exactly surprised, at the level of disdain heaped on Asher. Asher simply represents millions of American young men, and has articulated, I think, what is making them tick, what is informing their choices and so on. I don’t think it’s helpful or realistic for traditionalists to hope to reach young men like Asher, or even before they become more set in their views as he has, by simply saying “go out there and be a man and earn a good woman”. Would that it were so simple to do that in 2010.

When I was engaged in the mating game back in the 1990s, it was not all that different from how it is today, with the main difference today being that more younger men have adapted their behavior to suit the market situation, probably because it is no longer new, and there is more information about it out there for people who are looking for it. When I was entering this market in the late 80s (college) and 90s (early professional life in New York City), there weren’t really any useful guidelines. The rules had changed utterly from what my parents, who married in the 50s, had raised me to believe (and to this day they still deny that the market works the way that it does, because it is so *alien* to them). Most of the young male lawyers my age I knew at the time were not hedonists, drinkers, abusers– nor were they pansies or girly-men. Yet most were single, almost “chronically” so. This wasn’t due to a lack of women being around — Manhattan and the NYC area in general is not lacking in young women. In fact, young women flock to the area from all over the country. However, these young women were not interested in dating the likes of us. To the extent they were interested in dating at all (many were not, and preferred the clubbing/party scene .. and I’m talking about highly educated young women lawyers and bankers here, not professional party-girls), they were interested in dating the “big fish”, not the relatively little fish that we were. I didn’t know the word “hypergamy” at the time, but now that I do I certainly can say without equivocation that it was in full swing in NYC when I lived there in the early 1990s. And the result was that guys like me were going a long time without even a single date, becoming more isolated from women socially and so on. None of the women I knew at the time had children — I am sure that some of them had abortions, although of course that information never would have been shared with me.

Things didn’t really improve much until I aged a few years and as a result became a bit of a bigger fish, at least for women who were still relatively small fish. I met a young woman who had graduated from college the previous Spring. She was very bright, had no sexual history, was religious, and seemed quite suitable — she was five years younger than I was, which I now understand made me hypergamously attractive — even a young corporate lawyer can be attractive to a recent college graduate, I think, on the basis of hypergamy. We married a few years later, but as things changed and our relationship became more equal (she entered her late 20s, finished her professional education, began earning big dollars and so on), things deteriorated. Of course, there’s a lot more to the story than this, but in no small part a large problem was that as she “caught up” to me, I became less attractive to her, and as she became more ambitious herself, my own place in life seemed less impressive, and therefore less attractive. I was not the man she was initially attracted to, because there was no longer a “hypergamic gap” between us. Many mistakes were made by both of us, of course, but the fact remains that at the time she seemed like a good bet based on “objective factors” as well as what I had gotten to know, but that over time things changed and developed in ways that undermined the entire relationship.

This is why I am convinced it’s absolutely futile to reduce the current situation to “men just need to man up, become good men, and they will attract quality women, or encourage women to behave well”. That’s wish thinking and man-bashing of the worst sort, in my opinion. The reality is this: women have their “aye” in this culture. This means that nothing is certain, and everything can be subject to change. The impact of the broader culture on the behavior of women, especially in our larger cities, is not something men can control, or negotiate by changing their own behaviors. I have seen plenty of good guys who are good men and not drinkers, partiers, fornicators and the like — and they are either single, or have very long dry spells in terms of dating. There really isn’t anymore for these guys to “man up”, really — the women who are their peers just aren’t interested. As for the women who are not their peers, my own life experience speaks to the risks of that kind of relationship as well in the sense that it is certainly *not* a silver bullet. There is no silver bullet in relationships now, due to the culture. It really is that simple. We have a culture which celebrates female independence (a recent example is the Elizabeth Gilbert book/movie which is indicative of the kind of celebration we heap on female narcissism) and this is not subject to modification by male behavior or “manning up”. That’s nothing more than an artful dodge of the real problem — the culture has moved decisively against men and male authority and so on, and this kind of approach is “not supported” to use a software term.

What to do, then? I don’t think the answer is for men to pursue hedonism. In that sense I agree with everyone who is critical of Asher’s approach to his own life. However, there really isn’t a silver bullet. It’s not as simple as telling young men to “man up”. Women are different today, and are behaving in ways women haven’t been able to, en masse, for millenia. This is not something that will be reversed for the forseeable future, either, because the culture as a whole no longer supports the old system. Young men need to navigate the new system, taking into account its demands and the changed topography of sex relations. This does not mean becoming a young hedonist. But of men are interested in marrying, they would be best off doing the following, in my opinion: (1) get an education first, (2) don’t worry about finding a woman to marry until you are around 30 and be prepared to wait until your mid to late 30s to marry (that doesn’t mean spending the 20s in hedonistic casual sex land, as most men don’t have that as an option anyway) and (3) marry a woman who has roughly the same education/professional level as you do and has already advanced to where she wants to be in her own life (avoiding the problem I ran into of the closing hypergamic gap) and is happy with where you are in hypergamous terms. If you follow these three steps, you’re chances of having a successful marriage skyrocket statistically. They key, however, is just plugging through your 20s, because it isn’t going to get better for guys in their 20s anytime soon — the freeing-up of hypergamy ensures that this will not change. The main challenge we face is encouraging young men to stick it out through the tough times of the 20s rather than giving in to hedonism or cynicism, and falling off the map as a result of either or both. That is easier said than done, but it certainly won’t be done by telling young men to “man up”.

On the issue of dating/marrying a single mother, I wouldn’t personally do it. Not because I consider the woman to be per se unworthy (that depends very much on the facts), but because it’s just another complicating factor in a culture that already has enough impediments to relationship formation and stability — it’s an “x factor” that I would not be willing to take on. My view may be influenced by the fact that I already have a child of my own, and understand the complexities involved for someone who might date a person in my circumstances. I don’t, however, think that this is “set in stone” — there are quite a few men who will date/marry single mothers as a quick glance around will confirm. Far fewer, mind you, as you go up the food chain (I can’t say I know one male lawyer who has done it, but that’s probably because I only know so many), but it still happens.

Laura writes:

Why is that so few women are serious about finding a mate in their twenties and reject many men they might otherwise find attractive if they were serious? Well, for one, there is no pressure for them to do so given that they can have full-blown romance anyway and two, getting serious would interfere with their efforts to become earners. And, they must become major earners if they are bright.  Masculine ambition is pressed on them from early childhood and they never encounter the idea that being a wife and mother should be the absolute focus of their lives. Only when the years seem to be winding down in their late twenties and early thirties do many women, especially the brightest women, really get serious.

What bothers me about this constant talk in the “manosphere” about hypergamy and the promiscuity of women in their twenties, undeniable realities though they are, is that there is a very strong element of male narcissism in it. Men rarely acknowledge why women are behaving this way and what men themselves might collectively and individually do to bring an end to this unnatural and destructive behavior other than to strategize and beat women at their own game. After all, though women have always been to some degree hypergamous, just as men have always been to some degree interested in beauty and youth, women did not act like this in the past. Just sixty years ago, most women married in their early twenties and many fewer men who might go unnoticed in their twenties today went unnoticed then. My mother married my father when she was 22 and he was 26 and just out of law school. Yes, he was promising as an earner, but today he would probably go unchosen until he was actually earning significant money in his early thirties. 

Though Brendan’s suggestions may be a realistic guide now for individual men, especially for men in big cities, they are a slowly-evolving disaster for marriage and society, as well as for the individual happiness of men and women.  If men are going to seek “a woman who has roughly the same education/professional level as you do and has already advanced to where she wants to be in her own life,” they are going to marry women who are beyond their peak childbearing years and who are accustomed to lives of independence that in a hundred ways interfere with their success as mothers and wives. These  lead to demographic decline, marital unhappiness and, worst of all, neglect or spoiling of the next generation. We cannot raise the next generation this way and the decline in everyday civility and the well-being of children shows that.

I cannot know many of the details of Brendan’s personal situation, but it seems possible to me that he may not simply have been the victim of his wife’s hypergamous instincts. He may also have received the brunt of her internal war with her own femininity. It is difficult for a woman to act like both a man and a woman. Very difficult. The struggle can be intense and it makes women vicious and insensitive. Climbing to the pinnacle of one’s career during the years when one is ripe for being a wife and mother makes women mean. They subconsciously feel drawn to other things, the real things, and yet channel their energies into the sort of focused drive that men are truly made for. It makes them unhappy and mean. And, yes, the constant distraction from child-rearing and what is important allows them time to indulge their hypergamous instincts. I realize all this ambition has been passionately advocated by feminists.

Both Brendan and Jesse make valid points. It’s very difficult for men in their twenties to find a mate, but it’s not enough for men to strategize over how best to beat women at their game. Men need to demand that women act more like women, but they can only legitimately make that demand if they are adamant about assuming their traditional role and responsibilities. I realize youg men now have already been born into a world they did not make. They must deal with the realities as best they can, as Brendan advocates, but also press for change.

Slwerner writes:

Jesse Powell  writes, “In other words, the onus of responsibility is on men to make themselves better men. Then and only then will the women follow and make themselves better women in return.” 

I keep hearing this, but is it really Scriptural? Yes, men are to be heads of households, but Christian Chivalrist and Christian Feminists have seriously twisted this to often absolve women of fault in their misdeeds. We are told, ad nauseam, that men are ultimately responsible for the actions of their wives. It’s even been frequently used to excuse women’s infidelities as the fault of their husbands (not being in the “will of God” and making them happy). 

But, let’s see if we can find any Biblical examples, shall we. 

I’m thinking of something that would explain how feminism came to undo what is held to be God’s design for the family (note – I’m actually largely in agreement with your overall view with regard to the family). 

Feminism gains hold by “targeting” women, convincing them that they were trapped in their unfair, second-class role as wives and mothers, then tempted that they could free themselves of their shackles, and, once empowered, the infected women spread that poison to men with whom they had influence. Is there a Biblical example that can explain how that could happen? 

Well, if we start at the beginning, we are shown the example of Adam & Eve. You might have already seen that one before, but allow me to recap: 

· God created man, in his image, but without his knowledge.

· Man was weak and lonely, and asked for a companion

· God gave him woman, and the God > Man > Woman hierarchy

· Satan saw an opening to target the bottom rung in that arrangement, and informed the woman that she needed stay in that role, but could even rise to the top

· Woman was seduced by the possibility, and sinned.

· Once empowered, women sought to infect man with her new-found “knowledge”

· Man, naively relying on his God-given headship, trusted women – who thus led him into that same sin.

In God’s very first, and primary example, the weak link was woman, who craved empowerment. The final downfall of man was achieved via his relationship to the woman. Oh well, I suppose that’s ancient history, and could not possibly be meaningful anymore, eh? So maybe the NEW answer is to put the onus on men, and believe that once they’ve gotten themselves right with God, that women will naturally wish to follow that lead – no longer being the daughters of Eve. Good luck with all that!

Laura writes:

First of all, Jesse never quoted Scripture and has never quoted Scripture here. I’m not at all sure why you have resorted to a theological rebuttal as no one was making a theological argument.

Nevertheless, you have made a point about the Adam and Eve account similar to one I made here. In particular, I wrote:

Genesis speaks of feminine power. The woman’s moral downfall precedes that of all humanity. What greater earthly strength than that? Here is a patriarchal account of civilization’s beginnings, but this is patriarchy with a keen awareness of its own fragility in light of feminine freedom and intellect. Adam and Eve are of all time, yet they seem to speak directly to us now. Has there ever been a time when woman more boldly turned her back on the Garden?

Yes, in the Christian view, feminism is very much the work of Satan, who always seeks to increase enmity and sow discord. Yes, women tempted men into this snare.

However, you are wrong on one point. Adam was morally autonomous. God gave him free will, and while Eve tempted him, just as Satan tempted her, he possessed the freedom to decide his own fate. He was not Eve’s slave or God’s slave. He accepted the apple and in that instant disobeyed God.

We are told, ad nauseam, that men are ultimately responsible for the actions of their wives. It’s even been frequently used to excuse women’s infidelities as the fault of their husbands (not being in the “will of God” and making them happy).

I’m not sure where you are told that women are not moral actors in life and that all their failings are attributable to their husbands. In fact, the symbolism of Genesis confirms and emphatically supports the view that women are free to determine their own moral destiny and must suffer the consequences of their own sins. The Bible also makes this point repeatedly. 

Adam Skelton writes:

I’ve heard it from several Christians that men are ultimately responsible for the actions of their wives, and are responsible for their wives’ infidelities because they weren’t doing what they were supposed to do as Christian men. I even think this is the onus of some Christian marriage counseling.

Laura writes:

That’s similar to saying a woman is responsible if her husband views pornography. That is false. Neither a husband nor wife is responsible for the sins of the other. A spouse may create incentives or temptations, but the indidivual is judged for his own actions. The idea that a husband is culpable for his wife’s infidelities violates the doctrine of free will. Genesis is clear on this issue.

Jesse Powell writes:

Now in general terms, men are leaders and women are followers, men take the romantic initiative and women accept or reject the man, men are the providers and protectors and women determine if the man is trustworthy and someone they can rely upon; furthermore, men as a collective set the rules and women adapt themselves and make the most out of the environment that men have created for them. I believe these are general truths about life, and feminism has not changed this fundamental relationship between men and women. 

Yes, the culture is messed up and dysfunctional, this is obvious. The question is, how to change the cultural circumstance, how to make things right. The primary responsibility for making things right rests with the man for the simple reason that men are the leaders of society, the creators of the social environment, the one’s whose natural role is to amass power unto themselves and to govern. For men to put the focus on the need for women to change, while ignoring their own responsibilities, is a grave dereliction of duty. 

Men do need to better themselves as men. Of course, women should better themselves as women as well, but since I am a man I want to focus on men’s responsibilities here, the responsibilities that fall upon my shoulders. It should first be kept in mind, when a man betters himself and therefore raises his status in the romantic marketplace; the first person who benefits is himself, as he will be more attractive to higher quality women, the women he desires. When a man betters himself he first serves his own interest and in addition also promotes the interests of society overall. He is both acting selfishly and altruistically at the same time. 

Now on the subject of “hypergamy”, of course women are hypergamous, but this is not a problem. It is a problem if a woman foolishly misjudges her own attractiveness level and demands only the quality of man that will reject her, but that is an error in calculation on the woman’s part, it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of hypergamy itself. Hypergamy is simply the woman’s measure of what is and is not attractive in a man, just like men have their own standards of what is attractive in a woman. Woman’s demands of attractiveness in a man are every bit as legitimate as man’s demands of attractiveness in a woman. A woman has just as much right to seek a man with a big bank account as a man has a right to seek a woman who is young and beautiful. 

The reason why women are “hypergamous”, seek men with a higher status level than they themselves possess, is because men in general have a higher status level than women. It is as simple as that. A man of equal status to a woman overall will have higher status than the woman in the areas where men excel at, such as making money. To expect women to go for men whose achievements and power is equal to their own is insane because men in general achieve higher status and power levels than women do. Equality of romantic status level equals the man having higher social status than the woman. That is why hypergamy exists. Women following their hypergamous instincts does not conflict at all with all men being able to find a woman to marry. 

The issue that Brendan brought up, of his wife increasing in status level faster than he himself did therefore shrinking the “hypergamous gap” thereby making him less attractive in her eyes; that is a valid point to bring up. It is dangerous for a man to be in a situation where his status level has stopped growing but her status level is still increasing. A man should take care to marry a woman who will be happy with him over the long term. However, that doesn’t change the general rule that it is always in the man’s best interest to increase his status level to the best of his abilities. A man always wins when he improves himself; and the society benefits also.

Josh writes:

Asher’s dilemma is largely of his own making. To deny this would  suggest that Asher has little recourse in changing direction. It is  clear by now that Asher has presented an incomplete list of “choices”  in order to come to a desired result, namely, de facto homo-ism, which is aversion to God, woman, child and union. A fate determined with  nothing but whining as one’s only display of pushback. Asher IS just passive about stepping forward towards manhood.

Asher is like many young males caught up in the “Men’s” movement. He  doesn’t realize that Man doesn’t move by being attached at the hip to  another man. He also represents many of those young males for whom the  battle is largely non-local and abstract. These males have no woman at their  side BUT think that they are battling with women. The real battle is  inside the union and Man will ALWAYS have a wayward one at his side.  You can thank Eve for that. : )

Brendan writes:

I agree with your reading of Genesis and in particular of the individual nature of Adam’s own sin — in accepting the apple, he kind of did a double disobedience –> he disobeyed the direct order to refrain from eating of the tree, and he also pretty much abdicated his leadership role, in any moral sense, over Eve. I think it’s also quite telling what the specific punishments were: Eve’s female progeny would now be unequivocally subject to being ruled by men (implied is to a greater degree than the original plan of being “helpmeets”) while Adam’s male progeny would be forced to work for their existence (implied is to support women and children). Two individual sins with individual punishments, because each diverged differently from the role that was initially intended for sex relations, according to the Genesis account.

As for slwerner’s note, I think that it is pretty commonplace in therapy culture (including from Christian therapists) to avoid assessing blame on a woman who commits adultery and instead to focus on what the husband did to “provoke” it. This is not “official teaching”, but it’s a rather widespread approach taken by therapists and spiritual counselors when confronted with female adultery in a marriage. Generally, when a guy cheats on his wife, he is (rightly in my view) told to accept responsibility and be accountable for his actions. However, if his wife cheats on him, he is told to accept responsibility for what he did to provoke that, based on the (often unstated) idea that women do not cheat unless provoked (as if men are not provoked, either). In my own case, this is pretty much specifically what my Christian counselor, on the one hand, and my (now ex) priest (Catholic) told me, each in a different way: when a woman commits adultery, it’s more often than not the husband’s fault, even though she is responsible for her own sin. As to how this relates to what Jesse has written, it’s pretty darned close to saying that men are responsible for how women are behaving today — which is often what he says, even if he doesn’t do so in so many words.

Laura writes:

What Jesse is saying in no sense approximates the outrageous claim that a man is responsible for the infidelities of his wife.

Brendan’s comments about therapy culture, noted also by Adam Skelton, are absolutely true. The psychotherapy industry is steeped in prejudices toward women. The reason for this is quite simple and it is the similar to the reason why therapists defend homosexuality. Women are the primary customers.

George writes:

Brendan wrote: ” We married a few years later, but as things changed and our relationship became more equal”

I suspect that Brendan ran into something I’ve seen women do since I was in middle school: they fall in love with what the man represents rather than the human being in front of them.  This woman loved her corporate lawyer boyfriend, but didn’t love Brendan.  Later when they were married she loved her husband Brendan, but not the human being Brendan.

Brendan wrote: ” I am convinced it’s absolutely futile to reduce the current situation to “men just need to man up, become good men, and they will attract quality women, or encourage women to behave well”.”

He is correct.  This is not a ‘just world’.  Being a good person doesn’t mean the good things will happen to you in return.  Even if all men suddenly became good, women could still stay vile and there would be nothing in men’s goodness to change that situation.

Brendan wrote: “The main challenge we face is encouraging young men to stick it out through the tough times of the 20s rather than giving in to hedonism or cynicism, and falling off the map as a result of either or both. That is easier said than done, but it certainly won’t be done by telling young men to “man up”.”

While some men, such as myself, can go for years remaining celibate, I think that most men simply won’t.  Telling men that they need to hold off on sex during the prime year that nature is driving them to want sex, and doing it in an environment where they watch the worst kind of men have sex with all of the young beautiful women, just doesn’t seem realistic.  Sure, there will be the outliers but our numbers will be so few that we won’t make a difference.

Laura said:  “Men rarely acknowledge why women are behaving this way “

Women are behaving this way because it is in their best hypergamous self interest.  It gives them babies with good genes from dad.  Of course, this behavior will also turn all of America to look like the cultural structure of the ghetto, but women can’t think that far ahead so what do they care?

Laura said: “that there is a very strong element of male narcissism in it… and what men themselves might collectively and individually do to bring an end to this unnatural and destructive behavior other than to strategize and beat women at their own game.””

Men recognizing that they are largely powerless to change the world around them does not make them narcissists.

Laura writes:

If men think they are powerless to change the world when in fact they are powerful that might not make them narcissists but it does indeed make them deluded. But being powerful does not mean they can suddenly have a beautiful and virtuous woman who loves them as they deserve.

Being a good person always means that good things will happen in return. Always. The worst that can happen to a person is to lose his lifeline to Truth and the order that reigns over the universe. Everything else pales in comparison. Virtue is good for it’s own sake and is the highest form of power.

The notion that women only care about the status of men is no more true that the idea the men only care about beauty and youth in women. Certainly women and men do care about these things but low status men and un-lovely women have been loved by the opposite sex since the beginning of history. Defeat and bitterness are not attractive qualities in either a woman or a man. 

The breakdown of romance and courtship has caused as much unhappiness in women as it has in men. Many women end up childless and lonely. Abortion damages women and all women find their highest fulfillment in love of others. A woman who committs adultery destroys herself. A woman who leaves her husband ruins her own life. A woman who cares about money and power more than goodness and love is not fully human. She is responsible for her own fate, but many women are actively encouraged today to destroy themselves.

I call you a narcissist if you do not acknowledge the pain and self-destruction sexual freedom and radical autonomy have caused women. I see nothing in your words to suggest that you recognize this or see anything good in women at all. This is how many feminists have felt toward men.

Brendan writes:

Please follow and like us: