• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

Men: Would you marry an American Woman?


  • Total voters
    83
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Did you seriously just quote the Amazon page to use against me? lol. Why don't you buy the book, read it, and come back to talk. Until then, I have nothing left to say to you.

Yes I did. And successfully too it would seem.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

That was your point. They would give up human intimacy. Again, that was in relation to the Japanese, so we can dispense with this point too.

It really was not, but I suppose we can dispense with it all the same.

General, but there is no point on lamenting the end of human procreation because selfish women choose careers over having a family. That isn't even the case in Japan, as Sangha has said more than once.

They're not reproducing, and they're not marrying; favoring their own careers instead.

I fail to see how you could assume that it is not the case.

That is a different problem than a population dying out because traditional gender roles are not being observed, in general.

Again, how do you figure? The portion of the population we are discussing here is "dying out" specifically because of its rejection of more traditional gender roles.

Women not committing their lives to make babies, does not lead men to become socially aimless and unmotivated. Where is that observable?

It's observable in both Japan and in the OP. It is an undeniable fact.

More women "going it alone" leads more men to stop trying to pursue them.

Those kinds of men often seem to lose the motivation to do much else when this occurs.

What's observable is that women are damned if they do or don't. Some men complain about the blood sucking women who are out to get married to the richest guy. When women adjust to make ourselves self-sufficient, we are letting down society by not making enough babies. You guys need to make up your minds. Or possibly you have and the only acceptable role for a woman is to take the first dude that crosses our path and start popping out babies and servitude to that man?

What is an acceptable role for women? Describe your perfect woman and your best hope for the nation, as it relates to the position women should occupy in the U.S.

My mother would be a fairly good example, IMO. She's college educated, and she had five children.

She stayed at home while we were young, but went back to school five years ago to become a nurse. She succeeded, and is now working in this new career, while taking classes on the side to attain a second bachelor's degree.

While I'm certainly not suggesting that all women should have to take this route if they do not wish to, she does demonstrate that it is not necessary for notions of traditional family and career to be mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to pursue both.
 
Last edited:
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Women not committing their lives to make babies, does not lead men to become socially aimless and unmotivated. Where is that observable?

I don't think that this is the proper formulation. What we see is that men without women in their lives are, generally, more content to live in a cardboard box and eat cheerios and play video games. They'll, again speaking generally, work less and only to the point that is sufficient to cover their needs. The labor economics literature shows a very real "marriage effect" for men - increased wages and increased rates of wage raises being sustained for long periods of time in their careers compared to single men. There has to be a reason that men continue to engage in soul-crushing jobs, endure the mindless droning of the workplace, etc. If it's just a matter of meeting survival needs, the work required to earn the pay is far less and that's exactly what we see from men who've been kicked in the nads in the sexual market place. Single guys who are competing for women put in a lot more work effort in order to marshall more resources. Married men out-earn them.

Remove the prospect of women from a man's live and then you pretty much sap ambition too.

Those slackers we see growing in number in society didn't really have a counterpart in 1940. There was an expectation of marriage, people got married young, there was no need to self-actualize during your 20s and 30s and then seek to get married. The rate of singlehood was lower, meaning that even the loser guys could match up with their loser girl counterparts. Now you have guys who have "something" by being married.

Sure, it's not always a bed of roses - being poor and married isn't a Garden of Eden, but it's a sight better than being single, poor and crushed from being a loser in a more fiercely competitive sexual marketplace.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Yes I did. And successfully too it would seem.

What did you do successfully again? You made the suggestion that I was interviewed by her for her book. This would suggest that either a psychologist interviews people as part of their job, or that she decided to do interviews instead of taking from the knowledge she picked up at her job. Quoting that little paragraph was at best a strawman. I already told you she used the knowledge she gained from her job to write the book, so none of this even has a point in being said...again.
 
Last edited:
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

No, it is not true in Japan. As I have proven, single Japanese have a lot of interest in marriage and creating a family.

Obviously they don't, or they would.

And contrary to your claims about how feminism is at fault, in Japan the problem is that married women are expected to not work, making it difficult if not impossible for young people to have a two-income family. The one income family is unrealistic (because most Japanese men do not make enough) and the two income family is unrealistic (because the Japanese look down on married women who work, so they don't hire married women).

It's not feminism that causes the Japanese to look down on married women who work. It's traditional values.

If this were the case, the exact same trend would not be present in far more progressive societies like Sweden, which make a deliberate point of minimizing the economic impacts of marriage and child rearing.

The simple fact of the matter is that modern notions of "gender roles" are not conducive to marriage or families.
 
Last edited:
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Jealous? What? Weird.

Some men just dont like losing control and power. THey feel that the successes of women diminished them. They dont like it if women are more successful than them and that affects many relationships where the women end up earning more $$, for example. It's amusing that you use women in human resources depts as an excuse for more women being successful.

Those suppositions are unfounded on anything concrete. That's just feminist projection.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

The whole resentment of 'materialism' keeps showing up in his posts on this subject and it makes some sense now since he just admitted he was broke.

One does need to use less myopic judgement on social trends for an accurate view.

Kinda rude to keep dissing people, esp. women, who want to have 'more' in life if that's what they want, instead of keeping house and raising kids, as 'materialistic.' I'm certainly not judging poverty (but I'm not claiming it's any high road either).

I'm not "resentful" of materialism. I am pragmatically materialistic myself. That's exactly why I'm not dating right now.

I have literally nothing to offer. I couldn't even afford to live right now if it weren't for other circumstances at play.

Hopefully that'll improve here before too long, but it is the reality of my situation for the time being nevertheless.

What I object to is the modern conviction which basically holds that "things" are more important than people. Japanese and American culture alike seem to harbor this particular fallacy in abundance, and it has not lead anywhere productive.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Then that was your mistake, not mine. That was never the major focus of my argument here.

I didn't say it was the major focus of your argument here. However, it was the point that you made and we were discussing

But since you can't support your claim, and name those modern societies where young adults despise sex and are sexually inactive, you're going to try to distract with other issues.




No, I did not. I claimed that many of the same trends were present, and that we might eventually wind up with a society where most people avoid relationships.

Same trends?

You mean like the Japanese trends of

1) despising sex
2) being sexually inactive
3) firing women who get married
4) looking down on married women who work
5) young single adults living at home forever

Please name these modern societies where the above five trends hold true (I'll give you one - #5 is true in Italy, but I'd like to see you argue that the Italians despise sex and are sexually inactive)

This could conceivably result in more people becoming disenchanted with sex as well as virtual alternatives become more widely available, but that is not a given.

And RuPaul could conceivably be elected president and issue an executive order requiring everyone to be fabulous
:screwy:


Their standards for what qualifies as being "suitable" are clearly unrealistic. That is a personal choice on their own part, not a necessity.

Yes, the standards required by tradition (a man who can earn enough to provide for the entire family) are unrealistic.


To point out that marriage is not necessarily dependent upon income. Refusing to consider marrying someone who could conceivably provide for you, simply because they are not able to provide in the way that you might ideally desire, is a matter of choice, not necessity.

The men can't provide for a family. That's why they, like the women, live with their parents.

Sound familiar?

a01002en_fig051.jpg


And if marriage is really as important to them as you claim, they should be gladly rushing into the arms of men to make up for their financial woes.

If marriage were really as important to you as you claim, you should be gladly rushing to marry a woman. That is, if you didn't have such unrealistic expectations.

The fact is, the women don't have financial woes. They live with their parents. Their rent is paid. Their food is paid. They just have to buy clothes and Hello Kitty dolls.


Yes, as far as crumbling gender relations and plummeting birth and marriage rates.

Sex is a point that you chose to emphasize.

No, you were the one who posted a study about how the Japanese despise sex, not me.


According to what standard?

According to your own source, more than half of them make 2 to 6 million yen a year. Women simply tend to favor men on the higher end of the spectrum, which is why they remain single.

How much does it cost to raise a family in Japan?

More than most of the men are making, which is why they live at home with their parents

Sound familiar?


If it was purely "economic," it wouldn't be virtually universal to industrialized post-feminist societies. :roll:

It's not universal and Japan is not a "post-feminist" society. It is a very sexist nation that clings to traditional gender roles. In fact, the article you link to even agrees. It says:
The World Economic Forum consistently ranks Japan as one of the world’s worst nations for gender equality at work.

Does that sound like a "post-feminist" society to you?



The old model is still workable. People simply have to be willing to make it work. Many simply are not.

The men will not increase their salaries by simply willing it into existence, just as you won't make a living by simply wishing for it.




Here’s Why Nearly Half of Japanese Women Under 24 Aren’t Interested in Sex



People can say whatever they want on a survey. Again, many unmarried childless women in their mid thirties to early forties here in the United States claim the same thing about "wanting" to be mothers and wifes.

The simple fact of the matter is that their actions speak otherwise. If they wanted to be married, they would be. If it was a priority in their life, they would make it happen.

It clearly is not.

you don't seem to realize that the article contradicts your claim. You quoted things that are the exact opposite of what you're saying and you seem to think it agrees with you. I'll break it down for you

Women are avoiding relationships of any kind, because there’s no support for them to skip getting married or to balance a family with a career.

They're saying that in Japan, they are expected to get married and not work, which is consistent with traditional values. That's not feminism at work.

Men, on the other hand, are feeling pressure to fit into a model of the perfect breadwinner.

Again, consistent with traditional values.

These problems have come to a head over the past couple decades. Women are increasingly earning college degrees and pursuing careers, but the country’s policies and company cultures have not kept up. Few employees provide adequate maternity leave or daycare. Women in some companies say it’s impossible to earn a promotion after getting married because bosses assume the woman will soon get pregnant and quit the job.

Women are becoming more educated (inconsistent with traditional values) but once they graduate, they can't continue to work once they get married (consistent with traditional values)

Some women and men told the Guardian that they steer away from sex in order to avoid developing long-term feelings that may lead to a serious relationship

SO they don't want to have a serious relationship with someone they can't marry because the man does not earn enough to support a family (consistent with traditional values which discourage casual dating that does not lead to marriage)

The problem in Japan is that they are clinging too stubbornly to the traditional model of marriage where the woman does not work, and the man is the sole provider.

The article that *you* linked also talks about other factors, which you conveniently did not quote

Japan, however, is no exception to rising costs of living, and supporting children on a one-person salary is often impossible.

The men don't earn enough to support a family. Your own link says that it is "often impossible".

And if they can't have a two-income marriage because, in Japan, they fire married women or at the very least, pass them over for promotions because they think the women will leave to take care of their children.


For women especially, casual flings or one-night stands aren’t an alternative, as they fear being harshly judged. Men, on the other hand, say they don’t have enough money to play the dating game.

These men don't even earn enough to be able to afford to date. Do you really think they can afford to support a family on their income?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Here's the link. Decide for yourself

Japan




Possibly, but my understanding is that this is not a new phenemona. It predates the Tsunami. I believe it began after the Japanese recession in the 80's and 90's and the move away from the "lifetime employment" model.

Interesting. All true, what you said.

Read an article a number of years back about the world's nation reproductive rates. Given a few more generations, and Japan might be largely uninhabited (i.e. the population would have died out from old age and lack of reproduction).
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

You have GOT to be kidding me... every single CON couple you know??? Is that like 3? I can't swing a dead cat in Walters Oklahoma, or my own family and not hit a Divorced CON or three! Look at the GOP leadership, a house of divorced men. Divorce is a fact of life visited on all political leans...

Nope, dozens and dozens and dozens of them. Too bad so many people are doing marriage wrong.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Obviously they don't, or they would.

That is refuted by the fact that you claim that you do, yet you haven't.

If this were the case, the exact same trend would not be present in far more progressive societies like Sweden, which make a deliberate point of minimizing the economic impacts of marriage and child rearing.

The simple fact of the matter is that modern notions of "gender roles" are not conducive to marriage or families.

Not if feminism has no effect on the marriage rate and the birth rate.

In Japan, feminism has had little effect. It is considered, as verified by the article you linked to, "one of the world’s worst nations for gender equality at work."

But according to you, "one of the world’s worst nations for gender equality at work" is a feminist nirvana for working women. :lamo
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

The whole resentment of 'materialism' keeps showing up in his posts on this subject and it makes some sense now since he just admitted he was broke.

It's not like there aren't low income women around. Shouldn't low income men also have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a marital relationship?

Don't overlook the fact that we're not hearing from the "cat ladies" in this thread - the one's who've spent their prime years trying to snag a man of high social status, failed, and now that they've ridden the male carousal want to settle for some guy who'll take them and they're not getting any offers. They're losers in this game too.

Hear the screeching cats out in the alley:

THE WOMEN ARE IRATE. The women are talking about men, young men, the men they’d like to date and marry, and are they ever pissed. Here’s what they’re saying:

“All they want is sex. They don’t care about relationships.”

“They’re so lazy.”

“All they do is play video games.”

“They aren’t men. They’re boys.”

The women are a little bewildered. They’re good girls. They followed the script: did well in high school, got into college, worked hard there, got out, got jobs, started looking around for someone special to share life with, and …

“I met a guy the other night. Good-looking, smart. Twenty-eight years old. He still lives at home. With his mom.” Young men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home.​

That script that women are following, well it really doesn't do much to make women more attractive to men. Having a fulfilling career is good for the woman's own ego, but guys aren't really sorting women by career when it comes to which women appeal to them. There are a lot of women complaining about the state of affairs, so there's no need to focus on one poster's personal life because he's raising awareness of some disturbing trends.

Check out the cultural script being pushed onto women:

“The Nine Men to Bed Before You Wed”


1. The Bad Boy
2. The Older Man
3. The Foreigner
4. The Wealthy Man
5. The Athlete
6. A Man in Uniform
7. The Nice Guy
8. The Pretty Boy
9. A Younger Man​

There's a funny little blurb underneath each category. Here's how they describe the Nice Guy:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Daisy: CHECK. More than one. But I always got bored. Mature Daisy would love to meet one though.​

Well, these nice guys are the losers in the game when they're young but, as noted above, this writer seems to think that these Nice Guys are going to be her fallback position when she is mature and ready to settle down, then she can offer herself as some kind of prize to these nice guys who were disproportionately sexless during their horniest years of youth. A dried up skank who's slept with half the town is no prize. Hence the male withdrawal from the sexual market place and a retargeting of priorities.

Sure, both articles are pop culture and so let's not treat them as accurate descriptions of what's going on in society, but let's not overlook that the both stem from a certain female perspective on how women should act and what women should expect. What we're seeing here is female action and male reaction.

A few pages earlier in this thread a commenter from Albania? mentioned that his society still functions in a less hypergamous model where there is more pair matching and that he was a high status man and, as such, he was losing out on the opportunity of being the target of a lot of female attention. Each system of ordering society has winners and losers. His system, which used to be our system before feminism, produces more stability but at the cost to the top dog.

This thread has focused on what men are complaining about but what about the cat ladies, what do they have to say?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I'm not "resentful" of materialism. I am pragmatically materialistic myself. That's exactly why I'm not dating right now.

You sound just like those Japanese men who don't date because they don't want to spend their money on dates.

I have literally nothing to offer. I couldn't even afford to live right now if it weren't for other circumstances at play.

Again, sounds like those Japanese boys

What I object to is the modern conviction which basically holds that "things" are more important than people. Japanese and American culture alike seem to harbor this particular fallacy in abundance, and it has not lead anywhere productive.

And yet, you continue to refuse to marry or even date because you don't earn enough to buy enough things. That sounds very materialistic.

BTW, the idea that a woman should marry a man who can support a family is nothing new. It's very traditional. In fact, throughout most of civilization, the income of the two has been the most important factor in determining who would marry. Traditionally, it would be scandalous for a wealthy young person to marry someone from a lower income class.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

It's not like there aren't low income women around. Shouldn't low income men also have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a marital relationship?

Don't overlook the fact that we're not hearing from the "cat ladies" in this thread - the one's who've spent their prime years trying to snag a man of high social status, failed, and now that they've ridden the male carousal want to settle for some guy who'll take them and they're not getting any offers. They're losers in this game too.

Hear the screeching cats out in the alley:

THE WOMEN ARE IRATE. The women are talking about men, young men, the men they’d like to date and marry, and are they ever pissed. Here’s what they’re saying:

“All they want is sex. They don’t care about relationships.”

“They’re so lazy.”

“All they do is play video games.”

“They aren’t men. They’re boys.”

The women are a little bewildered. They’re good girls. They followed the script: did well in high school, got into college, worked hard there, got out, got jobs, started looking around for someone special to share life with, and …

“I met a guy the other night. Good-looking, smart. Twenty-eight years old. He still lives at home. With his mom.” Young men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home.​

That script that women are following, well it really doesn't do much to make women more attractive to men. Having a fulfilling career is good for the woman's own ego, but guys aren't really sorting women by career when it comes to which women appeal to them. There are a lot of women complaining about the state of affairs, so there's no need to focus on one poster's personal life because he's raising awareness of some disturbing trends.

Check out the cultural script being pushed onto women:

“The Nine Men to Bed Before You Wed”


1. The Bad Boy
2. The Older Man
3. The Foreigner
4. The Wealthy Man
5. The Athlete
6. A Man in Uniform
7. The Nice Guy
8. The Pretty Boy
9. A Younger Man​

There's a funny little blurb underneath each category. Here's how they describe the Nice Guy:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Daisy: CHECK. More than one. But I always got bored. Mature Daisy would love to meet one though.​

Well, these nice guys are the losers in the game when they're young but, as noted above, this writer seems to think that these Nice Guys are going to be her fallback position when she is mature and ready to settle down, then she can offer herself as some kind of prize to these nice guys who were disproportionately sexless during their horniest years of youth. A dried up skank who's slept with half the town is no prize. Hence the male withdrawal from the sexual market place and a retargeting of priorities.

Sure, both articles are pop culture and so let's not treat them as accurate descriptions of what's going on in society, but let's not overlook that the both stem from a certain female perspective on how women should act and what women should expect. What we're seeing here is female action and male reaction.

A few pages earlier in this thread a commenter from Albania? mentioned that his society still functions in a less hypergamous model where there is more pair matching and that he was a high status man and, as such, he was losing out on the opportunity of being the target of a lot of female attention. Each system of ordering society has winners and losers. His system, which used to be our system before feminism, produces more stability but at the cost to the top dog.

This thread has focused on what men are complaining about but what about the cat ladies, what do they have to say?

I have to wonder if Philly Mag and XOJane are credible authorities on these matters.

What's next? Links to Cosmo?

o-COSMO-COVERS-570.jpg
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

To this point, she pretty much admitted flat out that when she read the description of the book when she saw the words marriage and kids she had a preconceived notion that men were desiring to make women their inferiors and that the book was expressing this desire. Where would that little preconceived notion come from you think and why would someone have it? Isn't it a bit interesting that she couldn't help herself to express it? Lursa is a sexist, and she can deny it all she wants but I have plenty of evidence towards it.

Can't there be a simple conversation giving different points of view as judged by our life experiences without using tired terms like 'sexist'? It stunts conversation.I can see you graduated cum laude from your sensitivity training course but you needn't flaunt your credentials here.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I have to wonder if Philly Mag and XOJane are credible authorities on these matters.

What's next? Links to Cosmo?

I didn't say that they were credible, I'm saying that they're culture shapers and they speak to the issues that matter to their readers.

Look, lots of people on this forum are smart and they can see the vapidity of pop culture, but pop culture does influence a lot of people, so the message of pop culture matters and it's always mattered. When the culture used to push the notion of virginity at marriage, that influenced a lot of people, men and women. By no means was the message translated into complete compliance, and that's not the case today as well, but the cultural message does matter.
 
Last edited:
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I don't think that this is the proper formulation. What we see is that men without women in their lives are, generally, more content to live in a cardboard box and eat cheerios and play video games. They'll, again speaking generally, work less and only to the point that is sufficient to cover their needs. The labor economics literature shows a very real "marriage effect" for men - increased wages and increased rates of wage raises being sustained for long periods of time in their careers compared to single men. There has to be a reason that men continue to engage in soul-crushing jobs, endure the mindless droning of the workplace, etc. If it's just a matter of meeting survival needs, the work required to earn the pay is far less and that's exactly what we see from men who've been kicked in the nads in the sexual market place. Single guys who are competing for women put in a lot more work effort in order to marshall more resources. Married men out-earn them.

Remove the prospect of women from a man's live and then you pretty much sap ambition too.

Those slackers we see growing in number in society didn't really have a counterpart in 1940. There was an expectation of marriage, people got married young, there was no need to self-actualize during your 20s and 30s and then seek to get married. The rate of singlehood was lower, meaning that even the loser guys could match up with their loser girl counterparts. Now you have guys who have "something" by being married.

Sure, it's not always a bed of roses - being poor and married isn't a Garden of Eden, but it's a sight better than being single, poor and crushed from being a loser in a more fiercely competitive sexual marketplace.

This is really well written and I think most or all of it's true. BUT...you didnt include that being single can and DOES lead to being successful because of other motivations. The much-despised 'materialism' I suppose. Because we want to DO things or have things I guess. Travel, motorcycles, sailboats, horses, snowmobiles, experiences, independence, nice homes or property, etc.

I am plenty motivated by my interests to earn $$. And yes, it is one reason I didnt have kids. They ARE expensive and eat into your independence. I wasnt all that hot on the idea to begin with, so why do it then? Why not spend my life, my way?

But I know I am not an exception...among men or women. I have friends like myself. We do contribute to the economy...we hire and support lots of people and businesses. We dont suck up public assistance dollars or live in hovels. And of course, "yuppies" havent gone anywhere either, have they?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

What did you do successfully again? You made the suggestion that I was interviewed by her for her book. This would suggest that either a psychologist interviews people as part of their job, or that she decided to do interviews instead of taking from the knowledge she picked up at her job. Quoting that little paragraph was at best a strawman. I already told you she used the knowledge she gained from her job to write the book, so none of this even has a point in being said...again.

That's right...and I bolded all the areas that she would be interviewing people rather than just gathering info 'from the couch.' Her resume spelled it out clearly. You dont make a documentary or have a TV show without *interviewing* people.

Do you really need this spelled out for you?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Those suppositions are unfounded on anything concrete. That's just feminist projection.

I'm not a feminist, at least not in the militant, 70s sense.

I asked earlier in the thread for someone to define 'feminist.' Because all American women are being tarred with the feathers in the OP.

So who is a feminist? All American women?

Women who hate men?

Women who dont agree with your views on things?

How about (my personal view) "women who believe women deserve the same choices and opportunities as men and that women are the equal of men."
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

It's not like there aren't low income women around. Shouldn't low income men also have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a marital relationship?

Don't overlook the fact that we're not hearing from the "cat ladies" in this thread - the one's who've spent their prime years trying to snag a man of high social status, failed, and now that they've ridden the male carousal want to settle for some guy who'll take them and they're not getting any offers. They're losers in this game too.

Hear the screeching cats out in the alley:

THE WOMEN ARE IRATE. The women are talking about men, young men, the men they’d like to date and marry, and are they ever pissed. Here’s what they’re saying:

“All they want is sex. They don’t care about relationships.”

“They’re so lazy.”

“All they do is play video games.”

“They aren’t men. They’re boys.”

The women are a little bewildered. They’re good girls. They followed the script: did well in high school, got into college, worked hard there, got out, got jobs, started looking around for someone special to share life with, and …

“I met a guy the other night. Good-looking, smart. Twenty-eight years old. He still lives at home. With his mom.” Young men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home.​

That script that women are following, well it really doesn't do much to make women more attractive to men. Having a fulfilling career is good for the woman's own ego, but guys aren't really sorting women by career when it comes to which women appeal to them. There are a lot of women complaining about the state of affairs, so there's no need to focus on one poster's personal life because he's raising awareness of some disturbing trends.

Check out the cultural script being pushed onto women:

“The Nine Men to Bed Before You Wed”


1. The Bad Boy
2. The Older Man
3. The Foreigner
4. The Wealthy Man
5. The Athlete
6. A Man in Uniform
7. The Nice Guy
8. The Pretty Boy
9. A Younger Man​

There's a funny little blurb underneath each category. Here's how they describe the Nice Guy:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Daisy: CHECK. More than one. But I always got bored. Mature Daisy would love to meet one though.​

Well, these nice guys are the losers in the game when they're young but, as noted above, this writer seems to think that these Nice Guys are going to be her fallback position when she is mature and ready to settle down, then she can offer herself as some kind of prize to these nice guys who were disproportionately sexless during their horniest years of youth. A dried up skank who's slept with half the town is no prize. Hence the male withdrawal from the sexual market place and a retargeting of priorities.

Sure, both articles are pop culture and so let's not treat them as accurate descriptions of what's going on in society, but let's not overlook that the both stem from a certain female perspective on how women should act and what women should expect. What we're seeing here is female action and male reaction.

A few pages earlier in this thread a commenter from Albania? mentioned that his society still functions in a less hypergamous model where there is more pair matching and that he was a high status man and, as such, he was losing out on the opportunity of being the target of a lot of female attention. Each system of ordering society has winners and losers. His system, which used to be our system before feminism, produces more stability but at the cost to the top dog.

This thread has focused on what men are complaining about but what about the cat ladies, what do they have to say?

I'm not really sure I'm following you on the women in your example here. Maybe because I dont know them. I know unhappy unmarried older women..most are divorced tho. But they dont sound anything like that. Yes...bitter sometimes and lonely...but nothing like you describe. It may be because you are describing a younger version? Video games? LOL NONE of my friends would waste the time of day with a man that spent any real quality time playing video games or even on the 'Net too much. But Seattle...urban or rural...is a very active, outdoor-oriented place so maybe that's part of it. (It's also hella techno and game oriented tho, so? Again...maybe it's an age thing.)

But I dont have alot of sympathy for women who base their whole lives around whatever man they are attached to at that moment and must always be with a man or they have no identity of their own. Or who decide to wait until later in life to find a mate "after making a career")...we all know how men view older women...."a woman has a greater chance of being killed by a terrorist than marrying after 40".

Women are silly to ignore how visually oriented men are. Myself and my friends have successful relationships because we are involved in alot of things and meet guys with the same interests. And lets face it...what guys dont like women that fish and camp and shoot? LOL

Again, I dont think I really understood the main point of your post, sorry. That's my attempt at interpretation. ^^^

Edit: I'm not saying that the quote about terrorists and marriage is accurate, just that it became a cliche in mainstream society because of that perception.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I didn't say it was the major focus of your argument here. However, it was the point that you made and we were discussing

There are plenty of sexually disinterested shut-ins, and people like myself, who have simply stopped trying to date, in the United States as well.

Most of the same driving principles which lead to this state of affairs in Japan, also lead to it here. There are simply fewer of them.

You mean like the Japanese trends of

1) despising sex
2) being sexually inactive
3) firing women who get married
4) looking down on married women who work
5) young single adults living at home forever

Please name these modern societies where the above five trends hold true (I'll give you one - #5 is true in Italy, but I'd like to see you argue that the Italians despise sex and are sexually inactive)

Plenty of people in the United States are guilty of number 5, and it is growing more common every year. Numbers 2 - 4 are arguably true of our society as well (depending upon how much credence one lends to feminist claims of workplace discrimination), but simply to a lesser degree than in Japan. Number 1 is, at the moment, anyway, peculiar to Japan.

However, all of this ultimately irrelevant, as none of these factors are the major driving forces behind Japan's current problems.

Again, even highly "progressive" societies, like Sweden, which take the economic edge off of childrearing almost entirely, suffer from the same problems with lack of marriages, slovenly men, and low birthrates as are faced by Japan.

And RuPaul could conceivably be elected president and issue an executive order requiring everyone to be fabulous

And some Austrian nobody with one testicle and a loopy anti-Semitic bone to pick could, in the course of just a few years, take control of one of the most powerful nations on earth and plunge the entire world into a half decade long war costing the lives of millions.

Implausible, no?

The simple fact of the matter is that it's already happened once. There's really no reason to assume that it couldn't happen again, especially when many of the same factors (a bum economic, women disinterested in relationships, electronic alternatives to sex, ecta) are at play.

Yes, the standards required by tradition (a man who can earn enough to provide for the entire family) are unrealistic.

My family did it, and they did it on a salary that wasn't much more than 50K a year for most of the time I was growing up. :shrug:

It is viewed as being undesirable, however; so most people avoid it.

The men can't provide for a family. That's why they, like the women, live with their parents.

The Japanese often live with their parents either way regardless until marriage (and will actually inherit their parents' homes after they die under many circumstances as well), so that particular point is ultimately moot.

Again, what is the cost of living in Japan? How much does it cost to raise a family?

We already know that more than half of single men in Japan fall into the 2 to 6 million yen salary range. How much is needed?

If marriage were really as important to you as you claim, you should be gladly rushing to marry a woman. That is, if you didn't have such unrealistic expectations.

I never said that it was particularly important to me for the time being. It is a long term goal, dependent upon certain outside conditions.

It can wait a few years until I am better established, which I fully intend to happen.

If it doesn't, I might just stuff a gun in my mouth (or, at the very least, take up cooking meth, or something :lol: ).

The fact is, the women don't have financial woes. They live with their parents. Their rent is paid. Their food is paid. They just have to buy clothes and Hello Kitty dolls.

Clearly that life style is more important to them than the marriages they claim to desire.

More than most of the men are making,

Prove it.

which is why they live at home with their parents

Living with one's parents is a cultural norm in Japan.

It's not universal and Japan is not a "post-feminist" society. It is a very sexist nation that clings to traditional gender roles. In fact, the article you link to even agrees. It says:

Does that sound like a "post-feminist" society to you?

They have careers at all. Yes, it does.

Frankly, everything you've claimed here could be (and often is) claimed by feminist groups about United States' culture as well.

you don't seem to realize that the article contradicts your claim. You quoted things that are the exact opposite of what you're saying and you seem to think it agrees with you. I'll break it down for you

They're saying that in Japan, they are expected to get married and not work, which is consistent with traditional values. That's not feminism at work.

Again, consistent with traditional values.

Women are becoming more educated (inconsistent with traditional values) but once they graduate, they can't continue to work once they get married (consistent with traditional values)

Yes, all of which supports my claim that they do not desire "traditional values" and are actually remaining single to avoid them.

The problem in Japan is that they are clinging too stubbornly to the traditional model of marriage where the woman does not work, and the man is the sole provider.

Again, many of these same problems exist even in the most "gender equal" societies on Earth.

The stubbornness to which you refer undoubtedly plays a role in pushing Japan completely over the edge in comparison to other nations. However, it's not like the rest of the industrialized world was ever doing particularly great in this regard in the first place.

The "career oriented" model of female empowerment simply does not mesh with the notions of motherhood and committed relationships under most circumstances.

The men don't earn enough to support a family. Your own link says that it is "often impossible".

That is their perception. It doesn't mean that it is necessarily true on an objective basis.

And if they can't have a two-income marriage because, in Japan, they fire married women or at the very least, pass them over for promotions because they think the women will leave to take care of their children.

That would only render the situation difficult, not impossible.

These men don't even earn enough to be able to afford to date. Do you really think they can afford to support a family on their income?

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that so large a portion of Japanese society could be destitute as to be rendered completely incapable of supporting a family.

According to some studies, many Japanese men who actually can support themselves simply prefer to be single.

Increasing number of Japanese men opt for bachelorhood

This is a trend that apparently goes both ways.
 
Last edited:
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Not if feminism has no effect on the marriage rate and the birth rate.

In Japan, feminism has had little effect. It is considered, as verified by the article you linked to, "one of the world’s worst nations for gender equality at work."

But according to you, "one of the world’s worst nations for gender equality at work" is a feminist nirvana for working women. :lamo

Feminism in Japan

In 1970, in the wake of the Anti-Vietnam War, New Left and student movement radicalism of the late 1960s, a new women's liberation movement emerged in Japan called ūman ribu (woman lib). This movement was in sync with radical feminist movements in the U.S. and elsewhere, catalyzing a resurgence of feminist activism through the 1970s and beyond. The activists of the movement forwarded a comprehensive critique of the male dominated nature of modern Japan, arguing for a fundamental change of the political-economic system and culture of the society. What distinguished them from previous feminist movements was their emphasis on the liberation of sex (sei no kaihō).[5] They did not aim for equality with men, as they argued that men also should be liberated from the oppressive aspects of a patriarchal and capitalist system.

In 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The convention was ratified by the government of Japan in 1985.[6]

They might be less equal, but that doesn't mean that feminism hasn't had an impact.

And yet, you continue to refuse to marry or even date because you don't earn enough to buy enough things. That sounds very materialistic.

BTW, the idea that a woman should marry a man who can support a family is nothing new. It's very traditional. In fact, throughout most of civilization, the income of the two has been the most important factor in determining who would marry. Traditionally, it would be scandalous for a wealthy young person to marry someone from a lower income class.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that most single women would be marrying into abject poverty if they were to commit themselves to these men. Things would simply be more difficult than they might prefer, and they are not fond of the social expectations that go along with the institution, so they generally opt to remain under their current circumstances instead.

Again, it is a matter of personal choice under most circumstances, not necessity.
 
Last edited:
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

I'm not a feminist, at least not in the militant, 70s sense.

I asked earlier in the thread for someone to define 'feminist.' Because all American women are being tarred with the feathers in the OP.

So who is a feminist? All American women?

Women who hate men?

Women who dont agree with your views on things?

How about (my personal view) "women who believe women deserve the same choices and opportunities as men and that women are the equal of men."

You've heard the story about the frog being placed into a pot of water and then the fire is started underneath the pot and the frog is cooked alive whereas if the frog was dropped into a pot of boiling water it would immediately jump out.

Well the same process is in play with cultural change. There are changes in play which aren't really noticed because they're normalized over time. To really get a different vision you need to find commentary which is anchored on a different foundation. Go read some Christian women who write about traditional gender roles in their lives and community. You can strip out all of the religious references and you're left with customs and accepted viewpoints/wisdom that most women in early 20th century America would recognize. The fact that what you read would seem so alien speaks to how much norms have changed - the link between what used to be A and what now constitutes B is broken.

The feminist revolution has corrupted so much of society. It's like an acid which has eaten at the foundations. Social change, of itself, is not the problem, the problem is social change which requires a leap of faith and the outcome is not what is promised. This is why we're reeling from so many unintended consequences arising from the feminist reform of society. We're now well into the patch-work stage - plugging leaks and making do but not in any coherent way.

To answer your questions would literally require a manuscript length effort. What I can say though is this - the feminist revolution chose the wrong model of reform back when it was launched. It adopted the male role in society as something to duplicate rather than reforming society as a whole to better address the grievances of women.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

You've heard the story about the frog being placed into a pot of water and then the fire is started underneath the pot and the frog is cooked alive whereas if the frog was dropped into a pot of boiling water it would immediately jump out.

Well the same process is in play with cultural change. There are changes in play which aren't really noticed because they're normalized over time. To really get a different vision you need to find commentary which is anchored on a different foundation. Go read some Christian women who write about traditional gender roles in their lives and community. You can strip out all of the religious references and you're left with customs and accepted viewpoints/wisdom that most women in early 20th century America would recognize. The fact that what you read would seem so alien speaks to how much norms have changed - the link between what used to be A and what now constitutes B is broken.

The feminist revolution has corrupted so much of society. It's like an acid which has eaten at the foundations. Social change, of itself, is not the problem, the problem is social change which requires a leap of faith and the outcome is not what is promised. This is why we're reeling from so many unintended consequences arising from the feminist reform of society. We're now well into the patch-work stage - plugging leaks and making do but not in any coherent way.

To answer your questions would literally require a manuscript length effort. What I can say though is this - the feminist revolution chose the wrong model of reform back when it was launched. It adopted the male role in society as something to duplicate rather than reforming society as a whole to better address the grievances of women.

I grew up in a very Christian home...parents both taught Sunday school, were on the board, etc. And I'm Christian. And you cant really 'strip away' the Christian stuff to see what remains....lol. That is a foundation, a frame. It is not exclusive to Christianity of course.

And the so-called feminist revolution has only been around for about 40 yrs....and already we are seeing the trends of women choosing to return to the home. And women didnt choose to be more like men. We dont want to be men. Ugh. No. We want the same choices and opportunities and there's NO DOUBT that we were being deprived of such...legally and societally...before. Women still do not have equality as wage earners.

And it's not like there was some 'playbook' for a different model of reform, lol. We wanted to have the same freedoms and choices and opportunities as men....and I guess took the most direct route to get them...thru the Constitution.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Interesting. I find that it's pretty equal in terms of one or the other just not being content anymore. Women tend to become more independent and leave. Men tend to be 'comfortable' where they are and then just have affairs. Just from what I've seen and read tho.

Interesting to me as well, as my experience has been that it's typically women who have the affairs, at least among the type of people I hang around with. In fact, I can't think of a single male friend of mine who has had an affair, but I can think of several women friends who have.
 
Back
Top Bottom