While Preachers Rearrange the Deck Chairs

I came across an interesting blog with an article on how Japan is handling its fertility crisis. What was noteworthy to me was this bit about the movement called MGTOW:

MGTOW is not an organization. It is not even a movement in the sense of the black civil rights movement — an organized series of events aiming for particular goals. It is, rather, a movement in the sense of a social trend. An increasing number of men are individually turning their backs on society. Rightly or wrongly, they have come to believe that their cultures have turned against them, so they choose to decrease their participation in those cultures. This fact is demonstrated not only by the marriage strike but also by males’ high rates of suicide and collapsing percentage of college and university students.

All the talk about what men need to do accomplishes nothing with regard to those men who have become jaded about participating in the social fabric of families, community, etc. Men are asking an uncomfortable question: Why should men protect a society that belittles them?

Another Observation

The blog I to which I have linked focuses on the demographic upheaval that comes from depopulation. I think the downturn in fertility has its parallel in the bust of the Housing Market Bubble. Call it the Marriage and Family Bubble, if you will. Our modern societies, like our modern economies, do not encourage savings and thrift, but consumption and waste. Just as a fiat currency becomes devalued as its supply increases in relation to commodities, so the actual value of labor becomes debased as its supply increases in relation to the wealth it generates. Our government, social institutions, commercial interests, etc. are all dependent upon an increasing supply of human beings to generate wealth to create a liquidity of sorts in our society. The problem is that like the Housing Market Bubble, the social structure takes the form of a pyramid scheme where the early players are dependent on the influx of the later players. Older generations pay the price of consumption on credit hoping that later generations will pay back in production.

There is a real reason why people are angry about immigration - it has nothing to do with an aversion to brown-skinned people. A massive influx of population does not create capital, but decreases the quality of life for everyone else. The cheap cost of picked lettuce and rickety houses built by immigrant labor is offset by the strains placed on hospitals, schools, jails, etc. Wealth in a consumeristic society depends on value, and value depends on a scarcity of goods in relation to number of people who want them. If money grew on trees, then it wouldn't be money (The Fed seems to think that it can continue to make it out of trees, but that's another rant.). On the demand side, the more people there are, the harder they have to work to create the wealth needed to buy a good which other people want as well. Like the Housing Market Bubble, sooner or later, the later players reach the point where they default from the pyramid game and cash out. Then the whole mess comes crashing down.

We see this with men who realize that they can no longer afford the high price tag placed on marriage and family. Just as the government and the corporate sector have squeezed everything it can out of the citizenry through taxation, devalued currency, and investment Ponzoi schemes, so society has squeezed everything it can out of men through unfair family laws, discrimination, and ridiculous expectations. And just as "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke thinks he can avoid an economic disaster by cutting rates, so the Helicopter Bens of cultural reactionaries try to shame and blame men into the institution of marriage. And believe me, the Helicopter Bens are easily found--even among some so-called men's rights activists. We are told that men should continue to get married and have children to fight socialism and Islam. We are told that declining marriages are the result of women deciding to not have babies. True, but declining marriages are also the result of men reacting to the devalued currency of Marriage and Family. Why should they work harder and put in more time and get less back? If we rolled back the gains of feminism and were still left with people who treated men like an expendable commodity (such as our corporate elite often do), then what incentive would men have to invest in our social structures? None, I tell you.

Selling men the modern version of Marriage and Family is like selling loans in the Housing Market Bubble. You are not selling an asset, but a debt and a liability. A lot of men are beginning to view marriage and the attendant "American Dream" as little more than the Company Store Revisted. Society must stop its wasteful consumption and stop thinking it can borrow against the lives of men. If you want young men to get married, then you must invest in them. Repeal punitive family laws, pay men decent wages that aren't eroded through burdensome taxes and inflation, put an end to male-bashing and female entitlement, provide mentoring and assistance in helping men to get married and form families (viz., possibly revive the extended family structure), and get rid of the notion that men have obligation to earn money in order to buy consumer goods they don't need. In short, just as a currency should be fixed to some precious commodity such as gold, the economic and social of value of marriage and family needs to be secured for men. Otherwise, you can watch families go the way of Countrywide.

The Left Hand Doesn't Know

Candice Watters has informed us that masturbation is wrong. Somebody forgot to tell the boss, though.

Interesting. Most Interesting.

1. Go to Google.
2. In the search bar, type the phrase "single men" with the quotes.
3. Hit the Google Search button.
4. Hit the News link at the top of the page to refine the search.
5. Peruse the links.
6. Note the pattern.

Perhaps this explains the Marriage Mandate Movement.

More Thoughts on the "Child-Man" Ballyhoo

My readers have given me some feedback on two previous posts I made (see here and here). It got me thinking about some things and I wanted to add a couple of other points, especially with regard to Kay Hymowitz's article on "child-men." So, with that in mind ....

Point #1

"Ken" is right in the comment he posted about women sleeping around. Many cultural conservatives believe men don't get married because of easy sex. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" is the aphorism thrown around to bolster this theory. Hence, women are advised to withhold premarital sex in order to motivate men to get married. But this won't work. Why? Because it takes two to tango, boys and girls. Let me put it this way: A lot of women don't want to play the field. They don't want to get married. They want to play the field AND get married. They want their premarital sex, their extramarital sex when the slightest bit of unpleasantness confronts them in married life, and their post-marital sex after they cash in on the hubby in the divorce courts. In short, they want it all. Why do they want to get married if they are getting sex already? Because for many women, the incentives of marriage are not solely or even primarily about sex. They're about economics and social prestige.

The problem is that when women sleep around, men have no incentive to get married. It's not just because the men have more access to sex without commitments. It also because the women have more access to sex without commitments. What incentive does a man have to pay the economic and social costs of entering into a marriage with a woman when the state and society encourages her to be irresponsible (e.g., paternity fraud, welfare mothers, frivolous divorces, family laws partial to women)? The man is penalized in such a case. He can be economically and socially ruined by a woman even if he is a good father and husband. He can even be wrongfully prosecuted and thrown in jail.

Yes, conservative pundits often parrot the idea that male sexuality must be tamed and channeled into positive endeavors. George Gilder is the one often cited as the source of this idea (viz., in his book Men and Marriage). But Daniel Amneus, author of the book The Garbage Generation, rightfully calls this idea "the Gilder Fallacy." Amneus claims it is women who need to control their sexuality. When women fail to control their sexual drives and remain monogamous, then men lose their motivation to makes sacrifices. The society decays into a pre-civilized matriarchy where barbarism replaces decency. We see it now with the thugs of the Gangsta Culture. We see it in the demotivated, catatonic X-Box boys. They have no responsible, stable men as fathers in their lives (e.g., "nice guys"), only transient Alpha Jerks that society has encouraged women to chase.

It goes without saying that my comments are not applicable to conscientious, faithful Christian women. Sadly, however, the number of secular and nominally religious women who engage in the shenanigans I describe has longed passed the point of critical mass. They are ones who have set the tone for gender roles, marriage, and family in this society. In another age, these women would have been marginalized as "strumpets," "hussies," and "floozies." But now a gynocentric society empowers these women to behave irresponsibly and forces us to clean up the mess they create.

So, ultimately, the question is not "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" The question is: "Why put any money down on a cow that will break down the fence and graze in some other farmer's pasture?" All of the articles targeting immature "child-men" ignore this crucial point.

Point #2

I did a little research on Kay Hymowitz. You might think she is a typical leftist, man-hating feminist. Not so. She writes for the Manhattan Institute, which is a conservative think-tank. It only serves to make my point and provide me with an "Exhibit A." Misandry is not confined to the cultural left. Leftist women see a man as a threat. Rightist women see a man as a tool. Both types of women have been known to shame and blame a man for imagined slights, things that are beyond a man's control, or things that are actually the fault of women. Granted, there are good women that don't give into the misandry of Wall Street, K Street, or even Main Street. But too many do, and too few do anything about it.

Further Readings and Resources

1. You can hear Ms. Hymowitz at NPR discussing her ideas on "child-men" (I find her tone and demeanor towards her subject matter to be revealing).

2. I have a nice essay by Matthias Mattusek on the present state of womanhood saved in my bookmarks. It puts the whole matter into perspective (Warning: There is one four-letter word in the article ... where a feminist is quoted, that is.). I admit that Mattusek's essay is an oldie (published 1998), but it's still a goodie. Read the article here.

The Price Tag

There is no free lunch. While penning my post in response to some ballyhoo about "child-men," I reflected on some things regarding men and what may be called a "marriage strike." Cultural pundits of various persuasions may decry the retreat of men from the institution of marriage but the good things in life have a price tag. The involvement of men in perpetuating a society via the family unit is no exception. When it comes to men, society will get what it pays for. You don't have to be an Austrian School economist to know that if you value something, you should be prepared to pony up. What price can men rightfully affix to the tag placed on the onus of marriage and fatherhood? As I see it, the Establishment must meet at least four conditions:

1. Give men decent wages and employee benefits so they can support the families everyone is saying men ought to have.

2. Don't take away those decent wages through burdensome taxation and unsound monetary policies (devalued currencies, etc.).

3. Roll back the anti-male and anti-family policies of the Nanny State (which kinda' ties in with #2).

4. Stop celebrating self-centered, unscrupulous women who don't respect men. Instead, tell them to "get a life" (or something like that).

I simply lay forth these conditions as an observer of cause and effect. Until the four conditions are met, there will be no cease-fire and no armistice offered by men. The shelling and aerial assault will continue.

Beware the Leaven of Female Journalists

Steve Watters has recently given a nod to an article on "child-men," a piece that highlights the supposed arrested development of young single men today. There's just one problem. Steve has fallen for a ruse.

The author of the piece in question fits a notorious demographic--female journalists who live in metropolitan areas and who write on fashion and culture. Her name is Kay S. Hymowitz and she lives in New York. This disclosure is sufficient warning for any red-state male that might hazard to read beyond her byline. Yes, I engaged in overgeneralization. So be it. How long should we continue to hang on every word of the East Coast literati? The conventional wisdom these people have to offer on social issues (especially on gender matters) is just that--conventional wisdom.

Ms. Hymowitz's piece contains the usual hallmarks of that peculiar literary style propagated by the skirt-wearing, Manolo pumping, nail polish crowd of Upper East Side ...

1. Use of banal neologisms to pigeonhole men (e.g., "child-man" which can be compared to "metrosexual," "retrosexual," and "ubersexual")

2. An obsession with fictional characters (usually in chick media) to illustrate a negligible point (such as the tiresome references to "Sex in the City"). In Hymowitz's piece, we are force-fed a shovel load of allusions to negligible pop tripe that reveals nothing but the level of vapidity found in mainstream media.

3. Mindless, kneejerk gynocentrism that is more predictable than a Fisher-Price See-N-Say toy.

It is on this last point that I wish to make some additional observations. Other astute commentators have already pointed out what annoys me about Hymowitz. First, there is the tendency to categorize male pastimes as "immature" while giving a pass to female pastimes of equally dubious merit--chief among them being shopping for overpriced shoes, clothing, and dust-collecting knick-knacks. Second, there is the amazing ability by Hymowitz and her spin sisters to screen out any unconformable truths about today's young women. I've said it before; I'll say it again. Many women have an entitlement mentality that demands equality workplace (including career opportunities in traditionally male occupations) but inequality in dating, romance, and the family budget (asking the man to pay for for the dates and bring home the larger paycheck). These women are blind to the cumulative effects of a race to the top for the eligible male. Many women are also caught up in their own pursuit of pleasure throughout their youth and ignore the call of matrimony up until the point the ovum count starts to go south. Many women have been siren-songed by a cadre of "relationship experts" promoting the Sisterhood of Victims and they cannot fathom the notion that women might "need some work" in the relationship department themselves. And then there is the matter of divorce--we need not rehash any elementary truths about who often cashes in on who.

Steve Watters later followed up with a comment on his post: "I get the sense that many of you were offended by something you found in the excerpt without reading through the actual article. I'd be curious how many of you would defend the lifestyles Hymowitz describes over the course of the article." My response is: "Nothing to look at here, ladies and gentlemen. Move right along." We can't have the passing drivers rubber-necking too closely at Hymowitz's wrecked Winnebago.