Equal pay, hypergamy, and progressive utopian extremism; or, bitch I can’t get a date

Several things about the current iteration of polite feminism have been bothering me for years now, but they’re bewildering to contemplate, let alone to try to coherently explain. Since it’s half past one in the morning and I’m jet-lagged from Wow much travels Very why the fuck am i stress-eating in the adirondacks again, I figured I’ll give it a shot, and maybe even make it concise so that I’m not up all night stuffing my face out of the existential boredom around which this entire region is ordered:

1) That really is some fine-ass buttermilk cheddar bread that my dad baked, and it really is better when I’m not ignorant enough to slather it with strawberry jam before I’ve determined what the hell it is. Say, though, aren’t women the ones who are supposed to do the baking? Didn’t Phyllis Schlafly say so herself? Didn’t she build an entire political movement around this notion that it’s American for women to bother their Congressmen and concern-troll their country with homemade baked goods? What the hell is happening to the sex roles in my family since, like, 1969? Jimmy quit, Jody got this essay way the hell off-track already, shoulda known we’d never get as far as the third paragraph without something that uncalled for. Also uncalled for, by some reckonings, are women who want equal protection under the law instead of instructions to quit bitchin’ and go back to the kitchen and men who want equal protection under the law instead of being shipped off to Nam to get their balls blown off because they once had some. Tricky Dick, pray for us, and for those whose dicks you got nixed.

Am I a cuck because I was raised by an intermittently stay-at-home father who earned not quite half what my mother did? The alt-right would love for me to feel this way and run to it for proxy alpha fatherhood. Get fucked, boys. No, I am not and would not be interested in prepping my wife’s bull; for one thing, that’s literally gay. No, I’m not bothered by the number of cocks a prostitute has received: as that hooker who wanted everyone to know that she wasn’t the kind of woman who would take a social call with Jimmy Swaggart put it, she was a prostitute; that was what she did. I’m not against amateur girls on principle, but sweet Jesus on a dinosaur are some of them crazy, and they’ve got a lot more going on than promiscuity. Not using condoms, which isn’t all that different from not using toilet paper and hand soap, is as good a place as any to start. Whores figure that if you like it then you better put a hat on it, a modest barrier (giggity) to spontaneity but much preferable to divorce court extortion. And saying that you can’t make a ho into a housewife is as accurate as referring to me as a nigga (as in, “I’m borrowing phones from random niggas and shit”). (And not thanking us, you ghetto-ass punk. Getting naked and jackin’ it is not the worst thing that happens in San Diego.) There is a certain sloppiness of tongue at play here (again, giggity), even if, in fairness, Kirk Siegler isn’t devoting air time to the cladistic nuances of Hispanic Latinos while missing the point about how the steel mill closed.

1a) My assumption, then, is that a reversal of sex roles resulting in a breadwinning wife and a stay-at-home husband who (fuck, this is an awkward analogy now, but I’m running no filter) bakes the bread should not inherently be a problem per se. I find it truly bizarre for a man to feel emasculated solely because he is outearned by his girlfriend or wife. I cannot get into a mind like that. That one of my friends described being at least a second-generation chauvinist in this regard may speak more than anything to my running with some fucked up people. When he first told me this, I took it as just another torrent of brokenness and pathos for me to try to process.

[Ed.: Now writing two weeks later because I have, like, zero organizational ability to follow through on things that I put aside the previous night.]

2) For many people of both sexes, however, flipping the normal roles does seem to be a problem. It’s probably more of a problem for women than for men today, insofar as there don’t seem to be nearly as many men who insist on being providers as there are women who insist on having men who are financially able to provide for them. I’ve certainly seen a huge amount of this when I’ve browsed women’s online dating profiles. The hypergamy is real. No amount of moral posturing can change this.

3) What, then, are men bringing to the table to attract women? This is impossible to generalize. As a sex, we’re all over the place. It’s much more common to find men at the extremes of spectra than women: more geniuses, but also more stone retards; more Type A executives, but also more chronically unemployed losers; more of the population with enough personal income and assets to buy mansions, but also more of the homeless population. We’re also more likely to commit suicide or die in workplace accidents, although these are moot points on the dating scene. high

3a) Under the current Western socioeconomic regime and the zeitgeist driving it, these bimodal distributions are about as pronounced as they’ve ever been. David Furnish can join orgies in hot tubs full of olive oil, the guys who sell us the other kind of oil can shit on rent girls who sodomize them with live salmon, and the rest of us are likelier than not to be one month’s lost pay away from living on skid row. We’re lucky if our employers aren’t angling to bring in Mexican roustabouts or indentured tech servants from India and throw our asses out on the street for not adapting ourselves to the disruption.

If we complain about any of this, we’re liable to be smeared as sore losers, and no hip woman wants to date a loser, especially in times when the entire professional economy is ordered to hypergamy.

3b) Many of the service sector jobs that are supposedly the lifeblood of advanced economies are effectively reserved for women, in particular young, nubile women. Sometimes this is because women truly have a more adaptive set of social skills to the jobs. Sometimes it’s because they have male bosses who enjoy having eye candy around the joint, or arm candy, or dong candy. Sometimes it’s because management wants the front-of-the-house staff to insinuate that they’re whorish or slutty for business reasons. If there are ample jobs that don’t require this sort of affective labor, this isn’t a problem. If all the back-of-the-house jobs have been given to Mexican peasants, it’s a serious problem.

4) To synthesize the three preceding items, women have an easier time than men do becoming and staying employed, but they are also less willing than men to date the unemployed. With a dynamic like this, it’s no wonder that the dating market is kind of fucked. Encouraging women to pursue lucrative careers for the sake of the prestige when men have trouble finding work at all will only make this clusterfuck even worse.

4a) If mass spinsterhood isn’t the endgame here, some form of polygamy is. Either way, the Elliot Rodger lumpenproletariat of spurned men grows larger and festers. With luck, it doesn’t explode.

5) Equality of opportunity informed by a respect for natural law would fix most of this in a hurry. This is far too humble a solution for grandstanding activists who insist that they can socially engineer politically correct utopias.

6) It’s reasonable for women to want to earn less than men so that they can be kept by male providers. It’s reasonable for women to want to earn the same amount as men. It’s reasonable for women to want to earn more than men so that they can better provide for their children as primary custodians, or if they are willing to date men who earn less than they do (“nothing” being an increasingly common form of less). For women to want to earn more than men but less than men they date is absolutely batshit fucking crazy.

7) Prostitution allows women to outearn the hell out of men at prevailing market rates, often with flexible schedules that allow them to remain primary caregivers for their children. If feminism is about women being independent, financially self-sufficient, paid more than men for a change, and willing to tell men they don’t like to get lost, prostitution is excellent feminism. If feminism is about prissy bourgeois bitches concern-trolling their downmarket sisters for having yucky-yucky nook-nook with unapproved men, then prostitution is something best done when the third-wave human trafficking fetishists aren’t poking around.

The question isn’t whether women should be whores. This is like asking whether they should be mothers. Many of them already are. It comes naturally (as he said). It just kind of happens that way. The question is this: if a woman is already a whore, who the hell are the rest of us to try to fence the wind? There’s also a followup question for certain ladies who protest too much about not being whores: Who sugar baby bitch this is? Who ho dis? Seriously. Buying a woman a house in the suburbs so that she’ll go steady and put out from time to time is an extremely expensive form of prostitution for the man and an extremely calculating one for the woman. Cousin Gigolo and his landlady never had shit on that.

8) The prostitution market will be less wack if ordinary men recover their earning power. So will the marriage market. So will the market for most things other than Dubai porta potties. More people having more sex will tend to stabilize and edify a society. The US sure as hell could use some more action. Complaining that much of this fucking, or much of whatever diminished level of fucking is extant today, involves whores is like complaining that much of a society’s bread was baked by commercial bakers. Of course it does. Do we really want the responsibility to fall exclusively on crazy amateurs, or on some asshole who doesn’t know how to follow a dough recipe or turn on the oven? Shit. Men being able to pay for hookers more readily is a money velocity thing. Moralizing about it is foolish at best and complicit in Elliot Rodger rampages at worst. Landladies owning the property to house gigolos is more a female empowerment thing and a workaround of insufficient money velocity. I don’t know for a fact that Cousin Gigolo whored himself out to the landlady, but the oral tradition (heh) holds that he did, and I can’t think of a reason why he’d have had a social booty call with that trashy crone.

As that one European waitress in Inglewood said to a customer who asked her why “you ladies dress so revealingly,” “It is because we are a bunch of horse.” Don’t let anyone tell you that there aren’t worse things to be. Always say neigh to that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s