16 Apr Neomasculinity
-By Caleb Jones
Roosh recently published an article where he listed out 24 traits of something he calls neomasculinity. One of the biggest differences between Roosh and myself is that like most men in the manosphere, Roosh is a crusader who wants to save, or at least improve the world. I, on the other hand, think the world has made its choice, so let it all crash, since that’s clearly what it wants, and focus on self-improvement and building a great life for you and your loved ones within a small bubble of order and happiness rather than waste time battling left-wingers, feminists, or any other group that irritates you.
Regardless, his list was very interesting, and I found myself giving a lot of thought to it. As I went down the list I considered each item and its importance (or lack thereof) to my life. Here is his list of items and my view on the importance of each.
Game
Agree completely. Every man who is not celibate should learn some level of game. That even includes men who have a goal of Disney monogamy someday. (Which sadly is most men, including most men in the manosphere.)
Traditional sex roles
Don’t care. A man and a woman who pair bond can decide among themselves which of them is the breadwinner and which is the homemaker, or if they combine these roles. A few years back I wrote about my own opinion regarding this, and that the issue of who does the housework is not about gender, but about income. Regardless, I don’t care what man-woman couples in society do. Which of them mops the kitchen floor is their business, not mine, and I have no interest in enforcing it one way or the other.
Self-improvement
Absolutely agree. That’s what I’m all about, baby.
Understanding the true nature of women
Agree. The more a man understands how women truly behave, the happier in life he’ll be, and the less time, money, and emotions he’ll waste. That’s why one of the post categories on this blog is “How Women Really Are.”
Patriarchy
Disagree. I don’t want men or women in charge. I want decisions made by the free market with a small government that does about five or six things and that’s it, without getting into people’s personal lives. In terms of culture, I want a culture that embraces freedom, including sexual freedom. Neither a patriarchy or a matriarchy will do this, so I’m for neither.
Weightlifting/fitness
Agree. I’ve said before that every man should be doing regular resistance training.
Individual responsibility
Absolutely agree! One billion percent!!!
If I had to pinpoint the single biggest problem with humanity today, it would be a lack of individual responsibility. Everything bad that happens to me is someone else’s fault, and any time I have any problems other people should be forced at gunpoint to bail my dumb ass out. NO.
Equal legal rights, free speech, due process
Haha! Not only do I agree, but I probably agree with this more than Roosh does.
Testosterone
Of course I agree.
Entrepreneurship
Agree.
Hard work ethic
Agree.
Red pill truths
This isn’t specific enough for me to agree or disagree, but speaking in general in terms of what I think he means, I’ll say I agree.
Sexual marketplace value
This is a complicated one. I generally agree but I think many in the manosphere take this concept way too far. Yes, a woman’s SMV declines as she ages. But that doesn’t mean that the split second she turns 30 she’s now disgusting and no one wants to marry her. That’s complete bullshit and not true at all. Women in their 30s and even 40s can be, and often are, super hot and quite in demand by Alphas and betas alike, provided they (the women) don’t get fat.
Moreover, this is going to become more true as time goes on. I’ve already demonstrated what’s happening to the ever-growing divorce rates now that women in their 50s are staying somewhat sexually viable.
As time goes on, expect more and more women of older ages to stay hotter and younger-looking, which means women’s SMV will become less and less of an issue.
Male-only spaces
Don’t really care about this one, but I still mildly agree. Voluntary discrimination should be legal. If men want to form men-only clubs, they should be allowed. Just like women should be allowed to form women-only clubs, black people should be allowed to from black-only clubs, etc. It’s called freedom of association, emphasis on the word “freedom.”
Hedonistic moderation
Uh, what? You mean Alphas and PUAs should not have as much sex as they do? If that’s what you mean, then I completely and utterly disagree. Read above about what I said about sexual freedom. I should be allowed to have mutually consensual sex with as many women as I like, as often as I want, in any context I want, regardless of what others view as “hedonistic.”
If others have a problem with my lifestyle, that’s their problem, not mine. I’m too busy being happy to care.
Nuclear family
Don’t care, but I do agree that a pair-bonded and cohabiting couple are the best way to raise children. Just please, for the love of god, take the legal government-enforced marriage part out of it. As I’ve explained before, the state should have nothing to do with your relationship life.
Binary sex model
Don’t care. I don’t give a shit about the teeny tiny percentage of people who choose to become transsexuals. Once again, that’s their problem, not mine.
Natural health and hygiene (baking soda, apple cider vinegar, etc)
Mildly agree. Not a big deal to me.
Male virtue
Agree.
Anti-socialism
Completely agree!!! Libertarian forever!!! (Cue marching band celebratory music.)
Technological skepticism
Disagree completely. Technology is awesome. I can’t wait to become a cyborg and live for 500 years while still looking like I’m about 35 while living it up in the Millennium Falcon with my female sexbot cyber-harem, complete with big-breasted Klingons. Activate CYBERCOCK!
Feminine beauty ideals
Agree. It’s a tragedy that so many beautiful women choose to get fat, especially when they don’t have to.
Deeper life meaning and/or spirituality
Agree.
Lifestyle optimization
Completely agree. That’s what my life is all about.
If you tally everything up, of the above 24 items, I strongly agree with 14, mildly agree with 4, don’t care about 3, and disagree with 3. I guess that would make me neomasculine man, just one who was a cyborg having sex with multiple women while wanting true individual freedom instead of a patriarchy. Not bad.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.
Tony
Posted at 05:33 am, 16th April 2015I don’t read his blog too much, so I’m curious why he believes in technological skepticism. Does he think technology is hurting men in some way?
VF
Posted at 06:31 am, 16th April 2015What exactly is ‘male virtue’? How does it differ from just ‘virtue’?
JFUNK
Posted at 06:41 am, 16th April 2015That’s a funny but very selective read on technology. Here’s another:
*Utterly hollowing out the job market due to automation, unless you’re running the machines. You’re personally prepared for the impact of automation and riding the wave, but that doesn’t account for the average guy. It’s great to make a huge amount of careers of obsolete, but unlike say the railroads of last century, this elimination is not, so far, leading to a corresponding boom. Jobs are not coming back, and a huge amount of men are adrift because of it.
*For every tech startup making important substantive changes, there’s 9 self justifying by removing perceived “inefficiencies” in your daily life without deeper consideration to human beings. OK, thanks for turning all my activities into a smoothie, but I kind of liked chewing my food sometimes. This has lead to a whole generation of people living a frictionless but unsatisfying existence. I especially feel for those who haven’t known the pre-smartphone world, since they feel the unease but can’t explain it.
*Despite certain apps automating dating, smartphones are mostly a cockblock which devalue male attention and validation. She may be looking at you, but a part of her is anticipating her next text or email. This exacerbated by womens social/community tendencies which make missing a text an unbearable thought.
*It’s easier to get casual sex via apps/dating sites, but harder to form relationships. The new push toward polyamory is in part reactionary to this fact.
*It’s harder for average guys to get laid with girls in their league, since these girls are experiencing a buffet of men 1 or 2 points higher who are a swipe or 2 from being over at their house.
These things are surmountable to those who are fully self aware and willing to work much harder. But they still, at least in the short term, force you to work much harder.
WolfOfGeorgeStreet
Posted at 08:03 am, 16th April 2015Big fan of Roosh’s blog and books.
I agree with most of your points, but disagree (as I’ve mentioned before in other posts here) with the following:
Be careful what you wish for, because in this case, you are absolutely going to get it. Cultures that completely embrace sexual freedom (and we are well on our way) exist, in the animal kingdom.
Great place to be if you’re one of the few lucky Alpha males, but better watch your back, there’ll be another guy eyeing your harem waiting for the right moment to claim your throne.
‘but women will have the right to choose and women in my ‘soft’ harem are still allowed to sleep with other guys’ Yeah right. You and I both know what happens when we tell our women they’re ‘free’ to see other guys, lol.
Let’s face the facts, for every woman we have in our ‘free to choose’ harems there’s a guy somewhere who goes without, because overwhelmingly our women choose to see only one guy even when we encourage them to see others, and that one guy is us. Sure, occasionally they might try something different, or sometimes they opt out all together, but who do they usually come back to?
There’s actually a movement that encourages total sexual freedom, it’s called feminism, and it’s served guys like us very well.
Again, same problem as above. This is all very well and good when only a few males (as a proportion of the total population of males) are doing it. However, the disparity between male and female sex drives cannot be ignored, if there were 3 females for every male this wouldn’t be such a problem, but that’s not the case.
So for every male getting 100% of his sexual needs fulfilled (which usually requires 2-3 females, who are all in turn getting 90%-100% of their sexual needs fulfilled by that 1 male) there’s 2-3 guys going without entirely, or getting very little.
If we, as a society, encourage Hedonistic moderation, the individual happiness of you and I might decrease a little (we might not be getting as much sex as we could have otherwise), but the happiness of others would increase, and it would encourage a happier, healthier and more cohesive society overall sort of a sexual socialism.
Where the males who would otherwise be commanding all the sex are paying a tax of sorts to allow other males a chance. Not perfect, of course, but better than the current slippery slope.
‘You’re welcome to moderate your hedonistic tendencies as much as you want’ I hear you say, ‘I’ll be poolside enjoying myself’. That’s exactly the problem, it requires buy in from society as a whole. ‘Patriarchy, Religion, Traditional values and the nuclear family’ WAS that buy in. That’s why western society worked, and that’s why western society prospered.
Will we ever see a return to this model and can our society be saved? No. So all we can do is exploit the flaws in the current system for personal gain, which, with our blatantly open soft harems, we are absolutely doing.
But Guys like Roosh and I can at least acknowledge that society would be better for the MAJORITY if we returned to a more traditional system, whereas you seem to encourage the continued downfall for personal gain.
Otherwise, great post.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 09:40 am, 16th April 2015I don’t read Roosh that often either. He’s a little too depressing. Anyway, you’d have to ask him.
You’d have to ask Roosh for specifics.
@JFUNK – Each of your qouted points:
1. Yes, automation is going to be a problem with the job market in the future. I’m confident that we will solve that problem in the far future (after much hardship and chaos; change is never easy).
2. Regardless of how high-tech our lives become, you will always be able to go camping (for example) to get back to a more human experience. I go camping/hiking all the time (when the weather is nice) for exactly this reason.
3. Online dating, despite it’s downsides, has gotten me laid, and millions of other men laid, who who would not have otherwise gotten laid nearly as easily or quickly. It’s a very, very, very good thing, despite its downsides which I agree do exist.
4. I like polyamory.
5. Yes, this is a problem as I’ve discussed before. Men are going to have to step it up, and as I’ve said before, men should be stepping up anyway regardless of sexual/woman reasons.
I know. I can’t wait!
Don’t care. In a sexually free society I’ll just go get a new woman to replace the old one. It’s exactly what I do now. It’s also exactly what monogamous men do now (via serial monogamy).
Yeah. You have happy, years-long relationships with low drama where you can fuck whomever you want. I’ve done it many, many times.
If you’ve had a different experience you should buy my ebook on the subject.
1. You think “sexually free” automatically means harems, and that’s not true. True polyamory, for example, is not harems. It’s multiple people dating multiple people, not multiple people dating one person.
2. There have always been guys who “go without,” under any system. Back when I was in high school in the good old 80s, there were tons of adult men who didn’t get laid and were pissed about it. This was way before the sexual freedom of the 90s or the internet or online dating, etc.
Absolutely incorrect, and I’m shocked you would say something this silly! If you think for one minute that feminism encourages total sexual freedom among both sexes, then you’re crazy. Feminism encourages female sexual freedom while men are obedient little hamster betas who never try to have sex with anyone unless their women masters give them permission first. Modern-day feminism is very bad. (Not that I care.)
I don’t necessarily disagree with that. But remember that A) I am for a society where men and women do pair bond for the long-term (nonmonogamously) if they want to raise kids, and B) absolute sexual monogamy at all times is not required for a prosperous society…don’t forget those 1950s men where cheating on their wives like Mad Men.
TarzanWannaBe
Posted at 10:00 am, 16th April 2015BD — great assessments!
WolfOfGeorgeStreet — very good point. The ‘assertive mating’ model no longer functions in a ‘hedonistic’ realm. Mating follows the Pareto ’80/20 rule’ when hedonistic.
Jimmy
Posted at 04:18 pm, 16th April 2015I like to think that a woman’s SMV is influenced not by age, but by mileage.
The entire manosphere and seduction community is likely to disagree with me here, as I know you definitely are BD, but I would rather be 1 of 1 (or a few) rather than 1 of 100 that she has slept with.
I consider women with a high “number” as “high mileage” and not something I am interested in at all.
Now obviously, women don’t come with an odometer so how would one come to be in posession of such information? Who knows? Fortunately for me and my hang-ups, I don’t have to worry about that right now…..but I would rather eat the pussy of a 45 year old who’s had only a few partners in her life than that of a 21 year old who cheapens herself by fucking every PUA who thows some game at her.
Having said all of that, I am an Australian Alpha 1.0 in a Monogamous marriage with a heavy D/s dynamic, so I’m rather out of place here anyway……but I still take a huge amount of value from a majority of your stuff on here BD, so thanks 🙂
JFUNK
Posted at 05:20 pm, 16th April 2015That implies it’s happening all at once rather than in sequence. Part of the reason you’re able to see multiple women without much churn is that they typically choose to see you exclusively for a period of time, because it is their nature. You don’t have to demand it. But you often get it, or something close, while someone else gets nothing or occasional ONS’s and leftovers until they temp-next you.
So it seems the other guy’s point holds since in barring unusual exceptions, they’re not really seeing others. It’s a glass walled harem. A harem 2.0. They have the option of dating others but once they’re dating an alpha, they usually opt out.
eldm
Posted at 05:39 pm, 16th April 2015Roosh and other personalities in the manosphere tend to be very neoreactionary when they comment on society – they are so focused on just gender politics, that they underestimate the impact of government policies & economic factors that heavily influences society.
As for the people freaking out about automation – yes, some industries will take a hit , and even get whipped out initially – but more jobs will be created because of new technology. Jobs that are unfathomable to us at the moment. Imagine telling a 19th century farmer that there’s gonna an entire industry based on making games on computers 2 centuries later.
Tony
Posted at 07:35 pm, 16th April 2015The technology thing is ridiculous. It’s not like automation is sort of recent development. Technology has been making the world more efficient for hundreds of years. The cotton gin is a good example. Even if you think computers are the main problem, you have to remember that languages like COBOL have been around for 50+ years.
More technology means more productivity per man hour, which means we get way more money, free time, or both, than the vast majority of people could imagine even 100 years ago. Caleb is a great example, not only does he work 20 hours a week, but he also has luxuries that people in the past couldn’t even dream of.
WolfOfGeorgeStreet
Posted at 11:40 pm, 16th April 2015@ JFUNK
Yes! Exactly what I meant, you got my point, and I also agree with many of your technology points. Granted, once again, being in the Tech industry myself I am one of the few greatly benefiting from it all.
Although sex robots would be cool.
@Tony
Yes, that’s the economic argument, but won’t it get to a point where the robots are maintaining the robots and inventing new robots and ways of doing things better than a human ever could, and the only people that can afford the robots are already very rich? No opportunity for younger people in the society to ‘make it’ because everything will already be automated and being performed better by robots. This is the problem with reaching the ‘technological singularity’.
Essentially our current capitalist economic system simply would not work in a world where the singularity has been reached. We’d have to come up with something else. Some way to share the robots output, nationalizing it under a communist model or something. Or we could just ask the machines what would work best for us… 😉
@BD
I have bought and read every single one of your books, been in an OLTR/Open marriage for 8 years. It’s great, but like I said. I’m essentially running a ‘soft’ harem. Because no matter how much freedom I give my girls, including my wife, they all tend to only sleep with one guy, ME.(even my wife, who as far as I know in those 8 years has been completely monogamous) It’s in their nature (just like sleeping with multiple girls is in mine), and for every guy like you or me, there’s a heap of guys that have to go without.
I call them ‘soft harems’, but I love the term ‘harem 2.0’, essentially we’ve realized that we don’t have to keep our harem girls under lock and key and forbid them to see whoever they want, because even when we give them all the freedom in the world, they still overwhelmingly tend to see only us and turn down other guys.
Feminism creates this completely free sexual society by unshackling women from societal pressures to control their sexual urges and freeing them from economic dependence on Beta’s. That’s the problem. Sexually liberated females are free to join some Alpha’s harem 2.0, while manipulating their beta orbiters, still extracting economic benefit from them, using them as emotional tampons, while denying them sex.
It would be alot better for your average beta to just be married to her, for her to be economically dependent on him to keep her giving him sex, and for her to get her Alpha love on the side through discreet affairs. Like back in the 50’s ‘Mad Men’ model. I am just a modern day Don Draper, and thanks to feminism, and this sexually free society, I have it better than he ever did, while your average guy has it much, much worse than they would have in the 50’s.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:55 am, 17th April 2015Actually, quite the opposite. Most of the manosphere is Alpha Male 1.0, and would completely agree with you.
The problem with these analogies is that you’re not going to be having sex with a lot of women who’s fucked 100 men. I certainly haven’t. It’s more like 5-20 men. Those 100-men women are outliers, and not worth freaking out about.
Ah! That explains it! 🙂
Right. It’s a near-perfect system.
Incorrect. It’s about 50/50. 50% of the women in FB/MLTR relationships are fucking other men, at least in my experience. 50% are not. Therefore you really couldn’t call what I have a harem (if one was being technical).
Moreover, around 90% of these women LSNFTE me eventually and go get monogamous husbands or boyfriends. (And they eventually come back of course, often while still with said husbands/boyfriends.)
Agree.
Cool! Sounds great!
Disagree completely. I think if you got all these women a little tipsy with alcohol and hooked them all up to lie detectors far away from you, promised them 100% confidentiality, and asked them if they’ve ever gotten sexual with another guy while fucking you, the majority of them would say yes, including likely your wife.
Regardless, if your core argument is that “some men would go without,” I already answered that above. There have been a huge population of men throughout all of human history who have “gone without.” This isn’t anything new. And as I said to JFUNK, the women in my “soft harem” don’t avoid fucking beta males, boyfriending-up beta males, and marrying beta males. They do all that stuff, consistently.
That’s true but I don’t see why that’s a problem. I’ll say it again: there have always been some betas who go without, evenwhen married.
That’s exactly what we have now, minus the having sex with the beta husband part (which has always been the case).
Amanda
Posted at 07:42 pm, 18th April 2015Not a big fan of Roosh (IMO he’s too much about the shock value and pretty depressing), but I agree with some of what he says. I agree that beauty standards aren’t a bad thing. I recently discovered the “fat acceptance” movement and how there are many people out there who claim obesity is not the fault of the obese person, and believe that feminine beauty ideals are terrible and want to change what men think is attractive. This goes hand in hand with a lack of personal responsibility. If you are obese and/or unattractive, why not take steps to improve your fitness and enhance your appearance, rather than blame men for not seeing your “true beauty”?
I think this also has to do with women sabotaging each other – much like those who convince other women to chop off their hair (saying things like, “your long hair overwhelms you; your beautiful face will shine so much brighter with a pixie cut!”), knowing full well that doing so will make them less attractive. When “fat acceptance” people say obesity is beautiful and perfectly healthy, one of the underlying motivations is to convince other women to let themselves go, thereby reducing the competition (even if this strategy isn’t recognized).
Farfalla
Posted at 11:59 pm, 18th April 2015I like Roosh a lot. He’s a real scholar and applies his mind to various topics on a deep level. He doesn’t just skim the surface. He has an unusual mind. Cool. I like his attempt here to define masculinity and offer the opening template. He was very clear about it being something that others should add to, correct, recalibrate. All good.
I DON’T like many of the ‘Red Pill By The Numbers’ followers he has on RooshV, who seem to scan every post in a game of ‘More red pill than thou.’ A lot of them are nitty acolyte types and really seem to be like Sunday school marms from 1890–Replace the bible with whatever Red Pill manual. I can’t stand his forum, though there must be some good information there if you can handle the red pill sanctimony.
Vaquero357
Posted at 12:51 pm, 19th April 2015Amanda said:
Oh, so true! I’m always fascinated with women telling their friends, “Oh, that looks so cute on your!” when it’s some patently ugly article of clothing that does nothing to make the friend more attractive. The translation going through my head it, “Great! That makes you look frumpy so you won’t be competition for me.” Or it’s Societal Programming that dictates you have to tell a woman something looks nice no matter how hideous it is.
Pardon the digression. Pretty tangential to BD’s original topic. Just pleased to see a woman who sees this phenomenon.
Otherwise, I’m fully in BD’s camp: Obviously, no one individual (me) can make any meaningful change in the course of society, so my goal is to carve out a life for myself (and those of people close to me) as rewarding and enjoyable as possible.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 01:50 pm, 19th April 2015I’m a big supporter of the manosphere and red pill in general. But it’s true that most men in the manosphere, as in more than 50%, are angry guys who want to be angry.
I try to appeal to the men who actually want to be happy.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 03:58 pm, 19th April 2015So BD when is your next blog post? I thought you put them out every Sunday.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 04:01 pm, 19th April 2015Observant!
I’ve changed the schedule. It’s going to be Mondays and Thursdays from now on.
ricerocket
Posted at 07:08 am, 20th April 2015This is, and has been my goal for the past 5 years, to be happy. Call it manosphere, red pill, whatever, but take away the anger. Ironically, for me, the more I embrace them, the happier I am, and the more I embrace woman for who they are, and love them for it.
Just read these today, while I am no fan of dailymail.co.uk, the fact that articles like this show up in more mainstream media is indicative of growing awareness.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3044380/The-denigration-men-Ridiculed-abused-exploited-triumph-feminism-today-s-men-second-class-citizens-argues-deliciously-provocative-new-book-s-time-chaps-fought-back.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3046350/Why-men-refuse-marry-Women-complain-chaps-today-won-t-settle-Sorry-ladies-s-fault-argues-wickedly-provocative-new-book-Denigration-Men-PETER-LLOYD.html
My concern is, that much like the political parties in this country, the ‘angry’ or ‘agenda seekers’ of both sides take center stage, and the true message is lost in the rhetoric. Then people taking vastly far to aggressive action to ‘fix’ a problem, where no real ‘fixing’ needs to happen.
Korg
Posted at 01:53 am, 1st May 2015Stopped reading the Roosh stuff a while ago. Around the moment he came up with the neomasculinity.
The whole anger of the rooshtians was already rubbing me the wrong way. And I also tend to get angry, so for my happiness I quit reading it. But not only that, some of the articles posted on RoK were plain wrong, used strange circular logic (for a site claiming to be more logical than feminists, I still scratched my head at some of the conclusions). RoK is getting to be a bit the gawker of the manosphere.
And I don’t really like any type of social movement anymore. So trying to create the neomasculinity banner around himself turns me away.
One reason I think Roosh is a bit mad, is because for all his legendary player skills it seems he does not get laid all that much. He hinted at that much at least. It may be that he changed his focus from getting laid to leading the whole neomasculinity movement (or whatever movement he has in his head. The creation of the reaxxion thing also shows he wants to create movements, or social change or whatever). I’m wondering if it is not just an excuse. Chasing tail in Europe does not give him the success he wants, so he starts leading the angry men of the western world.
Susan
Posted at 10:56 pm, 16th October 2015I’m curious…why is it, Blackdragon, that your way of thinking and conducting yourself is the only way for a man to actually be happy? If it is the only way for you to be happy, then fine. I can’t relate at all to your idea of what happiness is since I actually think about the distant future. I’ve been proposed to 4 times. Three I never had sex with…and I’m a vyw. So obviously I’m not into this life for the purpose of marriage. At the same time, I’m not into this life solely for the purpose of sex. Thank god. I’m not against marriage at all. (and then all the boys attribute this to the fact that I am female). I’m also fine with the government recognizing this. What I do love is trying to figure out people…and what I’m finding is that is simply not possible. It’s like you come right to the edge, the answer is right there…a definite! and then…nope. Not a definite…more considerations to be made… By the way, I’ve studied much concerning, well, the science of sex.
Maybe I’m too young or just haven’t noticed it, but I have not witnessed this female sabotaging of each other…not in my personal life. I’ve seen it in movies, but just movies…not real life. Then again, I don’t watch television. Is that a reality tv show trashy people thing? Otherwise, are you all sure this is a general, real kind of thing? Because middle and high school wasn’t that long ago and it didn’t happen during those times, either. Wouldn’t those be the most obvious times? Adult women and this sabotage? I don’t buy it…unless it’s a really trashy area…maybe…
Another thing that makes me crazy…the feminism thing. Really, the rising generation doesn’t care and the only times I hear it discussed is from older people. I think it must be something that older men are just foul about. I don’t know all the specific points of it, but it has somehow laid out life in a way that at least seems better for women now than how history tells the story. Women (not just women, of course, but that is the gender I’m talking about) have dealt with and gone through so much crap! I appreciate not being property and not having my butt pinched by some of the idiots I’ve worked with. I’ve never met a woman who has talked about feminism…but it seems like older men just love the subject! Aren’t these kinds of movements that are probably too strong simply swaying far to the other side in order to fall back to the middle and find balance? Why is that bad?