Marriage, Horror, And Susan Reimer
Take Horror. It's A Better Bet.
July 14, 2003
Were I to offer thoughts on marriage to young American men today, in these the declining years of a once-great civilization, my advice would be as follows: Don't do it. Or, if you do, do it in another country. In America marriage is a grievous error.
And why so? Because of The Chip. The Attitude. The bandsaw whine of anger, anger, anger that makes American women an international horror. It's there. It's real.
You, a young man, may not recognize the Chip if you have never seen normal, warm, happy women. If you are twenty-something and haven't been out of the US, you haven't seen them. They exist by the billion--in Latin America, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaya, China and, last I looked, France and Holland. And of course not every woman in America carries the Chip. None of them think they do. Yet it is the default, the usual, what comes out of the box.
The following is a perfectly ordinary, everyday, bulk-lot example, suitable for poisoning a cistern:
"Other than a 29-inch waist and a full head of hair, there isn't much to recommend the twentysomething male? He is living an extended adolescence -- an adult-olescence -- and every immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed thing he does is reinforced by the latest issue of his favorite men's magazine." (Susan Reimer, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun. I bet she goes out a lot.)*
Hers is the Attitude--and what they think of you. It is the defining trait of American women. Exceptions exist, and they have my apologies, but they are few and no, sport, your Sally probably isn't one of them. They're coiled to bite. As soon as problems arise in the marriage, they turn into Susan.
Susan Reimer is what is out there, guys: bitter that no one wants her (as who in his right mind could?), sure that no one is good enough for her, never having grasped that those who would be loved must first be lovable. Understand this: Susan is America. Some hide it better, springing it on you after the ceremony, but Susan is the rule.
The Susans do not like men. Sometimes they actually take courses in disliking men ("Women's Studies"). Yet they want to marry one and have babies. For them, the contradiction actually makes a kind of sense, because (and they know this, believe me) they will get the house, the children, and the child support. For you, it makes no sense. You will get raped in the divorce courts. You don't know how bad it is. Don't do it.
A prime effect of marriage is backbreaking financial overhead: the excessive house in the prestigious suburb, the pricey but boring cars, all that. But if you don't fall into the trap, keeping your expenses down means you can live in Alaska or overseas and enjoy existence. There is more to life than debt service. Although these are bad times for marrying, they are extraordinarily good times for being single.
Now, children. This is sticky. You may want them, or think you want them, or think you may want them. She wants them. My advice is to move to almost any country where English isn't spoken and women don't want their husbands to be the mothers of their children. Any country inhabited by the Chinese would do nicely.
Incidentally, remember that it is never now or never. Your prospects improve with time. At thirty-five or fifty you will be perfectly able to find a good woman if you know where to look. See above list.
Remember also that these are not good times for having children in America. It is almost irresponsible. The schools are scholastically poor, drug-ridden, given chiefly to political indoctrination, and hostile to male children. The universities are little better. Divorce is hell on children and their fathers, and nearly universal. The country lunges to police-statedom and isn't, I suspect, as stable as it might be. Worse, worst, there is Susan Reimer. Her name is legion, and she seeps everywhere, like the effluvium of unwashed socks.
Further, there is no social duty to have children. Some argue that the white population is in decline. Tough. If the country chooses to make having kids undesirable, then let it decline. It is not your problem.
Now, you might well wonder, why are American women carrying the Chip? Practically, it doesn't matter: They do carry it, and will continue. Still, it is partly because from birth they are fed the notion that they have been oppressed, battered, cheated, deprived, harassed, used as sex objects, not used as sex objects, on and on. Being rational, you are perhaps inclined to point out that never has a female population been less any of these things, but don't bother. It will have no effect. The Chip is an emotional artifact to which they respond emotionally.
The bedrock of The Attitude is that everything is the man's fault. Wonders Reimer, "What is the answer, especially if the 20- and 30-year-old male is such poor marriage material?" She does not wonder, "If I am such a grindingly awful termagant that men on three continents are crossing their legs and feeling queasy over my mere column, and won't come near me except in a Kevlar bathysphere with a disinfectant system, maybe I'm doing something wrong. Gosh. I wonder what?"
Yet something more is going on, though one does not easily see just what. Note that in recent decades we have seen the invention by women of bulimia and anorexia, which no one had heard of in 1965. Men made them do it. At roughly the same time women began getting breast implants, which men also made them do, and then suing about it. In the same period they began having induced memories of being raped or satanically abused by their fathers. Men again. The psychotherapy racket grew like kudzu, a sure sign of deep unhappiness over something.
All of this is recent. You have to be fifty to remember women who were resilient, sane, psychically strong and, within the limits of an often sorry existence, content. But whatever the answer, guys, the problem isn't yours.
Spend a year overseas, however you have to do it. For smart, classy, just plain glorious women who often speak English, try Singapore. Argentina is splendid. Many places are. You would be amazed. See what's out there before you marry a gringa with her Inner Susan, who will one day burst from her chest like one of those beaked space-aliens in the movies, dripping venom. They're death.
Well this explains a lot. I can count on one hand the amount of young women I've met that didn't feel poisonous or immature to me. Aspergers my ass, I can read faces just fine. It's just that what I see there is often so dreadful that I'd rather just avoid the pain and anger.
"The night closes in."
...let's start off with some gratuitous melodrama.
"Read the surveys of what children know, what students in universities know."
...Good advice. Easy enough to find statistics on the internet. Though ironically, I bet the vast majority of Fred's readers did not follow this recommendation. He was probably counting on it.
"Approximately nothing. We have become wanton morons. As the intellectual shadows fall again, as literacy declines and minds grow dim in the new twilight, who will copy the parchments this time?"
Well, Fred, the literacy rate in your dear old U.S. of A remains 99%. So high, in fact, that nobody bothers keeping exact statistics on it any more.
So, Mr. Schmidt, when so-called opinion is based on demonstrably false premises, then it becomes fiction.
I mean, come on..."Brash new peasants grin and peck at their iPods. Unknowing, incurious, they gaze at their screens and twiddle, twiddle."???
What a jackass.
TByte, stop torturing, and embarrassing, yourself. Your 99% literacy rate refers to the percentage of people who can read the most basic English. But Fred was using the word "literacy" more generally to include comprehension of nontrivial writing. This was expected of college applicants in the past, but no longer. You want stats? Here. Your other criticisms are about style. We like Fred's style. If you don't, read something else.
Uhm....did you actually READ the article you posted?
The College Board attributed the lower scores to the growing diversity of test-takers, many of whom are less prepared for college-level work or are learning English as a second language.
“The good news is we have more students thinking about college than ever before,” said James Montoya, a College Board vice president. “Anytime you expand the number of students taking the SAT and expand it the way that we have — into communities that have not necessarily been part of the college-going culture — it’s not surprising to see a decline of a few points.”
So if this is what your dear buddy Fred is basing is prediction of doom and decline upon, he's building on a house of sand. It is NOT in any way indicative of a decline in society. Quite the opposite, it signals that a wider diversity of persons are pursuing college education. That is progress, not regress.
And given that Fred uses purple prose with the enthusiasm of a 9th grade English student, he's not one to be criticizing the general level of writing in this country. "The night closes in." Really? I wonder if it will be "a dark and stormy night" as well?
The primary purpose of college education is liberal indoctrination, so of course college enrollment keeps expanding. That is not a good thing in my view. As for why SATs are dropping, maybe this explains it. I can keep looking for statics like this but since you are the one complaining about Fred, you should find stats to back you up in your criticism. That 99% can read at the most basic level is hardly a valid criticism of Fred. So find something better if you have a point to make.
Definitely is a culture of anti-intellectualism...having taught a little in schools, I remember seeing it everyday. I probably had one or two students out of all of them who could read well and actually read for enjoyment! Schools have become indoctrination centers of the state, though, so I am no proponent of trying to "reform" schools. They are made to fail at producing anything good and they are made to indoctrinate - no reformation is possible. Homeschooling is one way to combat things I suppose. A good Liberal Arts/Humanities education is entirely possible for virtually anyone. Disciplines like mathematics and sciences are more difficult, but the internet helps at least - or it can.
And kids - no, people - today are always nose-down in a screen. I admit I am guilty of this as well (or being on my laptop too much, at least.) The screens dominate. Destroys attention span and curiosity. And I also believe it takes away from the capacities of learning and memory. And that is simply because the technology we have means that we don't have to learn and remember things - the technology does it for us. It's like humans are evolving the technology into our being. Might as well be. No one is ever separated from their phone nowadays...
Tbyte...it is not good by a long-shot that more and more people are pursuing college. Lowering the standard so that more people can get in is never good. Plus, even disregarding that, the more people have a degree, the more the value of a degree is lowered. Part of the job problem we have today is because there are so many college grads for relatively few jobs. Society is saturated with degrees, and now a degree is coming nearer and nearer to be worthless. It's another bubble. It's been overvalued, and eventually the higher education bubble will burst. So having more and more people go to college has probably not helped in any way - except for the pocketbooks of universities...
F. Schmidt's Rules Of Debating:
Step 1: State false premise.
Step 2: Derive desired conclusion.
Unfortunately Mr. Schmidt, until you start your arguments with valid supportable premise's, all your conclusions can be summarily dismissed. Your reasoning sucks as well. Case in point is your first sentence in the previous post:
"The primary purpose of college education is liberal indoctrination, so of course college enrollment keeps expanding." First, the premise is laughably false. Millions of students do not enroll in college courses and millions of parents do not fork out billions of dollars for the primary (or secondary, or tertiary....) purpose of indoctrination.
Second, even were that true, your conclusion does not follow logically. Given that indoctrination is the purpose of college, we cannot conclude that voluntary enrollment would increase.
That's just plain stupid.
As for your most recent link (can we agree that the first one you provided resulted in nothing more than self embarrassment), I did not see any original research or references to back up that website's assertions, and the organization hosting the site has a vested monetary interest in portraying U.S. Education in a poor light.
And finally, Mr. Schmidt, since it was you who posted Fred's screed and touted its veracity, it is up to you to support it. Besides, I found plenty of statistics to debunk it in your own link, thank you, without having to search further.
Humanity, your points regarding whether or not increased college enrollment is good or bad are beside the point. The issue at hand is whether the (slightly) lower SAT scores that result support Mr. Schmidt's assertion that education in the United States is declining.
And in short, they do not.
You stated that "It is NOT in any way indicative of a decline in society. Quite the opposite, it signals that a wider diversity of persons are pursuing college education. That is progress, not regress."
You were not merely trying to say that Franklin's opinion is wrong; you replaced it with an opinion of your own. Somewhat subtle, but not very clever. You just want to replace it with a liberal assumption, in this case that a greater/more diverse number of people are going to college is a good thing. So unless you wish to retract it, it is an issue at hand.
I'm largely an outsider in this, and typically don't get involved in arguments, however I can't help but notice this:
TByte, I notice that a lot of your posts a attacks against person more than attacks against argument (something I've associated with liberals/progressives/democrats or whatever else they're calling themselves these days). I understand that you're coming from one side of the fence and seeing this as an assault on your own views, but attacking another persons character is out of hand.
I understood that the use of the word 'literacy' wasn't the "ability to read" so much as "the ability to comprehend what is read." An example is Shakespeare. Most kids don't get it. They can read the words just find, but interpreting them, that's something else altogether.
As for my take on indoctrination, as en ex-army vet, it happens. All the time. You hear something that someone has told you, and if it's said enough times, it becomes true, regardless of the truth behind it. It is not hard to program other people to interpret and do things in a specific manner, if that manner is considered useful (or not useful).
The school systems as they stand would, in my opinion, be an excellent place for indoctrination. If you control the children, you control the future population. If a particular side of the political schism wants the children of today to think along a particular set of lines, all they have to do is control what is heard, read, and seen. This is not difficult.
Humanity, the fact that more persons are pursuing college does not in any way indicate that colleges are lowering their standards. Acceptance rates are based upon supply and demand. Lower scores indicate only that more persons are attempting to pursue college, not that they are succesfull in either gaining admittance or matriculating.
It is unfortunate that I have to spend time pointing out such simple concepts to you.
And I repeat, Humanity, since you still seem not to get the point: we are discussing Mr. Schmidt's assertion that lowered SAT score averages reflect a decline in our educational system. If you wish to assert that increased numbers of people taking the SAT indicate a decline in our general society, then start a new thread and I will happilly make you look foolish on it.
Visarett, all my attacks are aimed at the views held by the persons on this forum. That I think they are stupid for holding such views, and that basing their views on demonstrable false premises is a sign of ignorance, and that failing even then to draw logical conclusions is a sign of idiocy, well, that is a secondary effect.
Meanwhile, your assertion that such behavior is associated with liberals/progressives/democrats, (implying that conservatives/reactionaries/republicans do NOT engage in such behavior) is not only myopic but also, ironically an example of an attack on persons itself.
So, you refute your premise simply in stating it. Delicious.
Such hypocrisy is woefully common on this forum.