Do our Social Justice Warriors deserve the best money can buy?

Stephen Green* at Instapundit linked to a fear mongering piece at Business Insider this afternoon:

GULP: Navy SEAL who oversaw the bin Laden raid says China’s massive military buildup is a ‘holy s—‘ moment.

From the linked article:

China’s technological strategy and innovation are serious threats to US national security — now, according to retired Adm. William McRaven, the US has reached a ‘holy s—” moment and needs to invest more significantly in technology research and development to keep its edge.

Whenever military leaders declare that without further military spending our security is in danger I think of Instapundit host Glenn Reynolds’ great line about global warming:

I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.

Our military leaders are fully on board with using the military to promote a social agenda at the expense of war-fighting ability.  In this regard, their actions betray a sense that they are so superior to any potential adversary that they can afford to indulge in frivolity, no matter what their words might claim.

I wasn’t familiar with Adm. William McRaven, so I thought I would see if he was the exception to the rule.  He is not.  From Buzzfeed back in 2014, U.S. Special Operations Chief Wants More Women, Minorities In The Ranks:

Adm. William McRaven, head of U.S. Special Operations Command and architect of the Osama Bin Laden raid, is spearheading an effort to get more women and minorities into America’s elite combat units.

So rest easy.  There is no crisis here.

*Interestingly it was another post by Stephen Green which first caused me to think this back in 2016.

Posted in Business Insider, Feminist Territory Marking, Instapundit, Military, Social Justice Warriors | 61 Comments

It would be petty to point out how petty they are.

New Monopoly Game Gives Women More Money Than Men

Posted in Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 137 Comments

The weakened signal hits home.

When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands.

–Sheryl Sandberg

A new study is making the rounds that found a mismatch between the imaginary men unmarried women are planning on marrying, and the real life unmarried men available to these women.  This mismatch between fantasy and reality is predictably generating outrage that weak men are screwing feminism up.  From the NY Post:  Broke men are hurting American women’s marriage prospects

…researchers created profiles of potential husbands, based on real husbands as logged in American Community Survey data. They then compared these hypothetical spouses with actual unmarried men.

They found that a woman’s made-up hubby makes 58 percent more money than the current lineup of eligible bachelors.

“This study reveals large deficits in the supply of potential male spouses,” the study concludes.

“Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors’,” Lichter says.

This shouldn’t be surprising.  The women who picked first chose the best options.  The ones who waited to pick last are left with the rest.

But there is another aspect to this, because women’s past decisions to delay marriage also played a role in shrinking the pool of men who prepared to take on the role of provider.  The first generations of women who decided to push out the age of marriage for the most part found that the same number of men still prepared to be husbands.  But over time as the length of the delay increased, this weakened the signal women collectively sent to young men that respectable men will be sexually successful.  It isn’t just that young women are now astonishingly open about their intent to have sex with badboys in their prime and settle for a beta provider at the last minute, although that has to have an impact.  It also isn’t just that as a society we see married fathers as beneath contempt, although surely that’s having an impact as well.  Today an 18 year old man doesn’t see the same incentive to knock himself out on education and career that men of previous generations saw.  Today an 18 year old man sees that for the next decade or so his most effective sexual strategy is to focus on being the sexy badboy young women dedicate their sexual prime to, not patiently preparing to be the boring loyal dude who will pick up the tab*.

What should surprise us is not that men are slowly responding to the radical changes brought about by our still ongoing sexual revolution.  What should surprise us is how many young men still focus their youth preparing for a role our society despises.   Either way, young men are slowly starting to respond to the messages we are collectively shouting at them, and we should expect this trend to increase over time.

It is also worth remembering the outrage the “Princeton Mom” Susan Patton received back in 2013 for her advice to Princeton women to stop sexing up bad boys and snap up the best prospective husbands before other women beat them to the punch.  From her original letter to the women attending Princeton:

Smart women can’t (shouldn’t) marry men who aren’t at least their intellectual equal. As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market. Simply put, there is a very limited population of men who are as smart or smarter than we are. And I say again—you will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

From her interview with CNN after she published a book expounding on the same subject:

Kelly: I cracked up when I read what you wrote: “Be aware of marrying a dumb guy for good sex. The sex won’t improve, and he’ll never get smarter.”

Patton: There are two barnyard analogies that I cite regularly. The first is men will not buy the cow if the milk is free, and that’s the truth. If you give men sex without commitment, you have eliminated the incentive for them to commit. …
An equally important barnyard analogy has to do with just what you’re talking about: the bad guys, the crazy boys, just the men you know you shouldn’t spend time with. I’m telling women avoid wasting time with the pigs for the sake of a little sausage.

H/T Anno, Nick M.

*Details on the chart here.

Related:  Will Wilcox and the men of National Review respect you in the morning?

Posted in Aging Feminists, Data, Disrespecting Respectability, Fantasy vs Reality, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, Marriage Strike, Nevermarried, New York Post, Sheryl Sandberg, Weak men screwing feminism up | 471 Comments

Proverbs 31 princesses

18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

–Matt 18:1-4, ESV

One of the astounding things modern Christians have done is twist Scripture into a gospel of girlpower.  Christian women are now taught that the Gospel is a message of high self esteem.  From American Heritage Girls Girl Power and God’s Power:


It is the prayer of the American Heritage Girls Ministry that girls understand both who they are and whose they are. Through Progressive Programming tailored to the age and ability of the child, AHG Troop Members are given the opportunity to discover their gifts and talents, allowing them to grow in their confidence and self-esteem. In a word, Girl Members are given a chance to find their worth. In a world that places so much of a girl’s self-worth in the way others perceive her, AHG strives to teach girls that they are already blessed with value beyond measure in the eyes of the Heavenly Father.

But even if there were no program like American Heritage Girls to teach girls the gospel of self esteem, they would be bombarded with this message across Christian women’s social media.

All of Scripture is tortured until it preaches a message of feminist empowerment.  As Wendy Griffith explains, women are the Pearl of Great Price!

Pearl of Great Price

Ladies, the Lord wants you to know that you are a pearl of great price, a treasure worth pursuing and protecting. You are worth fighting for and, like the pearl in the parable at the head of this chapter, worth everything it might cost a guy to obtain you. You are worth someone sacrificing his time, his routine, his comfort, his money, his whatever in order to have you. You are worth it! You are a prize to be won.

Christian women are of course hearing the message, as the blogger at Drurywriting discovered when teaching college students about sin.  In Do Women sin? he explains that while his students have no trouble identifying a list of sins men are tempted by, they are reliably stumped when he asks them to list sins women tend to be tempted by.  Eventually the women in his classes remember women’s solitary weakness:

Lack of self esteem

Of all the Scripture modern Christians torture into a gospel of girlpower, Proverbs 31 is probably the most frequently victimized.  From A Proverbs 31 Princess at

You are the embodiment of the Proverbs 31 woman.

For many of us, including myself, we read about the Proverbs 31 woman and immediately disassociate ourselves from her. She is described as a “wife of noble character” (v. 10) whose “children stand and bless her” (v.28), and most of the time we hardly feel we fit that description. Consider with me, however, that no matter what season of life you are in, you are a combination of the two truths I have set before you:

You are a Proverbs 31 Princess

The post concludes with:

So, rejoice, dear sister! You are not just an ordinary woman going through the throes of life, destined to stay where you are. You are the jewel in your Father’s crown! You are a Princess who is every bit the Proverbs 31 Woman.

In a followup post titled Embracing the Proverbs 31 princess, the author explains that for Christian women self exaltation is an act of faith:

For many, accepting that we are a Proverbs 31 Princess is an act of faith, in and of itself. It’s contrary to the way we think. The majority of us have never been told that we are royalty, let alone that we’re worthy, beautiful, intelligent, and so-on.

As the author explains, not only is there a biblical tie in to Disney princesses, but there is a tie in to chivalry as well.

You and I have been given so much more than a magic pumpkin turned coach or a charming prince to woo us.

No, our Prince gave His very life for us at Calvary’s Cross to ensure our place in God’s kingdom was secured. Our worth can be seen in the nail-scarred hands of the One who loves us beyond measure. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that “Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.” (NLT)

Proverbs 31:10-31 provides with a model for being a Christian woman. This woman is set in the context of the culture of that time, but you and I can still aspire to be called “virtuous and capable.” Living in the modern age does not disqualify us nor does it nullify her. As I said earlier this week, it doesn’t matter what season of life you are in, you are the embodiment of the Proverbs 31 Princess.



Posted in Chivalry, Feminists, Solipsism, Turning a blind eye, Wendy Griffith, You can't make this stuff up | 251 Comments

You better do as she says, or she’ll take away your kids.

In response to A dangerous truth, commenter Anonymous Reader challenged my assertion that as a sociology professor, Wilcox had to understand that there are public policy reasons fathers are being kicked out of their children’s lives.  For reference, here is the quote he was responding to, in context:

If fathers don’t fear losing access to their children, mothers can’t use this fear to threaten them.  As a sociology professor, Wilcox has to understand the public policy reason fathers are being kicked out of their children’s lives.  Men didn’t suddenly and mysteriously become less responsible;  government kicked fathers out of the home to empower mothers.  Yet Wilcox ignores this elephant in the middle of the room in his testimony to Congress.

Anonymous Reader countered with:

No, he does not have to understand any such thing. First of all, his paycheck depends in part of not understanding it. Second of all, we’ve both seen vids of him speaking: he is a deeply betaized man.

It would hurt his eyes a great deal at this point in his career to actually open them and see what the child-support paradigm of marriage really looks like. Because he might have to admit that he is part of that machine, that he’s been playing his own designated part / role in the Kabuki theater of “Fixing The Family”.

I agree that Wilcox’s has huge incentives not to see what is really going on.  But the theory that threatening to take men’s children away is an effective way to achieve feminist goals is something that a sociology professor who specializes in marriage would absolutely be very familiar with.  This is part of a larger theory called Intra-household bargaining.  Key to this model is the “threat point”.  From the Intergalactic article on the topic (red emphasis mine):

Bargaining power

Bargaining power is “the relative capacity of each of the parties to a negotiation or dispute to compel or secure agreements on its own terms”.[1] In other words, “if both parties are on equal footing in a debate, then they will have equal bargaining power”, and, conversely, if one party has an advantageous position in the debate, the parties have unequal bargaining power.

More specifically, what determines the equality or inequality of bargaining power is the relative fallback positions or “threat points” of the individuals in the bargaining process; that is, which bargainer has more to lose (economically, socially, etc.)?[2] In the context of intra-household bargaining, an individual’s bargaining power and fallback position are defined by one’s ability to survive and thrive outside the family.[10]

Not surprisingly, feminists love this model, seeing it as a way for women to make men do what women want.  For example, in her paper Cleaning in the Shadow of the Law? Bargaining, Marital Investment, and the Impact of Divorce Law on Husbands’ Intra-Household Work, Jennifer Roff explains that threatening to take men’s children away is an effective way to coerce them into doing a much larger share of the housework:

…once children are born, men face potentially greater costs to divorce than women due to custody loss, which allows women control over the most important marital capital, as well as direct decision making regarding expenditure of child support. Brinig and Allen (2000) find that maternal custody following divorce is one of the strongest predictors of the female initiating divorce proceedings, with similar negative effects of paternal custody on female initiation of divorce.

…columns 4 and 7 indicate that joint custody and unilateral divorce laws have significant interacting incentive effects on father’s household work. Consistent with a bargaining response, the increase in household work seen with unilateral divorce is primarily limited to those fathers who do not live in joint custody states and therefore face the probable loss of custody of their child upon divorce. Unilateral divorce laws increase fathers’ share of household work by roughly 8 percentage points in those states without joint custody laws. However, this increase in paternal share of household work with unilateral divorce is eliminated completely in those states with joint child custody. Given that fathers’ share of household work is about 25%, distributional effects of unilateral divorce on intra-household work are significant, with unilateral divorce in states without joint custody leading to an increase of close to 33% in fathers’ share of household work.

She closes by reminding the reader that there is a public policy opportunity here to achieve more feminist outcomes within marriage by enabling mothers to take men’s children away via no fault divorce:

Of course, this study faces several limitations, including the limited nature of time use data in the PSID. Still, given the relatively large increases in fathers’ household work and decreased leisure following unilateral divorce laws, this research suggests that men, and fathers in particular, may behave strategically in response to changes in marital policy.

This is truly ugly business, and this kind of cold calculating discussion of the benefits of ripping men’s children away is disturbingly common.  As a sociology professor, and as the president of the National Marriage Project for the last 10 years, there is no way Professor Wilcox is unaware of this.


Posted in Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, Fatherhood, Infogalactic, Marriage, National Marriage Project, Threatpoint, Turning a blind eye, W. Bradford Wilcox | 268 Comments