Ok, the title’s a bit extreme, but the other option sounded like an 800 page sociology tome, so I went with this one.
I’ll add to his commentary two thoughts of my own:
First, it’s cool to see red-pill bloggers be referenced in a print publication, especially as a true reference and not as part of a slandering attack. It seems like the word is getting out, and if the comments section is any indication, the general public is becoming increasingly sympathetic to the red-pill perspective. This post and the comments shed some light on the backlash that is already taking place. My favorite:
I’m of the atheist variety of “Red Pill,” and post D/s. As a result, I move in several atheist liberal circles. After some two-plus years deeply involved with the local atheists, I’ve concluded that the “snark” you witness is more often motivated by COMPLETE COMPREHENSION OF RED PILL and not anything resembling ignorance. Such people “get it” right down to their bones, but they are opposed because it challenges their ability to take from others according to whatever base desires presently motivate them. A woman who bleeds her ex-husband for alimony and child support and games the legal system by keeping a man “around” but eschewing a legal commitment isn’t ignorant. She’s knows exactly what she’s doing. Men like Hugo Schwyzer aren’t clueless, or even self-deceived; they know the score minute-to-minute and are taking care to cheat their way into their personal success at he expense of others. –tteclod
Second, I want to revisit a point I made a few days ago in my reference to the book Traffic. People tend to view problems from their own perspective, or the perspective of the individual. The flaw here is that we all live in a world bigger than ourselves, and to truly understand the situation one must look at the system as a whole. I think the article’s author sees the point I’m about to make, but I also don’t think it’s clearly articulated either (emphasis mine):
The endgame Dalrock warns about is already in play for hordes of unmarried professional women – the well-coiffed lawyers, bankers and other success stories. Many thought they could put off marriage and families until their 30s, having devoted their 20s to education, establishing careers and playing the field. But was their decade of dating a strategic mistake?…
…The challenge is greatest for high-achieving women in their 30s looking for equally successful men. Analysis of 2006 census figures by the Monash University sociologist, Genevieve Heard, reveals that almost one in four of degree-educated women in their 30s will miss out on a man of similar age and educational achievement. There were only 68,000 unattached graduate men in their 30s for 88,000 single graduate women in the same age group.
(First, note that although women are overtaking men in education, there will be no rush by feminists to declare victory and dis-establish the affirmative action mechanisms that ensure this continued trend. This means that the problem isn’t going to get better any time soon.)
In the first bolded passage, the question is whether or not individual women made a mistake in waiting too long. On the individual scale, the answer is probably yes; in a competitive market it is probably a good bet to marry early while these women are surrounded by their peers in college rather than in the sparser hunting grounds of the professional world where additional factors come into play. However, let’s turn our attention to the macro-scale issue in the second bolded passage: no matter which individual women employ the marry-early strategy to ensure their own success, 20,000 women will be left without an equally-educated man to marry. While the marry-early strategy is good advice for dealing with a system in which a certain number of people are guaranteed to come up short, it does nothing to address the system-level issue that there will be losers under this system.
While there are exceptions to the rule, women generally prefer to “marry up” in terms of age, education, and status, and men prefer to “marry down” in the same regard. The system has been optimized for individuals, with copious affirmative action and gender-discriminatory scholarships, grants, etc, yet the net result has been negative, ie a decrease in the number of women able to succeed in “marrying up.” The big picture here isn’t that individual women are making poor choices (although many, like those mentioned in the article, are setting themselves up for failure). The big picture is that regardless of what any given woman chooses to do, there is a significant chance that she still may not get her desired outcome due to the demographics created by the system.