As a male, I can't tell you how HOT it is to be the object of "a social experiment." That just makes me go all rigid and desirous. I want to offer up my life to a woman who sees me as the equivalent of that "send me a dollar to pay my credit cards off" dame.

Sorry, Amy. I accidentally turned my sarcasm filter off and didn't notice. It's back on again.

I wonder if this woman is desperate enough that the guys shes dating are conning her into bed

The question this woman (and many women these days) needs to ask herself is, "What do I have to offer a man as his wife?"

Fewer and fewer women these days have a freakin' clue about what "wife" means. And the "How DARE you!?" comments I will get will only prove the point.

A few things it takes to make a man happy:

1. Be sweet to him. Smile at him.
2. Notice and appreciate what he does for you. Aloud. Unless he goes around in a jeweled turban reading people's thoughts. Hug and kiss him when you tell him.
3. Take care of your looks. Very, very important.
4. Don't nag. It's ineffective as a motivational technique, and damaging to a relationship.
5. Don't expect him to change. If you don't like what you're getting in the dating stage, date somebody else. Everybody has faults. If his pluses outweigh his minuses, laugh at the minuses.
6. Keep your mouth shut about the things he doesn't need to know. Did he drive you crazy by putting something where you couldn't see it when he was fixing something for you (causing you to spend half an hour tearing the house apart looking for that thing)? Surely, he didn't mean to. Telling him will only make him feel bad, and if you love him, you don't want that to happen.
7. Know what really matters and voice those concerns diplomatically. Shut the hell up about the rest.
8. Show him you'll be there for him when the chips are down. To borrow from, I think, Eric Fromm, loving is something you do, not just a feeling.

Joke I always have in the back of my mind:

HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMAN:

Compliment her, cuddle her, kiss her, caress her, love her, stroke her, comfort her, protect her, hug her, wine and dine her, buy gifts for her, listen to her, respect her, stand by her, support her, go to the ends of the earth for her.

HOW TO IMPRESS A MAN:

Arrive naked ... with beer.

As I have gotten older, that isn't quite enough, but Amy hit some of the high points.

can't imagine why a woman that age would need a man in this way. It's not like she is going to start a family with him, and need marriage for that. Guess she doesn't realize that men feel enough like they are being made a project of, as is. The first clue is when she leaves that 10 pound bridal catalog in you car "accidentally"...

Then, any guy with a partial brain realizes that it is all about her getting married, having a wedding and so forth. It's all about the idea of marriege. It doesn't matter which guy it is or what his name might be as long as he fulfills some basic criteria.

I suppose I could be even more cynical and think that this is some experiment, and once she gets a guy on the hook, there will be a gotcha. Garbage like this just makes guys even less inclined to believe.

Bicycles don't need fish.

I feel really sorry for the guy she dates during week 50.

Talk about objectification..........

I predict things will only end badly, whether she succeeds or not. Marriage is not a "goal" to be met; if it's treated as nothing but, what happens AFTER the wedding? A lot of years getting to know your husband and wondering how your brilliant plan managed to go so wrong.

I can imagine the internal conversation.

"Let's pick a life-changing event, and set a deadline on when we want it to happen."

I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

I see this as the same scenario as How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.

The movie ended up with the typical fairy-tale ending. But I'm with Brian -- for once -- what could possibly go wrong?

Week 52 being when she fully mutates into Bridezilla, consumes whatever men she's lured into her lair. Then she goes onto Oprah talking about her horrible ordeal and how unfair life is.

"Week 52 being when she fully mutates into Bridezilla, consumes whatever men she's lured into her lair." - sio

Now THAT would be a good campy horror movie... call Scifi Channel.

SwissArmyD, are we SURE she's not doing this SPECIFICALLY because her biological clock is ticking, and she needs a sperm donor and a second income?

'The question this woman (and many women these days) needs to ask herself is, "What do I have to offer a man as his wife?"'....Actually, I agree with you on that one.

She does have a point about the whole having to pretend you're not looking for marriage thing, which is idiotic. Back when I was single I wished I lived in a culture with arranged marriages where you could just admit what you wanted without having to hide it.

And by the time women realize its ok to want marriage, its often too late to start a family.

Our whole courtship process is bullshit.

NicoleK...
what it is, there is a difference between wanting marriage, and wanting to be married to a specific person. Guys are gunshy when they feel like it doesn't matter which one they actually are, as long as the marriage happens.

Heh, if you think courtship rituals are bad, you should try being the guy... put on your amazing Kreskin hat and figure out what innocent words you just uttered that will now be held against you forever - or that she is going to take her engineering degree and stay home and make babies, and why don't you have a better job yet? Or how that house you already own clear will never be "her house" and that you need to go in hock to get something much better once you get married...

It's the notion that a woman has already planned all out and the guy is just a formality: "Insert groom here."

That's the basis of an entire Jerry Seinfeld riff. Women dress by rank of importance at a wedding. Men dress alike. They're interchangable. That way if the groom bails, it's "Next!" and everybody moves up a spot in line.

"That way if the groom bails, it's "Next!" and everybody moves up a spot in line." - ConanTG

*falls over laughing*

man, that explains all the jostling at the front of the line...

Actually, her blog is quite interesting. She did a good interview with a couple who had an arranged marriage, and now I am checking out her skype discussion of the emotional castration of Christian men.

Obviously setting goals has worked for this woman in her life, and I don't see why she should be mocked for this goal.

I think she couldn't get VH-1 to go for "Neenah of Love" (or some such nonsense) and she had to do it herself.

"Until you fix what's broken in you, you're not partner material."

Why do I keep seeing that same message everywhere I turn!?

Oh...wait...

"I don't see why she should be mocked for this goal." - liz

what is the end? and does it justify the means? Trying to fit the search for a life partner into a timeframe might be OK, or it mightn't, but that is the goal of a marriage. I'm not talking the mushy stuff here... I'm talking the basics. It is possible that we have become over-enamoured with finding the "right" person, soul mate or whatever. Going to the opposite extreme and looking at this like you would a business plan is perilous. This is another person's LIFE we are talking about here. If you want to share it with them, you should at least take it seriously in that way...

"Our whole courtship process is bullshit."

Amenamenamenamenamen AMEN

Arranged marriages are supposed to be worse. Mayeb yes, maybe no. People should be the ones to chioose their own lovers, but can parents do any worse when it comes to choosing spouses?

"Obviously setting goals has worked for this woman in her life, and I don't see why she should be mocked for this goal."

That's fine when it's her own life she's setting the goals for. That's what I mean about objectification, which you seem to be engaging in too, judging from your question. so tell me now, whose life is being ignored as insignificant in this chess master's little scheme?

She should be mocked into the ground for presuming to use another human being as a Ken doll in her picture-perfect life.

Swiss, you seem to be really naif. There are plenty of women who look at getting a husband as a necessary step in their life plan. At least this chick is upfront about it. She also seems to be moderately intelligent and has enough of a sense of humor to look at the whole deal as a grand experiment. So if the experiment results in her getting married, I don't see how the groom is going to be ruined for life. She seems especailly honest, much more than your run of the mill golddigger.

You and the horse you rode in on, Jim.

People! There are no victims here! Keep driving! No rubbernecking!

If you think that after she sets up a website defining a crazy challange to herself, that her possible potential future husband will be in any way exploited, well...gosh! I hope that Jim and Swiss don't get hurt in this world full of truly devious people.

naif.

nah, divorced.

and how is being especially honest change the potential that she isn't looking for anyone specific, just someone to fit the narrative?

Before finding THE right one, you have to begin the search. Husbands don't magically fall in your lap.

And M. LeSuisse, I didn't say that the courtship process was BS for women only, it's BS for men, too. It's all about dancing. I fell into the trap, too actually. When my now-husband mentioned marriage on the third date, I got freaked out a little bit. In retrospect, I'm glad he mentioned it so I knew what page he was on. And obviously, I'm married to him, so maybe being honest about what he was looking for wasn't a bad idea.

Also, the idea that you have to be perfect and self-realized and have attained enlightment before you get married is BS. If everyone waited that long, we'd all be shriveled and menopausal.

My husband's Indian friend is going through the spouse-hunting project now. It's pretty cool the way they do it. Everyone knows they are looking for a spouse, he gets information about different girls through friends/family/matchmaker, if they both want to they meet each other, if they both like each other they continue, and if they both want they get married. There's no forcing involved. It makes so much more sense than the whole, "I'm going to pretend this ISN'T about finding a life partner" thing that we have to do in our culture.

It's pretty cool the way they do it.

I don't know your Indian friend's family, but I do know a number of Indian men who've been through this process.

The uncool thing about it is that the arrangements are strictly status based. The men only have access to women they can afford and the women only have access to men that their parents deem to be sufficiently affluent and with an appropriate social position, relative to their own social standing. So the matches are basically proxies for the social aspirations of the families.

This is one reason that you find so many single Indian men in the US. Their families frown on their marrying a non-Indian woman, but their income gives them a status that they hadn't enjoyed back home. And their families don't have ties to high-status women in India, due to their social standing. So they're basically stuck.

I think the problem lies less in the search itself and more in the fact that she's putting such a specific time limit on things, as if she'll meet "the one" within the year and that's that. Personally, I don't think people should enter into a commitment as serious and allegedly permanent as marriage before they've known each each other for a significant amount of time--MUCH longer than a year, or even two.

What happens if she meets some dude six months in, thinks it's right, and they do get married? Mission accomplished, I guess, but they'll both be in for a big, and not necessarily good, surprise when they find out they're living with what's essentially a stranger.

Rules for Single Women:

If you think all men are pigs, expect to live alone when you get older.

If you have 100 reasons to reject a man, expect to live alone when you get older.

Prince Charming is gay.

Rich, attractive, nice - you can only have two in a man.

If you ask a man on a first date how much he earns or what kind of car he drives, he gets to look at your bare breasts while you are still in the restaurant.

If you answer your cell phone during a first date, he has the right to immediately get up and leave with no explanation.

Choosy and "stuck up" are closely related.

At 40, single "Rules Girls" (see the book written by Fein & Schneider) become single, lonely women.

If you expect a man to pay for everything, you'll need a strong jaw and a good tongue.

Perfect men don't exist. Good men are everywhere.

It's OK not to want kids. It's not OK to sacrifice your personal life and personal goals for your career.

The kharmic retribution for putting good men into the "Friend Zone" while getting hurt by bad boys is to become bitter, angry, and the owner of at least three cats.

You are not a princess no matter what your T-Shirt states. If you really think you are a princess, then you'd better have the body of a stripper, the face of an angel, and the personality of a saint. Even so, only Prince Charming can marry a princess and Prince Charming is gay.

Your single girlfriends don't want you to have a happy relationship with a man. Consider this when listening to their advice.

A man won't say "I love you" until he is 100% confident that you won't use this against him. This might take years, be patient because men can be sensitive, too.

Taking the time to look your best is not optional. After all, if you can catch his eye then you can catch his heart. Being agreeable, pleasant, and happy will seal the deal.

Smiles and laughter are contagious and can melt any man's heart.

The unintended consequence of independence is loneliness.

There is a fine line between expecting that a man pay for everything and being a common prostitute.

Excessive complaining is neither attractive nor polite.

You are entitled to nothing. However, you can expect rewards for working hard for something.

Before you say "it's all his fault" after a bad date, look closely in the mirror.

It's not always men making you unhappy. Don't let bitter women convince you of that.

Being strong doesn't mean being bitchy. Southern women have known this for generations.

You can't have it all. Please have the good sense to realize this.

What you call "settling" is actually called "compromise". It's what emotionally healthy people do in normal relations. It's also why you're having problems landing a man.

Don't expect men to fall all over you just because you are a woman. Feminism taught men to be independent, too.

There's nothing wrong with looking feminine.

If he doesn't call you back, it means he's just not really into you. Deal with it.

If you meet a man, don't find reasons to reject him or things to change in him. Find reasons to accept him and respect him.

"As if" and "whatever" are immature insults used by 12 year olds, not intelligent young women.

The common word in "drink whore", "dinner whore", and "attention whore" is still whore.

Sorry girl, it's NOT all about you so you can change your T-Shirt now.

Many men would rather chase women, not girls.

Given the current state of divorce laws, don't expect any man to marry you. It's not you, it's just how things are right now. If you're truly sincere about marriage, sign the pre-nup.

Hanging around gay men won't give you any useful insights about straight men. Frankly, hanging around gay men is just creepy.

"No fat chicks" is the man's version of "If you're rich, I'm single".

Winning a man is easy, keeping a man requires hard work.

Advertising "Bitch" on your T-Shirt or sweatpants won't get you any dates. Single men don't care for that attitude.

Deferring self-gratification is a sign of maturity. You can wait until dinner even if you're hungry now.

The real world is pushy, rude, and often unpleasant. That doesn't mean you have to be the same way.

If you dress to get sexual attention, expect to receive sexual attention. And not from the guys you want.

I don't see the real issue. Believe it or not guys, some guys want to be married too. Most every guy-not all but most-were looking for more commitment than me, and several thought marrying me would be grand. I don't think there's one soulmate for you-at least not for most of us. There are any number of people I could love and be married to in this world of 6 billion. She is being very upfront about what she wants, and I imagine will be attracting that kind of guy. No scam here.

I dated DH 4 months prior to the wedding. Wedding, not engagement. We did have a rough spot about 1.5 years in. We did counseling to get on the same page about discussing our differences. 6 years in now, we're good, and still getting to know each other. That's a lifelong process.

"Love is something you do" exactly right!

Honestly, Neenah comes off as a publicity whore who isn't young or hot enough to get her own idiotic VH1 dating show, hence the website. Frankly it's not even that creative-hasn't this type of stunt been done before? And if you read her posts, her writing is annoying, especially the constant references to "when will God send me a man???"

That being said, zammo-save the diatribe for someone who cares. I mean really, how many single women do you think read this blog? And I'm not sure who died and made you the relationship expert, but "advice" like "hanging around gay men is just creepy" make you sound like a bigot.

Zammo, NICE!

Shannon, if you don't care, then how 'bout shut up? Who died and made you the comment goddess?

Maybe men are finally getting it about what a joke marriage is.

Some of zammo's comments gave me a chuckle, but this one is pure horsesqueeze:

"The unintended consequence of independence is loneliness."

Independence allows you to be alone without being lonely. Or maybe that's just introverts. I don't think all men are pigs, but I have every intention of living alone as I get older anyway. My sweety lives ten miles away and that seems just about right.

I don't think it's bad for her to let someone know what she wants out of the relationship. Why is it bad if she lets everyone know she wants to get married and have a family? It gets rid of a lot of guys that don't want to get married and don't want to have a family. Amy tells everyone she's barren, and wants to stay that way, and that she's unmarried and wants to stay that way. What is wrong with saying the opposite? I think anyone who is up front about what they want deserves kudos. You don't like it? Don't DATE her.

Indirect commentary based on what I read in above comments:

Her 52 week time limit, on its face, seems ridiculous. However, I think it's meant more as a means to structure her search than anything.

The end goal is to find a loving, caring, genuine life partner (if it weren't, she'd already be married). Each week she establishes goals (email 39 guys from dating sites, meet X men for coffee, etc. ). These are good goals b/c as mentioned above marriage doesn't just fall into your lap. When what you're doing simply isn't working it's time to change your strategy. She just did it in the extreme.

As to the "objectification" bullshit - wtf?? Let's refer to the theories of Martha Nussbaum, with which I agree. Objectification of a person occurs when the following are in place: Person A views Person B as simply a means to her own end; A treats B as though B lacks agency; A treats B as though B is A's possession; A denies B's feelings. Sexual objectification is the separation of a person's sexual attributes from the person's whole self, which are then viewed as the entire person (B is just a sex toy, as a means to sate A's desires).

Neenah isn't objectifying the men she is dating. She is 1) up front about what she is about, instead of trying to mask her true goal, as so many women do (you can be up front w/o scaring a dude off.) She has a website, which could be scary. But it's honest. 2) she is after the WHOLE PERSON. The very fact that Neenah is not continuing to date men with whom she is not compatible on all levels exhibits that she isn't merely looking to use or dupe any unsuspecting chap. If she were she'd already be married, and miserable.

Dating someone with the goal to marry isn't using him as a means to an end. It's a necessary step in figuring out if you and the person are compatible in personality, sex and life goals. Two people date *each other*, they're there by mutual consent. Going on a date in and of itself is, in fact, the opposite of using someone. If she were using men as a means to her end, she'd be married, and miserable.

The dating process, as opposed to an arranged marriage, respects a person's feelings and ability to make choices freely.

"The unintended consequence of independence is loneliness."

I was pretty damn clingy 10 years ago, and those five years of marriage were the loneliest of my life.

As for gay men...well, if there's anything gay men know well, it's blow jobs, so manybe you should be encouraging women to hang out with them more.

The thing is Jake, we have caste here, too, we just don't admit it. Most people here marry within their social class.

And it's funny to see how it usually ends up... I had very progressive ideals as a kid, but who'd I marry... a white, upper-middle class, Protestant, Swiss guy living in America.

And my Jewish friends are marrying nice, upper-middle-class, Jewish, Israeli guys living in America.

Yeah, there are a few exceptions, sometimes you get an inter-religious marriage, or a gay one. But let's not kid ourselves. There aren't a lot of poor guys marrying rich girls in this country either.

No Nicole, the US doesn't have castes. Castes aren't like the social classes in western countries. They're permanent. You can't ever change your caste, no matter what you do.

And I agree that women almost never marry below their status. But status = love for women. I think that the responses by women on this thread demonstrate this pretty well.

Men are capable of loving a woman without regard for her social standing. This is a double edged sword though. You can fall for a woman who'll never be happy w/ you because she feels that you're beneath her - or alternatively feels she loves you because you represent a step-up. In either case, their sentiments have little to do w/ who you are. It's just their affection for the condition that they think that you can provide. I think that this is the objectification that men complain of.

While I do agree that her honesty about what she wants (a husband) is a good thing, it's the year's worth of speed dating (and the website) that I think is odd and somewhat inappropriate. Ladies, how many of you would "audition" for some guy who put an open cattle call on the internet for potential mates? Weird, weird, weird.

Someone I went to highschool and college with was on the season of "The Bachelor" with the Firestone. I just don't understand why any self-repecting person would do that.

Liz, sit on it and spin; when you get to the elbow the ride is over.

What a little user you are.

"I think that the responses by women on this thread demonstrate this pretty well."

What Jake said.

It's not "auditioning"...or perhaps it is, and we all just pretend it's not. Certainly, a first date with anyone is like an audition of sorts.

I dated for 3 or 4 years online - and that is kind of like putting out a cattle call. You present an ad of yourself and peruse guys' ads of themselves. Then, you decide who to meet and see if you like each other.

It's direct, expedient, and often leads to successful relationships. Far better than hanging around in a bar (or at home) expecting someone compatible with you to walk through the door.

Presumably, whoever she dates knows about this quest, and he is free to continue seeing her or not, and if the guy likes her enough maybe he'll propose, which would be his choice, not hers. So, she's not tricking anyone into marrying her.

In fact, it's pretty smart because she's sharing her personality with the world, which gives her lots of exposure and a chance to impress the right guy with who she really is.

NicoleK, my wife had several omiai meetings in Japan back in the day. Think online dating, only this creep wants to marry you.

There's a lot of social baggage involved in gently letting down someone in whom you have zero interest, while remaining in the good graces of the go-between. After two or three unsuitable suitors, some self doubt creeps in, even among the strongest of souls. Is this the best I can do?

At least that one turned out well, I guess. If you call marrying an American after they bombed Hiroshima and nearly killed your parents turning out well. Life is pretty funny sometimes.

"People who can't find any partner sometimes (or often) have stuff about them that needs fixing"

That's not true at all. EVERYONE has issues and just because you're in a relationship doesn't mean you are perfect and need no adjustment! That is just absurd! EVERYONE is "crazy" ... people just need to find someone whos crazy matches their own.

There's a difference between "issues" and "fucked in the head".

And I can't tell which one Pickett is.

I think that this is one of those men aren't from Venus things - but women sure as hell are!

Can you ladies honestly not understand why men would find this approach off-putting?!? - or is it that you don't want to criticize another woman?

Aside from the desperate and mercenary nature of her efforts, there's the fact that she obviously has no regard for the privacy of the men that she's meeting. They're all just players in her narcissistic melodrama.

And she's running through so many men, so quickly, that there's no possible way that she could get to know any of them. Her own friends acknowledge this.

+ she has crazy eye!

I have no problem criticizing another woman, but I just don't think what she's doing is so bad. Remember that we have shows like "The Bachelor", where a man does basically the same thing, and we women manage to swallow that whole objectifying crap.

Also, it's not necessary for her to get to know every guy she meets. I met many men and knew within the length of one date or even cup of coffee that we wouldn't be a great match. It's a process of elimination; that's what online dating is about. What she's doing is sort of a version of speed dating, and they have those events everywhere now.

I think her time limit is a little strange (and unrealistic), but it's probably just how setting a deadline works as a motivator.

Btw, my friend, Byron, was "The Bachelor" on ABC a few years back, and he actually met the woman he is still with today. They fell in love on the show, and have had their ups and downs, but it does work sometimes.

Jake, social classes in the US aren't nearly as fluid as we like to think they are. In theory, they can change, and we all have a few anecdotes about the one who "made it" or the one who fell, but generally, people marry within their class and stay within it.

Lovely soul, that's a lovely story! :)

MarkD, yes, I see how that system can have flaws, too. I am getting frustrated, though, seeing so many of my cool, beautiful, interesting, fun, kind friends in their 30s having such a hard time finding someone. Do other cultures have such a high number of spinsters? Our mating rituals are failing! And some people blame the sexual revolution, or feminism, or male entitlement, or female entitlement, or whatever, but it all adds up to the system isn't working.

Our mating rituals are failing! And some people blame the sexual revolution, or feminism, or male entitlement, or female entitlement, or whatever, but it all adds up to the system isn't working.

It's not the system. It's the people in it. It's unrealistic expectations. It's everything you listed and then some.

Do other cultures have such a high number of spinsters?

Japan. I've always believed that Japan is us, accelerated. They have two problems - women aren't interested in starting families, and men aren't either. The birth rate is so far below replacement that they're pretty much fucked.

How many of your "cool, beautiful, interesting, fun, kind friends in their 30s" have been honest with themselves about what they want? Have they been honest with the men they meet? Do they even know what they want?

I can't tell you how many women in their 30s I know who are no more mature than they were at 16. Same thing with men.

Maybe the problem is that nobody bothers to grow up any more.

Men get sex without major commitment. Men can also get run through the ringer through no-fault divorce. Adolescence has been extended as a result.

Also, traditionally men gain more status in life and social standing from education and career. His prospects of finding a good mate go way up. He can have a very beautiful wife and make babies.

A woman with an education and career does not get the same boost, albeit she will get one within her field. She may head some group or council. None of that will make her much more attractive for a man.

Our ancestors understood this. We think we are so smart today, and when the results of fighting mother nature show its ugly head, we are all surprised?

A woman's best attribute for attracting the best possible mate is her youth (health and fertility). A few years of college, partying in Cancun and dating seriously - she then expects to magically find a good, healthy alpha male with a decent job. By then, those guys are taken.

Women can't have it all. Not even close.

Actually, if a woman does get an education and moves up the career ladder, her opportunities for finding love, marriage, and the baby carriage go down. This is because most women marry up on the socio-economic scale. If the woman elevates herself, the pool of available men in a higher socio-economic scale decreases. After all, there are only a limited number of alpha males high up the career food chain for these women to pick from.

These guys, knowing that their pool of available women is very large (men usually don't marry up), have little reason to commit precisely because of that large pool of available women.

There is nothing wrong with a woman being educated and moving up the career ladder. It's just that women must understand the unintended consequences of their actions and decisions.

OK, let the ad hominem attacks fly and the logical fallacies erupt.

I think your logic is, like, decades old. I am an extremely wealthy woman. My boyfriend is not. It doesn't threaten him that I have more, own more. He celebrates it all with me. He's proud of me.

And I never had trouble attracting men. I'm smart, successful, yet also very feminine. But I have no desire for the kind of high status "alpha male" that you describe. They tend to be jerks and egotists...not to mention unfaithful.

So, I stopped fishing in that pond years ago. And I think more successful women are following suit. We don't need a man for money or survival, so we choose based on character (and often looks) rather than status. I know many high status women happily married to firefighters, construction workers, and men like that - good strong men, but men who make considerably less than they do.

"I am an extremely wealthy woman. My boyfriend is not."

"I know many high status women happily married to firefighters, construction workers, and men like that - good strong men, but men who make considerably less than they do."

Wow, the first responding post and the poster commits the logical fallacy of "the random sample of one" combined with a self-selected example of "I know many women..."

OK, she lost. NEXT!

Zammo -

Spoken like a true beta male.

LS is the exception -- for now. Fifty years ago, women could not afford to wait for the alphas to notice them. So they settled for "good enough".

But once women became more self-sufficient, and societal views of the single woman became less and less negative, women concluded (wrongly) that they COULD wait for an alpha male.

Only problem is that there aren't many alpha males. And alpha isn't something you can learn. Sure, you can ACT like an alpha male. Then we call you a douchebag. But it doesn't make you an alpha.

Now, women are learning that their new strategy didn't pay off. The alphas sleep with any woman they want, and they can't be tamed because there's no reason for them to settle. Ever.

And they do like LS and Amy, and they find a decent guy who treats them well and settle for that instead of waiting for an alpha male to notice them.

Two choice bits from Zammo that I think warrant further exposition:

These guys, knowing that their pool of available women is very large (men usually don't marry up), have little reason to commit precisely because of that large pool of available women.

This is simply not true. Men tend not to care so much about social status, at least in America. Maybe in Europe or Japan or India, but not here.

Men prioritize thus: physical attractiveness, psychological stability, personality, money, status.

There is nothing wrong with a woman being educated and moving up the career ladder. It's just that women must understand the unintended consequences of their actions and decisions.

The fallacy here is the belief that women are incapable of overcoming genetics. Which is as false as the day is long. Look back at the 1950s. How many beta-male nerds were unmarried? Not many. How many beta-male nerds that grew up in the 80s are unmarried? Most of the ones I grew up with, for starters.

So obviously the unwillingness to settle for a beta is a new phenomenon.

"So obviously the unwillingness to settle for a beta is a new phenomenon"

I wouldn't use the word "obviously" so quickly brian. Another hypothesis for what you notice would be that people are unwilling to be married as much as in the 50's (when it was almost a REQUIREMENT).

Amy, I married an alpha male first time out. Total testerone, rape-obsessed, dominating, high-powered guy. Also a cheat, even though he had a lovely 19 yr old bride. They always want more...more...more....which is what makes alphas successful in business, but often not in life. They end up with lots of money, but personal lives full of drama and emptiness. Love is the one thing they can't really buy.

However, he did give me the opportunity to work in his businesses, and I took it (unlike a lot of trophy wives, who would've been content to shop all day). I worked hard, and we expanded the businesses, bought more property, and within years, I was running everything while he was mostly chasing p---y and playing golf. (Not that he didn't deserve to play golf :).

We divorced, after 20 years, and he asked me to continue running the businesses, which I do. We are 50/50 partners in everything we built together. He kept all the property he had before, and believe it or not, I manage that for him too. I manage all his money and property because I'm the only one he trusts.

I still like him, but to me, the alpha thing is way overrated. I wouldn't want to be married to a man like him ever again.

And what is alpha anyway? My boyfriend is much stronger - much more manly than my metrosexual, Armani-wearing ex.

Doesn't physical strength also count as alpha? Being strong is a status of its own and also very attractive to most women.

Its been my experince that men dont weigh psycological stabilty until after they have been burned a time or two.

You got a good story brian that made you put that at #2? Or did you learn form a freinds mistakes?

Another hypothesis for what you notice would be that people are unwilling to be married as much as in the 50's (when it was almost a REQUIREMENT).

I think you're confusing doing what society demands with WANTING to do what society demands.

The ability for a man to be self-sufficient wasn't really there in the 50s, unless he was wealthy enough to afford to hire people to cook and clean for him.

We've gotten to a point now where there are enough hours in the day for a single person to do all their cooking and cleaning, and STILL get done in time to sit down and watch the game.

We've advanced ourselves out of existence as a society.

You got a good story brian that made you put that at #2? Or did you learn form a freinds mistakes?

Learned from other people's mistakes.

I've not yet taken the opportunity to make such mistakes myself. And that learning is a big piece of why.

Although the number of lessons I've learned might have biased my list, it's also possible that a sufficiently hot (or sufficiently horny) woman causes a man to ignore all other data.

Perhaps "sexual availability" should come before "psychological stability", and maybe even before "physical attractiveness".

Because I've seen some homely broads walking around with babies, and last I knew the easiest way to make those was to fuck.

Looking at the people I know who dated and married in the 50s, there seems like less choice and more chance. Many of the women married whoever they were dating when they graduated from high school, or whoever got them pregnant. The men married the women they knocked up or the first person who didn't drive them batshit.

Perhaps "sexual availability" should come before "psychological stability", and maybe even before "physical attractiveness".

I'd keep it as you had it.

The "apparently" sexually available woman, with physical attractiveness & low psychological stability, will be the one saying ... married people don't have that much sex & don't masturbate, & if you haaaave to, don't even think of anyone but me.

Women also know ... that a sufficiently hot or horny woman causes a man to ignore all other data. ;-)

"And what is alpha anyway? My boyfriend is much stronger - much more manly than my metrosexual, Armani-wearing ex.
Doesn't physical strength also count as alpha?Being strong is a status of its own and also very attractive to most women."

No, not realy, because alpha refers to one's status in the male hierarchy. Women don't really determine where a man fits in the male hierarchy, do. Naturally.

It works the same way for alpha females probably.

For men it's about power and rankings, and money is a counter for all that, so it matters in a way that physical strength cannot. Probably it works the same way among women; they rank each other by social ranking and beauty. Being physically strong matters only if you are doing physical work, and for most of history, having to do the physical work of society has put you at the bottom of the heap. Oxen are strong too, after all. No noe defers to them.

I think you have a good point, Brian, about people not wanting to grow up. I was thinking about it today, actually. Lots of people want to stay in a state of perpetual adolescence. Growing up isn't "cool" anymore.

And you're right, some of my spinster friends are going for the wrong characteristics, and thus keep getting burned. They're still looking for the "cool" guy instead of the "good husband" guy.

There are also lots of guys who want to be a fratboy forever, who list "Playboy" as their favorite book on their Facebook page.

There is a lot of that going on.

"The fallacy here is the belief that women are incapable of overcoming genetics. Which is as false as the day is long. Look back at the 1950s. How many beta-male nerds were unmarried? Not many. How many beta-male nerds that grew up in the 80s are unmarried? Most of the ones I grew up with, for starters.

So obviously the unwillingness to settle for a beta is a new phenomenon."

This is a very good point and not without some profound irony when analyzing the empowerment of women over the past two generations.

In the 50s, the social pressure to accept the standard life script was so strong that women and men felt compelled to "settle".

But with those social expectations lifted, women and men could revert to their biological instincts and select partners who only stimulated their glands. And then we complain when marriages fail. Marriage is a social expectation having almost nothing to do with biology.

So, we have removed social pressures (except marriage) and the result is that we could all let biology take over.

I wonder if this is really progress.

Yes, of course, it's progress. Let's face it, a lot of those marriages were horrible. How many of you have listened to old couples venomously snipe at and berate each other? They were trapped into marriage by social pressures, often barely knowing each other (or themselves) beforehand, and although many couples may have stayed married for 50+ years, that doesn't necessarily equal success.

As traumatic as the social upheaval and fallout has been, the ability to divorce has enhanced the quality of marriages overall. No one needs to marry for social or financial pressures these days. We (hopefully) choose based on love, and because we wait longer to marry (or should), we know more about the qualities we want in a mate and also how to be a better partner.

That doesn't prevent all mismatches, but at least both men and women can leave a really unfulfilling situation.

True, you may have had an easier time finding a wife decades ago, but you also may have been stuck in a living hell for decades. All these freedoms have their negative side, but they also enure to your benefit.

Yet, I often sense that some of you guys glorify the old days, like you want to return to a point of less individual choice and freedom when it comes to relationships.

In these discussions, there's almost always the rhetoric about how women have gotten too picky, too successful, and will inevitably end up lonely, unmarketable, and/or stuck with lesser men.

Yet, almost none of the women here, of any age, ever complain that they're miserable because they haven't found a man...or have to settle for losers...or find themselves unmarketable. In fact, the women here seem pretty happy, either in great relationships or content by themselves.

Have you guys noticed that your dire predictions don't quite match reality?

Zammo@ "So, we have removed social pressures (except marriage)"

And marriage is in its death throes. Today, civil marriage is a nearly meaningless concept except as the necessary precursor to state-controlled divorce, or as I like to think of it, inviting Dracula over the threshhold.

>"Yet, almost none of the women here, of any age, ever complain that they're miserable because they haven't found a man...or have to settle for losers...or find themselves unmarketable. In fact, the women here seem pretty happy, either in great relationships or content by themselves.

Have you guys noticed that your dire predictions don't quite match reality?"

Hi, LS.

Don't you think that the women who post here are a self-selecting group? Expecting women to post such things about themselves on this blog is a stretch, don't you think? It's a bit like the difficulty men have admitting that they are alone because they have nothing really to offer as a mate. They, too, try to convince themselves and others that they are content being alone, or being someone's occasional booty-call. If women are so content without men, then why the never-ending flood of female-oriented media harping constantly on the shortage of "good" men? Why the increasing reports of a male "marriage strike"?

"Let's face it, a lot of those marriages were horrible."

There you go again, waving your magic wand to cast herstorical aspersions on people who lived in prior times. How dare you? You wear rose-colored glasses when examining the "progress" of marriage today, and shit-colored glasses when looking at the past -- especially the past as it involved those oh-so-oppressive men, as you have made abundantly clear at every opportunity.

You say that more lengthy and careful consideration now leads to "higher quality" marriages based on true love rather than economic or social duress. But you ignore that all of this careful consideration still results in a 50+% divorce rate, the highest in the world -- most of which are initiated by women. Infidelity by both men and women is rampant. We have a lot of perpetual adolescents marrying, and then divorcing, each other. I wouldn't call that "high quality." The children who still manage to be born don't find it "high quality" either.

LS,

By the way, notwithstanding my critique, I know you mean well. I just can't abide your apparent attitude that modern men should be considered "recovering oppressors" who stay clean only with the help of feminism's 12-step program.

If things were f'd-up in the past, they were f'd-up BY, and f'd-up FOR, BOTH men and women. Feminists cast blame into the past on men only so it can rebound as "guilt" into the present which women, with feminists' guidance, can use as a device to keep men "in line" and justify female privilege. Well, screw that.

(You never did explain how POOF!, just like that, those powerless, endlessly oppressed women suddenly escaped from the clutches of the all-powerful Patriarchy aligned against them. Force of arms? Spells and incantations? Feminine charm? Hmmmm? My observation is that men were able to finally make society and the workplace so safe, secure and comfortable that even women could do the job. Not until that happened were women willing to demand wholesale access to the world of (some, not too unpleasant) work -- and men exist to satisfy women's demands, of course. All the rest just naturally fell into place, once the little ladies let us men know that they were ready to dip their toes into the water.)

Jay R, I don't see why women wouldn't show as much discontentment as men, if that were indeed the case. The anger and frustrations of men here are quite palpable and obvious - not necessarily in what is personally admitted but in the overall tone of cynicism.

I would expect women to exude the same, even if they didn't want to share their personal failures.

Yet, what happens is that we women continually tell you that we have great lives - including great men - but you guys completely ignore what we say.

I personally suspect that the frustration some men feel is because this new way of relating forces them to up their game. It's no longer enough just to be a man, even an alpha one, and get and retain a relationship.

The men who do well with women now are a different breed, a more evolved breed. They are supportive, kind, even-tempered, sensitive, and fair.

A man just can't be a dick anymore and have a woman swoon all over him - or stay with him indefinitely. And honestly, I sense that makes a lot of you really angry. You wish it was easier for you, but maybe it's partly YOU, not just the system.

Most women don't divorce men who treat them well. They just don't. I wouldn't have in a million years. I'm southern, and have those strong family values. It took a lot for me - and most of the women I know - to leave their marriages. They only did so after being treated terribly.

So, you can't put it all on women's freedoms. That totally discounts men's involvement in the matter.

"Most women don't divorce men who treat them well. They just don't. I wouldn't have in a million years."

Don't project your own individual values onto other women. And the women that you know you have self-selected and don't make a good representative sample.

Women divorce their husbands for a variety of reasons. But make no mistake, it is women initiating the divorce in the majority of cases, over 70% is the commonly accepted statistics from reliable sources.

Can so many husbands be that bad? If you answer yes, then check your misandry at the door.

Jay R, my friends may be a self-selected sample, but they do seem representative of the kind of women we're discussing - educated, accomplished women with children.

Since you won't value my observations, it's pointless to answer, but I do believe that women with children usually value the security and stability of marriage. Smart women are "nesters" when we have kids. We prefer to build a nest and want it to last for our children's well-being.

So, when a woman like that chooses to end a marriage, it's usually because she is being disrespected or mistreated. Among my friends, and myself, that usually occurs when the man cheats, or begins longing to cheat, or having emotional affairs because he's getting old and feeling his mortality and loss of verility.

That is what brought down almost all of my friend's long-term marriages...which isn't misandry to say, just a true observation. Why do you think the male middle-age crisis is such a cliche?

So, even if you say my friends are a select group, then my group, in itself, would account for a fairly high percentage of the 70% who file for divorce.

Because, the thing is, men usually don't want the marriage to end, even under those circumstances. They just want to have their cake and eat it too.

My ex didn't want to divorce. He wanted my "understanding" for his philandering, which he basically got, for 20+ years, but I reached a point where I realized that I deserved a more fulfilling life than that.

So, of course, I had to be the one to file, like most of my friends in similar circumstances, but the percentage of who files proves NOTHING about what is really going on or that women WANT their marriages to fail.

Besides, it's often considered chivalrous to let the woman file, especially if she's been scorned or publicly embarrassed by an affair. I think most divorce attorneys consider it more respectful to let the wife be the petitioner and retain a little dignity under those circumstances. So, at the very least, you have to factor that into those statistics.

LS,

Wow, do you have a fundamental problem with men.

BTW, not only do women initiate more than 70% of divorces, but in only a very small percentage of cases (less than 10%) is any infidelity or abuse alleged. In your view, though, it MUST be the men's fault. They are ... men, after all.

No, Jay R, you are the one contending that women are somehow "worse," or less committed to marriage, than men.

Have you been through a divorce? Most states now are "no fault" which means it is totally irrelevant whether there is adultery involved. On the advice of my attorney, we didn't claim any either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Infidelity and abuse are very difficult to prove. Either you must have photos (of bruises or intimate acts) and a police report, or a spouse who simply blubbers, "Yes, I screwed someone else!" or "Yes, I hit him!" in open court or deposition. Do you think that's very likely?

All alleged abuse is deemed a lie by the other side, and all alledged infidelity is too ("she's only a friend! We just had lunch together...you can't prove anything more happened...").

Even if adultery was confessed privately, most spouses aren't going to admit to it in a divorce proceeding, especially if there's money and custody involved. So, unless the wronged spouse hired a PI to get intimate photos, which most people can't afford, it is pointless to allege adultery. Judges don't want to hear it.

You are using stats on "petioners", and it is true that more women are petioners. Again, that doesn't mean anything about who really wants a divorce.

Often in cases where a couple has tried everything - going to therapy, etc - and they've come to a MUTUAL DECISION to divorce, the husband usually lets the wife file.

It's considered a more polite thing to do because it's not as harsh to be the one filing the divorce than the one filed upon. So, what I'm saying is that men are being gentlemanly, chivalrous, in allowing the woman to be the petioner in most cases.

But you won't consider that because you're so convinced that there is a "bad" gender - that women are causing most of the divorces, rather than it being closer to equal.

That is a bias, Jay R. It is you who has a real issue with the opposite sex.

LS,

Ok. Statistics mean nothing, then. I'll remember that the next time you regurgitate some feminist factoid. We'll just pretend that the current laws don't encourage women to divorce a husband -- especially a high-earning one or a low-earning one.

I'm not the one with the "sugar and spice" versus "frogs and snails" mind-set. Don't misunderstand OR misrepresent my position, which is that there have always been, and always will be, TWO "bad" genders, and TWO "good" genders -- all at the same time. I'm all about equality. You? I don't think so.

(And you still won't, or can't, explain how, according to Maria Shriver, we now live in a "Woman's Nation" within a single generation of the beginning of women's "liberation" from the ever-oppressive Patriarchy. Your view of the past is obviously manufactured and/or cherry-picked nonsense. Or perhaps you believe that the Patriarchy itself has been promoting feminism in aid of its own destruction.)

Jay R, I have NEVER regurgitated a feminist factoid. I wouldn't even know one. I just think you have to look at stats reasonably, and consider why they might be that way, other than what supports your particular position.

I have no idea about Maria Shriver, or anything she' said. I grew up in the south and I base my opinion of how women were treated, historicaly, largely on the submissiveness I personally witnessed - in my grandmother, mother, aunts, friends, and so forth.

I also just had lunch today with a girlfriend, and she was telling me how they had to have an intervention with her fiance's father because he's abused his wife for 40+ years. All the relatives came together and told him that they wouldn't stand for that treatment of her anymore. He has since been better, but he probably learned his way of being - screaming and yelling at her - from his own dad. I have empathy for him. I like him.

Look, I grew up with Loretta Lynn and Tammy Wynette singing about dragging their men home from the honkey tonk, with liquor on their breath, and other women's lipstick on their shirts, putting them to bed, and forgiving them... "Stand by Your Man" Amen!!!! That was gospel where I'm from.

And, perhaps not coincidentally, that was the sort of wife I became. Much to my own peril in many ways.

So, you can't tell me that women weren't submissive to men. My whole background disputes that point. It is ridiculous to assert that women historically had the same freedoms and privileges as men.

But you don't need to assert that! It doesn't hurt your cause. I'm not saying that men are bad. I'm saying they acted according to what they knew - the best they knew - about how to be a man at the time.

And there is a much better way that is evolving. It's better for you, as men, and for us, as women. We can be best friends now. We can support each other's dreams.

Those who can't rise up to that level will likely get divorced because women have learned that they deserve men who treat them well.

That isn't the female's fault. It is a natural evolution. Women no longer need to be with men who don't respect them. If my grandmother was alive today, she wouldn't need to kiss some guy's ass to survive...or to go to town and buy a dress.

This is only bad news for mysogynists - men who WANT subjugation of women. But there are a whole lot of men who enjoy women and love women and support women's equality. I do strongly believe that. I know there are fairminded men out there, and I wish you would realize that there are fairminded women too.

LS,

I know you try to be fair. Unfortunately, you are a collector of one-sided coins.

And you're not? I haven't heard you say anything positive about women in several threads.