Another talentless female hack writing a hateful article about young men.
Curious, isn't it, that such women think its their business what these young men's private living arrangements are. Would she get away with writing an article about it being unhealthy for gay people to live together? Of course not, yet I'm sure you could make a perfectly good case for attacking the gay lifestyle (I'm not against people being gay, but to play devil's advocate you could say that they are way more promiscuous than straight married couples, are more prone to domestic violence in the case of lesbians, and more prone to paedophilia in the case of gay men). We accept that people's own living arrangements are their own business, but when it comes to young men, we are apparently open-game for abuse. Why?
Well, of course the answer is that the REAL issue is that women - whilst reveling in excessive freedoms - want to hold men down to as many responsibilities as possible. They want to act like licentious sluts when they are young, then - at a timetable of THEIR chosing - they want men to line up to commit to them, pay a mortgage, give them children and support them etc. That this is increasingly hard to find really pisses them off.
This also gets right to the heart of why more young women than men live alone. Think about these factors:
(1) For starters, many of the young women who live in their own place are single mothers whose home comes courtesy of the taxpayer (and remember that men contribute more to the tax-pot than do women, yet do we ever get thanked for that??!).
(2) In which case are you able to exert more energy quickly: when you are running a sprint or a marathon? Many women look upon their working life more as a sprint - they will work during their 20s, and early 30s, but then hope to 'retire' to motherhood and let a man support them and pay the mortgage - whereas men realise that they are locked in to running the marathon. And with new economic realities, its dawning on men that they may have to work until they are 70 before they can afford to retire. Why not pace yourself?
(3) Now, baring in mind that men are more likely to be planning for a 50 year career, whereas women are more likely to be planning for a 15 year one (or at least for 15 years before having a nice rest), many men are looking quite critically at this situation and viewing it as wage slavery. Quite honestly, the whole pattern of expecting everyone to work for decades just to pay off a huge mortgage, does need to be seriously questioned. Is working your life away at a job you may hate, just to make the bank lots of money, and to keep a woman in a life of comfort, really the pinnacle of ambition for men? It wouldn't be so bad if a house was a good investment idea, but I'm not so sure it is for many men. Look at the reality: many men will work for most of their life just to afford a mortgage, they finally pay it off around the age they retire, by which time they only have about 10 or 20 (if they are lucky) years left, then when they are gone (and when their wife is gone) the property is sold, and the proceeds divided up amongst the relatives. But this is not even, usually, a passing of true wealth down to your children, as, after taxes, and after all the close relatives have had their share, each share doesn't usually amount to that much. And then its soon spent. So you'll have spent most of your life's energies working to build up something (an investment in a house) which is pretty much just scattered into the wind upon your death. But even asside from that, I don't think putting all your money into buying a property is such a wise move. Isn't it a fundamental of good financial planning that you should spread your investments; spread the risks? A house is also only a place to live: its not an asset that can make you endless money (yes you can re-mortgage, but you still need to pay the house-taxes, and pay the interest on the mortgage. Yes you can sell the house, but you still need to live SOMEWHERE). Equally, upon divorce, men can forceably loose their house, even if they paid for it all. I think men are increasingly questioning all this. Its not a model that will be seen as desirable or sustainable for much longer.
(4) What advantages of living alone are there for young women Vs for young men? I think the primary one is that it frees up your ability to socialise and sleep around. I would argue that MOST (maybe 70%) of young women in their 20s are highly promiscuous, or at least heavy socialisers/party-goers, whereas MOST (again, maybe 70%) of young men in their 20s are less able to be promiscuous. Young women in the west today are revelling in their sexual licentiousness, but of course they don't want daddy to know how often they pick up the latest thug from the local nightclub and sleep with him. This is a hidden reason, I believe, for why young women are so eager to have their own place. Its nothing to do with them being more 'responsible' than young men. For example, I believe figures have shown that young men are more likely than young women to have a pension plan. But when a young man is not participating in this endless socialising lifestyle, hes looked upon as a looser. Yet who is really being more healthy, and more responsible?
(5) Once you are committed to a mortgage, and to a marriage, a man's freedom to explore what he wants to spend his life doing is diminished. Now, I think this freedom needs to be extended to an older age than it used to, because deciding who you are and what you want to do with your life has become a more complex and open question. A parrallel can be seen in the post-war baby boomer generation. In the 50s and 60s a whole new life-stage emerged: the teenager. This group had its own culture, considerable spending power, exercised greater creative freedoms of expressions and really annoyed the older generations. We are seeing the same thing happening now, with the creation of a whole new life-stage, maybe occuring in the 20s and 30s - lets call it the Peter Pan generation. Interestingly, whereas this generation, like the teenager, annoyed the oldies, the Peter Pan stage is more of a male phenomenon (I would ague that single women in their 20s/30s are more akin to the teenager, being more focused on peer-group socialising, rather than the Peter Pan stage, which is more about following your personal interests). Whilst teenagers like to make themselves distinct from their parents generation, they have a remarkable tendency to want to conform to their peer-group. In contrast, I will argue that the central imperative of the Peter Pan stage of life is to discover what is UNIQUE about you, in order that you can make the most of your life. In an age when - thanks to increased international competition, and working women - its getting harder for the working man to make a comfortable living, its important to identify your talents. This also comes out of the fact that men today are more likely to make their living from their mental and creative talents than through physical work. In essence, there are strong pressures on men to develop their minds, and stand out from the crowd. Now, we see a parallel to the Peter Pan stage in nature: the more intelligent a species is, the longer it spends in a 'childhood stage', characterised by spending time with its parents, and engaging in 'play'. Play is a vitally important activity, that can develop creativity, intelligence and self-awareness. It allows you to try out different ideas in a risk-free environment. Its also, interestingly, an activity engaged in more by men than women (the parallel in women is, I suppose, socialising). In an information age, when its imperative for men to develop their minds, creativity and discover their unique talents, this Peter Pan stage is essential. Most men simply DO NOT know at age 18 who they are, what their talents are, and how they should best employ those talents. And, remember, the working life for most is now going to be until age 70.
I will make a prediction that tomorrow's new industries and new wealth will be disproportionately created by men who have gone through the Peter Pan stage: those who didn't rush to commit to a mortgage and marriage at age 18, but instead experienced this stage of 'adult play'.
Of course, there can be a fine line between adult play, and endless drifting through life. That can be the 'dark side' of this stage. Nevertheless, young men are being stereotyped more as drifters and the positive examples are ignored.
Another interesting thing about adult play is that it really annoys women, as well as many older men. Women will snidely roll their eyes and mutter about 'boys with toys'. Women don't understand it, and feel it is not serving their interests, so they want to denigrate it and shame the men who engage in it. I think the older men are dismissive of it through jealousy. Many of these men became locked-in to traditional responsibilities early in life, and secretly wish they had the opportunities of today's younger men.
Many such men also get dismissed as nerds. The men who prefer to spend Friday night indoors, painting models or playing dungeons and dragons. The subtext here is again that they aren't servicing women's interests. They aren't playing the socialising game. They aren't lining up to commit their life's energies to making a woman comfortable.
Theres also something particularly nasty about women, and older men who've happily sat back and watched the destruction of young men's ability to securely marry, work and buy a house without fear of loosing it all,,,, then hurl abuse at these young men for not jumping in, like lemmings! They are akin to people who break a contract, yet expect the other party to follow it to the letter. In the traditional society, younger men faced greater responsibilities and physical hardships, yet these were counterbalanced by social structures which supported men and placed them under fewer PSYCHOLOGICAL pressures. For example, in the traditional type of society, a shy or average-looking man will find it easier to find a wife, as there are rules and rituals for dating, and women will place more value on finding a decent man, than in flexing their sexual powers to endlessly socialise and sleep around. This was the old social contract: "Young men," cried the women and the older men, "please marry a woman and work to support the family, and in turn we will enshrine in the law and in the culture a support for your role as father, and we will ensure you have the rights to keep and enjoy the fruits of your labors". But you'd have to be living in a cave for the last 20 years not to see that women have ripped up their copy of the contract! Yet the women and the older men still want men to stick to every word of their copy! Of course they do, there are big vested interests at stake here, not least of which are women's dream to 'retire' in their 30s and let a man pay for them. If this wasn't so sick, it would almost be funny!
This is the fundamental flaw in feminist thinking. They assumed that they could foist changes upon society, yet men would still keep on producing the 'goodies' (the willingness to commit, the willingness to financially support them). But men too have changed in response, and this drives old hags, like the journalist above, into fits of rage! And that has to be a good thing.
So, perhaps Peter Pan himself should become a symbol for this new social movement, and for the men's rights movement in general.
I will finish off by archiving some of the men's comments posted on the story linked to at the beginning:
30 and still live at home and heres why.
1) Seen many friends wives/Girlfriends up to no good with other men out on the town while the other half is working late in a factory to pay the bills.
2) When the relationship goes down the pan its always the man who gets hammered financially and gets no say in child's access rights.
3) That stunning 20 year old most friends settled down with is now 30 old slob in tracksuit bottoms after 10 years of takeaways and trash TV
4) Most women will throw themselves at the local alpha male who promptly chucks them 2 weeks later (knowing full well hes done it to every other woman) then complains how all men are @#$%
5) Most women have a totally unrealistic impression of men (and life in general) after a diet of chick flicks/ sex and the city
6) Talk to the average woman in a bar and all you get is YOU BUYING ME A DRINK THEN OR WOT!!!
7) Money obsessed career women
No thanks I will stay at home.......free and single
Perhaps men see more to life that useless women do? Women are obsessed with money and clothes. They see a house as "their entitlement" even if some poor bloke happens to have to be the one to buy it. Why would any man with a brain even go near a woman today? We are taxed to death to pay for female healthcare, funding ther vile stinking children and their endless time off work.
As anothe commetator said above, men create everything in scoiety. I'd challenge wmen to try to go for a day without using ANYTHING invented or designed by a man. Oh dear ladies even your bed it probably built by a man. No electricity, gas, car, food and so on.
I keep asking myself what use are women? I havent' found an answer yet other than bad sex.
Luckily my house and my pension (that's left of it thanks to the robbing feminists in the Liebour party) will be mine and mine alone.
And yet its the 'feeble, infantile & feckless' men who seem to do most of the heavy work in society, who make up the majority of the military and generally take most of the physical risks. Who designed your laptop, Liz? That would be a man (probably quite a nerdy one who you'd hold in contempt, much like those longhairs from the 70s who built the early Internet) What about your car? Who builds the jumbo jets you fly round on? Your attitude is that men should be beasts of burden and insulted if they don't do your bidding - words just fail me.
"Young women seem to manage perfectly well out on their own." - yes, usually with the help of their boyfriends, the law, their looks and PC hiring policies...