On January 20-21, 2018, exactly one year after Trump was inaugurated, Women took to the streets again for another Women's March in numerous cities around the country and around the world. This occurred during the ridiculous government shutdown, and lasted all weekend long.
This time around, the marches had the notable addition of the #MeToo movement combined with the previous anti-Trump and anti-Republican sentiment as well as feminism in general. This is clearly a new wave that shows no sign of burning out--if anything, it seems even more invigorated today than a year ago.
Of course, going forward, much more needs to be done as well. A day or two of protesting, while good, is clearly far from enough. Women, along with their male allies, need to continue to resist Der Trumpenfuehrer and his racist, misogynistic, xenophopbic, homophobic, plutocratic, right-wing authoritarian agenda. Sustained protests and direct action by Women did work to remove the corrupt Silvio Berlusconi from power in Italy, after all. This particular march may have ended, but now is NOT the time to abandon our efforts! Failure is simply not an option anymore considering what is at stake these days.
VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Saturday, January 13, 2018
America's Dark Night of the Soul May Have a Purpose
On November 9, 2016, America's "Dark Night of the Soul" had begun, which then began in earnest on January 20, 2017. A year later, things look even darker still. We have a dangerous and unstable dictator in the White House and he is surrounded by cowardly sycophantic lackeys and enablers. An openly racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and otherwise highly toxic dictator, in fact. And he is doing all he can to destroy this country while further enriching himself, even bringing us to the brink of nuclear war in the hopes of "wagging the dog" to distract from the ever-growing Russiagate scandal that is closing in on him as we speak. But what if there was a good reason why all this is happening now at this point in history? After all, as the saying goes, it's always darkest before the dawn.
Enter the newly-invigorated Women's Movement. The Trump presidency seems to have been a catalyst for an emerging new wave of feminism, or at least a re-activating of the most recent one. Decades of pent-up anger are now finally being unleashed. Between the Trump presidency and the aftermath of the Weinstein scandal, something seems to have shifted in this country, and the tipping point is likely in the rearview mirror now, with no sign of turning back.
Thus, it seems that the inevitable transition to Matriarchy has just been dramatically accelerated. And my prediction of Women taking over by 2030 looks even more likely. Indeed, it is always darkest before the dawn. And sometimes darkness can show you the light.
Could this be why Mother God allowed the utter travesty of the rigged 2016 election to happen? Because that is really the only explanation why this is the case. So how does this story ultimately end? Well, the rest is still unwritten, and ultimately up to Women. What better time than now?
VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!
Enter the newly-invigorated Women's Movement. The Trump presidency seems to have been a catalyst for an emerging new wave of feminism, or at least a re-activating of the most recent one. Decades of pent-up anger are now finally being unleashed. Between the Trump presidency and the aftermath of the Weinstein scandal, something seems to have shifted in this country, and the tipping point is likely in the rearview mirror now, with no sign of turning back.
Thus, it seems that the inevitable transition to Matriarchy has just been dramatically accelerated. And my prediction of Women taking over by 2030 looks even more likely. Indeed, it is always darkest before the dawn. And sometimes darkness can show you the light.
Could this be why Mother God allowed the utter travesty of the rigged 2016 election to happen? Because that is really the only explanation why this is the case. So how does this story ultimately end? Well, the rest is still unwritten, and ultimately up to Women. What better time than now?
VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!
Friday, December 22, 2017
Regnerus Takes a Cheap Shot at Women
The notoriously controversial (and previously debunked) social conservative culture-warrior, Mark Regnerus, is at it yet again with a brand new book, literally titled Cheap Sex, which is basically Jon Birger's Date-onomics on steroids and laced with a certain misogyny that he barely even tries to disguise with what amounts to patronizing and paternalistic "concern" trolling in book form. And his specious thesis can be so readily demolished, as it is in this article by William K. Black. Jennifer Wright also does a good takedown of Regnerus' thesis from a different angle as well. Interestingly, even some conservatives also disagree with him.
Even after his infamous 2012 anti-gay parenting study was roundly and thoroughly debunked as BAD (biased, agenda-driven) science, if not outright pseudoscience, here he is five years later attempting to put forth a new, yet old and recycled, thesis about--what else?--sex. Here is the TL;DR version:
1) Three technological advances--the Pill, along with online porn, and online dating, but especially the Pill--has completely transformed the dating/marriage markets by driving down the relative "cost" of sex for men (hence the title). The "cost" has dropped to the point where the "cartel" is basically broken.
2) At the same time, and not coincidentally, women have also become less dependent on men, further decreasing the incentive to get married.
3) This is very, very bad because sex is a commodity, something that men basically "take" or "buy" from women in one way or another, and thus men no longer have any real incentive to get married nowadays. In other words, as the saying goes, why buy the cow when the milk is for free? (Which literally compares women to livestock, by the way, but I digress.)
4) Marriage rates are in free-fall (among young people, that is) and this is a disaster for society, because reasons. Same goes for birthrates as well--after all, we need more serfs to make the oligarchs even richer and more cannon fodder for their imperialistic resource wars, right?
5) Boys will be boys, and thus girls/women need to be the gatekeepers. Because science. Or something. Thus, women are to blame for being too "cheap" and "easy" when it comes to sex, and no woman is an island in that regard. (He barely even tries to disguise his slut-shaming here.)
6) And of course, the biggest losers in this brave new world of cheap and easy sex are women and children. Men too, but mostly women and children. Because they are dependent on men, so its bad when they become less dependent on men, because tradition. (The "concern" part of the trolling is located right here.)
Of course, he says these things with much more euphemisms and verbiage, and cherry-picked data to back up his specious thesis, but that is basically it in a nutshell. Note that he doesn't seem to offer any cogent solutions to this supposed parade of horrors--probably because deep down he knows exactly where that would lead, and it isn't anywhere good.
We saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all. An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and women in spite of there being a surplus of women. The result? Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today). Talk about backfiring! And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of women, albeit with an artifical abundance due to slavery of various forms--need I say more?
Even a return to the supposedly "kinder, gentler" patriarchy of the 1950s would not be any better, as it really was no golden age once you peel back the saccharine celluloid veneer of Leave It to Beaver and shows like that to reveal what it was really like. All of the widespread alcoholism, adultery, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, unsafe and illegal abortions, racism, and stuff like that kinda puts the lie to that specious claim. Stephanie Coontz's book The Way We Never Were explodes the myth of the "good old days" quite nicely indeed. True, the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s may have been a mixed bag as it were, but on balance we are ultimately all better off for it along with the feminist movement.
Honestly, one thing is for certain. The whole "commodity model" of sexuality is indeed dying, and that is a GOOD thing. Such an outmoded, outdated, toxic, and sexist paradigm is downright dehumanizing to both primary genders, and we would all better off without it. Sex is a mutual act, and it is time we started treating it as such. And marriage for economic reasons rather than love is becoming increasingly obsolete, as it should in an increasingly egalitarian society. And while marriage can indeed be re-purposed for a post-patriarchal society, the idea that everybody must get married as the sine qua non of "real adulthood" is outmoded and no longer holds any water in the 21st century.
Whether Regnerus and his ilk like it or not, society is nonetheless evolving, albeit in fits and starts. What is really dying here is PATRIARCHY. And women are gaining more and more power as men are becoming increasingly redundant in both the workforce and the bedroom, and soon they will reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world. Sorry, fellas, the truth hurts, but we will all be better off for it in the end. As John Mellencamp and India Arie famously sang, if you're not part of the future, then get out of the way.
Let the planetary healing begin!
Even after his infamous 2012 anti-gay parenting study was roundly and thoroughly debunked as BAD (biased, agenda-driven) science, if not outright pseudoscience, here he is five years later attempting to put forth a new, yet old and recycled, thesis about--what else?--sex. Here is the TL;DR version:
1) Three technological advances--the Pill, along with online porn, and online dating, but especially the Pill--has completely transformed the dating/marriage markets by driving down the relative "cost" of sex for men (hence the title). The "cost" has dropped to the point where the "cartel" is basically broken.
2) At the same time, and not coincidentally, women have also become less dependent on men, further decreasing the incentive to get married.
3) This is very, very bad because sex is a commodity, something that men basically "take" or "buy" from women in one way or another, and thus men no longer have any real incentive to get married nowadays. In other words, as the saying goes, why buy the cow when the milk is for free? (Which literally compares women to livestock, by the way, but I digress.)
4) Marriage rates are in free-fall (among young people, that is) and this is a disaster for society, because reasons. Same goes for birthrates as well--after all, we need more serfs to make the oligarchs even richer and more cannon fodder for their imperialistic resource wars, right?
5) Boys will be boys, and thus girls/women need to be the gatekeepers. Because science. Or something. Thus, women are to blame for being too "cheap" and "easy" when it comes to sex, and no woman is an island in that regard. (He barely even tries to disguise his slut-shaming here.)
6) And of course, the biggest losers in this brave new world of cheap and easy sex are women and children. Men too, but mostly women and children. Because they are dependent on men, so its bad when they become less dependent on men, because tradition. (The "concern" part of the trolling is located right here.)
Of course, he says these things with much more euphemisms and verbiage, and cherry-picked data to back up his specious thesis, but that is basically it in a nutshell. Note that he doesn't seem to offer any cogent solutions to this supposed parade of horrors--probably because deep down he knows exactly where that would lead, and it isn't anywhere good.
We saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all. An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and women in spite of there being a surplus of women. The result? Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today). Talk about backfiring! And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of women, albeit with an artifical abundance due to slavery of various forms--need I say more?
Even a return to the supposedly "kinder, gentler" patriarchy of the 1950s would not be any better, as it really was no golden age once you peel back the saccharine celluloid veneer of Leave It to Beaver and shows like that to reveal what it was really like. All of the widespread alcoholism, adultery, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, unsafe and illegal abortions, racism, and stuff like that kinda puts the lie to that specious claim. Stephanie Coontz's book The Way We Never Were explodes the myth of the "good old days" quite nicely indeed. True, the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s may have been a mixed bag as it were, but on balance we are ultimately all better off for it along with the feminist movement.
Honestly, one thing is for certain. The whole "commodity model" of sexuality is indeed dying, and that is a GOOD thing. Such an outmoded, outdated, toxic, and sexist paradigm is downright dehumanizing to both primary genders, and we would all better off without it. Sex is a mutual act, and it is time we started treating it as such. And marriage for economic reasons rather than love is becoming increasingly obsolete, as it should in an increasingly egalitarian society. And while marriage can indeed be re-purposed for a post-patriarchal society, the idea that everybody must get married as the sine qua non of "real adulthood" is outmoded and no longer holds any water in the 21st century.
Whether Regnerus and his ilk like it or not, society is nonetheless evolving, albeit in fits and starts. What is really dying here is PATRIARCHY. And women are gaining more and more power as men are becoming increasingly redundant in both the workforce and the bedroom, and soon they will reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world. Sorry, fellas, the truth hurts, but we will all be better off for it in the end. As John Mellencamp and India Arie famously sang, if you're not part of the future, then get out of the way.
Let the planetary healing begin!
UPDATE: Sociologist Philip N.
Cohen wrote an excellent rebuttal here.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Parsley, Sage, Rosemary...and Weed?
It is well-known that Women have been making increasing inroads in numerous industries over the past few decades, including traditionally male-dominated ones. But one that is really starting to stand out is the fledgling but rapidly growing legal cannabis industry. Both in its humble beginnings as the medical market and its latest incarnation as the recreational market in more and more states, more and more Women are taking advantage of this amazing business opportunity as "ganjapreneurs" and challenging outdated stereotypes at the same time as well. What better time than now?
Contrast this with the black market under the ever-fading relic of cannabis prohibition. There is a reason why so many people refer to their dealer as their "guy"--it is largely a sausage fest for the most part. That is mainly because Women are on average more risk-averse than men, and illegal drug dealing of any sort is a very risky business. But when it is legal, the difference is like day and night in terms of risk, so more Women are getting involved. And at this rate, it won't be long before they take this industry over as well.
Who would have thought that cannabis would be such an engine of female empowerment? Actually, it is really not that surprising, given the history (or should I say, HERstory) of herbal medicine in general--and this one is no exception.
Contrast this with the black market under the ever-fading relic of cannabis prohibition. There is a reason why so many people refer to their dealer as their "guy"--it is largely a sausage fest for the most part. That is mainly because Women are on average more risk-averse than men, and illegal drug dealing of any sort is a very risky business. But when it is legal, the difference is like day and night in terms of risk, so more Women are getting involved. And at this rate, it won't be long before they take this industry over as well.
Who would have thought that cannabis would be such an engine of female empowerment? Actually, it is really not that surprising, given the history (or should I say, HERstory) of herbal medicine in general--and this one is no exception.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
"No Nation Is Lecherous, Where Sex Is Abundant"
Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "No nation is drunken where wine is cheap". That quote is often misinterpreted rather literally, as a call for very low or no taxes on alcoholic beverages in general. And such contextomy also ignores the very next clause of the same sentence in which it is uttered: "...and none sober where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits [i.e. hard liquor] as the common beverage." Yes, wine was actually more expensive than whiskey in early 19th century America. Of course, we know now that alcohol is alcohol is alcohol, period, and that reams upon reams of research evidence have proven time and again that, all else being equal, higher alcohol prices (regardless of beverage type) generally lead to fewer alcohol-related deaths, injuires, diseases, crimes, and problems in general, along with less overall consumption of such beverages. So much so that the new saying nowadays is, "Alcohol is no ordinary commodity".
But what about the "cost" of sex? Fraught as that issue clearly is, many armchair pundits have indeed attempted to answer that question. Indeed, one of my previous articles, "What Is the Ideal Sex Ratio", attempted to answer that very question. As we know, all else being equal, the relative "cost" of sex (from the perspective of men) is inversely proportional to the relative abundance of Women in a given population, due to the laws of supply and demand. Such an idea formed the basis of the book "Date-onomics" by Jon Birger. And many research papers have also been written about the various pros and cons of high and low sex ratios, many of which can be browsed from the links on my previous article from several months ago.
My general thesis is that a low sex ratio (i.e. a high number of Women relative to men) is overall the most mutually beneficial for everyone on balance. And I also tend to argue against any sort of artificial scarcity of sexuality (with the notable exception of a Lysistrata-style sex strike, which is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy). We all saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all. An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and Women in spite of there being a surplus of Women. The result? Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty Women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today). And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of Women, need I say more?
That would seem to be saying, "No nation is lecherous, where sex is cheap" (or rather "abundant", since "cheap" can have a pejorative connotation especially in reference to sex) idea whose sentiment apparently underlies the recent iconoclastic book "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. And the books detractors will predictably, well, detract. But there is a major nuance that unfortunately gets glossed over by both sides of the debate. That is, the fundamental difference between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality is all too often overlooked.
Under patriarchy, male-defined sexuality is the gold standard of sexuality, to the point where most men and even most Women are unaware that there is any alternative. Most sex, both commercial and non-commercial, follows this paradigm, often unconsciously, to the point where it is downright banal. Even when completely consensual, the taint of this paradigm is very difficult to remove. And in an obliquely similar fashion to Jefferson's quote, regardless of the overall "cost" of sex in general, patriarchy has managed to make female-defined sexuality that much more costly (and rare) relative to male-defined sexuality. And artificial scarcity has a flip side of artificial abundance, a kind that conveniently benefits men at the expense of Women. From slut-shaming to the virgin-whore dichotomy to sexual violence to victim-blaming to double standards, this evil system has essentially left us all with the worst of all worlds. A truly negative-sum game.
When Women are truly liberated, both sexually and otherwise, female-defined sexuality will be the norm (and thus abundant), while male-defined sexuality will in turn become scarce (as few Women would want to participate). And the best thing about it is that the whole toxic and outmoded "commodity model" of sexuality--in which sex is seen as something that men "take" from Women and for which Women must be "gatekeepers" lest their value as human beings be diminished--will be jettisoned under a feminine paradigm of sexuality. And that is really the only way to resolve the inherent contradictions of Date-onomics.
Thus, one can paraphrase Jefferson yet again as such, and make the case that female-defined sexuality is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of male-defined sexuality. So what does female-defined sexuality actually look like in practice? As a man, I obviously cannot define it--but I know it when I see it. Let the planetary healing begin!
UPDATE: I see that the notoriously controversial (and previously debunked) social conservative culture-warrior, Mark Regnerus, is at it yet again with a brand new book, literally titled "Cheap Sex", which is basically Date-onomics on steroids and laced with a certain misogyny that he barely even tries to disguise with what amounts to patronizing and paternalistic "concern" trolling in book form. And his specious thesis can be readily demolished, as it is in this article by William K. Black. Jennifer Wright also does a good takedown of Regnerus' thesis from a different angle as well. Interestingly, even some conservatives also disagree with him.
But what about the "cost" of sex? Fraught as that issue clearly is, many armchair pundits have indeed attempted to answer that question. Indeed, one of my previous articles, "What Is the Ideal Sex Ratio", attempted to answer that very question. As we know, all else being equal, the relative "cost" of sex (from the perspective of men) is inversely proportional to the relative abundance of Women in a given population, due to the laws of supply and demand. Such an idea formed the basis of the book "Date-onomics" by Jon Birger. And many research papers have also been written about the various pros and cons of high and low sex ratios, many of which can be browsed from the links on my previous article from several months ago.
My general thesis is that a low sex ratio (i.e. a high number of Women relative to men) is overall the most mutually beneficial for everyone on balance. And I also tend to argue against any sort of artificial scarcity of sexuality (with the notable exception of a Lysistrata-style sex strike, which is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy). We all saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all. An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and Women in spite of there being a surplus of Women. The result? Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty Women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today). And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of Women, need I say more?
That would seem to be saying, "No nation is lecherous, where sex is cheap" (or rather "abundant", since "cheap" can have a pejorative connotation especially in reference to sex) idea whose sentiment apparently underlies the recent iconoclastic book "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. And the books detractors will predictably, well, detract. But there is a major nuance that unfortunately gets glossed over by both sides of the debate. That is, the fundamental difference between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality is all too often overlooked.
Under patriarchy, male-defined sexuality is the gold standard of sexuality, to the point where most men and even most Women are unaware that there is any alternative. Most sex, both commercial and non-commercial, follows this paradigm, often unconsciously, to the point where it is downright banal. Even when completely consensual, the taint of this paradigm is very difficult to remove. And in an obliquely similar fashion to Jefferson's quote, regardless of the overall "cost" of sex in general, patriarchy has managed to make female-defined sexuality that much more costly (and rare) relative to male-defined sexuality. And artificial scarcity has a flip side of artificial abundance, a kind that conveniently benefits men at the expense of Women. From slut-shaming to the virgin-whore dichotomy to sexual violence to victim-blaming to double standards, this evil system has essentially left us all with the worst of all worlds. A truly negative-sum game.
When Women are truly liberated, both sexually and otherwise, female-defined sexuality will be the norm (and thus abundant), while male-defined sexuality will in turn become scarce (as few Women would want to participate). And the best thing about it is that the whole toxic and outmoded "commodity model" of sexuality--in which sex is seen as something that men "take" from Women and for which Women must be "gatekeepers" lest their value as human beings be diminished--will be jettisoned under a feminine paradigm of sexuality. And that is really the only way to resolve the inherent contradictions of Date-onomics.
Thus, one can paraphrase Jefferson yet again as such, and make the case that female-defined sexuality is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of male-defined sexuality. So what does female-defined sexuality actually look like in practice? As a man, I obviously cannot define it--but I know it when I see it. Let the planetary healing begin!
UPDATE: I see that the notoriously controversial (and previously debunked) social conservative culture-warrior, Mark Regnerus, is at it yet again with a brand new book, literally titled "Cheap Sex", which is basically Date-onomics on steroids and laced with a certain misogyny that he barely even tries to disguise with what amounts to patronizing and paternalistic "concern" trolling in book form. And his specious thesis can be readily demolished, as it is in this article by William K. Black. Jennifer Wright also does a good takedown of Regnerus' thesis from a different angle as well. Interestingly, even some conservatives also disagree with him.
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Is This The Tipping Point?
We are now in what I like to call a "post-Harvey world" or a "post-Weinstein" world. Ever since disgraced Hollywood film mogul Harvey Weinstein was finally exposed as a serial sexual harasser and assaulter, if not a full-blown rapist as well, numerous Women (and a few men as well) recently came forward against so many other male celebrities and politicians accusing them of various reprehensible acts on the sexual harassment/assault spectrum. The hashtag campaign #MeToo has gone viral. Thus it certainly seems like something has indeed changed within a matter of weeks.
Of course, predatory male behavior (and male-pattern violence in general) towards Women and children is sadly nothing new, and has been going on for thousands of years. Ever since the advent of patriarchy, it has been going on to one degree or another in nearly all cultures. But now it seems to finally be getting some long-overdue attention, and perhaps the proverbial dam has finally broken. For the first time in history it seems, at least a significant chunk of Americans are actually starting to give the victims/survivors the benefit of the doubt rather than reflexively pillory them and automatically side with the accused, as has been the standard heretofore. Time will tell whether this groundswell is a short-term flash in the pan or the tipping point of far more enduring and fundamental change to our society, but I believe it is at least the start of the latter. Perhaps this may even accelerate the fall of the patriarchy. Although, until the biggest elephant in the room--the one in the White House--is removed from power and actually faces justice for his misdeeds, my optimism will nonetheless remain cautious.
Note also that the term "post-Harvey" also has a double meaning as well. Hurricane Harvey (and Irma and Maria) is (hopefully) a different, though related, sort of wake-up call as well. There is indeed a connection between men's rape and abuse of Women on the one hand, and our collective rape and abuse of the Earth on the other. And both are the primary causes of the existential crisis in which humanity (and all life in fact) is currently mired. In other words, "#MeToo," said Mother Earth. "#MeToo."
Sunday, October 29, 2017
2030: The Final Countdown
Let's face it, fellas. Women are taking over, and it will likely happen sooner than you think. So few men seem to see it coming, despite the fact that we are increasingly becoming the redundant half of humanity. But there are several reasons for my prediction that Women will take over around 2030 in the USA at least, and likely by 2050 worldwide:
- Women have already crossed the proverbial Rubicon in terms of education. Since the 1990s, there have been more Women than men earning college degrees each year. Women now outnumber men on most college campuses, and since 2010 there are now more total Women than men who possess college degrees in this country.
- Not coincidentally, in a growing number of cities, single women in their twenties and early thirties are out-earning men, in spite of the overall gender wage gap in general. Women are well on their way to becoming the richer gender.
- The number of Women in high-powered careers continues to rise, especially for CEOs.
- Automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI) are predicted to eventually take most if not all jobs from workers by 2060, and a large chunk of which taken by 2030. This is especially true for traditionally "male" jobs, meaning that men will be hit the hardest and soonest by such trends.
- Men, on the other hand, continue to lag behind, and are getting poorer with each generation these days. And as the saying goes, whoever has the gold makes the rules.
- And last but not least, we have demographic trends as well. Thanks to Women today living longer as well as having fewer kids than in the past, the population is aging, and soon the Crones (older Women) will have an unprecedented amount of power due to strength in numbers. No wonder so many men, especially conservatives, are scared of "demographic winter".
- Millennial Women will be starting to enter the Crone stage of life from 2030 on, in fact.
- And while there will be a surplus of Women in general relative to men in general, and thus more strength in numbers, there will also be a shortage of younger Women relative to slightly older men by 2030 due to the fairly steep drop in birthrates since the Great Recession began in 2008, thus increasing the dyadic bargaining power of younger Women as well. Such a one-two punch rarely happens, but when it does, it can be quite significant, especially when combined with the above trends as well.
And when Women do finally take over, they will remember how they were treated, so it really behooves us fellas to clean up our act yesterday. This last point absolutely cannot be overstated, for we all know what they say about karma.
Like the song says, it's the final countdown...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)