I was going to write something criticizing this piece in The Atlantic, but Dalrock wrote a good response. And Ilkka summarized it in a sentence, saying it "hilariously confirms everything that Roissy ever wrote, especially his observation that the sixties ‘sexual revolution’ was really just a return to the sexual organization of the Pleistocene."
I’d like to add a few points to Dalrock’s able response.
Ms Bolick’s piece is particularly frustrating because – in several cases – she seems to understand the issues at hand.
For example, she makes several realistic assessments of sexual market value. She also notes that the lifestyle she comes close to supporting has been prevalent in the black community for decades, with devastating results. And yet . . . she can’t stop the hamster.
She claims that she has yet to decide whether or not she’s having children, for example. Newsflash: if you’re 39 and single, you’ve decided not to have children.
The article concludes with a strange discussion of alternative lifestyles. She seems to be suggesting that women should get together and live in whorehouses, sorry, I mean communal houses and collectively raise their bastard children.
Truly, the power of the hamster is awesome to behold.
Al Fin makes perhaps the most important point: "When too many people in a society grow old and childless, the potential — the future — of that society withers on the vine. The generations of the unborn begin to haunt the false over-cheeriness of the singles gathering in bars and pubs."