Jackson Jambalaya

Take a look at what culture glorifies these days. That's what they see, that's what they grow up to be. Simple.

It all boils down to women's lib. Women began taking care of themselves (including their bodies- ie birth control). When this began, the need for a man to support them (or to show approval) went out the window. Women began taking care of themselves which lessened men's need to step up and take responsibility. All of the sudden men had no one to take care of but themselves. And frankly, sometimes all a man needs is a beer, a poster of Star Wars, and a Playstation to keep his ball rollin. Eventually the need to grown up occurs and when that happens, a well-educated and intelligent woman is often ready to slow down her work career for a family. And there we find the evolution of the author's pre-adulthood man.

But that's just one gal's opinion... one who waited quite a while for the men around her to grow up.

And yes, I am aware that there are plenty of responsible men out there. This is simply a response to the essay.

The WSJ piece was a somewhat interesting read, but I just can't sympathize with the author or like-minded females bemoaning their remaining choice of men.

Where have all the good men gone? Most that I know have gone to the suburbs to raise their families. They have supportive wives and engaging children. Generally their wives are not on any Top 40 Under 40 list, and I'd suggest that there is a correlation.

@1:37 is right in many respects. The 60's and 70's brought on women's lib. That's been great for women as they now have many more doors open to them than ever before. That's a great thing, but along with the freedom to live fuller lives came the unnecessary corollary of fierce, near combative, independence. Opening doors, picking up checks, offering a lady your hand on uneven footing and countless other forms of chivalry were poo-poohed by the leading feminists and their followers. What they failed to see is that men never thought they couldn't open their own doors, we thought they shouldn't have to.

So, men suffered along for a few decades being instructed by women that we were not necessary for their happiness, their livelihoods or even their convenience. So guess what? A lot of men decided that permission to be selfish, childish and/or boorish sounded like a pretty good thing. Besides, with so many sexually liberated women, why buy the cow, right?

Lest this become too chauvinistic, let me reiterate that I think it's great women are in the workforce, leading companies, becoming primary breadwinners, etc. What I cannot tolerate, though, is listening to the subsequent whining from my career-focused female friends who spent their twenties and early thirties chasing their professional dreams and now complain that the leftover guys in the dating pool don't quite measure up to their standards. Well, damn. I wonder how that happened. Whomever told these ladies that you can have it all is a liar. You can't. You make choices in life and you live with them. (And don't get me started on my guy-seeking female friends who think it's a good idea to hang out in gay bars. Where's the logic there?)

Personally, I hope my daughter takes advantage of any and every opportunity that appeals to her. But if she starts complaining about a poor selection of available men when she decides she's good and ready to find one after spending 15 years in the corporate rat race, I'll also tell her that life doesn't always work on her timeline. Of course, she'll already know that if I've done my job between now and then.

If you want to be career-focused, that's great but don't complain about not being able to have a family on your timeline. If you want to be family-focused, the same applies but in reverse.

Good men are still around, it's just that most of us are spoken for by good women who can exercise their workplace and societal freedoms without becoming slaves to them.

Mr. Wright, I am one of those FemiNazis that seem to have peed in your Cheerios.

Your basic assumption that women "of a certin age" who are still single MUST have been ignoring good men in their 20's and 30's for the sake of a career. Lemme offer a different perspective. I worked then for the same reason I work now -- I have to eat and pay for shelter and such. Had I met a "good man" in college who was willing to set aside his adolescent fantasy life (all bro's, no ho's) long enough to have a serious conversation about the future, I would have been on him like white on rice. But, not being a whore, I thought said jumping should wait until I had a clear indication of the man-child's intentions. Unfortunately, discussing intentions tends to get in the way of games of Ultimate Frisbee, so ....

So then you have this mass of gals in Jackson in our early 20's -- again, not whores. We went to the appropriate churches and took advantage of oportunities to volunteer. But the guys were all about being bad-ass lawyer/banker/whatever during the week and reliving college on the weekends. Realizing that Prince Charming was either massively delayed because he didn't want to miss the next Cowboy Mouth concert or because he decided once and for all to become a full-time boys' camp counselor for the next three years, I decided that I needed some additional education to ensure that I wouldn't end up on welfare by my 30's.

Go to grad school, come back to Jackson, and am IMMEDIATELY told by the men in my church and my career field that getting a Master's (not a JD or a PhD) has made me "intimidating" to the average Mississippi male. WTF??? The fact that I have foud a way, out of necessity, to pay my own bills without having to shack up with an aging Jackson playboy for a sugar daddy made me "too independent" to be considered marryable. So, by the age of 27 (which I think you still consider past or the ripeness of youth) I was declared too unfeminine because of my education and salary for any "normal Mississippi man" (their words, not mine) to find me possible marriage material. Too unfeminine -- I guess those things I did (and still do) to fit the "feminine mold" such as hair color, exercise, attractive clothing, make-up, and some VERY hot high heels, were simply concessions to my own vanity. I mean, if my mind and career mad made me equivalent to a dog-ugly chick, why not just live as one?

So, Mr. Wright -- please tell me, where was my mistake? Should I have abandoned my morals and opened my legs a little more to keep a second-class guy interested so I might score a ring? Should I have stayed home from grad school and been satisfied with a salary that wouldn't pay the bills? After I got that not-so-advanced degree, should I have hidden it and dumbed myself down to satisfy the guys who were trying to tell me how to make Mississippi "happy"?

Is there ANYTHING I did that you wouldn't want your own daughter to do?

And before you call "Bitter!" -- I'm actually not. But your post pissed me off. The suggestion that ANY woman in her 30's who is umarried must be so because she wanted to Hillary Clinton-up her 20's is insulting.

What? It's women's lib's fault that some men refuse to grow up? It's women's fault for not stroking the fragile male by manipulating them into thinking we are helpless and needy and they are "oh so much" smarter ?

You guys should be insulted.

Gals bear some responsibility IF they were the mother's of sons that either spoiled their little darlings rotten and waited on them hand and foot or parented out of guilt for being divorced or unmarried or mated with a jerk.

And young women bear some responsibility for cheapening themselves and being a girl anyone can have so that men devalue them as well.

BUT, as a woman who graduated from college when women couldn't get into law school or med school or an MBA program based on MERIT,and who has been married to the same man for nearly a half century and who raised independent, responsible adults , blaming women's lib is NONSENSE.

My female children had opportunities not available to my generation. It did not turn them into sluts or harpies or bitches or make them unrealistic about the practical problems in balancing a career and family. And, by the way, they are happily married and made great choices. I've no doubt my grandsons will be " real men" and my granddaugher's " real women" because their parents know how to be good parents!

@10:17 a.m., The solution is easy, but also somewhat unfortunate. You have to leave Jackson. It's just not a big enough pool to draw from in terms of guys who won't look at you as "intimidating" because you got edjimicated.

Andrew Newcomb

Andrew, thanks -- that's been clear to me for a long time. That said, I love Jackson and I love Mississippi. If not getting married is the absolute WORST thing that ever happens to me, then I've led a pretty good life.

My earlier post wasn't so much an expression of frustration with my situation as it was a really irritated response to Mr. Wright. The way he wrote it, my lack-of-marriedness can only be explained by some slavish devotion I must have had to my career. That's simply not the truth -- it's simplistic and insulting.

Dear Ms. Frugal Gal,

It is unfortunate that we got off on the wrong foot because you strike me as quite the intriguing lady. An intellectual lady who employs "hair color, exercise, attractive clothing, make-up, and some VERY hot high heels" certainly would pique my interest were I single, even if she didn't "open [her] legs" to keep me interested... at least at first. *wink*

You classify yourself as a FemiNazi (your term - not mine), but it doesn't seem to fit you from the rest of your post(s). You don't come across like Ms. Hymowitz in her writing, which is the group to whom my comments were intended.

Having said all that, permit me a few observations. First, I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriate churches." If by "appropriate" you mean one of the local Sunday morning meat markets, I'd offer that you're fishing in the wrong pond. They're meat markets for a reason -- it's the bar crowd, just 8 hours later.

Second, you must admit that it's a stretch to correlate "serious conversation[s] about the future" with a requirement that you then sleep with the guy. I think you were making the point that you would be willing to do a lot to keep a guy around whose thoughts about the future included you in it. But putting it that way gives one the impression that you believe guys are simply out to get the goods. No doubt, that's true for a lot of guys, but typically not those who are serious about their future. Besides, I feel better not thinking of the two as correlated. If they are, then I left some opportunities on the table over the years.

Finally, I'm not sure what to make of the men in your church and career field who have deemed you too "intimidating" for the average Mississippi male. They could still be living in the 1950s, they may know a bunch of easily-intimidated boys or you may just be that intimidating and the added education is a gentle way of telling you. Obviously, I have no way of knowing.

What I do know is that I've got a lot of single female friends who would be great catches for some lucky guy. Unfortunately for them, I don't have any friends who are single guys. Not one. All my guy friends are married by this point (early-to-mid 30s).

You ask, where was your mistake? I have no way to know. I think you're off base on your default reason for thinking a guy will stay interested in a girl, but I can't offer much beyond that.

Ultimately, the point of my original post (however poorly communicated it may have been) is that good men aren't extinct. There are a lot of good guys out there who are happily married and living nice lives. Nice lives by not being married to Ms. Hymowitz or her ilk.

Oh geez. This is not hard. Men are human. Humans ( both genders)value that which is difficult to obtain. . That which is easily obtained is less valuable than that which is hard earned. Humans that are insecure find security in finding humans that are seen as lesser and needy. Secure humans don't need to rescue. If a human perceives another as being superior , that human will try to bring the superior being down to his or her level.
The " secret" to a good relationship is valuing the OTHER person as much as you value yourself. Then your arguements are about which one of you defers to the other...not who wins and who loses.
And, yes, 2:38pm there are worst things in life than being single.
If you are happy with yourself and enjoy others, then you will be a flame to moths. People will want to bask in your light.
Be kind, be joyous, be interested in others instead of self absorbed and don't be willing to "settle" and you'll find someone.

For us single educated guys new to the Jackson area....Where is this church/meat market you speak of? lol

5:18PM---Someone told me that 1st Baptist Church in Jackson was a very robust meat market and that you can meet women without having to actually pay for a date. LOL, but true story! Good luck!

As a professional and single female, I didn't find anything out of line with Mr. Wright's comments. His comments on Women's lib point out shifts in the cultural mindset that has shaped the culture of today. I did not detect that he was blaming it ALL on women's lib--just pointing out that it was a factor.

I do agree that it is difficult to find men here that are comfortable with the female being the breadwinner. If that were my main objective in life, then I would take Andrew Newcomb's advice move elsewhere--or start attending 1st Baptist Church.