The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Life on the Meat Bourse
More Dykes than the Zeiderzee
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We have suffered for decades now the squalling of arachnid feminists (if arachnids can squall), usually lesbians but sometimes more-or less-normal women. For a while, however inadvertently, they made a degree of sense. All decent people (I hope) have supported equal pay, equal opportunity, and such. Unfortunately feminism has been shaped by awful dykes who (thank god) will never have children and who hate men. Consequently they do not have the desire of the sexually normal to get along with people of the other flavor, to learn their quirks and live with them. Since many feminists look like fire plugs with leprosy, they would have little chance anyway.


Andrea Dworkin. Finally, a cure for self-abuse.

These horrors frequently give young women marital advice that often ends by making them miserable—usually meaning single and childless and too old to do anything about either.

As a forties-ish man in Washington DC years back, dating mid-thirties-ish women, I and my fellows in this condition saw in women consistent patterns. They were either divorced and back on the market, sometimes with children, or they were career women not yet married—and both were desperate to be so. Those who had chosen career over marriage were finding that work was not empowering as promised, but just work. They, like the divorced, knew that their looks were fading, that they were becoming—old women. They wanted husbands. Now.

The hunting was poor. When they looked around, they saw that the good men were taken. Those remaining were homosexuals, or three-time losers looking for a fourth divorce, or confirmed bachelors, or hopeless dweebs. For the career women, that damned biological clock was ticking like Peter Pan’s alligator.

This made it a guy’s market. If you were a man of forty-five, employed, not actually a serial killer, and had fewer than five nostrils, you did well. The women, though desperate, were often attractive, smart, good-looking, warm-blooded, and great people. They were catches, certainly all that I dated, but we were not looking. I had been burned in a divorce—my wife wasn’t bad at all, but the marriage was—and I was perfectly happy seeing a girlfriend on weekends and maybe Wednesdays. I had nothing to gain by marriage. None of us did. And feminists had made marriage dangerous.

This led to a common progression from the woman:

“Oh, I don’t want to get married. I just want to enjoy life.”

“I don’t want to get married, but I can understand why my friends do.”

“I don’t want to get married now, but maybe sometime.”

“Is this goddamed relationship going anywhere, or what?”

If a woman did find a good man, or one good enough, given the dearth of choices, she faced a dilemma. If after a year he hadn’t popped the question, which he almost certainly hadn’t, should she invest another year and hope, or bail out and look for another prospect? How many years are there between thirty-five and hopeless?

It is not a question that bothers the diesel dykes of The Movement, but they eagerly inflict it on those it does bother.

I perhaps make it sound amusing, but for our dates it wasn’t. Not at all. It didn’t matter that to soothe our consciences, we had said straightforwardly that we had no interest in marriage. They never believed it. We knew they wouldn’t, but were we supposed to remain celibate because we didn’t want to tie the ugly knot?

The inevitable truths of existence encroached on them. At age twenty-three when they had entered the office, male heads had followed them. At age thirty-five, male heads still followed women of twenty-three. It is a simple fact that men prefer young and pretty. Nice tits attract men as money attracts women. You may think this unjust. You may think that the sun should rise in the west, or hover in the sky. It doesn’t. That’s how it is.

By the time a woman is, say, forty, she is pretty much off the table. Smart women figure this out, however much they may hate it.

Another awful truth: Though men are much uglier than women, they age better. As years go by, a woman’s value on the meat bourse declines and the man’s rises. A man of fifty-five if not gone to suet can date women of thirty and, unless he is crazy, will. A woman is attracted to power, success, credit cards, and prestige. These tend to come in older packages. By contrast, a man would rather have his teeth pulled than date a prestigious lawyeress twenty years his senior.

A yet further truth: A man who has lost his children in a divorce, or even one who hasn’t, does not want a woman who has children. Kids are a damned nuisance, and make dating difficult—and they are not his.

Hovering like a ghost over all of this is the long-forgotten Sexual Revolution, in which feminists commoditized sex and made women more or less fungible. While women are as sexual as men and often more so—Democratic women anyway—men are more plagued by the necessity. Back when a feller needed to say “I do” to get laid regular, he had an incentive to say it. The Revolution almost forced a woman to say Yes, since if she didn’t, someone else would. For men, this was wonderful, but it sorely reduced a gal’s bargaining power.

Seasoning this sorry broth was the success feminists had in turning law and divorce courts against men. The motive usually was hostility, not justice for the woman or the welfare of the children. (Feminists, being in the Sapphic traffic, seldom mention children, to them an alien concept.) Men found themselves being screwed regarding custody, visitation, and child support. Fraudulent accusations of sexual abuse of the children became almost routinely encouraged by lawyers. Men had their passports confiscated by feminist judges, male and female.

ORDER IT NOW

And men learned that, in the ugly climate of today, there is usually a snarling feminist slightly hidden inside that sweet flower of his–you know, with the rosy cheeks and all. Word got around. Men got wary. Why buy the cow, they said, when the milk is free? As feminist hostility drove men from college, campus turned into a playground for the few males left.

All of the foregoing suggests that if a woman does not want to die a spinster with three cats in a condo on upper Connecticut Avenue, she would be wise to marry early and wisely. The idea infuriates feminists, but them’s the facts, ladies.

“Wisely” means honestly, among other things. Women too are capable of false-flag operations, sometimes with disastrous results. A bit of internet wisdom says, “She thinks he will change, and he doesn’t. He thinks she won’t change, and she does.” He starts off perfectly happy in masculine squalor in a small apartment downtown with his scuba gear in the middle of the floor where he can find it and a Harley Sportster in the garage. She pronounces this good until the knot is tied. Then she wants a Volvo station wagon and a boring house in the suburbs. Come the divorce, she can’t figure out what happened.

Men. The bastards.

Men of my (then) age noticed that with a high frequency these women gobbled anti-depressants–lithium, Depacote, Welbutrin, Prozac, Xanax, all the bonbons of the chronically unhappy. My impression, which I cannot document, was that women happy with their husbands did not need pills, or even cats.

Ain’t my problem, and I don’t have much sympathy for the self-inflicted sufferings of women hostile to me, but there it is.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Feminism 
Hide 48 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I love Fred and feed Fred. Been a reader since his “tag along” {thanks, Marie} days on the Washington Times. It is as if he has been watching me: I have lived and experienced, and thought in the dark of night, much of what he writes.
    Imagine { as some millionaire once wrote} , if Fred haunted the White House instead of the misleading mind that hovers about there. “How many years are there between thirty-five and hopeless?” How many years are there between 6 and a half and hopeless?

  2. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Your hostility towards children betrays you.

    • Replies: @Escher
  3. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Working one’s brains out in corporate America isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Women buy into all the hype and spend time telling each other they’re feeling mighty empowered right up to the end when they realize it was really all just meaningless how much they made for the company. No one has ‘she felt empowered’ on their tombstone. Men are much uglier than women? I don’t know about that. Look at how much time, money and effort most of them put into manipulating their looks. Makeup can really change one’s looks, along with carefully chosen clothes, high heels, hair fluffed, puffed and dyed, and so on. Don’t even mention plastic surgery. Most women past a certain age have baggage: children, ex-spouses in the picture, emotional traumas of one sort or another, neurosis or whatever. A guy might not want to live in the drama but just visit.

  4. rod1963 says:

    Yep, the feminazis sold the females of this country a toxic bill of goods that is guaranteed to ruin their lives and make men avoid them.

    Work in the corporate world isn’t empowering – it sucks big time and drains a person. Really what’s empowering in working 50 hours a week in a Hermann- Miller cube farm doing meaningless work for a boss that views you as a easily replaceable commodity? Oh and that’s if you’re lucky. You might just end up in one of those more modern offices where you just have a desk, chair and a PC out on the floor or a boiler room operation where your desk location always changes. Both are great ways to peg the stress meter and company telling you how little you mean to them.

    Maybe you actually get a decent job that you like, but nowadays you have to worry about being replaced by H1-B workers from Bombay. Doesn’t matter if you have a EE or a degree in chemical engineering either.

    This is the sort of hell young women are walking into, that is the ones who can find a decent job instead of ending up as a barista or end up living at home with their parents.

    Hell I rather grow a bit of pot to sell to some pot shop and work the federal welfare system than put up with that crap.

    The whole system stinks.

  5. Waaaaah. There, there. Have a towel.
    Actually, career women did a very good thing for man-kind. No longer is an ex-husband necessarily doomed to 1) surrender the castle; 2) financially support his ex; and 3) lose custody of the children. Divorce settlements a lot more equitable when the wife is not an economic basket case as in days of old.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    , @J.Ross
  6. @Grace Jones

    In days of old people didn’t get divorced especially if they had non-grown children. Alimony was pretty a product of the feminist movement.

    • Replies: @Grace Jones
  7. This article I extremely funny when you consider that Fred lives in such subjugation to his Mexican wife (who brought step-kids into the marriage mind you) that he routinely posts ridiculous articles about how Mexicos cultural, economic and political achievements rival those of the U.S. With alpha males like these who needs gamma males.

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Wow. Sad, small, bitter…. a tiny dirty window into human experience. I’m truly sorry that you’ve evidently been screwed over by a woman – but to narrow that experience into this myopic, hate-filled worldview signals a failing on your part.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  9. A man who has lost his children in a divorce, or even one who hasn’t, does not want a woman who has children. Kids are a damned nuisance

    Not necessarily. Since my divorce in 1985 I’ve been involved with two women, both with children. In both cases my friendship with the kids continues to this day, long after their moms and I split up.

    For that matter, I don’t think Fred feels that way himself, based on what he’s written in the past about his stepdaughter.

  10. Escher says:
    @anon

    Children that are Not His. The selfish gene cannot be silenced.

  11. Truth says:

    Damn, I thought you folks were going to get behind Fredro on this one.

  12. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I like how Reed pretentiously titles this thing Meat Bourse (I guess mistaking bourse for a Dutch word) to set up a groan worthy-stretch of a pun that has literally nothing to do with the rest of the article. And a bourse is a stock market i.e. where goods aren’t exchanged directly so the metaphor doesn’t even make sense. I can just see Reed thinking to himself “can’t title it meat market that’s played out why don’t I flash a little of that self-taught sophistication I’m always “hinting” at and dip into my mental cross-cultural thesaurus and pull something out.” Never has a man so worn his lack of knowledge on his lack of sleeves.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  13. Unfortunately feminism has been shaped by awful dykes who (thank god) will never have children and who hate men. Consequently they do not have the desire of the sexually normal to get along with people of the other flavor, to learn their quirks and live with them. Since many feminists look like fire plugs with leprosy, they would have little chance anyway

    There are parts of the article are brilliant, some parts not. I’d like to think old dogs like Fred could get past rank stereotype. I know lesbians who are much more honest and ethical than many men, they don’t have goatees and in fact some can stop a straight man in his tracks in simple admiration of natural beauty. And they certainly (some of them) dis-invite men not because men are somehow too smart, often the opposite; preferring women because there is greater creativity, sensitivity and (something many men have in common with many lesbians preferred selection) greater physical beauty (and all too often, greater integrity.) And sexuality in many (most?) so-called ‘straight males’ in western culture leaves a lot to be desired:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/04/16/raphaels-paradox/

    ^

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  14. Truth says:

    LOL, Dudes, what is it about Fred that makes you mash him under the heels of your jackboots every time he writes a post?

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  15. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Fred has ten times the brains that a lunkhead like you has. His columns are always fun to read whereas you’re just a little dog yapping at his heels. Go try and write your own columns somewhere (cue for laughter).

  16. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Typical leftie name caller. Show us where Fred is wrong. You can’t though so ugly types like yourself resort to personal attacks.

  17. Ivy [AKA "Enquiring Mind"] says:

    Females are going through quite a few changes in their socialization and psychology.
    There is a probably a type of development or life cycle to such changes.

    Think of the ones garnering a lot of press now as the early adopters.
    Some of them exploit positions in media to trumpet their screed.

    Others hang onto prior teachings and notions, with less desire to upset apple carts.

    Subsequent groups will discuss, consider, adapt, change and otherwise mull over.

    Women have had millenia to act one way, and now are cramming paroxysms of change into a shockingly short time. That has to hurt them and those around them. There isn’t a blueprint, so they’re improvising as they go along.

  18. While I have been married, more or less happily, for a quarter of a century now, I do know that if divorce or widowhood were to come my way, there is no way on earth I would re-marry. The thought of having my own time to do anything I want without having to worry about “relationship issues” is bliss.

    No offense to women but they can be difficult to understand. And they can talk/obsess endlessly about themselves, children, relationships, careers…etc. Just look at the female-hosted talk shows on TV that are everywhere now – screaming, hooting audiences of women engaged in these topics.

    Ever notice who are the worst offenders looking down/talking on their phones in traffic? Take one guess. And what about the huge flourishing of disease support groups with their myriad of walks, ribbons…etc? They are cutthroat competitive with each other in all of their cherished areas of concern and this is how it shall forever be. There is nothing new under the sun.

    Finally, whenever one of them says “sisterhood”, I gotta laugh.

  19. @Anon

    I find it absolutely astonishing that a (presumably) adult male would trouble himself to the extent of a full paragraph of pissing and moaning about a throwaway phrase like “Meat Bourse”.

    You need yourself a new life, fella.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  20. @Ronald Thomas West

    Ron … if your writing here is a stylistically disjointed, grammar-challenged mess, would not the average reader conclude that your blog is much the same? So why bother?

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  21. @Truth

    what is it about Fred that makes you mash him under the heels of your jackboots every time he writes a post?

    Oh, that’s easy. These guys are fans of the Sailer/Derbyshire “Great Genetic Conspiracy” compendium. Fred stepped out of that particular pile of horseshit a while back. You know how the Mormons used to chase down people who quit? Hell hath no fury like a commie-sniffing genetic-explanation enthusiast.

    Maybe Fred could throw in a few faux-genetic Wonder Book-style quotes every so often?

  22. J Yan says:

    One of the immutable laws of communication is that nobody wants to hear about your divorce.

  23. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I’ll take Anon’s parody paragraph over your long-winded screeds on Takimag any day. At least it’s original.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Not to nitpick as I enjoy
    The Fredster it was a
    croc not an alligator I
    believe.

  25. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ron … if your writing here is a stylistically disjointed, grammar-challenged mess, would not the average reader conclude that your blog is much the same? So why bother?

    Glad I could get under your ad hominem skin (or put a bug up your butt, as the case may be.) People with no sense of humor wouldn’t like my blog, neither would bigots and anyone who thinks Western science is equal to God (they’re equally stupid in my view.) And especially people who’re afraid of the dark wouldn’t like my intelligence assessments (unlike Ron Unz who has promoted one of the them.) How’s that for a stylistically disjointed, grammar-challenged mess? More to the point, I do occasionally love butchering the language creatively with satire, perhaps you’d appreciate this one, the man’s philosophy is probably right ‘up’ your alley:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/14/the-great-bernard-henry-levy/

    ^

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  26. @Ronald Thomas West

    Ron,

    My first response was entirely unjustified, especially with regard to my own predilection for “butchering the language creatively”. I do humbly apologize.

    I have since looked at your blog, and while there would be changes I would make :-), your essays are well-written and informative.

    Regards,

    JJS

  27. Dutch Boy says:

    Lucky me, I like the house in the suburbs and the minivan. The important thing is to be needed, which means you make the money and she makes the kids. You need her to take care of you and the gang and she needs you to supply the dough for same. The old family wage philosophy of the 1950s encouraged such amity and that is why the 50s are remembered fondly by those who lived in them. Alas, Capitalism cannot tolerate such a system for long so the Capitalists and feminists have mostly destroyed it, except for us lucky few who make enough $$ to continue that lifestyle. It’s a pity.

    • Replies: @tsotha
    , @abj_slant
  28. @Sam Haysom

    I’ll take Anon’s parody paragraph over your long-winded screeds on Takimag any day. At least it’s original.

    Oh, dear. Wrote that one yourself, didja? Just called yourself “Anon” so as to not appear vain or nuffin’? Suffering the sting of an unkind cut? Poor baby.

    It sucked.

  29. Corvinus says:

    “Those who had chosen career over marriage were finding that work was not empowering as promised, but just work. They, like the divorced, knew that their looks were fading, that they were becoming—old women. They wanted husbands. Now.”

    That subset of women you dated perhaps had these tendencies, just like men who were on the prowl in the 20’s and 30’s and are looking to settle down, only to find the pickings slim because their “checklist” can never be fully met.

    “I had nothing to gain by marriage. None of us did. And feminists had made marriage dangerous.”

    Marriage is not inherently “dangerous”. It has risks, assuredly, for men and women equally, especially if the person is into themselves and does not realize the amount of work and sacrifice it takes.

    “This led to a common progression from the woman: “Oh, I don’t want to get married. I just want to enjoy life.” “I don’t want to get married, but I can understand why my friends do.” “I don’t want to get married now, but maybe sometime.” “Is this goddamed relationship going anywhere, or what?”

    Fred, dear lord, this line of thought represents MEN as well, especially the Roissy’s and the Return of Kings crowd. The anti-Christian manosphere is equally skilled at promoting a hedonistic lifestyle…no marriage, no kids.

    “How many years are there between thirty-five and hopeless?”

    I don’t know, ask those men who also in this predicament.

    “By the time a woman is, say, forty, she is pretty much off the table.”

    
To a 30 or 35 year-old man, perhaps. Depends if she has looks and/or money. Both? Young guys are in like Flynn. But to 40-year-old divorced men? No.

    “Though men are much uglier than women, they age better. As years go by, a woman’s value on the meat bourse declines and the man’s rises.”

    [Laughs] buying into the red pill, or blue pill, or whatever pill they say is “good” to take. Your statement is observably false. Generally speaking, aging is an INDIVIDUAL phenomenon. Poor posture, heavy drug/alcohol/tobacco use, lack of exercise, and genetics, these factors contribute to men’s shabby appearance as they age.

    …”long-forgotten Sexual Revolution, in which feminists commoditized sex and made women more or less fungibl”

    Fred, if you have watched porn or had sexual contact outside of marriage, you are part and parcel to the Sexual Revolution. Congratulations.

    “Seasoning this sorry broth was the success feminists had in turning law and divorce courts against men.”

    Fred, the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts. Only 4 percent of custody cases go to trial, with only 1.5 percent completing custody litigation. Otherwise, the majority of cases involve both parents agreeing on their own accord what is best for the child.

  30. @Sam Haysom

    One of the reasons that fewer people got divorced in the old days was that laws required one of the parties to be found guilty of moral turpitude, such as adultery, abandonment, alcoholism, or assault. Even if both wanted an amicable divorce, somebody had to play the guilty party. Usually that burden fell on the man. And alimony means “spousal support” (to be distinguished from child support). As such, it was a particularly a necessity when women had few options in employment.

  31. tsotha says:
    @Dutch Boy

    The important thing is to be needed, which means you make the money and she makes the kids.

    The problem is they’ve arranged the legal environment such that she doesn’t need you. She can take your money without needing to accommodate you in any way.

  32. JRB says:

    The title is wrongly spelled. It is ‘Zuiderzee’ and not ‘Zeiderzee’.

    #12: the Flemish and also current Dutch word is “beurs”, which originated in medieval Bruges. “Bourse” is of course the French variant of this word.

  33. Renoman says:

    When you write this kind of article, I guess most articles but I’ll keep it short, you generalize. Fred takes a picture of life in the pond, it’s a big pond filled with all types in all circumstances, sometimes he’s right and sometimes he’s wrong but he is always interesting and that is really the crux of the job. He’s one of my favorites, as close as I can find to Mark Twain.

    • Replies: @abj_slant
  34. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    Some men say…

    Ho No.

  35. abj_slant says:
    @Dutch Boy

    …and that is why the 50s are remembered fondly by those who lived in them.

    Only if you were white and male. Anyone else was “no admittance.”

  36. @abj_slant

    …and that is why the 50s are remembered fondly by those who lived in them.

    Only if you were white and male. Anyone else was “no admittance.”

    What an absolute, inexperienced, ignorant fool you are. How well do you remember the 50’s? You speak from abysmal ignorance, your only intent to attack the boogeyman-du-jour the media holds up for you.

  37. @Sam Haysom

    With alpha males like these who needs gamma males.

    Who still thinks in these terms? Do you also wear a furry Mystery hat to nightclubs? Do you practice “negging”?

    • Replies: @Truth
  38. Truth says:
    @Daniel Williams

    LMAO!

    Daniel don’t be an AFC.

  39. @Sam Haysom

    I like some of Fred’s columns, but there’s some real cognitive dissonance going on there when he talks up Mexico’s advanced culture, while at the same time admits how foolish America’s open borders policies are. I guess if his Mexican wife is also on the internet he’s got to tread lightly.

  40. Forbes says:
    @abj_slant

    In your 70s, are you? And remember the ’50s well, do you?

    • Replies: @abj_slant
  41. Svigor says:

    West, your writing/blog is borderline word salad.

  42. abj_slant says:
    @Forbes

    ‘Smatter’o’fact, pretty close. 🙂

  43. abj_slant says:
    @Renoman

    I agree. I keep checking his site for his input re:Baltimore. I’m thinkin’ it should be disturbing, but very entertaining.

  44. Truth says:

    I agree. I keep checking his site for his input re:Baltimore. I’m thinkin’ it should be disturbing, but very entertaining.

    “Well why in the holy hell don’t you simple-minded, lazy, young whipper-snappers just go back and read my gosh-darned columns on Fergusson even go back to my columns on Los Angeles, Detroit and Watts, when I was a cub reporter, for cryin’ out loud and stop makin’ me waste my time writin’ new ones!”

    Sincerely:

    Fred Reedino

  45. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Grace Jones

    None of this is true. It’s as if you were claiming that ISIS is making Yemen and Syria more stable.
    The woman logic of your comment is of a piece with many feminist ideas.
    The economic argument you put forward is internally consistent (cf the feminist idea that sex works the same for everyone, so relaxing gender roles should lead to women as happily promiscuous as men), however here the thing to watch is human beings chasing money and humiliating enemies. Can anyone ever have enough money or schadenfreude?

  46. @abj_slant

    and .. your … point… is…?

  47. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:

    Hovering like a ghost over all of this is the long-forgotten Sexual Revolution, in which feminists commoditized sex and made women more or less fungible.

    Jeezus Christ, how can anyone believe such shite?

    1. The Sexual Revolution, “in which feminists….yadda yadda” – is so poorly written. It means nothing, but I’ll be nice and assume that Reed meant the feminists caused the Sexual Revolution, which commoditized sex, etc.

    This is flat out wrong. The feminists didn’t cause anything. I don’t like feminism and I won’t defend them, but the fact is that they didn’t cause the Sexual Revolution, any more than the Beats did, or Hugh Hefner did, or the Pill did. The SR was something time coming and is nothing new. Read up about “Free Love” in the 1850s, and then again in the 1920s. Do some reading.

    2. Even if you believed the above, women weren’t made “fungible” – they were placed on a brutal, transactional sexual marketplace in which the metrics of capitalism were now transferred to the female body – as Fred takes pains to point out. That’s the opposite of fungible.

    What sloppy, stupid writing.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave