Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

If you want to understand what the Democrat left has become you can’t do better than this comment at the battleswarm blog on the decline of San Francisco. I reproduce it here in it’s entirety:

They all thought they knew better. They did not.

That’s going to be the epitaph for the United States, and the Democratic Party. Real fact is, they have to produce results people want, or they’re dead, dead, dead. The shakeout from the uniparty displaying its utter incompetence is going to take decades, but… So be it.

I used to work around a guy who was a Democratic Party precinct official. We’d argue politics at lunch with him… He was basically a die-hard Scoop Jackson Democrat, decent hard-working guy who believed in the Democrats the way a Jesuit believes in the Catholic Church.

He kept moving up the ranks, and eventually got sent off to some “leadership conference” back East, early in the first Clinton administration. I have no idea what he saw back there, or experienced, but he came back a changed man. You’d needle him the way we always had about the Democrats and their various corruptions, but after that “leadership conference”, he’d just sit there with an expression of what I can only describe as “rueful acknowledgment”. He gradually separated himself from his party activism, and by the time I last saw him about a year later, he wasn’t even involved any more. I asked him directly, about that time, and I couldn’t get an answer out of him about anything he’d seen or otherwise experienced that had “broken his faith”, but it was obvious that something had transpired. Only thing I could get out of him was something to the effect of “…they’re going to be hunting Democrats through the streets with dogs, one of these days… And, they’re going to be right to do it, too!!!

I have thought a lot about that guy and what he said. I still have no idea what the hell it was that changed his outlook that much, but I’ll say this: Before he left, he was all proud of the fact that he was on the same floor with all the bigwigs attending the conference, the national leaders from the Democratic Party. Something he saw around them? Something he heard? No idea; he’d never say what it was.

And take note the first Clinton Administration was 30 years ago and the left has only gotten worse since then.

The lack of shock I get when read this piece about “successful” women freezing their eggs because they can’t find the “right” mate is palatable:

why and how some people wind up partnered and others remain relentlessly single is an impossible question to answer with either data or anecdotes. Nevertheless, certain patterns emerge. Take Kayla, a professional with an Ivy League MBA, who had frozen her eggs at 38 while dating Matt, until she finally realized after a year and a half that he was “never going to commit.” Or Lily, a curator whose long-term partner Jack ran down her reproductive clock over nearly a decade, dangling the prospect of marriage and children but never following through, leading her to freeze her eggs at the late age of 43. Or Tiffany, a woman with engineering and MBA degrees living in Washington, D.C., who, after dating men from all educational backgrounds, still hadn’t found a partner and put two egg-freezing cycles on a zero-interest credit card.

When I read this I keep going back to an informal class reunion I attended with DaWife (who I went to high school & college with but we never dated during that time). We sat with three women who in school would have been considered “out of my league” and still looked good but all were alone and never seemed to find the “right” guy and where horrified when one of our successful classmates entered with a woman 20 years younger than us.

I’m wondering if they followed the rules that Glenn Reynolds talks about here:

I hear single women talking about the “three sixes” — at least six feet tall, a six figure income, and a six-inch penis. The Venn diagram where those characteristics overlap doesn’t offer much hope.

I must confess that I fail in all three of those data points yet DaWife said “yes” when I asked and it’s now been 35 years. But when you’re in your 20’s or late 30’s and full of yourself and the promises of modern feminism those data points are more important that the prospect of realizing that being unmarried and childless in your 40’s means no mate or children when you hit your 50’s and nobody cares if you live or die particularly if you have only one sibling because who wants a big family anyways. And thus in the original article they hit on the revelation that people knew for centuries before feminism came along:

Are these fewer educated men realizing that the numbers are in their favor, and with a limitless supply of women served up on dating apps, they don’t feel the need to commit? 

Let me give women in their 30’s a piece of advice. You want a good man who will marry you and be a father to your children so that in your 60’s or 70’s you aren’t alone in a nursing home without even your degree on the wall? Find a catholic church, start attending it and look for a man there. A man who is faithful to God, doesn’t believe in divorce (that’s why I specified “catholic” and works for a living. Those are the men you are going have a long happy life with.

Your feminist friends won’t respect you but friends like that are why you are alone today.