I bet the Weekly Standard pays by word, given the length of Charlotte Allen's piece called "The New Dating Game". They certainly don't pay by logic if this article is anything to go by.
To see what I mean by the lack of logic, let me summarize the piece. You can then compare my summary to the actual piece.
Allen begins by telling us the story of Courtney A., a woman who decided to have a one-night stand with the misogynistic comedian, Tucker Max, and then to write about it. Even though feminists criticized Tucker Max, it is really feminists who promote promiscuity and therefore it is really feminists who should be blamed for the sexual revolution, the increased divorce rates, the older age at first marriage and possibly also nuclear wars and such.
The level of promiscuity in the society can be measured by using data from New York City.
Allen somehow knows that the only men who get laid under this scenario are what she calls alpha males. They might once have been WWII aviators but now they are guys who wear black eyeliner and black nail polish or the Tucker Max-types. These alpha males are the ones all the sluts go after, while the poor beta males don't get any nookie or wives, either.
So what we really have in this scenario is a return to the paleolithic times, which Allen calls the New Paleolithic. She quotes various evo-psychos who have all time-traveled to the real paleolithic and therefore know how people hooked up in those days or didn't, and all these experts and Allen agree that only the alpha males got laid then because that was imperative for good genes to be passed on. Men are polygamous and women are monogamous (well, mostly). How this goes with Allen's argument about women being sluts is terribly unclear to me.
Nevertheless, Allen knows that these things can be true at the same time! Women are sluts now, though they were not sluts then. What women really want, though, is to marry an alpha male and then to be dominated by him.
This isn't happening anymore, and that's the fault of feminism, because feminism doesn't let women get those dominating men, except in the hookup culture. As examples of such desirable men Allen mentions convicted killers.
Even the most beautiful woman is only desirable during her early twenties. If she refuses marriage then in order to have more time to play the field she probably won't be able to marry at all. By the time she turns thirty she starts drooping and men of her age will want to marry someone in their early twenties. Who is a virgin! Because paleolithic men only married virgins? Married?
Allen goes on writing about cougars, about women always on the prowl, with their breasts falling out of their tops, never accepting a beta man, never procreating, I guess. And all this is the fault of feminism.
So feminism has really hurt women, partly by bringing back that evo-psycho world which the conservatives usually argue has always been with us.
But the other victims of the feminist sexual revolution (!) are the beta men. Those men wouldn't have gotten laid during the paleolithic era so I'm not sure why there are still some around. But never mind. They don't get laid now, either. That's why they have become misogynistic and gathered together into groups which try to cheat women into fucking them. Though Allen is still friendly with them.
These fucking clubs are also the fault of feminism, because no man ever tried to cheat a woman into bed before the feminist revolution. Feminism can also be blamed for the anger of divorced men, because feminists are sitting on all the divorce courts in this country.
Yet on the other hand, whom the sexual revolution really helped was women who can now follow their paleolithic instincts to mate only with the alpha men. Except that only virgins get married.
I probably missed something because my eyes are spinning in my head, but you can see why writing a short critique of the piece is impossible.