|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women nearly ALWAYS expect men to earn more than they do as part of their "test" of standards, even if they price themselves out of the market-- particularly "high-powered" career women who don't have time to "shop" like silver-spoon debutantes; it's simply been some sort of unwritten entitlement.
Feminists, who cannot seriously speak of "equality" while upholding this obvious double-standard, rationalize their hypocrisy by claiming that women have some "nesting instinct to select a mate with resources" and therefore rank wealth as a perfectly acceptable yardstick for ranking men to fleece.
While this evolutionary psychobabble is as ridiculous in giving a carte blanche for abhorrent behavior, as claiming men have the right to rape women in order to "spread their seed to as many as possible," these feminists likewise conveniently ignore the issue, that such a bread-winner would reasonably also have the right to treat a woman as property bought and paid for with said "resources." No, they want to be treated as not only equal, but superior, which is the ONLY way to read these sentiments that women have a license to exploit men.
The more feminist information I such feminist sophistry taking over mainsteam society, the more I begin to suspect that women simply aren't physically or culturally hard-wired to appreciate moral absolutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women nearly ALWAYS expect men to earn more than they do as part of their "test" of standards, even if they price themselves out of the market-- particularly "high-powered" career women who don't have time to "shop" like silver-spoon debutantes; it's simply been some sort of unwritten entitlement.
First off, absolutes like ALWAYS expect are ridiculous.
Secondly, it is a two way street. Many men choose to marry women who make less money than they do. Some men deliberately choose women who make considerably less than they do or who make no money at all and have no marketable skills. This is their preference.
My father in law for example who is moderately wealthy, has been married 3 times, each time to women with minimal education (none were college graduates) ... secretaries, flight attendents etc. He is single now and dating women who are hotel clerks, waitresses, flight attendents, receptionists, etc. He purposely doesn't date career women though he has opportunities to meet them all the time. He doesn't date other wealthier women of his age group either, divorcess or widows, though he knows many of them. He prefers women without much money or access to money.
He did date an RN who had a fairly good salary, a nice home, nice car, who traveled widely etc. He found her unsatisfactory because she was not as dependent on him as he is accustomed. She also had her own small art business and many hobbies, such as tennis. So she did not have as much time to devote to him as he likes.
Frankly, the women he has dated have had few interests beyond shopping, personal maintenance, social pursuits and of course being available to spend time with him. He likes to travel at a moments notice so a woman with a job doesn't suit him. He enjoys the attention and the doting and he likes women who dress fashionably and who are highly maintained.
When he was married (as I said 3 times) his wives did not work at his request. They did however keep busy maintaining nice homes, entertaining his business associates, and hobnobbing with other wives of wealthy men at country clubs, charity events, etc. When the divorces came around, the wives all got generous severance packages.
As far I'm concerned, all involved got what they wanted out of the relationship. It was totally a two way street.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women nearly ALWAYS expect men to earn more than they do as part of their "test" of standards, even if they price themselves out of the market-- particularly "high-powered" career women who don't have time to "shop" like silver-spoon debutantes; it's simply been some sort of unwritten entitlement.
First off, absolutes like ALWAYS expect are ridiculous.
As is usual a quote out of context. "nearly ALWAYS expect" Was the original quote. And just the type of qualification placed on it you've wasted bandwidth pleading for in the past.
Secondly, it is a two way street. Many men choose to marry women who make less money than they do. Some men deliberately choose women who make considerably less than they do or who make no money at all and have no marketable skills. This is their preference.
And I'm sure you will be happy to provide ancedotal evidence, or statitical (read: 3rd type of lie) "studies" (Sponsored, commissioned, conducted, and otherwise bought and paid for to get the result they want by a pheminutzi organization with an axe to grind) to support it.
My father in law for example who is moderately wealthy, has been married 3 times, each time to women with minimal education (none were college graduates) ... secretaries, flight attendents etc. He is single now and dating women who are hotel clerks, waitresses, flight attendents, receptionists, etc. He purposely doesn't date career women though he has opportunities to meet them all the time. He doesn't date other wealthier women of his age group either, divorcess or widows, though he knows many of them. He prefers women without much money or access to money.
Really? Did he say this? Or is that your interpretation? Or did this come out of your crystal ball?
Let's see...
...women who are hotel clerks, waitresses, flight attendents, receptionists, etc... Well, these are the type of people I seem to encounter most of the time. Bank managers, Restaurant owners, Pilots, and executives are usually holed up in offices paying these people to keep everyone they can away from them. Matter of fact, that is one of my secretary's primary functions - don't tie me up with anyone unless it is important.
...purposely doesn't date career women though he has opportunities to meet them all the time. - Well, I meet them and don't like them. They're just to damn busy to be bothered, or they are trying to act like men. I have no interest either.
...He doesn't date other wealthier women of his age group either, divorcess ... Who are interested in keeping their alimony, which they lose if they remarry.
... or widows, - Oh yeah, my favorite too. Let's get involved with someone and compete with a dead guy for the "Love of her life" title.
...He prefers women without much money or access to money. - Or perchance they might be the ones available; but how silly of me, he's a man, so his motivation MUST be perfidious.
He did date an RN who had a fairly good salary, a nice home, nice car, who traveled widely etc. He found her unsatisfactory because she was not as dependent on him as he is accustomed. She also had her own small art business and many hobbies, such as tennis. So she did not have as much time to devote to him as he likes.
That seems to describe a great deal of women who aren't interested in me. I have a fairly good salary, a nice home, nice car. I travel widely and at the drop of a hat, because I can and I like to. I maintain strict independence and undependence. I have a small leatherworking business, and several hobbies. I don't have time for some woman who is looking for a family, or a sitabout man.
Hmm. Now while I would find such a woman very convenient, apparently Father in Law doesn't. Could be because he is looking for something else? I tell you true, a woman looking for that and hanging around me would have to be certifiably insane. Maybe FIL isn't.
But I forget, he's a man, so what is good, noble, and to be admired in a woman is to be despised as (Whatever, you fill in your canard du jour here) in a man.
Frankly, the women he has dated have had few interests beyond shopping, personal maintenance, social pursuits and of course being available to spend time with him.
And a great deal of women have been frustrated that I don't have interests beyond puttering about the house, personal maintainance (The Gym), social pursuits, and spending time with them.
He likes to travel at a moments notice so a woman with a job doesn't suit him.
If I want a companion on a trip I'm the same way. So what?
He enjoys the attention and the doting and he likes women who dress fashionably and who are highly maintained.
And women don't?
When he was married (as I said 3 times) his wives did not work at his request. They did however keep busy maintaining nice homes, entertaining his business associates, and hobnobbing with other wives of wealthy men at country clubs, charity events, etc. When the divorces came around, the wives all got generous severance packages.
As far I'm concerned, all involved got what they wanted out of the relationship. It was totally a two way street.
So this is then a problem why?
It still doesn't address the issue: Forget statistics. Look around. Listen. "Girl, you can do better than him. He hasn't got any prospects. He's beneath you. He can't treat you like you need to be treated." And so on. And so on. And so forth. All the time. Every day. Every where.
Damn few and far between is the woman who "Dates down," exceeded only in rarity by the woman who marries down. It's not males driving this. It's the females.
Deal with it.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As is usual a quote out of context. "nearly ALWAYS expect" Was the original quote. And just the type of qualification placed on it you've wasted bandwidth pleading for in the past.
You're right. I did miss the "nearly". I apologize.
As for the rest of your post, you're going off the deep end. Yes my FIL has stated he prefers women who have to depend on him for money. He also prefers women who don't work, as I said, so they can travel with him without hassle of having to get time off. He also likes women who are "social" as in mixing in with the right people who he does business with. He also prefers women considerably younger than himself.
I didn't make any value judgements about any of it as you imply. I said these are his preferences. Many men have the same or similar preferences. And there are plenty of women who have corrollary interests in a mate. My main point, which you didn't acknowledge, is that the preference is a two-way street. He likes the kind of women who generally likes men like him. So it works out well.
The term "gold-digger" is meant to be one-way disparaging and doesn't acknowledge the two-way street of such relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't make any value judgements about any of it as you imply. I said these are his preferences. Many men have the same or similar preferences. And there are plenty of women who have corrollary interests in a mate. My main point, which you didn't acknowledge, is that the preference is a two-way street. He likes the kind of women who generally likes men like him. So it works out well.
Any "relationship" in which everyone walks in with their eyes open, knows what to give and expect, and can walk away from is by definition healthy. Thus, if two consenting adults engage in fetish behavior that you or I would find shocking, it's all well and good with them.
Again, what has that to do with the price of eggs? This doesn't have to be a sexual "relationship." This doesn't have to be a romantic "relationship." Bravo and bully if it is. But, again, so what? If I prefer one-eyed Filipino bisexual women, who cares?
The term "gold-digger" is meant to be one-way disparaging and doesn't acknowledge the two-way street of such relationships.
It is disparaging. It should be. Any woman who is a gold digger should be ashamed of herself; she's just another varity of whore, but a whore all the same when all is said and done.
Yeah, the same should - and is - said about men. The terms used are "pet" "Kept man" and "boy-toy" or other variations of the same, but when spoken of by other men, it's with a sneer, and in a voice dripping with contempt.
Now, you tell me what is said when some woman announces she has herself a "sugar-daddy." Careful, I already know, and It usually involves high-fiving and start's out with, "You go, girl!"
I fail to see any difference if I pay a hooker $50 for a quickie, or if I pay another girl in dinner out 5 nights a week, vacations, cars, an apartment, and so on for exclusive services. It makes her what, a high priced whore under an exclusive contract? It only becomes honest if it's acknowledged, if it's not, it is shameful for its dishonesty. If the only reason a girl is seeing a guy is because he's got money, she's not a lick different from the oft quoted guy from the urban legend who leaves his scarred up former beauty queen girlfriend alone in the hospital after her accident.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is disparaging. It should be. Any woman who is a gold digger should be ashamed of herself; she's just another varity of whore, but a whore all the same when all is said and done."
Not really; the whore stops screwing you after she leaves, doesn't pretend she won't screw you, and she never pretends she's NOT a whore.
"It is disparaging. It should be. Any woman who is a gold digger should be ashamed of herself..."
True; she's pretending she's NOT in it just for the money, which is a lie. If she ADMITS she's after him for his prospects, she knows men will avoid her like the plague.
"If the only reason a girl is seeing a guy is because he's got money, she's not a lick different from the oft quoted guy from the urban legend who leaves his scarred up former beauty queen girlfriend alone in the hospital after her accident."
ONLY reason? I say that,if her decision has ANYTHING to do with his income-- other than in terms of equal contribution to a relationship, in which case she shouldn't be looking to "marry up"-- it's only because she wants to benefit from resources she didn't earn-- in which case she's sold herself as property, and thus it's only right to be treated as such by the one who paid for it.
Ironically, however, women who earn the most, likewise believe they're ENTITLED to the most (money) in a prospective mate-- and they bitch like hell when they don't get it: However, powerful men don't get that way by waiting to serve as trophies to fast-lane women, so this pretty much nixes the chances of such.
They don't EVER consider simple role-reversal (i.e. a home-making hubby), since this would destroy their ambition of simply having more than other women while having otherwise identical lifestyles, and hence are caught in their own web.
This is all simple, unbridled greed, rather than simply being honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes my FIL has stated he prefers women who have to depend on him for money. He also prefers women who don't work, as I said, so they can travel with him without hassle of having to get time off. He also likes women who are "social" as in mixing in with the right people who he does business with. He also prefers women considerably younger than himself.
Well, let's look at the facts:
according to the original article, there should be "no shame" in this, either-- right? After all, if it's ok for women to grub for the green, then the golden rule applies-- i.e. "whoever has the gold, makes the rules," the customer is always right, etc.
Otherwise, the only possible message is, that women deserve something for nothing from men, who are therefore their slaves: our current divorce and alimony laws give this impression, while a "severance package" is simple blackmail.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but something tells me that if your FIL is wealthy, then it's a cinch that the apple didn't fall far from the money-tree, and that you "married up" as well.
Is this true, or did you marry someone with fewer prospects than you did?
I wouldn't bet on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My husband and I make within $2,000 of each other's salary (he makes slightly more). We are both in a similar field of work and our careers have progressed pretty much at the same pace. We have similar "prospects".
I probably wouldn't have married someone at a substantially different education level or potential income level as myself. That is my choice. However, everyone including men have the same choice to set their own criteria and marry according to it. No one HAS TO marry someone at a significantly lower income or prospect level.
The truth is people have different criteria in choosing a mate. You seem to have a problem with that. I don't. In our country no one puts a gun to your head to force you to marry. It's a free choice.
If a woman knows she wants a family and to be a full time parent for example, it makes sense that she would look for a man who could support the family well. In addition she would look for a man who wants a family, and who doesn't mind being the sole breadwinner. When the two find each other and decide to marry, they are both meeting their criteria in a mate.
If a woman wants a career and a family, she will look for a man who wants wants a family and who will share the parenting and breadwinning.
Men have their criteria just as women do. Everybody has standards and preferences, but not all the standards and preferences are identical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"However, everyone including men have the same choice to set their own criteria and marry according to it. No one HAS TO marry someone at a significantly lower income or prospect level."
"The truth is people have different criteria in choosing a mate. You seem to have a problem with that. I don't."
There you have it, folks: feminist hypocrisy on a plate; women act really "know-it-all" and "I've got my stuff together" as long as they get to make the rules to give them an unfair advantage.
However when it doesn't?
MARCH! PROTEST! LOBBY! ORGANIZE! VOTE!
Until you get whatever you want, fair or unfair.
And their answer if you don't like it?
"In our country no one puts a gun to your head to force you to marry. It's a free choice."
I couldn't ASK for a better example of shameless female sociopathy! Thanks Lorianne, you did to futher my argument than I could ever dream, by providing living evidence which points directly to my conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It took me a while to put my finger on what was wrong here.
If a woman knows she wants a family and to be a full time parent for example, it makes sense that she would look for a man who could support the family well. In addition she would look for a man who wants a family, and who doesn't mind being the sole breadwinner. When the two find each other and decide to marry, they are both meeting their criteria in a mate.
A likely scenario. Happens all the time. Now let's try the shoe on the other foot:
If a man knows he wants a family and to be a full time parent for example, it makes sense that he would look for a woman who could support the family well. In addition he would look for a woman who wants a family, and who doesn't mind being the sole breadwinner. When the two find each other and decide to marry, they are both meeting their criteria in a mate.
Hmm. Looks wrong, feels wrong, and is wrong because it happens so rarely that when such a "Mr. Mom" is discovered, they get feature articles written about them in national magazines.
Pheminine Privilege. You feminazis are the very first to call a man shallow if he doesn't look at the "inner beauty" of a woman; any man who reacts with anything other than some idealized calls of false dime-store novel "romanticism" is deemed cold, emotionless, and calculating. A woman, however, is only being "smart" and "shrewd" to do the exact same thing - even if for reasons that are demonstrably as shallow or shallower. And you can always count on one of you, like yourself, to go forth and write apologetics.
You can rationalize it away all you want, but if your husband had told you he wanted you to support the family, while he at best worked part time, stayed home, raised the kids, and didn't apply himself to achieving, you'd have run like a scared puppy. He'd have been a leech, a loser, and no real man at all...
...Because the vast and overwhelming majority of women want to do those exact same things, and feel it's their privilege to do so and not be thought any the lesser for it.
You want a choice, but you don't want men to have the same choice, and you can make excuses and try to justify it all you want. Or spout empty words here.
So long as I or my sons are liable to be drafted, and made to go fight and die for this counrty, and women aren't, they aren't my equal.
So long as women can waltz into jobs and schools on the basis of having a rack of boobs and claim an affirmative action pass, and neither I, my brothers, or my sons can't, women are not my equal.
So long as I have to go and work and achieve to gain any respect, and women have the free cjhoice not to, they are not my equal.
Register to be drafted, give up your privilege, and work whether you want to or not. Then come see me about being considered my equal. But so long as men are shedding the blood, shoveling the gravel and paying your bills, we are your betters.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having standards does not entitle you to a mate to your exact specificatons.
You can set your standards anywhere you like. Doesn't mean you're going to get it. You're mixing up opportunity with outcome. 99.9% of people have to compromise on their standards.
If a man wants to stay home and take care of the kids while the wife makes the money, it may be harder for him to find a like-minded mate. So what? It's not impossible, however.
I dated a someone once who had his criteria in a mate all written up on a list. It was 2 pages long! He flat out said this is the person he was going to marry but he didn't mind dating others in the meanwhile until she turned up. Well he's 43 and still single. I guess he's still waiting. But at least he has his standards and is apparently sticking with them, all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If a man wants to stay home and take care of the kids while the wife makes the money, it may be harder for him to find a like-minded mate. So what? It's not impossible, however."
There is much more to this than just going out and finding a like-minded mate. It is very difficult to find a mate that will allow a man to do this, let alone let the man do it and for her to give up power over the household. Some women enjoy the endless martyrdom of complaing about having to do household chores. However unlikely I managed to find a woman like this and it is possible.
The reason why there is much more then just finding a mate is because of society's pressures and prejudices against men. When I stayed at home with my son on leave for almost a year I faced so much misandry it was unimaginable. Day time government parent groups were relegated to mothers only. Some women considered me an unemployed bum that drank all day, I never drank a drop and I was on leave not unemployed (not that this should matter according to feminazis staying at home isn't unemployment but is the toughest job of all). A half dozen women admonished me for staying in the hospital for the few days my wife was hospitalized after my son's birth because this made me a burden on my wife and the health care system!
Pregnancy books and magazines relegated fatherhood to articles about what to do to pamper your mate, how to deal with financial anxiety, and how selfish you are if you expect sex any time soon. There was one book I looked through at the bookstore in the parenting section (written by a feminut pop psycholigist) about how useless and evil you are as a father and how you are a prick for expecting attention after the baby is born (women also feel bad about losing the previous husband-wife relationship after a child is born). The book was mostly about how you should get out and find a better job and you better have that college fund set up you lazy bum and if you don't do everything your wife says then you are a useless husband.
I managed to find a UK stay at home dad club where this topic came up and I found all of the other dads faced the same problems. One funny thing was that a emasculated male in the group accused us of being mysoginists because we dared to complain about discrimination from women! The other funny thing was the same things that feminazis complain about men doing to stay at home moms because men are obviously evil power-crazed patriarchs women do to men when the situation is reversed.
I won't even go into what single divorced fathers have to go through daily, needing to show custody papers every time they want school records or want to go on a trip or need to take there child to the hospital. All this while waiting a year or so for the gears of the child support enforcement agency to turn over the child support payments to them so they can stop paying there ex-wife for kids that don't even live with her.
I almost never faced any misandry from other males it was consitently from women that had created there own female only club. My FIL told me that he had wished he had time like this with his kids.
This misandry was the straw that broke the camels back and had me join the men's movement, I had thought for a long time like the guys on here but this sexism I recieved while staying at home made me incredibly angry.
Men are expected by society to be the breadwinners. Try being a low-income male like the ones at the men's residence I work at and see how lucky your love life will be. Women in general expect men to be ambitious in the work world and expect to live off of men. Many women sadly enough consider there worth on the financial worth of there husbands. During my stay at home months I talked with women that bragged endlesley about how there husband does this or he has this high-paying job like somehow spreading there legs gives them some sort of status on par with what there husband did by working hard. The only way this will change is for more men to say screw it as some are by not getting married and for them to fight gender stereotypes that men should be there to protect and perserve women. Men need to seek out the rare woman that is looking for love and not financial security, those men that want to get married that is. It also helps to fight the feminut picture of women as the ultimate nuturers with a special bond to children given to them by the goddess right after birth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a problem with this as well:
If a woman knows she wants a family and to be a full time parent for example, it makes sense that she would look for a man who could support the family well. In addition she would look for a man who wants a family, and who doesn't mind being the sole breadwinner. When the two find each other and decide to marry, they are both meeting their criteria in a mate.
If a woman wants a career and a family, she will look for a man who wants wants a family and who will share the parenting and breadwinning.
Men have their criteria just as women do. Everybody has standards and preferences, but not all the standards and preferences are identical.
This misses the point entirely, i.e. talking only in terms of what women "want," when the real issue is, rather, what they are culturally enabled to realistically expect, and whether this is equitable to the other side.
The notion of women being culturally "entitled to," i.e. able to realistically expect, more than men in the average relationship--or having a broader range of realistic choices, is no better than a society in which women have few or no rights-- unless one is a female cheavanist who claims that these societies are wrong because women are better than men.
Either way, this clearly indicates we've let things go too far in the name of fairness-- evidently a MALE concept since these same ungrateful women- possibly due to this same cultural sparing of uch ethical burdens, or else maybe even that "biological carte blanche" we hear mentioned so often-- have no concept, or intention of anything but taking full advantage without a second thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Having standards does not entitle you to a mate to your exact specificatons.
You can set your standards anywhere you like. Doesn't mean you're going to get it. You're mixing up opportunity with outcome."
No, I'm comparing opportunity with inequity.
Opportunity is controlled by society, and current cultural attitudes have been selectively cultivated by feminists for centuries to present a convoluted but definite unfair advantage to women; it's no different than slavery.
The fact that you see nothing morally with this, simply proves that you're morally blind.
feminists talk non-stop about "equal opportunity," but it appears they're hypocrites in this regard as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey it's too bad you faced such criticism for breaking the mold. Society is never easy on people who don't follow the strict roles. (This is why gay people sometimes get killed for just one extreme example). Prevailing social attitudes are a powerful force keeping people "in line". It works both ways for men and women, shuttling people into their respective categorized boxes on the shelf. Iconoclasts have always been persecuted in large and small ways, any history book will show that.
When we had our child my husband was very "hands-off" at first. Really until our daughter was about 3 years old he didn't have much to do with her. I blame social attitudes. I certainly tried to get him involved but he was extremely reserved, I think scared. Then when she was about 3 and a half he suddenly changed and became the most hand's on father imaginable. One day he just said I'd like to spend more time with _____. He went on a 4 day hiking trip with her! They had the most amazing time, saw deer, swam in a lake etc. He couldn'g get over her excitement and amazement at everything they saw.
Now he does almost all the homework helping and school liason activities. He's involved with her gymnastics. (The other parents are mostly moms). The gymnastics instructors don't even know me! He takes her to karate lessons and is teaching her rock climbing. They go kayaking together. I take her to the doctor he takes her to the dentist.
Compared to most of our friends, he is the most involved father. And he's proud of it he is always talking about the things they do together when he talks to his friends. He wants her to appreciate the outdoors so he has taken on the responsibility of teaching her. Some of his friends ask How can you hike with a kid don't they get tired? He said Yes but I just carry her if she gets tired. Since she's 65 lbs now, that make him look pretty macho!
I think he inspired one of his friends. Now one of his friends and his 7 year old son are hiking with my husband and daughter every other weekend.
I think fathers need to find their own way of being with their kids. You can't expect fathers to sit around finger painting and doing crafts with them. My husband found a way to incorporate his own interests and be a hands on father at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It works both ways for men and women, shuttling people into their respective categorized boxes on the shelf. Iconoclasts have always been persecuted in large and small ways, any history book will show that."
This is where you make your mistake, it doesn't work both ways. Women are encouraged to "break the mold" even payed by the government to do it.
"I certainly tried to get him involved but he was extremely reserved, I think scared."
I don't know you personally so I can't comment on your relationship. I will tell you my experience though. I've met many women that purpousfully make their husbands scared to get involved. They constantly brow beat them about everything involved with the children or housechores. They make there men scared to do the simplest things with the kids or even simple housework. They are just like female elementary school teachers with the boys in class, automatically assuming there husbands are stupid just because they are men. It doesn't help that TV and media constantly portrays men this way.
I think they get a feeling of power over the 'household' by doing this or maybe they are just bitches that enjoy making their husbands feel like shit and distancing them from their own kids then complaining in eternal victimhood that they are stuck with doing everything around the house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've met many women that purpousfully make their husbands scared to get involved.
It's a fact, Andrew.
I've told this story before, but it bears repeating.
When my eldest son was a baby, one night before my ex-wife went to do her bath and to bed routine, she changed him, and tossed his old diaper in the diaper pail I had just emptied.
While she was running her water, my boy started crying. She hoolers from the bathroom that he was only wet, now he's probably soiled, change him, and so on and so forth. Yeah, yeah.
I went in. No pins, so no paing, looked in his diaper, clean and dry as a bone. So I picked him up and....
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP!
...happy baby.
So, back in his playpen he went.
Wife gets done, comes down, starts fussing. Oh look, you did it wrong. Now I have to redo it. Honestly, MEN are just so HELPLESS around babies. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
She changes him agin. Opens the pail - and there is only the one diaper in there. She stops, looks and me, and says "Where's the diaper you changed?" I think right about then the glow of realization was starting to reach her.
I smiled, looked at her, and said, "I didn't. That was the one YOU just put on him a half hour ago. He only had gas."
Needless to say, I was the sonouvabitch, but I'm sure you get the point. She thought I changed him. I was male, ergo it was wrong. Q.E.D. Thus it had to be redone, to keep the "mere male" in his place.
It's all crap. Like 99% of female spoutings, it's just crap. Talk for the sake of talk. Misandry, hate, bile, venom.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh look, you did it wrong. Now I have to redo it. Honestly, MEN are just so HELPLESS
My GAWD have I encountered this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preach it brother! I have a few stories maybe I will tell one or two but I have to head off to work now, so tomorrow. These are the exact same types of things I heard on the UK dads group I mentioned in the earlier post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 05, @04:49AM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok here are a few--
We keep our dirty baby bottles in a pot on the stove until we get to the last one then we wash them.
One night I was making supper, I turned on the wrong burner and melted a bottle. I felt pretty stupid but it was an honest mistake. Of course my wife flew into a frenzy about how much of an idiot I am and how it's going to cost four or five dollars to buy another one. She told me I should never be allowed to make supper again. She even pulled out the big guns and accused me of being dumber then her ex-husband. I suggested we shouldn't keep the bottles in a pot on the stove. Well a big no was given to that because the bottle wasn't melted because of the pot being on the stove it was melted because I'm a complete imbicile. Right?
Last week she did the same thing. Well she wasn't an idiot for doing it, she made a mistake and we shouldn't be keeping the bottles in a pot on the stove anymore.
Two days ago she made a bottle for our son and didn't screw the top on right. This resulted in the top falling off and milk spilling all over. Well it wasn't her fault it was the damn faulty manufacturing of the bottles. I made the same mistake last night and my son was able to unscrew the top of the bottle and spill water all over. Well what was her response--I should have been watching him closer and how come I didn't see him take the top off.
It amazes me that even when called on this hypocrisy, which I do everytime, women will not admit to adhering to a double standard or admit they were wrong or even stoop to apoligize to a mere man.
--Andrew74 (posting anonymously from work)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 06, @12:42PM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
((("In our country no one puts a gun to your head to force you to marry.")))
Lorianne.
Obviously you've never lived in Arkansas...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It amazes me that even when called on this hypocrisy, which I do everytime, women will not admit to adhering to a double standard or admit they were wrong or even stoop to apoligize to a mere man.
Actually I've found-- the hard way-- that women's behavior, like children's, will often simply expand to fill available boundaries, while likewise they desire for someone to set these boundaries in order to feel secure and comfortable. As a result, they'll become abusive, exploitative and irresponsible if not shown better by men who won't put up with it.
Women's egos-- again like children's-- don't want to believe this, however, and so they deny it; and when men-- like parents-- buy this "equality" B.S., they end up getting stepped on by women who end up going for men who are either wise to their nature, or-- more likely-- are simply controlling assholes, but who still pose as a poor substitute for a male authority figure (which women obviously desire in preference to the NICEST guy who's a brainwashed wimp).
I think if you dump the "wishful thinking" in your relationship, and try being a little more assertive and authoritative with the boundaries of respect, i.e. "either do it or I leave--" she'll start behaving; it's ok if you're enforcing the same boundaries you set for yourself, according to the way you treat others and YOU want to be treated. Women always talk a really good story about "healthy boundaries," so there's no crime in taking them at their word.
Also, I'd recommend getting some "hidden-camera" footage of this abuse for your own self-protection in case she lawyers up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It works both ways for men and women, shuttling people into their respective categorized boxes on the shelf.
......
And once more, the elephant in the room is coercively supressed, until the brainwashed-unwashed begin to BELIEVE they aren't "really" getting 400 lbs of peanut-shit dumped on them daily-- it's all just their little male-paranoia imaginings!
Yep, that's Lorianne all right-- everything's fair, there are no selective feminist reforms of traditional biases, men have the same respect by society as women, and you now own the Brookly Bridge.
Please: go find a slightly more gullible shrew to tame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 02, @08:54PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
incredibletulkas:
Feminists, who cannot seriously speak of "equality" while upholding this obvious double-standard, rationalize their hypocrisy by claiming that
women have some "nesting instinct to select a mate with resources" and therefore rank wealth as a perfectly acceptable yardstick for
ranking men to fleece.
While this evolutionary psychobabble is as ridiculous in giving a carte blanche for abhorrent behavior, as claiming men have the right to rape
women in order to "spread their seed to as many as possible,"
That seems more than a little over the top. People are entitled to use any criterion in deciding with whom they are prepared to enter into personal relationships. Choosing not to have a sexual relationship with someone because they are poor or ugly or whatever is not abhorrent nor is it remotely equivalent to raping them.
Everyone is entitled to their personal preferences.
So long as Ms.Arndt does not object to Men prefering women who are young, beautiful, compliant, fertile or whatever else it is they find attractive, I see no cause to accuse her of hypocrisy.
-sd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So long as Ms.Arndt does not object to Men prefering women who are young, beautiful, compliant, fertile or whatever else it is they find attractive, I see no cause to accuse her of hypocrisy."
If you had bothered to read my entire post, you would have read that I DID cover this aspect.
The hypocrisy comes in when feminists demand that women be treated with respect in a relationship, and yet still want to peddle themselves to the highest bidder.
I'm sorry, but this is an oxymoron; in that a woman who auctions herself off, is entitled to no more respect than any other purchase a man makes.
The oft-heard accusation that "men only want women for their bodies" only serves to underscore the demand to be appreciated as people instead of assets; unless they are equally sensitive to "women only wanting men for their wallets," then thus, in demanding to be treated as human beings while not bothering to return the favor, it's undeniable that feminists simply see men as resources to be exploited for their own self-betterment-- a completely sociopathic sentiment which leaves me wondering whether such women are even capable of basic moral discretion. Since they see fit to use their "biological instincts" to excuse their misbehavior and inability to discern right from wrong, then it's fair game to recognize the limitation to their discredit as well, as one would a child. To do otherwise would be selectively inconsistent, as well as hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your position makes no sense. A woman uses her looks to attract men is no different than men who uses his money to attract women. They are both "peddling" themselves.
It's a totally equal arrangement. Both people are selling assets that have nothing to do with intelligence, personality, integrity, spirituality, etc. They are using superficial things to attract another person. As long as they are both getting what the set out to find, what is the problem?
IMO you are using value judgements that are not consistent. If you look down on superficial values in mate selection, then you have to conceed that using money to attract an attractive woman is equally superficial as using looks to attract money. Both people are basing their relationship on a business transaction model.
Men who use their money to "whore" for attractive women are just as superficial. Men who wear expensive clothing, jewelry, or drive an expensive car etc. are often trolling for the kind of woman who is impressed by those things. He is putting himself in the market based on his money. He's not advertising his personality, his intelligence, his empathy for others, his religious side. He's only advertising that he has money and he is looking for a woman who is impressed by money. Likewise many women actively look for the men who are advertising they have money while they advertise their looks.
These people are looking for each other! The are either both whores or neither is (I say the latter).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your position makes no sense. A woman uses her looks to attract men is no different than men who uses his money to attract women. They are both "peddling" themselves."
Ok, we have a problem with basic definitions here; by definition, a "peddler" is someone who sells, while the person who buys is defined as the OWNER.
Likewise, a prostitute is a woman who sells herself for money, while the one who pays is the CUSTOMER-- and as we know, the customer is always right.
So if you want to go for the gold, you have to remember the golden rule: whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
As far as "using money to attract a woman"-- well, you can't blame the man for the woman's actions, and if he can't get her any other way then his only choice is to use money or stay single.
However, the feminist argument doesn't see it your way; they want for women to be rescted and appreciated as human beings, however you're defending their right to sell themselves as assets; I think you're therefore demanding the right for women to sell themselves as assets, and yet STILL then be treated as equal human beings in a relationship-- as well as to "marry up," rank men in terms of resources etc.
This implies that women are superior to men, in being entitled to expect something for nothing, while to the rational human being, "equal" relationships are based on value-for-value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as "using money to attract a woman"-- well, you can't blame the man for the woman's actions, and if he can't get her any other way then his only choice is to use money or stay single.
Personally, I think such a man is pathetic. Both the same. You can call the woman a whore a million times if you wan't, doesn't make him any better in my estimation. He's a whoremonger then if we must use names. If a man only wants women he has to pay for, then he's an intergral party to the so-called "gold digger" pehnomenon. It's a two way thing.
I can tell you in many circles such a man is looked upon very lowly. I know an male who has had a string of bimbo girlfriends. He is like a bimbo magnet. He always shows up to social events with some silcon injected, fake tanned woman and buys them jewelry, clothes ... etc. That's fine, that's his deal. But he's not highly respected by men or women and in fact is often the butt of jokes when he's not around, by men and women. He's a nice enough guy, but sort of a bimbo himself, poor thing.
The point is while you don't respect women who are "gold-diggers", neither are men who marry them very highly respected. Personally I think it's great that these kind of people find each other and pair off. They are made for each other. So there is no problem. My personal opinion of them doesn't matter a whit. So calling them names is pointless. Besides, you cannot always know everything and there may be something to the relaitionship that we might "approve" of (not that it's anyones business to approve or disapprove). The whole "gold digger" thing is a tempest in a teapont. Live and let live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Personally, I think such a man is pathetic. Both the same. You can call the woman a whore a million times if you wan't, doesn't make him any better in my estimation. He's a whoremonger then if we must use names. If a man only wants women he has to pay for, then he's an intergral party to the so-called "gold digger" pehnomenon. It's a two way thing."
Ok, again you mistake my point entirely.
I'm not talking a blatant few, but rather I'm referring to this being a cultural "norm" in our society, i.e. virtually ALL women expect, and think they deserve, men to have a higher income than themselves, and won't even consider anything less; as a result about the only women who will date a man with less money than themselves, usually have a good deal less than the man in some other area such as attractiveness, intelligence, personality etc.
This attitude is born out of female cheavanism created by feminists who don't see the problem with using and taking advantage of other people while at the same time berating them for the same, true or not--- and the more I hear you talk, the more I hear that exact same sentiment, i.e. Machiavelli to the nth power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think such a man is pathetic. Both the same. You can call the woman a whore a million times if you wan't, doesn't make him any better in my estimation. He's a whoremonger then if we must use names. If a man only wants women he has to pay for, then he's an intergral party to the so-called "gold digger" pehnomenon. It's a two way thing.
Okay, I'm a whoremonger. I'm a misogynistic sonofabitch, and I expect dinner and a movie for her to lead to sex for me.
And I get it too.
I used to be a "nice guy." I got crapped on. I spent weekends alone. I went weeks between dates let alone a roll in the hay.
I became a "jerk." I get laid. I have more pussy than I know what to do with. All the "nice guys" I know - they're all sitting home spanking the ol' monkey while I'm out boning their "girlfriends".
I've been known more than infrequently to just spend my $75, skip the dinner and movie and the be nice to the dumb bitch in the morning, get my nut, and then go hang out.
Proof is in the pudding, L. You can qiuote all the "studies" you want, but me the jerk is getting laid. I'm up front I'm a jerk. I brag about being an asshole. I'll tell women, "I don't like women, and sometimes wish I'd been born gay." Then I flash the bankroll, and I get laid. El Nice Guy is left with a copy of Hustler and a jar of vaseline. I'm screwing tramps, Lawyers, whores, Doctors, skanks, Waitresses, sluts, dykes, and Sunday School Teachers.
You tell me. I don't get it myself. By all of Oprah Winfrey, Jenny Jones, and every pop magazine article I should be alone and thinking about changing my ways. This has been going on for almost ten years, so it isn't a freak thing. I've lived in 4 distinct geopolitical areas in that time.
What gives? I'm surely not all that attractive. I'm not even truly "loaded," but I never want for anything anymore. I've really not got any redeeming qualities; I'm an asshole, and a sonofabitch; a total bastard who often laughs when he makes women cry. And women know this. Surely can't be my magnetic charisma or debonair smoothness. Maybe it's in the way I lay down the Law according to Gonzo, and my "I'm so sorry, you obviously have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit" attitude.
Sure, I've never really had any woman be disappointed after a night, but I'm by far no Don Juan, no Cassanova, no Valentino. At almost fifty I've learned to make it last longer, but at my age I'm damn lucky to go twice a night.
So, Lorriane, You tell Me. Am I just that fucking hot? Is my personality just that fucking great?
I'll tell you my answer: Those women who aren't fucking insane are fucking idiots. They'd have to be mad as a goddamn hatter to even go on a date with me, and they damn near stand in fucking line for a chance for me to piss on them, and not just once, but for months. And then when they finally come to their bloody senses, their friends, who have watched me hang these silly bitches out to dry, are over there damn skippy for their turn.
So you tell me. Like I said, screw your studies. I live it. Women like assholes who buy them things. I'm living proof. I am that asshole.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I think it's the "Politically Incorrect Reality" regarding women's nature in which they don't want an equal, they want a SUPERIOR.
Otherwise if you're too nice to them, they'll assume THEY'RE the superior one, and either kick you down the stairs (I've heard women actually use this expression) or bleed you dry for the honor of tolerating your presence to bask for a moment in their glory before stepping on you. Heck, Lorianne's elite arrogance is proof enough of that! (But it's not like I don't have enough experience of my own....)
Women are natural schizo's in that there's a double-identity between what they say they want, and what they end up going for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I think it's the "Politically Incorrect Reality" regarding women's nature in which they don't want an equal, they want a SUPERIOR.
"I am afraid that women appreciate cruelty, downright cruelty, more than anything else. They have wonderfully primitive instincts. We have emancipated them, but they remain slaves looking for their masters all the same." -Oscar Wilde
And... for Philateles:
"The history of women is the history of the worst form of tyranny ever known. The tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts." - Oscar Wilde
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 03, @01:39PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorraine,
You missed the biggest point of all and the reason men are uncomfortable with this supposed "equal" exchange of assets. The divorce industry is in place to ensure that the woman does receive a "severance package" (regardless of the willingness of the man to provide one), yet there is no equivalent "severance" for a man from this relationship.
It used to be that men had all the economic power in marriage and a woman couldn't leave because of that dependence.. but, unlike men, now there are choices available to women - they can have careers and independence just like men, or be a dependent - which can be considerably more lucrative (but with community property, once married they really aren't even as "dependent" as one might think - they are equal owners of all marital assets and can leave with them at any time).
Of course they "choose" to become "dependent"... there is no price for this choice, and it ensures that they will be provided for even if they choose to leave the marriage and devote their "assets" to someone else. Women are people too, you don't think that such an arrangement wont be exploited frequently if available?
In addition, this advantage actually allows them to compile statistics that show "women are worse off after divorce" that contribute to the passage of socialist laws - but conveniently forget the fact that MOST women have married "up" in the first place. Why should they be able to maintain the income they had when they sold their assets without having to use those assets anymore? If it is a truly fair and equal exchange, that makes no sense anymore.
Perhaps a bit more fairness in the "marriage contract" would be in order since it is being exploited on one side only.
I used to think Feminists were schizo about marriage, but it is clear now that they know exactly what they are doing.. distract the reality with hyperbole sufficiently and men wont notice just how badly they've been screwed. Marriage has been altered on one side, but not the other - and that is being exploited by feminists.. women have all the choices and hold all the cards - yet by claiming to be disadvantage, ironically they are able to take the biggest advantage from the situation.
There is nothing wrong with an honest business relationship of exchanging sex, companionship, etc for money... what is wrong is insisting that it is a business relationship when it suits the woman, but a social relationship that has different rules when it screws the man.
This fundamental problem with marriage is what must change...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I used to think Feminists were schizo about marriage, but it is clear now that they know exactly what they are doing.. distract the reality with hyperbole sufficiently and men wont notice just how badly they've been screwed. Marriage has been altered on one side, but not the other - and that is being exploited by feminists.. women have all the choices and hold all the cards - yet by claiming to be disadvantage, ironically they are able to take the biggest advantage from the situation.
There is nothing wrong with an honest business relationship of exchanging sex, companionship, etc for money... what is wrong is insisting that it is a business relationship when it suits the woman, but a social relationship that has different rules when it screws the man. "
Let's also not forget that there are different kinds of relationships between men and women--most of which involve personal elements which women may use to their advantage-- and picking and choosing which role women will play- or PRETEND to play-- in them, both expecting favors and special treatment from men in addition to stepping on them and treating them with utmost discourtesy and indifference as it suits them, has been a favorite and most annoying habit among ruthless women for at least the better half of the last century-- and the trend is going stronger than ever.
There's no doubt that feminism has, with the cooperation and approval of most women, engaged heavily in Machiavellian politics (read: ruthless lying to gain power) and has thereby accomplished massive gains for women at mens' expense, but which they first rationalize as an "equalizer" against men's supposed "unfair advantages," but then, like Lorianne, claim the situation to be perfectly acceptable and fair once the balance tips undeniably in their favor, rationalizing that "no one's forcing men to get married" etc. despite that cultural norms and expectations-- and the laws which enforce them-- have been selectively altered by feminists to unfairly exploit men.
Lorianne-like feminist rhetoric and double-speak serves to put off criticism by leading objectors on a wild goose-chase, however that only works with persons not experiences or versed in political debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 03, @10:17PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
"So long as Ms.Arndt does not object to Men prefering women who are young, beautiful, compliant, fertile or whatever else it is they
find attractive, I see no cause to accuse her of hypocrisy."
If you had bothered to read my entire post, you would have read that I DID cover this aspect.
I read you entire post. I fail to see any demonstration of this particular form of hypocrisy in the Arndt article under discussion.
The hypocrisy comes in when feminists demand that women be treated with respect in a relationship, and yet still want to peddle
themselves to the highest bidder.
Arndt didn't advocate that women peddle themselves to the highest bidder.
You still haven't made out a case to support your assertion that taking into account a prospective partner's financial capacity is immoral, constitutes "peddling oneself to the highest bidder", and is somehow comparable to rape.
I will certainly advise my sons to take into account the financial position of any woman they are considering shacking up with. I don't think this will mean they are "auctioning themselves" or doing something equivalent to rape.
The oft-heard accusation that "men only want women for their bodies" only serves to underscore the demand to be appreciated as
people instead of assets; unless they are equally sensitive to "women only wanting men for their wallets," then thus, in demanding to
be treated as human beings while not bothering to return the favor,
I suggest you just ignore feminine whining on this point. In reality everyone cares about looks and money to a greater or lesser extent. I don't see wnything dehumanizing about this -- Aren't my looks and economically valuable talents part of me "as a human being"? There is some evidence that men place a relatively greater emphasis on looks, women relatively more emphasis on money. So what?
Your posts are loaded with hyperbole to the point of hysteria.
-sd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are clearly degress of what it means to "be on our side." For example, Wendy McElroy is regarded by many here as being on our side but she clearly has her own ideas. No harm in that; neither for Arndt or Cathy Young, for example. And I'm sure that we could actually find some single item of agreement with Patty Ireland and Kim Gandy, yet they are clearly NOT on our side.
We shouldn't treat this as a three-sigma issue, all for or all against, or we stand to lose the support of some valuable allies. Just take care to note where we depart and exploit what we can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are clearly degress of what it means to "be on our side." For example, Wendy McElroy is regarded by many here as being on our side but she clearly has her own ideas."
I agree: enemies make dangerous friends, and a lot of female "allies" seem lukewarm in their opposition to even the most outrageous misandry, while likewise dispensing a suprising amount of "backhanded compliments" which once again cause me to question women's overally capability to think other than in a self-absorbed manner which approves of gender-bigotry by "their own" in apparently complete blindness to mens' feelings, while hypocritically and paranoically going "overkill" on even the slightest hint of men treating women any differently than they'd treat other men- even if asking them for a date!
Maybe it's the old theory of relativity, i.e. that women tend to perceive things in relation to one another, while men reason more abstractly in recognition of absolutes-- including moral absolutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are clearly degress of what it means to "be on our side."
You do get what I meant through?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To some degree, however my point is that one is only "on our side" to the extent that they're doing it for principle, and not on a whim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really had to say I was outraged at the article "No shame in women choosing dough over the regular Joe" on April 2 2003 by Bettina Arndt.
Her flip ending statement-- or should I say, "parting shot" of "So perhaps it is nurturing instincts that drive women to go for the money. No shame in that.", is ironically true in terms that such attitudes are, truly, shameless in their callous disregard of men as equal human beings-- which such feminists hypocritically claim to be their goal; likewise, the claim that women are somehow naturally deranged in this manner, really has me puzzled, in that most feminists likewise bristle at such stereotypes; however the fact that women can expect to be thought no less of and treated as rational human beings while still being thus helplessly predisposed, simply evades logic to the extent of suggesting that men are their mere slaves, to abuse and exploit as they wish; no other conclusion can be drawn from the notion that women are entitled to "something for nothing" from men.
However, I must state the logical flipside of this pragmatist attitude, which most feminists bristle at, i.e. that such "breadwinners," in traditional fashion, are therefore entitled to treat the women they buy and pay for as mere proprietary assets, while likewise men would have the same carte blanche right to dupe, swindle and exploit women as they might, in addition to ranking and grading them according to such "marketing" characteristics as age, beauty and breeding quality-- and to "trade up" by discarding their aging mates as their income increases, or interest fades-- along with their mate's "market value" as it were.
This type of pragmatist, new-age feminist rationalization of behavior which is obviously heinous and shallow, is thus
exposed in its hypocrisy by resorting, for all their pious talk, to the same cheap excuses and rationalizations for mistreatment of the opposite sex which they base their entire movement in claiming to oppose; since such blind sophistry is not really possible to the seeing person, I in conclusion led to question, simply, whether women are truly capable of appreciating moral absolutes or other self-denying philosophy-- or whether even their elevators are "hard-wired" (her words) to reach the proverbial the "top floor."
In conclusion, I must state that shame works both ways, and if there is no shame in choosing to be a gold-digging welfare cheat to being an honest woman, then there is, simply, no shame.
I also highly doubt that you would have published an article expressing similar self-indulgent sentiment if written by a man titled, "No shame in choosing fresh fish over old meat."
Do you even realize the feminist hypocrisy flooding the media?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I meant to preface this post, it was the text of what I sent to The Sydney Morning Herald in response to the article. The sentiments it expressed were just wrong on so many levels, but mainly the hypocrisy in unabashedly embracing and encouraging the very sentiments they claim to oppose and go ballistic over.
The advocation of welfare cheats is even worse, and shows-- in addition to the overall indifference to men's rights and feelings-- what type of demented scum was writing it.
Normally I wouldn't waste my time with this, but this was just too much- even Australia, where women are notorious "man-eaters."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must state the logical flipside of this pragmatist attitude, which most feminists bristle at, i.e. that such "breadwinners," in traditional fashion, are therefore entitled to ... have the same carte blanche right to dupe, swindle and exploit women as they might...
Nah. The logic doesn't work for men, because while female mating instincts are thought of as involving a conscious decision to commit to the process of conceiving and nurturing a new human life, male mating instincts are essentially regarded as "getting our rocks off". In other words, Nature only lets one half of the human species in on the cold hard truth of why we have sex. Since women are thought of as that half which is "in the know", there is a wisdom, morality and long-term-plan thinking attributed to their actions which is not at all attributed to men's.
Yet is it such a radical notion to wonder if women don't consciously have any idea why the hell their libidos behave as they do, any more than men do?
And is it also such a radical notion to wonder if the urge to bear and nurture an offspring is not necessarily such a terrifically moral inclination. It may just as easily be, in many women, no more than a highly egotistical desire to replicate oneself in another person. Also, since we hardly believe that human beings are perfect, by any means, then why are women considered so wonderfully perfect for nurturing humans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nah. The logic doesn't work for men, because while female mating instincts are thought of as involving a conscious decision to commit to the process of conceiving and nurturing a new human life, male mating instincts are essentially regarded as "getting our rocks off". In other words, Nature only lets one half of the human species in on the cold hard truth of why we have sex. Since women are thought of as that half which is "in the know", there is a wisdom, morality and long-term-plan thinking attributed to their actions which is not at all attributed to men's."
Well, let's see; a man's instinct for a nice round butt implies the woman has good child-bearing hips, a trim, figure and youth implies fertility with low milage, large breasts means the kids won't go hungry, long legs and attractive facial features mean they'll have good human DNA, etc.
Simply put, men can claim they're simply "programmed to look out for the interests of their kids" as well. So you see, when you break it down, two can play at the "rationalized superficiality" game in order to tell the feminist uggos to go to back where they came from-- and this time flush it.
Yet is it such a radical notion to wonder if women don't consciously have any idea why the hell their libidos behave as they do, any more than men do?
And is it also such a radical notion to wonder if the urge to bear and nurture an offspring is not necessarily such a terrifically moral inclination. It may just as easily be, in many women, no more than a highly egotistical desire to replicate oneself in another person.
"Also, since we hardly believe that human beings are perfect, by any means, then why are women considered so wonderfully perfect for nurturing humans?"
The hypocrisy is the message that it's ok for women to selfishly do as they please, while demanding that men sacrifice out of moral and ethical respect for women's rights and feelings.
Once again, this outright double-standards relegates men to the position of beasts-of-burden to be exploited; however in the moral relativism inherent in most women, this is true to the extent that men are deserving of such so long as they allow it, while men who assert themselves as superior will be likewise recognized and treated as such-- despite feminist hypocrisy defining such men as "male cheavanist pigs" as a trojan-horse ploy to gain an edge.
In the real world, women want to date men as equals, about as much as they want to date men of equal height-- and I've met many a petite lass who won't look twice at any man not elegible for the NBA, but never ONE who cares for a man who looks up to her-- both literally AND figuratively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This author seems to have fallen for the advanced degree fallacy.
Most of the blooming idiot crackpots I have had the misfortune to run into in my life held
PH D's. "Piled Higher and Deeper?" And female holders of PH D's are the most stupid self absorbed creatures imaginable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a common logical fallacy used among psuedo-intellectuals: appealing to authority instead of real evidence and logical deduction, in addition to quoting statistics as a justifaction in an ethical issue, i.e. "everyone does it so it must be right (as in this article regarding women seeking out rich men while neglecting they are also virtual slaves to their husbands in most of these cultures)."
In reality, our academic heirachy, which ranks people in a linear scale of intelligence v. appreciating individual strengths and differences, has made "sources of authority" out of every clueless freak with a sponge-memory, instead of common sense and the capacity for advanced abstract reasoning.
Thus, we are saddled with the cultural myth that these so-called "experts" are simply more knowledgeable, as opposed to the fact of their largely being "compromised," with subsequent dependence on their half-baked statements, leading to destruction and ruin as we take their veracity for granted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well as a Project Engineer I've gotten the opportunity to work with a LOT of PhD's... dozens certainly.
A couple of them were brilliant (2 or 3).
The rest were generally useless if they were outside their hyperfocused area of expertise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on how you define "brilliant;" unless it's something they deduced themselves, it's likely just sponge-brain square-pants stuff which gives the illusion of brilliance while actually being the proverbial "dwarf on a giant's shoulders" syndrome; I've remarked that one of the greatest dangers of the modern age is such "experts" thinking themselves of having actually invented the knowledge they simply absorbed: the fact that "E=MC squared" is the most-repeated formula of all time-- most often for no reason-- pretty much underscores this problem.
It really goes to their heads: most think that their PhD makes them experts on everything, ala the "linear measure of intelligence" mentality: examples include "Dr. Laura," who thinks that having a yenta-trophy PhD in an unrelated field, thereby makes her a doctoral expert in psychology-- as well as my brother, who's a world-reknowned neuropsych professor, and yet voted for Bill and Hillary, and got himself locked in his own bathroom for an hour while I was able to fix the knob in five seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was shocked to learn that I had "married down" by her standards. Gee I'm glad she told me. I wouldn't have known otherwise.
As a college educated woman married to a truck driver I can safely say that at least she doesn't represent the view of all women. My first husband was straight out of high school. We gained money and were well off. I got out of that. It was a lovely illusion. Now I find myself struggling to make ends meet at times and I couldn't be happier. Now I have a partner. We parent together. We love together and we laugh together. It is infinitely more satisfying.
One day maybe the author will grow up and realize there is a heck of a lot more to life than a bank account and true treasures are found in the heart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for that note, NoNicky.
I realized a long time ago that, in general on the meat market, it takes a lot of money to buy a beautiful woman, and it takes a lot of beauty to buy a wealthy man. Get out of the meat market and consider having a caring relationship, however, and things are rather different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I realized a long time ago that, in general on the meat market, it takes a lot of money to buy a beautiful woman, and it takes a lot of beauty to buy a wealthy man."
Yep, and both get what they paid for; examples of trophy-wives are almost always sickening in their shameless self-indulgence and callous disregard of other people.
One famous example was a hairy little troll-like geek who produced a syndicated TV series, and then gave beautiful woman a part on it-- via casting-couch-- and ended up marrying her as a trophy, in exchange for a deal in which he basically used the entire series to become a vehicle to indulge the wife's ego by strutting around practically nude in outright gratuitous scenes with her monster butt in the camera, taking over the entire series and ruining it--it was disgusting.
Other examples include various Hollywood marriages, as well as Donald Trump's marriage to Ivana Lottamoney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 02, @01:40PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
These women are using the welfare system as a no hassle alternative to marrying. I don't want my taxes to go up because some woman can't trap a rich wallet long enough to divorce him and cash in.
More and more ethics seem to mean what men do for women, and have nothing to do with what women do to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article states:
"one reason these men (poorly educated men with little money) miss out is the less-educated women they are most likely to encounter include high numbers of single mothers on welfare support."
These women are often better off with that welfare support than they would be if they were married to a poor man and, therefore, were denied that welfare support. This means that, if she is married to a poor man, a woman would be better off if she threw him out of the family. In other words, the government is paying women to remove men from the family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In other words, the government is paying women to remove men from the family."
Actually, the "government" isn't paying ANYONE; it's the TAXPAYER who pays it.
And who pays most taxes? MEN.
It's finally happened: men have been officially enslaved by women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 02, @06:20PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I personally find the idea of chosing a mate for their money to be pathetic. Equally, pathetic however, are the people who are so foolish as to let this happen to them or are complicit. Many men ALSO base their self-worth on thyeir self-wealth.
Just don't let that happen to you. No one will force you to marry a gold-digger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True. I used to have an idiot friend that would blow all his money on bimbos so he could try to get a date. The only way to stop gold-digging women is for men to stand up and not take it anymore.
The disturbing part of this article was the part about welfare. Feminazis used to blame huge groups of single moms collecting welfare on deadbeat dads and the sexist system not allowing single mothers to find work. At least they have the honesty now to say women aren't collecting welfare because of deadbeat dads taking off or because of systemic discrimination but because the welfare system just pays more.
Of course we can't blame women for doing it because they are only doing it in the best intrests of their kids and out of nuturing hormones. Yeah, right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Many men ALSO base their self-worth on thyeir self-wealth."
Only men who desire to be given the time of day, not avoided like the plauge, and have a normal love-life, and live without filth, rats and muggers, with no hope of marrying out of it.
Men base their self-worth on their wealth because that's the message they get from society, i.e. their worth IS their wealth, and it's the only way men receive any respect from men OR women.
Women, on the other hand, being less burdened by such unfair and brutal expecations, feel relatively no less of a person, despite their acting to foist such expecations on men, while likewise denying them said respect should they fail.
The main irony is that feminism approves of this double-standard in respect and expecations, but not income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ridiculous exclusion of the fact that society sends the message taht women's appearance is her self worth.
Furthermore if you're using money to avoid being ignored and to "have a normal sex life" you're part of the problem that you're decrying!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Ridiculous exclusion of the fact that society sends the message taht women's appearance is her self worth."
For one this is a men's activism site looking into discrimination against men. You get a lot more from us here then we would if we went to a feminist website (except the ifeminists forum) and complained about discrimination against men. We would get a banning by our second post at most.
For two there are thousands of books, movies, and even school courses decrying this protrayal of women as sex objects much of it funded by the government. Take a look for similar information that speaks out about men's portrayal in society and you won't get far. Some feminuts are even encouraging women to protray themself like this using Grrrll power (tits and ass) to get what they want from men.
Finally if a reporter wrote this:
"So perhaps it is nurturing instincts that drive women to go for the money. No shame in that."
in a column millions of women and men in the western world would nod there heads in agreement and people such as yourself would defend it.
If a man wrote:
"So perhaps it is nuturing instincts that drive men to go for the healthy women with big tits and a nice ass. No shame in that."
Thousands of feminuts would go crazy and millions of women would shake there head saying that this just proves how chauvanistic and piggish men are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE DOUBLE-STANDARD:
Standard for men: a man who takes advantage of, steps on, and exploits others to get what he wants is a "shameless, ruthless bully."
Standard for women: a woman who takes advantage of, steps on, and exploits others to get what she wants is "strong, ambitious, and empowered."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
