|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now THAT'S what I'm talking about! Yow! Not only hitting the nail on the head, but framing the whole damn house!
I especially like this part:
My guess is she wouldn’t react too kindly. Yet is it really that much different when women spend the youth, beauty, slim waistlines, and virginity of their teens and twenties chasing after handsome jerks and then, after decades of getting burned, hit up "the nerds" for college tuition for two or three of another man’s children? In other words, we had a great party, didn’t invite you, but we’d like you to pick up the tab.
Only comment I can make to anything here is, "Amen! Preach it, sister!"
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I would add is that these thirty somethings with their kids also have a LOT of emotional baggage, anger and bitterness. So not only does the nice guy get to pay for the jerks kids, but he gets all the anger and bitterness of these Oprahfied women, he gets to pay for all the times "the jerk" did her wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they even bother. I know I don't.
I know a lot of sons who have watched their mothers and sisters yank the men in their lives about with manipulation and the law. And they want no part of it.
Men are stampeding to stay away from relationships and marriage. And the pheminuts are in complete denial about it.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I would add is that these thirty somethings with their kids also have a LOT of emotional baggage, anger and bitterness.
And I would add that this doesn't just apply to women who've been married, who have children, or who've been jerked around by losers. The majority of women, whatever their background or current situation, have bought into the package of anti-male, feminist lies. They, too, have a lot of emotional baggage, anger, and bitterness. In addition the law is on their side, and they know it. Good men, men with any sense, are starting to steer clear of allowing women to put any legal noose around their necks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 04, @05:24PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas.
EXACTLY!
That is why, as I've stated so many times before, I do not even associate with women, for the most part.
Oh, and by the way. I am living proof that; (A)women love Jerks. I am not one, and rarely did I get a date in high school. (One, I think.) But all the jerky, stupid-head type guys had a date every week end, and nothing has changed since.
And (B) I am living proof that women DO care about looks and money. ...I have very little of either! (^_^)
When I did date, I was ALWAYS respectful, kind, polite and considerate of my date. I never belched, made crass jokes or comments, never "cut the cheese", or was condesending. I showed complete interest in anything she had to say during conversations.
So, of course I always got dumped.
I always took great pains to behave the way I always heared women say they WANT men to behave.
Oh, yeah, works like a charm. (a bad luck charm...)
Well seeing that that wasn't working in my love life, I decided to go the opposite rout. I became a "Bad boy". I wore a leather jackette, swaggered and talked like James Dean and was sort of like the Cherokee version of the Fonz, I guess.
I started treating women like they were nobodies. I'd insult them, put them down and be-little them. But it was all an act. I swear I got more dates during this part of my life than ever or since!! I am NOT KIDDING!
But My conciense got the better of me. I always felt bad treating women like that. And as I said, it was an act, nothing more. So I would begin to reveal my TRUE self to these ladies, and wouldn't you know it..., I got dumped everytime!!! But while I kept up the "Cherokee Fonzie" act, women were attracted to me. I even remember a couple of them who literaly BEGGED me not to break up with them!
It was at this point I realized that I couldn't win. So I just gave up the "realationship ghost" for good. Not to mention the fact that I saw many of my male freinds who HAD married get taken to the cleaners by their ex-wives. They'd lose their house, the children, their money. even their reputations.
I said to myself; "Why on earth would I WANT to ever marry, or even date again...?"
Well, anyway.
It is my personal view that while women DON'T want or like being abused..., They don't want a decent guy who will treat them honorably, either.
I know, I've been down BOTH roads.
Thundercloud.
(I have enough aggravation.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is how I see it. The modern women/girl spends from age 12-14 (as soon as they develop a set of boobs) to the mid to late thirties screwing their brains out. During this time they use their grrrl power (for you older guys here grrrl power is the latest feminazi mutation, where young women are told to use there sexuality to manipulate men) to have men buy everything in life for them. They can go out to the bars and get free drinks, they can have meals and nights out bought for them, trips, holidays, vacations, you name it. On top of the cash they get sexual satisfaction as a fringe bonus.
It doesn't matter if it's a good guy or a bad guy. The bad guys are allright for one night stands and flings the good guys are great to take to the cleaners in a long term relationship. The reason it's hard to find good guys is because many men know what's going on so they become the bad guys, treating these women as little more then dishonest prostitutes. Good guys also take more effort for these women since they have to pretend they love the guys unlike the bad guys that aren't intrested in love.
It isn't until a women loses in the game that they start searching out the caring family men. When they get old and the breasts begin to sag and wrinkles appear they realize that they will no longer be able to get the attention of men then these women look for a caring considerate man to emotionally leach off of in old age or they at least look for a stable wallet. Maybe there is a faint hope that they actually mature at this age and start caring about their kids instead of just themselves and begin looking for a father figure for the kids.
The women that win are the ones that snag a guy in the early years and get the alimony, child support and are set for life, the loosers have to settle for as incridbletulkas puts it--"Just remember when you follow that fat, hairy butt up the stairs to the bedroom-- you don't have to work!".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew:
For decades women have done all the talking and shouted all the orders. Now I read a post like the one you just wrote and I know that phase two of the revolution is breaking upon the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the title should have been "cows need to stop giving free milk if they wanna get bought".
The women that win are the ones that snag a guy in the early years and get the alimony, child support and are set for life, the loosers have to settle for as incridbletulkas puts it--"Just remember when you follow that fat, hairy butt up the stairs to the bedroom-- you don't have to work!"
Actually that was from "Married with Children," however it doesn't only apply to white trash-- clearly, the statement that:
"Quiet, reliable, well-mannered, intelligent men who make a decent living (not necessarily rich, but not living at mommy and daddy’s house either) may rate only a six, seven, or eight on the hunk or excitement scale but are a much better long-run bet than the Jackie Apriles"
sounds more like investment advice in picking a mutual fund (or farm animal, i.e. docile temperament with a good work-life, and easily broken and trained)) than finding one's true love; the warning against "squandering one's girlhood" on bad "long-run bets" is simple retirement advice.
It's amazing: women want the same opportunities as men, and even claim to be as GOOD as men at everything, but STILL espouse the gold-digging option as a means to financial success, while STILL expecting full autonomy over her new-found wealth; if she thinks that's fair, she must think she's got GOLD "down there," while her statement about investing her "youth, figure and virginity" in-- let's face it, a SCHMUCK (definitely a Yiddish expression invented by Jewish women to apply to their husbands) implies nothing less than men should sign away their entire lives for it, while she STILL maintains her complete autonomy.
Traditionally, women would do more work (time-wise) than the man in addition to the sex/family thing; but now in the modern age, it's like they actually BELIEVE all the media hype which tells them that the sun shines from out of where the sun DON'T shine, and that they deserve lifetime support in exchange for it.
Seriously, how many men are THAT desperate? Book-smart geeks, it seems-- at least in the mind of one Angela Fiori, but who warns them to be an "early bird who catches the worm" (pun intended).
"Ask not what you can do for your cuntry, ask what your cuntry can do for you."
-Feminist Credo
By the way, Angela-- it's spelled "dyke," not "dike"-- guess you really stuck your finger in it THAT time! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tulkas,
I'm not trying to bust you in the guts or anything, but could you not say "white trash"? the racial double standard there is huge, let's not keep enforcing it ok? I know the context in which you meant it, but people being low-down is not race specififc, but a universal concept.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If anything, the phrase "white trash" is slap at non-whites by implying they're ALL trash!
Meanwhile caucasians are given the benefit of the doubt for being white, and only judged by their behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 05, @09:09AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Sure us whities are always given the benefit of the doubt and judged by our behaviour. Us Captalistic, patriarchal, opressor-class root of all evil in the world whities. No one ever stereotypes us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 05, @09:03AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"I think the title should have been "cows need to stop giving free milk if they wanna get bought"."
This is the battle between conservative religous women and feminazi liberated women. The conservative ones are afraid that the liberated women are undercutting the prices by giving it out so often, while the liberated women figure they can make more money in the long run by not getting married or getting married and getting alimony and child support after divorce.
I think the conservatives are smarter because they can get good sums of cash by just the promise of giving it up they don't even have to do it. They can also switch to feminazism when it pleases them if things aren't working out so good in the traditional world.
Notice, both groups conservative and feminazi are opposed to prostitution and pornography. This is because prostitution/pornography drasticaly undercut there sale value. When there is more suppliers the price drops. Conservatives and feminazis have a lot in common, they just have diffrent smoke screens that they use to justify there actions.
The only women that aren't afraid of prostitution and pornography are the ones that truly believe in equality. The ones that aren't afraid of facing the pitfalls of the work world to make a living as men do every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the battle between conservative religous women and feminazi liberated women.
True; both groups of women oppose prostitution and porn- in addition to demanding the world as penalty for a man's adultery (they call it "cheating" and "infidelity" even if they DRIVE a man to it)-- so they can have a monopoly on sex; the only difference is their choice of pimp, with religious women choosing the church, and the liberated ones choosing the media.
Likewise, both sides pretend to be models of perfection and fairness in their dealings with men, but tend to be 180 degrees opposite in their behavior, becoming entirely self-centered and irrational once the deal is sealed.
However, like most hypocrites, they aren't the slightest bit embarassed about these trends, and yet maintain their innocence in ways that would make Bill Clinton blush.
The moral of the story: Billy Joel and Tom Leykis were right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I know so many attractive yet bitter, cynical women... in their 30s with kids... who believe that since they’re now willing to go out with the guys who wear glasses, these never-been-married men their age should be forming lines to date them. Of course these programmers, engineers, accountants, and even MDs – men who spent their 20s working hard in college and graduate school instead of partying and "shagging" surfers, lifeguards, and other sundry misfits with no futures – aren’t stupid. Many of them have chosen to remain single and who can blame them."
To all the bitter, ageing women, who've bought into the lies of feminism and who claim that there are no good men left, here's the response to your whining: There are plenty of good men. Part of being a good man is using common sense. And even the tiniest modicum of common sense tells good men to avoid you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 04, @12:07PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This article "is" me. The hard working, in shape good guy who is always offended by the contemporary notion that no 'good men' exist.
I know many great men, and we do avoid the "second time arounders" like the plague...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 04, @05:27PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
...Well, Actually...,
I avoid ALL of them, like the plauge, anymore.
Thundercloud.
(I have enough aggravation.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This article "is" me. The hard working, in shape good guy who is always offended by the contemporary notion that no 'good men' exist."
You SHOULD be offended by being spoken of like some sort of investment choice, and that you are somehow obliged to provide "quiet, reliable, professional, obedient etc. income" (i.e. a "slow, steady growth long-term retirement fund") or anything else, in exchange for a woman's graciously granting you the benefit of her "youth, beauty, slim waistlines, and virginity of their teens and twenties--" save in exchange for your own youth, beauty and slim waistline (geez Angela, ever heard of a GYM?)
However, our Angela seems to have a geat sense of humor in suggesting that you should spend YOUR teens and twenties (not to mention your slim waistline, hair and ulcer) busting your butt and spanking the monkey all through graduate school, in order to kill yourself obtaining a king's ransom in order to afford God's Gift of her glorious female ass, and provide her with a home, exquisite lifestyle, family and lifelong security long after the bloom's off the rose, just for 3 rolls in the sack (2 if she has twins and fills her "quota" early of her picture-perfect lifestyle-- ask for more than that and you trigger a migraine epidemic). Really funny! Thanks, Angie, I NEEDED a good chuckle.
Oh well, even Martin Luther King had a dream... good luck Ange!
I guess she thinks "nerd" stands for a
"Naive
Educated
Rich
Dupe"
with only enough sense or resistance to women, to avoid becoming a last-resort cuckold, but ripe for the pickings with a little long-term scheming.
Oh well, I guess I gotta hand it to her-- she really knows the value of "postponement of gratification," being an "ant instead of a grasshopper" and all that!
Someone wanna beam me up please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 05, @03:09PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes..., I, too want to be beamed up, now...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quiet, reliable, well-mannered, intelligent men who make a decent living (not necessarily rich, but not living at mommy and daddy’s house either) may rate only a six, seven, or eight on the hunk or excitement scale but are a much better long-run bet than the Jackie Apriles.
Again, I sensed a back-handed compliment when I read things like this, where men are treated as mere investments, and expected to provide something for the woman.
It's no surprise that the article ended with "Angela Fiori [send her mail] is a contributor to the Web’s hottest investment letter," since she was, basically, advising against men who were "short-term investments" and instead going for "steady, long-term hosts of parasitic attachment."
Especially galling were the statements like "decent, single, professional men" and "programmers, engineers, accountants, and even MDsMDs – men who spent their 20s working hard in college and graduate school instead of partying and "shagging" surfers, lifeguards, and other sundry misfits with no futures" make it obvious that even this woman ranks men according to income, while her OWN income is irrelevant-- the statement "even MD's" translates to "doctors are better than the others," when the only basis for this is in terms of average income, and thus sees them as nothing more than resources to be exploited.
The clear message of this article is "geeky nerds are a secure investment, so close your eyes and think of Brad Pitt-- at least the nerd can't cheat on you cuz nobody wants him!"
Also grating was the statement "women spend the youth, beauty, slim waistlines, and virginity of their teens and twenties" as if men should PAY for that? Don't flatter yourself, Angela.
In other words, women should sell themselves, but just be sure to find the right bidder for a secure retirement.
The clear message is what Peg Bundy told her slut-daughter "Kelly" in their "mother-and-daughter chat" moment: "Just remember when you follow that fat, hairy butt up the stairs to the bedroom-- you don't have to work!"
This type of honesty is what made Katey Sagal such a legend.....
Get a clue, guys- she's not sticking up for men-- she's just giving tips on how to be more calculating in ways to EXPLOIT them!
It's right there between the lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 05, @02:01AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
This is an interesting take on it. I will definitely reread it. Sometimes one is so happy to have any kind of ally that he'll miss the devil in the details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an interesting take on it. I will definitely reread it. Sometimes one is so happy to have any kind of ally that he'll miss the devil in the details.
Yeah-- like at YALTA during WWII-- beware of strangers bearing gifts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 05, @02:52AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"We all should get a few nods and chuckles out of this one. It is good to see more and more people, women no less, waking up to what we have been saying for years."
I did not get any chuckles out of this, instead I was disgusted. Neither have I been saying anything like this for years. She seems to consider decency in males by the amount they fall into her view of ettiqute and largely bases it on income.
Don't fool yourself guys, conservative christian/religous women hate men as much as feminazis they just show there hate in a diffrent way.
I remember reading a thread here where some guys stated there hope was finding a immigrant women to marry. Ha! You know what will happen to you? You'll get married to a women who will constantly bitch at you about how you need to make more money to secure a future for your kids (read:make more money for her so she can brag to her friends, go on more shopping sprees and get more weeds and shiny rocks bought for her). She will be doing all this while going on internet forums or hanging in the women's church group laughing with all the other women about how she trained you as if you are less then a dog. She will work you into the grave then live high off your life insurance policy until she dies. Make no mistake, if you lose your job or don't meet up to her financial expectations she may stick around for a while but you will find yourself with a quickly converted feminazi in divorce court.
Going back to the "way it was" isn't the solution men were just as much slaves then as they are now under feminazi rule. Our only hope for freedom is independent women such as the ifeminists or various women in the men's movement who don't see us as cheques/protectors but as people.
--Andrew74
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Don't fool yourself guys, conservative christian/religous women hate men as much as feminazis they just show there hate in a diffrent way. Well, the traditional mindset WAS based on lower expectations of responsibility
I remember reading a thread here where some guys stated there hope was finding a immigrant women to marry. Ha! You know what will happen to you?"
I'll tell you from experience: she changed REALLY fast. She moved in, made a lot of friend-- REALLY fast, then tried to "change" me- she tried to get me the job SHE wanted me to have, change my personality from Sam Kinnison to Clark Kent, and expected to eat out at every meal; she got critical and temperamental, exploded at every juncture, then left within a month and moved in with her new-found friends-- thank God I didn't get her a Green Card.
The cause? Good ol' WISHFUL THINKING with regard to women's true nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 29, @09:04PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
A Google search inadvertently netted me this site, and I found the "Rewriting 'The Rules'" article, and read it. So here are my comments, late as they may be.
One thing I really hate is the polarization of women who consider themselves feminists into radical lesbians or non-feminists. I consider myself a feminist, but I really hate the attitudes of the likes of Andrea Dworkin & Catherin McKinnon. I never took a "women's studies" course in college, but I did read "The Second Sex" and "The Feminine Mystique." And, contrary to anti-political correctness/anti-feminist dogma, though I consider myself a feminist, I also consider myself a humanist, and I frequently find myself looking at how hostile the world is towards men now, how difficult life is for men, and I worry for the emotional health of my two nephews growing up in this world.
I used to think I would love living life as a man, that I'd be much freer. Now I know my life would be much more restricted, my self-concept would be much more likely to be defined by "what I do for a living", and I'd be dead in the water on the dating scene because I wasn't the financially wisest person in my 20s.
I hate a lot of the restrictions on my life as a woman, but one of the things I hate most about it is the way other *women* restrict my life. The gold-digging, superficial women who predominate in stereotypes and singles bars make those of us who look beneath the imperfect surface of a man look bad, and make it seem like we don't even exists.
On the other hand, I just had an argument with my father the other day when I told him I got a loaner car from the mechanic's & he told me "They only offered you one because you're a woman -- you have no idea how hard life is for men."
As a matter of fact, they *didn't* offer me the loaner. They've *never* offered me the loaner. They had a sign in the shop, I saw it, I read it, and it said, "Yes, we have loaners." So I asked. They said, we won't have a loaner for you now, but if you bring your car back in 2 days, you'll have a loaner. I said Okay.
But, let me say that my father is a 76 year old embittered, divorced man who hates all women, and has never dated another woman since my parents divorced 20 years ago. Was I sorry they divorced? Yeah -- sorry they didn't divorce years earlier! We'd have been poorer but less screwed up! After they stopped fighting like banshees, I actually got to know my parents as sane human beings. After they'd been divorced a few years, my mother admitted her culpability in their dysfunctional relationship. That she'd been a doormat, and let herself be walked on.
In some men's eyes -- my father's, definitely -- my mother became a "feminist". But in reality, she just developed some self-respect and stood up for herself. I like to say she grew a spine. And, though she works a full time job now, and will work until past most people retire, because her 20 years of motherhood was entirely uncompensated, she still cooks and sews... just not on a daily basis: her wonderful "boyfriend" of age 69 does the daily cooking, and she NEVER takes him for granted. They treat each other like gold, and I am proud to say I consider her "boyfriend" of the past ten years more a step-father than anything.
But father never recognized his culpability in the demise of my parents' marriage. Everything was "Her" fault (and all the "trouble" with us kids was because fo Satan's music (rock 'n roll) and "the drug culture" -- even though two of my 3 sisters are about as straight laced as they come, never did drugs, and went on to graduate school). And, surprise, surprise: who eventually (after over a decade of being single) found a kind & decent partner again? Not my father.
To my father, all women are either bitches out to get him, or damsels in distress. Not a good attitude for a father of four daughters, and, as you can imagine, all of us girls have had our difficulties with men. But what kind of mother did he have? Well, I found out from *my* mother that his mother (who died when I was 7) was hypercritical, nagging, bitchy, and always telling my father how stupid he was. Is it any surprise that he had one relationship with a bad outome (marriage from 1959-1983) and forever swore off women after that? I think he already hated women before he married my mother; his mother gave him multiple reasons for that.
I fear that many men with bad attitudes and bitterness towards women learned those attitudes from their mothers. If they had mothers who denigrated their fathers, criticized, nagged, belittled, these embittered men were already "primed" to find the bitchiest women... and lo & behold, they find them. My best friend is a guy whose mother is a confirmed man-hater. She hardly ever misses an opportunity to criticize the entire gender. Is it any wonder he is 36 and still single, and hasn't been in a relationship for ten years? No, of course not.
This, I believe, is the case with all embittered people of both genders. If your opposite sex parent hated, belittled, or denigrated your same sex parent and your entire gender -- not to mention you yourself! -- of course you grow up with a bad attitude towards the opposite sex. And you also grow up with the training to find the person most like that in your adult life. I've seen it happen over and over -- to men, to women, to my sisters, to my brother, to me.
Another issue I have with the "Rewriting 'The Rules'" article is that it fails to mention are the *female* geeks. Yeah, the ones virtually all men ignore, even the geek men. You'd be surprised how many of us clean up into attractive gals. And I can definitely say that completely different types of men hit on me when I'm wearing my contacts than hit on me when I'm wearing my glasses. Think that doesn't embitter the "nice girls"? Think again. We know the score and we know how quickly the "nice guys" will dump us if a hot, but flaky, chick takes notice of them.
Having half a foot in the geek camp (15 years in tech support) and half a foot in the non-geek camp (having shagged like a minx at times myself, though not between the ages of 12-14, as one man suggests), I have to say the article "Rewriting 'The Rules' ...for Lesbians" hits some points, but badly misses others.
Yes, there is too much bitterness & hatred on *both* sides of the gender camp these days. Yes, it is a hostile world for little boys. But it is a hostile world for *everyone*. Everything around us in this culture encourages us to worship surfaces and part us from our hard earned cash in overcompensation for our perceived flaws -- flaws which advertising and marketing never fail to capitalize on. And many, many people buy into this.
It also so happens that these things play into typical biological roles for men & women: for women, the instinctual search for a man with virility and resources; for men, the instinctual drive for nubile females and to spread their seed as far and wide as possible. Men and women are *not* the same (hallelujah!). We are different and we want different things. (But some of the things we want are the same: for example, to be loved for who and what we are right now).
When these things that we instinctually want -- and those we've been brainwashed to desire -- fail to materialize, we all want to blame the opposite sex, rather use our gray matter and not our gonads to figure out why they failed to materialize. Yes, we're mammals, but we have very large brains. Time to use them -- to resist the brain washing, to resist the superficiality shoved on us from every media outlet that exists, to resist the valuing of surface over substance.
That said, everyone makes stupid mistakes about the opposite sex when they are young. And everyone carries a lot of baggage, which only gets larger & heavier as time rolls on and we get older. But people who make mistakes of more permanent duration (marriages, children) suffer more because they carry more, literally & figuratively.
Nevertheless, no one, male or female, should blame an entire gender for their romantic troubles. I think if most people are honest with themselves, male or female, they will realize that they tend to repeat the same mistakes, and if they have problems getting involved with the opposite sex, it often is because of their baggage.
Yes, many women have completely superficial views on men -- as hunks or as free rides. But many men also have completely superficial views on women, and are as likely to pass up the "geek girls", who are really very nice companions, as the superficial women are to pass up the good guys.
And in my experience, the people with entrenched bitterness weed themselves out -- both male & female. No one wants to hear their girlfriend or boyfriend rant about their evil ex -- and no one wants to deal with the evil ex, either. Thus they have a bad experience or two, become embittered, and subtly turn off members of the opposite sex who might otherwise be good companions, but who can smell the baggage a mile away and wisely keep their distance. Then we are in vicious-circle-land and they reinforce their own negative views time and again.
And doormats of both genders get walked on. It's happened to me, and I've seen it happen to my "nice guy" platonic male friends. All us doormats (or reformed doormats) need to grow up and grow spines. Being nice is not synonymous with letting yourself be taken advantage of and used. Nice guys and nice gals need to have self-respect and backbone. You can be courteous and decent without being a doormat. Your partner, if he or she is also a decent human being, will respect you more if you have boundaries and occasionally enforce them.
To "nice guys" everywhere who complain they get taken advantage of, I say what I would say to pushover women: stand up for yourself, and be prepared to walk away from any relationship that takes more from you than it gives. It isn't always that people are "out to get you", it's also that they ahve their own major baggage, and can't see what it does to others 'til you bring it to their attention.
Lastly, I've had geek boyfriends. They were wonderful and if I had to pick a "type" of man I "go for", it would have to be geeks. Maybe because I was/am a 'geek girl' myself, I've always given geek guys the time of day, and always given the less-than-hunky guys a chance. Maybe because my dad was kind of a geek (teacher, pocket protector), but also because geek guys have been good to me, as friends, and as boyfriends. I think I can unreservedly say I like men a lot. All my oldest and best friends are men I've known for (eek!) almost 20 years, since high school or early college years.
Maybe because I "cleaned up" into a non-geeky girl without my glasses & with a change of clothes, I've had the opportunities (in my early 20s) to date "bad boys"... and it only took one bad relationship and major burn before age 20 to turn me off to them forever. From then on, I stuck with my own kind: the geeky, intelligent, scientifically knowledgeable & curious geeks. I had more in common with them anyway! In fact I am still friends with my ex boyfriend who got his PhD in math. We keep in touch via email and have visited each other in the past year. I've also been a geek girlfriend. And I guess I must have been a pretty nice one, because my ex-geek-boyfriends still talk to this ex-geek-girlfriend, even the married one occasionally.
We each have to accept responsibility for repeated mistakes we've made, in addition to noting the patterns of our mates. In my experience, no bitter breakup is ever only ONE person's fault. Some men may beat women, but I've lived next door to a fighting couple long enough to know that some men don't beat women until the women reach a pressure-cooker point of badgering, criticizing, nagging, bitching, and/or purely psychotic behavior which would invite *anyone* to beat them!
It always takes two to tango. All the embittered people out there need to take a long hard look at themselves & realize they played half the part in the demise of their relationship(s).
My problem with pundits is that people like Andrea Dworkin, Rush Limbaugh, people who use the terms "feminazi" and "misogynist" more than once a day, and the woman who wrote "The Rules" take their personal issues and extrapolate them to gender politics. Before they examine their own individual existences, flaws, mistakes in judgement, and the part(s) they've played in their own problems, they blame the opposite gender for all their perceived woes on the personal and political front.
In my opinion, a little personal responsibility is in order. Take personal responsibility for being embittered if you are. Examine what might have primed you to be embittered before you ever even had sex with the opposite sex -- such as your opposite sex parent and the way she/he treated your same sex parent or you. Look deep into yourself and try to find out *why* things happened to you and what role *you* played in those events, or what dynamics were present in those events you couldn't control (such as when you were a child). And try to make new mistakes. It's unrealistic to want to make no mistakes ever again. But it is at least some small incremental progress if you make *new* mistakes, or "mistakes Lite", as you go on through life.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
