|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I loved this one: "Love scored badly in the marriage stakes with only 18.7 per cent of women in their 20s idealistic enough to consider it the most important prerequisite, while the figure plunged to just 5.9 per cent among worldly-wise female thirty-somethings."
And this one: "52.5 per cent said they wanted to marry an 'extremely rich' man."
A number of men have written on this board that they would only consider women from the orient, particularly Japanese women, as potential marriage partners They wouldn't consider getting involved with American women. Hmmmm... Still think Japanese women are such a great deal?
Men need to ask themselves if marriage, or living with a woman, or even getting into a "committed relationship" are the stupidest things that they could possibly do. Women are human, guys. They're prone to wrongdoing every bit as much as men, despite all the feminist lies to the contrary, and the law is on their side. Men should wonder if marriage and fathering have become forms of slavery for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 11, @01:04PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
Yeah, I was one of those guys who waxed romanticaly about Japanese women. Frankly, I think I did so more than ANYONE.
But I've done a bit of research on the women of Japan, and what I found was not incourageing. Then I read the link you posted here at MANN, and now, If it's all the same to you and everyone else, here, I think I'd like to recant a WHOLE LOT of what I was saying before.
I still find Japanese women intoxicatingly beautiful, and as I may have mentioned in other posts, The women from Japan I have met were always sweet, polite, intelegent and considerate.
But I have also learned that all that may be a front. I must now wonder if that sweet, gracious front melts away after marriage and the gal's true colors are revealed. This seems to also be the case freaquently with American women as well, only it is perhaps a bit more obvious with them.
I also found it a bit disturbing that these Japanese women demanded that their potential husband be "perfect". How idiotic is THAT?!?!?
We are all human. Therefore "perfection" is, by definition, IMMPOSSIBLE!
One minuet women are telling us men that we are naturaly infirior to them and that we are flawed geneticaly, emotionaly, mentaly and physicaly, especialy when compared to them, then the next minuet they are saying we have to be perfect...! ZHUH?!!?
Then the question is dared to be asked, why Japanese women feel they will never marry; "Is it because of Japanese women's high expectations, or the nature of Japanese men?"
Duh! If they have to ASK that question then they are as idiotic and out of touch with reality as the Japanese women who think the way they do!!
Well, everyone, it just goes to show, that no matter where you go the human female is always the human female. ...Hopelessly so.
If it hadn't taken me 12 years to grow my long Cherokee hair, I'd pull it out!
Thundercloud.
(I have enough aggravation...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still find Japanese women intoxicatingly beautiful
You won't get any arguments from me on that one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beauty comes with an astronomical price tag. Is it worth the sacrifice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent trend regarding isolation among young Japanese men; over a million Japanese male teens and young adults have taken to secluding themselves in their rooms indefinitely and never leaving except sometimes to go out at night.
However, given this latest poll, it's not difficult to see why, given the tremendous expectations for the faint hope of breaking even.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women are human, guys. They're prone to wrongdoing every bit as much as men,..."
Thus implying that men are no better.
Sounds like more excuse-making rhetoric, when the fact is that women can be much WORSE, having the option of doing as they please, based on their "feelings."
Thus implying that men are no better.
Sounds like more excuse-making rhetoric, when the fact is that women tend to have a far more ambivalent conscience.
"and the law is on their side. Men should wonder if marriage and fathering have become forms of slavery for men."
As I've said numerous times, this is the ONLY logical conclusion which can be drawn from the notion that women should have equal or greater absolute rights but only qualified accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women are human, guys. They're prone to wrongdoing every bit as much as men,..."
Thus implying that men are no better.
Wrong. It's not an implication. It's an outright statement.
women can be much WORSE, having the option of doing as they please, based on their "feelings."
I didn't write about what women have the option of doing because they are allowed to get away with more than men. I wrote about what they are "prone" to. If men could get away with more than women, men would act worse than women.
women tend to have a far more ambivalent conscience.
More sexism. You're sexist enough to be a feminist, except it's women that you hate. You need to move beyond your sexist hatred. I recommend a good, physical cleansing followed by regular yoga, including deep breathing, and meditation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure this preference for men who make more than they do makes Japanese women any different from women here in America. We've already seen statistics that say that woman here who make the higher levels of incomes are having increased trouble finding a mate because they also continuue to insist on men who make more than they. The problem is, I think, that men who spend their time making higher incomes, for the most part, want a wife who will take care of his children over taking care of outside work as the priority in their life. I wonder... is there a book or source that compares women of different nationalities on all the different characteristics important to men? I kind of doubt that the reason Japanese women feel this way is because of the way Japanese men are because I don't see large numbers of Japanese women on the internet with personal ads looking for foreign men as husbands as I do for Filipina, Chinese, and Russian women. Unless, of course, they think all men are the same! Ha ha! ha! :-] In reading the personals, I also find that Japanese women's descriptions of themselves and the men they're looking for, for the most part, are seemingly cold and calculating, much like those of American women. I find them completely different from those of Chinese and Filipina women's ads. Ads for Russian woman seem to me to be somewhere in the middle. Anyone else here noticed the same things? Or maybe gotten different impressions? I wonder how single men are treated in Japan when they get a single woman pregnant. Is he required to pay child support for 18 - 23 years through the court system as they are here in the U.S.? This would have a large bearing, IMHO, on whether or not Japanese woman feel the need to get married over just having children at male expense. Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure this preference for men who make more than they do makes Japanese women any different from women here in America.
I agree.
We've already seen statistics that say that woman here who make the higher levels of incomes are having increased trouble finding a mate because they also continuue to insist on men who make more than they. The problem is, I think, that men who spend their time making higher incomes, for the most part, want a wife who will take care of his children over taking care of outside work as the priority in their life.
Exactly. These are generalizations, to which there are exceptions. However, even the type of men who struggle their way to the top of the earning heap can say, "I've can earn enough money. Other things, like family, are important." The women, who make it to the top of the earning heap say, "More money. More money." Whether that's the result of nature or nurture, I'd say it's a profound difference between men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I wonder how single men are treated in Japan when they get a single woman pregnant. Is he required to pay child support for 18 - 23 years through the court system as they are here in the U.S.? By the way, to get my question answered, I asked my wife who is Japanese. She hasn't been to Japan in over 17 years, but keeps up through friends, TV, magazines, etc. She said, "No way, Jose!" She explained that in Japan, unlike America, single motherhood is looked down on, so in virtually all cases, single women who get pregnant will get an abortion. A single woman with a child would have virtually no chance of finding and marrying someone else because of the stigma attached. Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I wonder... is there a book or source that compares women of different nationalities on all the different characteristics important to men?"
Well, in her article "No shame in women choosing dough over the regular Joe", Tina Arndt writes:
"There's obviously sound evolutionary hard-wiring in women's consistent habit of preferring men with status and resources - a preference which the University of Texas psychologist David Buss has shown applies across 37 cultures."
Apparently, women around the world are excused for using men to feather their nests on the sole premise of having a few speculative eggs in it.
Or, as our Tina puts it:
"And why shouldn't it? There's obviously sound evolutionary hard-wiring in women's consistent habit of preferring men with status and resources.... For women with sprogs to care for, resource-rich men were always the sensible choice."
That's fine when women are a man's property, however problems arise when the cow wants to run the farm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Well, in her article "No shame in women choosing dough over the regular Joe", Tina Arndt writes:
"There's obviously sound evolutionary hard-wiring in women's consistent habit of preferring men with status and resources - a preference which the University of Texas psychologist David Buss has shown applies across 37 cultures." Actually, I don't judge foreign women in the same way I do American women. If a foreign woman (I prefer Oriental women) prefers to be a woman and desires to create a family with her husband and support her husband and children by maintaining a comfortable, nourishing home and bringing up their children with her husband's support while the husband predominantly makes the money to support his family, I have no problem with her preferring a man who makes enough money to support them. This only makes sense and any woman who doesn't take this into consideration, IMHO, would have to be wacko. I have a big problem, however, with American women who want to be able to pick and choose all the rights of both sexes that they desire while at the same time, shouldering none of the responsibilities of either sex. All this after telling everyone that they can do everything a man can do, only better. That they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle. That they want equal rights while seeking superior rights at every turn. And expecting men to support them not only during but even after the marriage breaks up because they aren't able to make sufficient money on their own that the man can. So what's left for the man after American women get all they desire and insist on? All the responsibilities left over that are expected of a man plus all her responsibilities that she finds undesirable. Sorry, but I refuse to play that game with American women with those rules. When Oriental women take whether or not we men know how to make enough money to support them and our children while she supports us in her unique ways in the home, and appreciates what we do to support our family (and shows it!), I say "Noooooooo problem! Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American women tend to want to be free from gender-roles, but at the same time have them as a ready option, in order to create a woman's paradise and a man's hell, using men to get whatever they want without regard to fairness.
In fact, I was shocked by a recent hispanic girlfriend who refused to soak her abusive ex for everything she could in alimony etc, saying she "couldn't believe how women use the legal system to unfairly get money they didn't earn" etc!
Note that I say I was "shocked," because I had never heard it from a woman before-- and it made so much sense!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...refused to soak her abusive ex for everything she could...
Unfortunately, most women I've known who don't soak their ex-husbands/lovers use that as an excuse to get more than would be fair from them. "Well sure I took his car, but I could have taken his house!"
A little easier on the ol' conscious I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, most women I've known who don't soak their ex-husbands/lovers use that as an excuse to get more than would be fair from them. "Well sure I took his car, but I could have taken his house!"
A little easier on the ol' conscious I guess.
That would presume one HAD a conscience-- more like the EGO.
Such hypocrisy is hardly surprising, given the hypocritical mindset behind the entire concept of expecting something for nothing from another person.
However, in this case she didn't want ANYTHING, even though she was pregnant at the time with his child; she just wanted to break off the relationship because he was physically abusive.
And yet, she STILL offered him visitation rights, since she said it would "only be fair."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree also Dittohd, a division of labor/effort that produces the optimal result for a loving union only makes sense. I also completely agree that American women by and large want it both ways as you described. They are spoiled, egocentric women who carry a posture of belittlement and entitlement without appreciation nor concern for men. As for Tulkas' prior girlfriend, her recoil in disgust of Americam women is not uncommon for women who have not been polluted by feminism. Our women wholly fail to see their hypocrisy, selfishness, self-righteousness and egocentricity. We've produced generations of women who are adults when it suits them, or children when it suits them. Men in their view are here to worship, serve and pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I also completely agree that American women by and large want it both ways as you described. They are spoiled, egocentric women who carry a posture of belittlement and entitlement without appreciation nor concern for men."
This descriptions seems to personify American women from teen years or sooner; for the most part they seem to just careen through life on a cloud of self-absorbed glee like they're God's only child, while being completely aloof to males unless they want something, at which point they just ask for and expect for it like a snob would of a waiter, and likewise get nasty if they don't get it tute de' suite.
This behavior reminds me of spoiled rich kids, however this embraces a whole culture.
Simply put, they seem to take men for granted as shamelessly as historical upper classes would their live-in slaves and servants.
A recent documentary followed a guy of so-so looks who tried to approach pretty women for dates, and the women were interviewed afterward; one of them, a ditzy 20-something high-fashioned type, when interviewed, said "I didn't give him a second thought-- he seemed to me just like something in your way that you'd kick down the stairs." (Then, she had the unfeeling gall to add "Is that mean?")
While this is anectodal and single, it's an all-too familiar story to most men know it's typical of the female over-inflated egos of women when approached on an equal basis.
Likwise, could you imagine ANY man saying something so "insenstive," and how he'd be painted afterward?
One more example of how feminist society stacks the deck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In reading the personals, I also find that Japanese women's descriptions of themselves and the men they're looking for, for the most part, are seemingly cold and calculating, much like those of American women."
This is probably because of the American influence in Japan since the end of WWII, which has likewise resulted in the demasculinization of their society from samurai to Sony.
Likewise, I'm sure we all know how competitive their society has become in terms of breaking out of the mainstream lower-middle class via high-paying jobs as the only means of escape.
As for American women, I've noticed the same all along, but I can't believe how much I didn't see the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A segement of Japanese culture, like a segment of our culture, is extremely materialistic. I seriously doubt if all Japenese are that way, but among those who are, it is not surprising that the women are as well. This just makes sense.
Once again we're holding women to a different standard. If people live in a materialistic society and grow up with those values, chances are they will be materialistic. Duh? The same is true in our own society where wealth and possessions define self-worth and status for many. All our media glorifies possessions ... and not mererly possessions but the RIGHT possessions, mostly extremely overpriced possessions with little inherent value to justify their cost, such as designer label clothes, luxury cars, etc.
I know women who will ONLY buy designer clothes. Period. They won't even look at something that has a non-designer label. They will ONLY shop in certain shops. Period. Several relatives are like this. What's more at Christmas they expect gifts from these stores. (I have a lot of fun by going to Neiman Marcus and getting boxes and then placing gifts I buy elsewhere in them. I'm a subversive at heart he he).
By the way, these women are NEVER short of men chasing after them an falling all over themselves to buy them stuff. Likewise, the men are just as materialistic and brand concious themselves.
As I said in the Golddigger thread, these people seek each other out and with enthusiasm. They are happy together.
As for the Japanese, I know plenty because I live in an area that is largely Japanese American. Most JA's I know, even those raised in Japan are not materialistic. But they acknowledge that many Japanese nationals ar and are increasingly becoming so. We get a lot of Japanese tourist where I live. To cater to them (and virtually only them) we have dozens of the most expensive stores imaginable ... Tiffany, Dior, Channel, Loui Vuiton, Gucci, Charles Jordan ... you name it, if its outrageously expensive we've got it. Virtually the only people who shop there are Japanese tourist and a smattering of rich S. American tourists. (Even the European tourist dont' go there, they aren't as image and brand conscious). Wherever the Japanese go, there is high end shpping to be had, and people make a ton of money off of them.
There is no reason to hold Japanese women to a different standard than the culture at large or the segment of the culture they belong to. They are no more materialistic than the men. Likewise in America.
As an aside, I go to S. Korea where many of these designer goods are made. I've actually bought designer goods directly from the factory where they are being made. I've paid less than 10% of their cost in the USA. So there is a huge profit margin on these goods, every middle man gets a cut. The Japanese are about an hour's flight away from Seoul. They could go buy these good so less money, but a S. Korean friend of mine says they wouldn't be caught dead buying from the factory. They will only go to the expensive retail shops. So their materialism has a manic quality to it. Spending money and being seen to spend money is an end in itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, materialistic Japanese women are the product of the culture of their upbringing. However, this only serves to explain the phenomena, it does not excuse nor condone it. Nevertheless, 1) the issue presented does NOT hold women to a different standard than men, and furthermore, 2) this article is not about materialism per se. Maybe many Japanese men are materialistic, lets assume so. The difference here presented by the article is that Japanese women are not merely materialistic, they demand that men pay their way. That's the difference...the women are using men for their money. The women openly admit to selling sex (marriage) to high bidders only. They're whores plain and simple. To be materialistic and provide for oneself is one thing, to expect another to foot the bill is quite another.
True, as you noted, there are many men(johns) who chase these women around and wilfully pay for their attentions...knowingly and purposely. Here the game is known by all. However, many men looking across the table at the set of sparkling eyes and approving smiles believe that these women actually like, love, cherish them for who they are...not for their money. These men are being used and abused and deceived. Their resources, time, energy and heart stolen from them. In the end their hearts and wallets broken, many will have been cheated out of the chance to find a real relationship, real love.
I guess for the purpose of this forum, this article serves as an eye opener for the men here who fancied finding a loyal, honorable Japanese bride to develope a life with. However, as Lorriane stated, there is probably a segment of Japanese society where women's values are nobler and their motives pure. In addition, other asian countries may embody a more congenial culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
many men looking across the table at the set of sparkling eyes and approving smiles believe that these women actually like, love, cherish them for who they are...not for their money.
You make an important and valid point. Personally, I see nothing wrong with fully open prostitution, where everyone is an honest, consenting adult. Pretending to be in love to get someone else's money, however, is profoundly sick.
there is probably a segment of Japanese society where women's values are nobler and their motives pure.
Like the 5.9% of women in their 30s for whom love is the most important prerequisite for marriage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, materialistic Japanese women are the product of the culture of their upbringing. However, this only serves to explain the phenomena, it does not excuse nor condone it. Nevertheless, 1) the issue presented does NOT hold women to a different standard than men, and furthermore, 2) this article is not about materialism per se. Maybe many Japanese men are materialistic, lets assume so. The difference here presented by the article is that Japanese women are not merely materialistic, they demand that men pay their way. That's the difference...the women are using men for their money. The women openly admit to selling sex (marriage) to high bidders only. They're whores plain and simple. To be materialistic and provide for oneself is one thing, to expect another to foot the bill is quite another.
___First off the we're talking about SOME Japanese women. Secondly, I don't see much difference between a whore and a whoremonger, so you're moral judgements to me are one sided. That's my opionion, yours is yours. No one forces anyone to buy sex (although some few are forced to sell sex most who sell it sell it williingly).
True, as you noted, there are many men(johns) who chase these women around and wilfully pay for their attentions...knowingly and purposely. Here the game is known by all. However, many men looking across the table at the set of sparkling eyes and approving smiles believe that these women actually like, love, cherish them for who they are...not for their money. These men are being used and abused and deceived. Their resources, time, energy and heart stolen from them. In the end their hearts and wallets broken, many will have been cheated out of the chance to find a real relationship, real love.
I don't buy it. They are not being decieved and they are not being used. Men actively seek out these women! The WANT them. They WANT to be seen with a woman who looks like she's expensive to keep because it is a status symbol for the man. Look if you WANT a woman who dresses in expensive clothes and has expensive maintenance (hair nails bod etc) and you KNOW she can't buy all that on her income ... then you KNOW someone has to pay for all that. Who do you think that someone is going to be? I'm sorry, I don't buy your theory of the cluelessness of men, men who are so stupid they are so easily duped. Men are smart, they know the score and they know what they want and where to find it.
I guess for the purpose of this forum, this article serves as an eye opener for the men ....
___ One can only hope.
___ But just in case you guys are lacking math and logic skills, a women who makes from $0 to $20,000 per year CANNOT AFFORD designer clothing, jewelry, salon pedicures, manicures, expensive haircuts at the best salons, bods by personal trainer, nice appartment, etc. Got it? She's going to expect YOU to pay for these things and she's going to expect YOU to pay for a social life which can show off these things. And in case you haven't noticed, no one is holding a gun to your head to make you date/marry such a woman. You have a choice.
However, as Lorriane stated, there is probably a segment of Japanese society where women's values are nobler and their motives pure. In addition, other asian countries may embody a more congenial culture.
___ You don't have to go to Japan or Asian countries. All you have to do is employ a little common sense. See above. However, I will say my very best friend is Japanese (even though she lives in the USA she kept her Japanese citizenship). She's the most down to earth, non materialistic person I've ever met, devoted to her kids and husband and an all around kind human being. I don't think she's the only Japanese person like that. In fact I met her family in Japan and they are all kind and simple people like herself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 11, @11:03PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
To men, these women seem very calculating and manipulative because they use their for the sole purpose of extorting material things when we (as men) know that these things are next to impossible to resist. It seems almost cruel, like dangling candy in front of a baby.
BUT, we seem to always complain about women taking the "easy out" and lacking backbone in many issues when this is a perfect time for us to show them how it is done.
I've said it before and I will no doubt say it again...we all have free will and if NO MEN WERE WILLING TO PAY FOR P*SSY - which, to be frank, is basically what is happening - THEN IT'S SUPLIERS WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PUT IT ON SALE!!
Don't play this stupid game and don't let your male friends off the hook so easily when they do.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I've said it before and I will no doubt say it again...we all have free will and if NO MEN WERE WILLING TO PAY FOR P*SSY - which, to be frank, is basically what is happening - THEN IT'S SUPLIERS WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PUT IT ON SALE!!"
This isn't realistic, since a culture determines the "price" of things, in addition to simple supply and demand. As such, American feminist culture has artificially inflated the "price" of women far beyond exchange-value (i.e. women get far more than they give), placing an artificial price-floor which forces men to compete for women as status symbols more than anything else; women no longer are objects of natural romantic interest so much as affirmations of success and prestige-- the very things which naturally attract MORE gold-digging women! (I'd say that this is a major reason why rich men "cheat" despite their busy lifestyles, however it's impossible to cheat what is basically a prostitute who denies it-- particularly when the man was basically coerced into pledging monogamy while being likewise coerced into polygamy).
The result of fixing price above natural demand is, naturally, a surplus, resulting in a society full of lots of bitter women who have basically priced themselves out of the monogamy market, thus making themselves miserable-- along with lots and lots of honest, single men.
I use such examples, because I realize that everyone acts in their own best interest, however the evil is in hypocrisy via of women doing this very thing, but at the same time having the audacity to demand sacrice on their behalf from men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off the we're talking about SOME Japanese women.
Which may or may not be the general case. It is possible to look at evidence like 'marrying up' statistics and social expectations of dating, "child" support, etc. in Japan to figure it out. Here in America, most women are like that.
Secondly, I don't see much difference between a whore and a whoremonger, so you're moral judgements to me are one sided.
Do you see much difference between a lonely kid who pays for friendship and the kid who sells it? The same moral difference exists when it's a lonely man paying a whore for sexual friendship. If women were more friendly towards men in general, (and not even just sexually), than whores wouldn't be able to exploit their emotional needs.
That's my opionion, yours is yours.
Yep. But opinions are not equally valid. Your's seems to not consider what kind of environment men live in which would make them willing to pay a whore. Like the kid who pays for friendship, they don't value their own contribution enough, indication a lack of self-esteem in that area. But hey, there's money to be made. Most women have too much self esteem to pay for sex, especially from a man.
I don't buy it. They are not being decieved and they are not being used.
A small percentage of them are being decieved, as I saw on one cops show where they had an undercover whore talk a guy who was completely drunk, borderline retarded, and ugly enough to convince me he'd never been with any half-decent looking woman into agreeing to pay her for sex after he said no twice. I'm sure the ones decieved are rare, but all of them are being used. Charging someone for friendship is using them period, whether that's sexual friendship or not. Maybe if the other kids would approach the lonely one and show some indication that his friendship would be valuable he wouldn't pay for it. In the case of sex this is magnified because boys growing up don't even see other boys or men being shown any interest in, (but we all heard girls talk about how ridiculous men who wear speedos look), so even the idea that it's possible for them to become sexually valued someday doesn't really exist. Combined with a healthy dose of constant "women's sexuality is so valuable" in our faces all the time we were being raised to be exploited. Women could try to reassure men, actually approach them for dates, not judge them by their income, not call them cheap for buying them McDonalds instead of a more expensive meal, but most are more interested in getting some financial benefit out of it.
They WANT to be seen with a woman who looks like she's expensive to keep because it is a status symbol for the man.
And the nerd likes to be seen talking to the popular kid. Maybe that will make him popular too! Men's value is highly dependant on how much women like them. "You're the kinda guy that girl ignores" - from a RunDMC song, in which "that girl" is in no way described. Kinda sums it up. You don't want to be the guy "that girl", (which would be any average or better looking girl, like 90% of womankind), wouldn't want to see in a speedo. Maybe if you pay for her companionship, you can pretend for a few hours that you aren't.
They WANT to be seen with a woman who looks like she's expensive to keep because it is a status symbol for the man.
As if women who wear less expensive clothing don't try to exploit men for money. Are you actually equating using a woman to be able to sit next to her and gain social status with charging a man would feel a need to do that? Men are just as valuable as you are and if you can't see why women who exploit the men who feel they are less valuable aren't doing anything more wrong than the guys they're exploiting then any pretense you make about supporting men is half hearted at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its not explotation. No one is obligated to be your friend or to offer you romance or sex. No one. Its optional. This whole thing has to do with the baseline idea that women "owe" something to any particular men. They don't. Nothing, nada. Does a man "owe" friendship or sexual respect to a gay man? Why not?
Gay men are people too. Why aren't men more friendly with gay men and more open to validating them sexually. Why don't you ask a lonely gay man out for a date. Surely he could use the friendship, companionship, and even sex. Why be so stuck up?
You do know that some gay men pay for sex with other men don't you? Why is that do you think? Maybe because they can't attract another gay man? How mean of gay men to ignore them and disresect them sexually. How mean of all mean to ignore their needs for companionship, emotional and sexual validation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You just don't get it Lorraine. What we're talking about here is women who pretend to like/love a man for who he is when she is just after his money or what material things he can provide for her. Please don't endlessly recite that men KNOW her true motives. You are not privy to the thoughts and beliefs inside someone elses head. Some men know the transaction, others are taken for a ride to the cleaners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pot kettle black. You seem to be privy to the thoughts and beliefs in women's heads.
And even if you DID know what some women were thinking and planning and you don't approve of it, so what? What are you going to do about it? This boils down to control, pure and simple. And you can't control the thoughts and intentions of others. You can only control yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Lorraine, I AM privy to the thoughts and beliefs in women's heads. I AM!!!! This thread is in response to the greedy, selfish sentiments expressed by women themselves. I don't pretend (like you) to be a mind reader, the women polled here themselves revealed their motives and greed. Your typical ugly feminist response that somehow this issue is about control, that I(us men) are trying to control women is misplaced and telling. We're not attempting to control anybody, we are simply exposing many women for what they really are. WE are lifting the false veil of innocence and moral superiority off the heads of conniving sirens who cloak themselves with a transparent air of self importance, and who go through life sponging off and using men for their sole personal gain. You and they are entitled to whatever egocentric world view that you choose, but we will call you on it and expose such women for the lazy, selfish frauds that they really are. AS so pointedly noted by Thomas, any woman who pretends to love a man in order to get his money is profoundly sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, actually you're not. And most here are not. Instead they are casting themselves as VICTIMS of completely voluntary relationships. As I've said before, many here are exact replicas of many feminists who cast themselves as victims of men instead of their own completely voluntary decisions vis a vis relationships with men.
I find it hilarious. I mock both EQUALLY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No, actually you're not. And most here are not. Instead they are casting themselves as VICTIMS of completely voluntary relationships."
Lorianne, who do you think you're fooling with this simplistic "voluntary" crap, which COMPLETELY ignores the undeniable concrete forces of social attitudes and prejudices? This argument is specious as it is spurious and assinine, in conveniently trying to pretend that voluntary associations between people don't involved strict social contracts based on good faith between them, and that these feminist attitudes of entitlement based on nothing more than generations of pure indoctrination are a sheer twisting and perversion of such agreements by one side in order to cheat the other.
It's hardly voluntary if there's discrimination to the extent that the only alternative is isolation, and everything else this includes missing out on; one group has NO right to defame another so as to create attitudes and misperceptions which deny or disparage the rights of any other.
No, I'm afraid you just would rather pretend not to see the big picture of fairness and civil rights, but you'd rather hide behind these simplistic rationalizations that even YOU can't believe; rather, as long as it's not YOUR ox being gored, you'd rather just play games and just insult our intelligence and look at it through a microscope and say "What ox? I don't see any ox!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a difference between not asking gay men out because you aren't attracted to them, and straight women not asking men they are attracted to out because they think approaching a man is beneath them or that men should take all the risks. Also, gay men don't try to 'date up' or feel entitled to other gay men paying for their dates. They value their dates companionship, and in sexual hook-ups they value what the other gives them sexually. Straight women and girls usually expect compensation.
You do know that some gay men pay for sex with other men don't you? Why is that do you think? Maybe because they can't attract another gay man? How mean of gay men to ignore them and disresect them sexually. How mean of all mean to ignore their needs for companionship, emotional and sexual validation!
There's a difference between not approaching every fat slob in a grease stained tee-shirt you see, and not approaching *any* guys because you don't want them to think you want them, since it puts you in a bad position to negotiate for his cash. Of course, only because most other women do the same is any woman able to get away with that. Unless of course he's rich, in which case women are all over him. What was that you said earlier about men being expected to help maintain a chick's wardrobe in order to compensate her for letting him be seen with her? These aristocratic unappreciative attitudes most women have do have an impact on the self image of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its not explotation. No one is obligated to be your friend or to offer you romance or sex. No one. Its optional. This whole thing has to do with the baseline idea that women "owe" something to any particular men. They don't. Nothing, nada.
Too bad our culture doesn't extend the same right to men with regard to women.
And if you claim it does, you're only working to discredit both your gender and your credibility and intelligence, if not both.
However, such is typical of the defensive casuistries infesting the propaganda commonly seen among the logically-challenged in our society, in order to brazen out their aberrant behavior and thus distract the naive from begrudging them their ill-gotten gains.
This "lassez-faire relationships" contention falls on its own double-edged sword of hypocrisy, in that it claims the same double-edged sword exists in relationships between men and women, whereby neither side faces any undue coercion.
Likewise, the notion that "each person is an island" is a based on an insulting contention that society is based on purely voluntary relationships, when social contracts expressed in cultural "norms" become the coercive means of social factions-- with the faction in this case being women led by radical feminists.
The simple fact is, that feminism has contaminated our culture to the point where selective reforms and misandric propaganda
has attempted to create a feminazi utopia in which women are given approval and encouragement in areas traditionaly restricted to men, while at the same time berating men for this very behavior, and yet still expecting free reign in areas which bear a strong stigma for men--particularly acting one's own self-interest.
Basically, rather, men are still saddled, via years of emotional blackmail and conditioning to one's "duty" in a million myriad ways of social indoctrination (remember registering with selective service? Lorianne doesn't), with the sole ethical responsibility of holding society together and "being a man" instead of indulging their every whim , but are damned if they do and damned if they don't, with only the threat of societal collapse if they cease holding up the world-- and women are stepping on their toes.
However, for this reason, the time is rapidly approaching when Atlas will shrug-- and I really don't want to be here when he does (although I probably will).
And that's one calculation you can bank on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are you rambling about. Before women had opportunities to be educated and work etc they had even MORE incentive to "marry up", that was their ONLY WAY to improve their economic or social station.
Men and women are still stuck with a lot of baggage from the past cultural norms which don't go away quickly. But no one forces on to date/marry a woman who even "could" use you (nevermind you saying most would). A woman can't use you a man unless he places himself in that postion. So if you're a man who believes "most" women are out to use men, then what are your options? Think. If the man believes that about women, then he has few options. So whether he is right or wrong it makes not difference, he's already decided that "most" women are out to use him. That's his "truth". So then, he has to be on gaurd. According to him "most" women are unscrupulous so he has to deal with that reality. Whining about it really isn't going to change the situation.
I still contend that men know what they are getting into. I hear it everyday. I hear some men whining about how shallow the women they meet at the clubs. But they won't stop looking for women at clubs, they just want to whine about them. I can only conclude some men enjoy whining, since they HAVE NO INTENTION, ever, under any circumstances, of changing the kind of women they pursue, the venue, or anything else. They'd rather whine than look at different types of women women in different venues. God no, not under threat of death would they consider changing THEIR actions, their tactics.
Both sexes are victimes of "wishful thinking" and fairy tale type expectations. Men are no more no less apt to do this than are women. For both this is a self defeating strategy for finding a love/soul mate. But there you go. Some people are intent on deluding themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men and women are still stuck with a lot of baggage from the past cultural norms which don't go away quickly. But no one forces on to date/marry a woman who even "could" use you (nevermind you saying most would).
Yeah, one could simply remain celibate... same with monopoly price-controls on food or some other essential commodity to sell at 10 times market-value: no one's FORCING you to eat.
Lorianne, you ignorant slut. Intimate relationships are as vital to a person's health and well-being as anything else, and a person has just as much right to demand the same fairness and equality in such as in anything else without unfair discrimination by selective
As for your charactistic trademark feminist excuse that "Men and women are still stuck with a lot of baggage from the past cultural norms which don't go away quickly," that's as assinine as claiming it's ok to discriminate in employment on the basis of race by the same token-- in fact, by such logic, there would be no NEED for tokens.
Save your perpetual-motion-machine logic (i.e. decoy illusions) for the BELOW the 100th percentile in math and verbal-reasoning ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, you ignorant slut. Intimate relationships are as vital to a person's health and well-being as anything else, and a person has just as much right to demand the same fairness and equality in such as in anything else without unfair discrimination by selective
Go right ahead and DEMAND an intimate relationship to your exact specifications. LOL Who's stopping you? Demand away!!!!
But please, do let us know how that works out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tulkas Wrote:
"Intimate relationships are as vital to a person's health and well-being as anything else, and a person has just as much right to demand the same fairness and equality in such as in anything else without unfair discrimination by selective"
Lorainne replies:
"Go right ahead and DEMAND an intimate relationship to your exact specifications. LOL Who's stopping you? Demand away!!!!"
What a bullshit response Lorianne. Tulkas' comment that a person has a right to expect integrity from those with whom they fraternize is legit. A demand of exact specifications?...hardly. Hey, it's only my opinion but I believe that integrity is a quality that is quite worthy of aspiration. Those who lack integrity may differ. Perhaps you differ. However, if you even have bothered to read the article that is the subject of this thread you will find that it states that 67% of the women polled demand that their propective mate be "PERFECT". Talk about exact specifications...that's laughable, pathetic and telling. While you deride Tulkas for "demanding" integrity, you are conspicuously silent on the fact that 67% of the women polled demanded absolute perfection. Perhaps you yourself are perfect...lol,lol,lol.............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tulkas' comment that a person has a right to expect integrity from those with whom they fraternize is legit. A demand of exact specifications?...hardly.
Attacking straw men is a standard tactic for feminists. They take what a man says, for instance a demand for fairness and equality in a relationship; they claim that the man has said something else, a demand for a relationship to exact specifications for instance; then they attack what the man didn't say.
Standard stuff.
It would be laughable, if there weren't so many people who willingly fell for it. One of the acceptable weaknesses, in fact a necessary weakeness, of the men's movement in general is honesty. Honesty will make our struggle longer, but it will make our success so much sweeter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, if you even have bothered to read the article that is the subject of this thread you will find that it states that 67% of the women polled demand that their propective mate be "PERFECT".
So? Your point is? People are stupid. Women can "demand" whatever they want but relationships are VOLUNTARY. What part of VOLUNTARY is so difficult for you people to understand?
I can DEMAND that you give me a million dollars. In fact, fork it over sucker, and make it snappy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They take what a man says, for instance a demand for fairness and equality in a relationship; they claim that the man has said something else.... blah blah blah...
You can't "demand" anything like that in a relationship. Youre attitude shows how totally clueless some men are. You can't demand respect, you can't demand fairness you can't demand love ... ever. Not for a zillion years. Not gonna happen. The longer you choose to delude yourselves the longer you'll be suckers.
You may deserve fairness, equaity, love, respect, integrity ... yadda yadda yadda ... but so does everyone else. Doesn't mean you're going to get it, doesn't mean you can buy it, doesn't mean you can demand it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't "demand" anything like that in a relationship. Youre attitude shows how totally clueless some men are. You can't demand respect, you can't demand fairness you can't demand love ... ever. Not for a zillion years. Not gonna happen.
Wrong.
I expect, even demand, respect and fairness and love from my wife. Without them, I would leave her. My wife expects, even demands, respect and fairness and love from me. Without them, she would leave me. We give respect, fairness, and love. And we take respect, fairness, and love. Without them, we would not have a relationship.
Take a clear look at what the feminist, Lorianne, is saying, guys. She claims you can't demand respect, fairness, and love in your relationship with a woman-lover. Well, if you're not getting respect and fairness and love, LEAVE.
I truly feel sorry for you, Lorianne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the deal, guys. You can't force a woman to give you respect and fairness and love in a relationship, but you can sure as hell demand respect and fairness and love from your relationships. If your not getting respect and fairness and love in your relationship with a woman, ditch her. You'll be far better off alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take a clear look at what the feminist, Lorianne, is saying, guys. She claims you can't demand respect, fairness, and love in your relationship with a woman-lover.
IOW, she's telling us to stop being so uppity and remember our place.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Take a clear look at what the feminist, Lorianne, is saying, guys. She claims you can't demand respect, fairness, and love in your relationship with a woman-lover. Well, if you're not getting respect and fairness and love, LEAVE.
I truly feel sorry for you, Lorianne"
Oh yes, I took a good look at what the feminist, Lorianne, is saying! Men cannot ask for, require, nor need integrity, respect or fairness from a woman. However, Lorianne is most perfectly comfortable espousing that woman CAN demand MONEY from men and that's perfectly proper. I don't feel sorry for Lorianne, I feel sorry for her husband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't "demand" anything like that in a relationship. Youre attitude shows how totally clueless some men are. You can't demand respect, you can't demand fairness you can't demand love ... ever. Not for a zillion years. Not gonna happen. The longer you choose to delude yourselves the longer you'll be suckers".
Lorianne, you STILL-ignorant slut. How conveniently we forget that these are the VERY things which Women's movements have been demanding since the beginning-- however we learn too late that it was strictly a one-way proposition with absolutely no intention of reciprocity.
Perhaps you've taken these unfair double-standards so much for granted, that you're confusing culture with nature, and conveniently forget that until VERY recently, in traditional gender-roles men used to virtually OWN their women-- and still would, if these same men had refused to graciously extend equal status in the name of deluded notions of social progress and ethical fairness (which I call a failed experiment gone to hell on good intentions and wishful thinking)-- only to be stabbed in the back when bowing to requests: or, as you put it, "
"The longer you choose to delude yourselves the longer you'll be suckers."
One would think that mutual respect, charactarized by equal-value reciprocity and fairness, would be the desired foundation for a healthy relationship; however, most modern women seem to be puffed up by feminist principles of self-absorption and entitlement to the point where fairness equivalent with ruthless self-gratification.
As such, it's clear you either can't or won't appreciate the logistics of ethics and morality-- perhaps clouded by self-deluded justification of undeserved and unfair benefits despite their negative impact on the quality of life and self-esteem of all men--
so there's no further point in this conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the rookie Senator, who was elected in an election purchased with the very same funds which were drained from the military intelligence budget, which resulted in the terrorist attack in her district-state during her first year of office, pretty much personifies the current mindset of modern feminism, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I expect, even demand, respect and fairness and love from my wife. Without them, I would leave her.
Thank you, you make my point for me. You say YOU would leave. That means YOU not her would have to make a move. She can still no respect you or love you or be fair. You can't force her. Your ONLY OPTION is to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I expect, even demand, respect and fairness and love from my wife. Without them, I would leave her.
Thank you, you make my point for me. You say YOU would leave. That means YOU not her would have to make a move.
Oh my Gawd! You are really a sorry individual. I also said she would leave if she didn't receive the same from me.
And, as I said, You can't force a woman to give you respect and fairness and love in a relationship, but you can sure as hell demand respect and fairness and love from your relationships.
Do you really fail to see what an anachronism your anti-male hatred is?
You feminists are quickly going from dangerous to pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's very simple...
Demand respect and fairness and love from your relationship with a woman, gentlemen. If you don't get them, LEAVE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my Gawd! You are really a sorry individual. I also said she would leave if she didn't receive the same from me.
So. Same deal YOU or SHE CANNOT DEMAND SOMEONE LOVE, RESPECT ect. you. You can leave but you cannnot do anything to make the other person do what you demand. EVER, particularly you cannot make someone love or respect or have any emotional feeling toward you whatsoever. That was my point. All you can do is control yourself, and leave. Same rule for men and women.
And, as I said, You can't force a woman to give you respect and fairness and love in a relationship, but you can sure as hell demand respect and fairness and love from your relationships.
You can "demand" it if you want'. As I said before, go ahead. Seems whacked to me to demand something you can't ensure you can get. I can demand that my boss give me a raise, doesn't mean I'll get it. I can say I deserve it but he doesn't have to agree. I can demand respect, but he doesn't have to comply.
In the end a demand is nothing more than a threat to leave or not get involved, which is what I suggested at the outset. Why "demand" something from someone when there is no way in hell you can control that. Why bother with that whole mental trip? Seems worthless to me but, go ahead. No problem to me.
To me respect is earned, not "demanded". Love you cannot control or direct or demand at all.
Pesonally, I think its idiotic to "demand" emotional feelings from others in personal relationships. You can't make someone love you or respect you etc. But whatever. Carry on, you seem to have it all figured out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pesonally, I think its idiotic to "demand" emotional feelings from others in personal relationships.
Nope.
Demand and expect love in a relationship with your lover, whether your're a man or a woman. Believe me, it works. (If you believe a feminist about love in a relationship, well, at this point you are truly a pathetic fool.) If you don't get love and respect in your relationship with a lover, LEAVE. It doesn't matter if you're male or female.
The evil known as feminism is hardly worthy of the time and effort of good people anymore. The time is coming when its power will be zero and we will be able to ignore it.
Again, men and women, expect and demand love from your relationships with your lovers. If you don't receive them, LEAVE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time to get ready for bed.
To all good men and women, have a fine sleep. And to all feminists, good luck. Your reign of hate is coming to an end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone here considered making this website a men-only club?
Same exact words to the letter when men post at Ms. You've got your on-cue persons idiotically calling for no-men policy there (as IF you could enforce that one on a website) as soon as a man or a poster with a male name posts.
Double hilarious. It's beyond funny how similar this site is to Ms. I'd swear the people at both are genetic clones of each other.
Yes, men are always wrong and women are always right, at websites like Ms. Emulation is the best form of flattery no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As such, it's clear you either can't or won't appreciate the logistics of ethics and morality...
Morality? You won't get very far arguing morality with Lorianne. She made it clear to me a few months ago that morality is irrelevant. She doesn't judge something on the basis of right vs. wrong, she judges on the basis of whether somebody else benefits, such as society.
(Example: "Whether the welfare state is immoral or not is irrelevant! Society benefits from it and crime is reduced!")
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not even going to quote to reply.
You're absolutely right, for once, Lorianne. You can't demand, and it isn't going to happen, because women are socially conditioned to be incapable of love, respect, fairness, equality, or integrity. Women are honorless beings, by definition.
Difference is, I refuse to give it, either. Look at it.
Take a good look. Know how it is I conduct my relationships with women? Know where I learned it from? Know what my model is?
I act like a woman.
Any relationship I have is on my terms, period, non-negotiable. I don't care if A woman becomes "exclusive" in regards with me. I never asked for it. I don't care if sleeping with them they interpret as some commitment. I never said it. I'm in it for what I want, namely, a little nookie when I want it.
Go ahead and dump me. I don't care. Where one leaves there are two ready willing and able to take her place before the phone gets cold.
I realized a long time ago - now, I have kids, done and raised, so doubly so, but - I'm a man. I have no biological clock. I'm in the minority.
Know what that means? Huh? Means that I am a commodity. So, if one woman doesn't please me, the next one is willing to try harder. Or at least let me get into her pants while I find one who is.
Now all we have to do is to teach these younger guys to hold it back until they can get sex on their terms, and retrain women. Hey boys, masturbation has three advantages - you can have it when you want, you can go to sleep when you're done, and you don't have to pretend to be nice to some bitch in the morning.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do know that some gay men pay for sex with other men don't you? Why is that do you think? Maybe because they can't attract another gay man? How mean of gay men to ignore them and disresect them sexually. How mean of all mean to ignore their needs for companionship, emotional and sexual validation!
Oh, what an utter crock of shit. That is not even close to being "reductio ad absurdium."
Hey, I use whores. I admit it. So what? At least when I'm done, the transaction is over.
I don't have a problem with using whores or using women like whores. If you women don't want to be treated like whores, here's a simple solution: Stop acting like it.
I get all the action I want. Why? Because it's available each and every day. I drink coffee every day. Why? I can walk out and buy it. I don't eat morels every day, because they're not available.
It's that simple. Don't wanna be bought? Don't be for sale. But don't squawk at me for buying the goods when they're on the shelf. It's a seller's market, honeychile.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If people live in a materialistic society and grow up with those values, chances are they will be materialistic."
We're not talking here about materialism; rather, we're talking about material GIRLS, i.e. women with a sense that they're ENTITLED to fleece men for material goods rather than dirtying their fingernails by (gas) EARNING it themselves-- or, if they do choose this route, using and abusing men to attain a powerful status by any means necessary other than by honest ones by claiming the license-to-kill of "a male-dominated world."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This survey may be an expression of anti-Japanese racism by Chinese-Singaporeans. Then again it could be very close to the truth. In any case, Mark is right, when he says, "we all have free will and if NO MEN WERE WILLING TO PAY FOR P*SSY- which, to be frank, is basically what is happening - THEN IT'S SUPLIERS WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PUT IT ON SALE!!" This is especially true in the days of the quick and easy hook-up. (Hmmm... Are the women, who engage in "hook-ups," all "hookers?" I suppose so, if they expect free meals out of the deal.)
Despite the pathological inability of feminists to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with the misandrist oppression of men today, or with the misandrist attitudes that have been cultivated by so many women today, there may be FAR more women who want and expect men to be wallets than there are men who desire to be wallets.
Nevertheless, men don't have to play that game. When they figure out that you won't let them enslave you, they'll look elsewhere. Just be sure you've got recordings of the last few times you have sex (defense against false accusations of sexual assault), and try to have witnesses if you break off the relationship with them (defense against false accusations of domestic violence and sexual assault).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"My wife asked me what the source of the article was. I went back and checked and was surprised to see that this is a Singapore website. In other words, a Chinese website. When I told my wife, she just chuckled and told me how much the Chinese dislike the Japanese."
Yeah, how about that-- invade a country, murder a few hundred thousand, rape, and pillage like the plague, and those "nice Chinese manners" vanish like the WIND! Guess we know who the REAL hypocrites are....
" And I can’t ever remember hearing my wife say anything in 33 years that's complimentary of Chinese women. (Other than Chinese food, that is, which we both love)."
Probably jus tjealous over her dad's preferences (and resulting half-siblings) during the Rape of Nanking, and the travel-cuisine taste developed during. Nothing like loyalty to one's native culture...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheez! What does all this have to do with Japanese women of today in general, my wife, or the accuracy of the article we are discussing? Plus, I'm amazed that you could possibly know that my wife's father was involved in the Rape of Nanking. I didn't even know that! Were you able to discern that just by his nationality and sex alone? Were all Japanese men at the time in the military? Did all Japanese men in the military participate? By the way, how do you feel about Germans today? Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews and was supported by most Germans in that endeavor. What about all the countries who supported Germany in World War II? By the way, Japan lost World War II. In fact, we dropped two atomic bombs on them. The leaders then were bad people, obviously, but I've found Japan and the Japanese people today to be quite different based on my experiences. Do you believe that we owe reparations to the blacks living today for slavery in the U.S. over 150 years ago? Saddam Hussein, his sons, and their followers tortured, raped, and killed hundreds of thousands of people. How do you feel about all the other Iraqis? Are they all the same based on their nationality? Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And damn it, when are us descendants of Able going to get our justice from the descendants of Cain? :)
By the way, from the little bit of info. I've been able to gather on the subject is seems like sort of a men's movement has been going on there for a while. Sons have been questioning the workaholic attitudes of their fathers and it seems the entire male role's expectations are weakening. It looks like the only thing that environment needs is some help from us with getting anti-feminist information to them and organization for the movement. However you're likely to have a lot more knowledge than I on contemporary trends in Japanese culture, so do you think this is a correct assessment or anything else to add to it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't mean us as in "American men", I meant us as in all us men's rights folk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't mean us as in "American men", I meant us as in all us men's rights folk.
I just saw that you wrote this, HombreVIII. I agree that we men's rights folk have a lot to offer Japanese men. We have a lot to offer the entire world. But I also believe that the US is now the epicenter of the men's rights (read "truth and justice") movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American men would be the last people I would go to for advice on handling feminists!
For years that has been true. My generation of American men has, with almost no exceptions, capitulated to anti-male fascism. But that is changing, not so much with my generation, but with younger men and even boys today. The US is quickly becoming the epicenter of the truth and justice movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like the only thing that environment needs is some help from us with getting anti-feminist information to them and organization for the movement.
For quite a few years I wanted to emigrate from the US to get away from the huge number of deranged, man-hating, American women. Then about five years ago I realized that the US would soon be the hotbed of anti-feminism. I decided to stay here, and I'm glad I did. We have a lot of value to share with other cultures, when it comes to the notion of justice for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 13, @11:22PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
Not me!
I got chased off this land once as an Indian!
I am NOT gonna let it happen again as a Man!
(^_^)
...However, Thomas, I can CERTAINLY see your point.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One only needs to compare the actual statistics regarding marraige in the US, the world's most gender-equal country, and I'm sure we can see that at LEAST 70% marry someone of equal or greater income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"One only needs to compare the actual statistics regarding marraige in the US, the world's most gender-equal country, and I'm sure we can see that at LEAST 70% marry someone of equal or greater income."
Recently I was reading the transcript of a segment of I believe 60 minutes or another of those news shows made in the wake of the Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire fiasco, where someone stated that 94% of women surveyed said they *wouldn't even consider* marrying a man who makes less money than they do. Whoever said that did not site their source, but it wouldn't surprise me if that figure is accurate.
- Freebird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 12, @07:44PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Freebird.
Like I said in an earlier post...:
"Human females are human females no matter where you go."
The same could be said for us guys, too, I guess...,
-Thundercloud.
(I have enough aggravation...,)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud,
"Human females are human females no matter where you go."
Which royally bites. I share your affinity for Asian women.....
People will get away with whatever they can, as a rule. The biggest reason women act as they do is the utter lack of penalty for their misbehavior both in the social and legal realms. Golddigging by men, which is pretty rare, is roundly stigmatized and criticized, but the same behavior by women is not only not stigmatized, but excused and glorified. False accusations of abuse and harassment by women are rarely if ever prosecuted despite being crimes, yet men get the book thrown at them for similar behavior. As we all know, a man almost never gets a fair shake in divorce court even if he is completely in the right, and of the nearly 80% of divorces,which are filed by women, most are filed on baseless or no grounds at all. A woman can throw a fit and get her way, a man cannot. And oddly, men still date golddigging, manhating women. They must be terribly desperate for a little action.
As long as women can get away with just about anything, their behavior will never change.
- Freebird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 13, @11:29PM EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
Freebird,
Yeah, exactly.
That is why I gave up any desire to marry, some years ago.
I don't even date, anymore. I'm just not willing to take the chances anymore.
I got too little property and belongings that I can truely call my own. Therefore, I possibly have everything to lose if I were even to date a woman.
It's amazeing though, how at peace I am with it all...,
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't even date, anymore. I'm just not willing to take the chances anymore.
I got too little property and belongings that I can truely call my own. Therefore, I possibly have everything to lose if I were even to date a woman."
With little property and belongings, that's not something you'll really need to worry about.
However you might want to look into burying assets in a corporation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"People will get away with whatever they can, as a rule."
Let's not forget the issue of conscience and the superego, whereby people act according to their beliefs and attitudes, which are largely inherited from their society and culture.
In America, almost ALL women are gold-digging man-haters to some degree, due to the attitudes of mass-feminization and liberalism cynicism whereby men are not even seen as undeserving of respect, while women are always right; women raised in a more reverent culture would tend to be shocked at the scheming disrespect that goes on.
However, again selective reform once again plays into this, with the egocentric western tradition of women seeking to marry out of their social circles being preserved in convenient synthesis with the modern demand for silver-platter entitlement to complete equality with everything men must compete and strive to earn- and naturally, they see no problem with using men-- who are presented to them as mere tickets to selfish ends to use as best suits them-- as stepping-stones to get it.
Contrary to ignorant sluts like Lorianne, respect and fairness in society are not individual voluntary choices which are entirely individual, but they are ethics and attitudes developed and preserved on a social scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 12, @11:01AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this quote is very interesting:
"The survey also found that 64 per cent of women questioned thought they would never get married, although it offered no explanation as to whether that had more to do with women's high expectations or the nature of Japanese men."
I rather imagine the reason 64% of Japanese women don't expect to get married has more to with *their* nature rather than the nature of Japanese men!
The only thing that can be said of a massive drop-off in marriage and child-making in Japan is that it would do Japan some good to get more elbow room. I have been there and it is an understatement to say that it is crowded as all heck. But to relieve Japan's overpopulation problem by denigrating men and hailing the end of warm, positive, loving relationships between the sexes (whether couples are married or not) makes the means unjustifiable. And ends rarely if ever justify means.
Oh yeah, same thing goes for America and American women, too. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The only thing that can be said of a massive drop-off in marriage and child-making in Japan is that it would do Japan some good to get more elbow room. I have been there and it is an understatement to say that it is crowded as all heck. But to relieve Japan's overpopulation problem by denigrating men and hailing the end of warm, positive, loving relationships between the sexes (whether couples are married or not) makes the means unjustifiable. And ends rarely if ever justify means."
I think we as Americans are somewhat to blame for exporting western values of gender-tolerance and democracy which upset the apple-cart of their PRIOR means of gender-relations and population control of total dictatorship under a warrior-code under which women were dutiful servants and property.
NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we as Americans are somewhat to blame for exporting western values of gender-tolerance and democracy which upset the apple-cart of their PRIOR means of gender-relations and population control of total dictatorship under a warrior-code under which women were dutiful servants and property.
NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT....
Does anyone else here get the impression that tulkas is a feminist troll, who's trying to discredit our efforts through hyperbole, false accusations, ad hominem, and baseless threats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 12, @07:52PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Tulkas,
Come on. You've made some good points on this site. but I gotta go with Thomas on this.
Yeah, alot of us here have our gripes with "women", but no one here that I know of wants to see them with less rights than men or wants to see them denegrated. Maybe you're just makeing a joke but, female-bashing is no better than male-bashing.
Sorry, I'm not trying to start anything, here. Just makeing a point.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, let's observe this scientifically:
In the article, she writes:
"In my experience both men and women are equally guilty of the above behavior but on the whole, because it is men's dysfunctional behavior that is studied and reported upon, people do not realize that to the same extent women are equally guilty of this type of violent behavior."
However, the article ends with:
"Erin Pizzey was the founder of a women's shelter in Chiswick, England, the first modern battered women's shelter in the world. She found that of the first 100 women who came to her shelter, 62 were as or more violent than the partners they tried to escape from...."
Ok, so now somehow a nearly 2:1 (62:38) ratio is "equally guilty."
And yet, her efforts were entirely and exclusively continued solely on behalf of the FEMALE victims! Then what does this say to the male victims, whom she admits are the majority?
Mathematically, that means, according to Erin Pizza, men are BORN with 2 strikes against them!
Still wanna claim there's no bias?
Bow to the master, children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect your post was meant for another thread.
In any case, I hope everyone except Tulkas can see through this. Ther first quote refers to society as a whole. The second quote refers to the select set of women who went to the shelter for abused women. You get different results, because you are looking at two very different groups, the population as a whole and a far smaller, self-selected subgroup -- pretty obvious difference.
As for her efforts on the part of men, they're described in this article, linked to on another thread. (If you care to discuss this further, move it to the proper thread.)
Erin states, "I saw this happen when I tried to open a men's refuge almost immediately after I bought the main Chiswick building for the women's refuge. I had seen sufficient men who were horribly abused and needed somewhere to go. What offended me was that even though the Greater London Council were willing to give me an excellent building in North London, I could not get one single fund raiser to help me raise money for the men."
If you want to claim that you are looking at things "scientifically," you'd best start by getting some facts. Hysteria, false accusations, and baseless threats do the men's movement no good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your math leaves much to be desired!
"Erin Pizzey was the founder of a women's shelter in Chiswick, England, the first modern battered women's shelter in the world. She found that of the first 100 women who came to her shelter, 62 were as or more violent than the partners they tried to escape from...."
Ok, so now somehow a nearly 2:1 (62:38) ratio is "equally guilty."
The correct ratio is 62:100, that is for every 100 women who were battered by men 62 were at least as violent as the men. Therefore, according to her figures (not a scientific sample anyhow) men were 1.6129 more likely to be violent in the relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your math leaves much to be desired... men were 1.6129 more likely to be violent in the relationship.
And don't forget that she or he was complaining that the statistics weren't the same for the population as a whole as for this relatively, very small, self-selected group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Thomas for your astute observations and for pointing out the importance difference between a 'population' and a 'sample', an unrepresentative sample for that matter. Ranting, and raving and pulling a rabbit(numbers) out of a hat do nothing to further our cause. Tulkas' math and 'scientific analysis' would be laughable if it were not so serious a subject. Statistics and the conclusions to be gleened from them must be carefully scrutinized in order to discern the truth to be derived from them. For mens' rights (human rights) to be furthered we must not only demonstrate that the popular figures and beliefs are wrong, we must also demonstrate how and why we are right. Much research has been conducted in the area of DV by solid researchers such as Gelles, Straus, Steinmetz and countless others, and everyone who has really looked into the matter knows that it is really a 50-50 proposition. Here is a link to massive research that has been conducted into this realm:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Ø Statistics Canada Report on Family Violence 2000 reports that 8% of women and 7% of men have been the victim of criminal domestic violence in the past 5 years.
.The survey was conducted between February and December 1999. A total of 25,874 people were interviewed
Source: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000725/d000725 b.htm
Ø The Home Office Research Report No.191, published Jan.2000 announced that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, the British Crime Survey 1999 also indicated near parity. As have other reports that are produced across the Atlantic. Despite this the Government devotes virtually all its propaganda and funding to female victims. Why is it that the government is so determined to ignore its own research showing that men are just as likely to be victims ?
10,844 people were interviewed
This report also states that 'clearly the police are not aware of the vast majority of incidents or victims.'. of domestic violence.
Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/domesticviolence/pubs list.htm
Ø REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 130 scholarly investigations: 104 empirical studies and 26 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 77,000.
Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Ø 'ONE IN FOUR WOMEN RAPED'?
That number was disproved long ago. Christina
Hoff-Sommers, associate professor of Philosophy at Clark University, investigative reporters from the Toledo Blade, and others, found these numbers came from a 1988 MS magazine report by Mary Koss, who used a definition of rape that was so broad as to be totally meaningless.
Source: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
(a paraphrase but completely correct)
Ø The Truth About Child Murder
The Relationship between Sex, Household Incomes, Families, and Child Abuse
The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3)
US Department of Health and Human Services, page 6-11, table 6-4 NIS-3 is a comprehensive, credible nationwide study of the extent of child abuse and who the perpetrators are. It reports that in 1993 children were 59 times more likely to be fatally abused [read: murdered] by natural mothers than by natural fathers.
Source: http://christianparty.net/nis3.htm
Ø NSPCC SHATTERS CHILD ABUSE MYTHS
Common stereotypes about child abuse are overturned in the NSPCC
largest ever study of child maltreatment.
a.. Myth: the most common form of abuse suffered by children at home is
sexual abuse. Fact: children are seven times more likely to be beaten badly by their
parents than sexually abused by them.
a.. Myth: most sexual abuse occurs between fathers and their daughters.
Fact: this type of incestuous relationship is rare, occurring in less than four in a thousand children...
a.. Myth: adults are responsible for most sexual violence against children and young people outside the family. Fact: children are most likely to be forced into unwanted sexual activity by other young people, most usually from someone described as a
boyfriend. Less than three in a thousand of the young people reported sexual behaviour against their wishes with professionals working with children.
a.. Myth: sexual attacks on children from strangers are common. Fact: sexual assaults involving contact by strangers are very rare...
NSPCC Director Mary Marsh says: Modern myths about child cruelty have
emerged from the public attention given to horrific and frightening cases of child abuse by strangers. Other traditional stereotypes come from a historical wellspring of children stories about wicked adult bogey figures. These stereotypes have become part of popular culture. This report challenges us to re-examine preconceived ideas about child cruelty. In some cases it calls on policy-makers and professionals to
overhaul thinking and reconsider how to approach different kinds of child maltreatment.
Source: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/scripts/showprj.pl?story=3 840&prj=547
Ø Mothers kill six times as many children as husbands kill wives, yet Congress enacted VAWA ('Violence Against Women Act') to "protect women".
Source: http://christianparty.net/ca.htm
Ø The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in
the UK freely admits that 65% of child abuse is committed by women. It is
interesting to note that only 8% of child abuse is committed by
biological fathers i.e. REAL fathers.
Source: http://www.lbduk.org/ (stats)
Ø While the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that 2600 people suicide each year, a 2001 report released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) showed that This represented nine male suicides to every female suicide.
Source: http://www.suite101.com/mypage.cfm/opensesame/1686 9
One thing that we can show is that there is a clear link between men who are going through divorce and suicide. One study showed divorced men "Seventy per cent of the fathers I talk to seriously think of suicide," said Paul Hidlebaugh, who used to run an advocacy group for children in custody battles and is an advocate of fathers' rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, Just wait 'til the old biological clock starts ticking !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 12, @07:57PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, great, someone with a name like mine. I doubt THAT will cause any confusion.
(^_^)
-ThunderCLOUD.
(I have enough aggravation...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop bickering - we're meant to be on the same side !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 13, @11:31PM EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
Kidding, KIDDING! (^_^)
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
