|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least the reaction to her first piece of garbage was sufficient to have her tone it down a bit in the next piece of garbage.
In this one she at least has a facade of "looking at" an issue rather than just spewing. In the end it still points to men being at fault, but I can see a lessening of the vitrol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On a quick read, this actually strikes me as a pretty fair-minded, though necessarily (given the editorial context)extremely brief, examination of a complicated and serious problem.
Reimer writes:
Bill Helzlsouer, also 24, who works in marketing, echoed the complaint I received from so many male readers: Feminism has changed the balance of power between men and women. The men are confused and angry, and women are to blame.
"A lot of men feel like we didn't change the rules, you did. If you aren't happy, it is your fault. We never quit being who we were, you quit being who you were."
The result is that both sexes are out to protect themselves, to the point of delivering the first blow. (emphasis mine)
Reimer doesn't seem to be blaming this on men. She's showing what many men and women feel and indicating how those feelings are symptoms of men's and women's crippled abilities to share loving relationships with each other.
As a staunch anti-Nazi (read "anti-feminist") I don't take exception to this article. People need to be more aware of the disastrous status of male-female relationships.
In e-mails, letters, phone calls and online conversations, men said they found women to be high-handed, demanding, duplicitous, dominating, spoiled, superior, selfish and unworthy of anything more than a single night of easy sex. Why would they want to marry one?
The problem, as I see it, is not that all women are accurately described in this way. There are numerous exceptions. I have the privilege and pleasure of knowing some. The problem is that, even if you find a fine woman, the laws regarding male-female relationships are so stacked against men that a man literally becomes the woman's slave, when they marry, whether or not she's a nice slave owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question for you:
If, all of a sudden, a man could divorce a woman for no reason, kick her out of the house, take the kids, take half of her assets, and sieze a good portion of what she makes for years to come, how long do you think it would take for a million women to march on Washington?
I am so glad this web site is up. Men need to get out the word that we are not, as a sex, sufficiently sticking up for ourselves through activism. Are we lazy, too busy, afraid of being called names, afraid of being wrong, afraid of losing? All of these? The American family is at stake here. Men are afraid of taking their vows for very real reasons now, and the easy sex that is the answer ruins friendships with women, prevents marriage, and cheapens sex itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 31, @08:02PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I am astounded to hear that any liberated woman would ever expect a date. Doesn't women's studies 101 provide all the gratification that women need from interaction with the opposite sex. After all, w.s.101 teaches that all heterosexual relations are rape. The superiority of women has been so enshrined in our society that conversation with a woman has become insufferable for everyman.
Gee, let's see men are either treated as if their stupid when they date, or said to be stupid every chance a women get. I agree with the young guy in this story, who the heck wants to be around these venom spewing demons of feminazism any more than one has to be.
The only reason a woman even wants a man is so she can get a free ride in life, pursue her own selfish desires at the expense of everything in the guys life.
When it comes to being with a modern woman or being without a woman I see it as an avoidance/avoidance conflict. Is the loneliness, lack of sex and companship worse than the living hell that comes from being associated with having a modern female partner in your life. Clearly, a relationship with a modern woman is the best cure for loneliness and desire for sexual relations going. Just hope that you can get away with enough of your life and wallet to still have a life after learning the bitter truth about these hell twisted harpies. Unfortuantely, modern women who have been poisoned by the lies of feminism seem to be the only thing available to a guy these days.
Clearly western law under feminazism has done everything it can to entrap men in a life of financial servitude to a woman so that their agenda can be further promoted in our society, and so that women can be further empowered.
The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of feminism strives to gain more power and control until they have total power and control through their "redistribution of wealth," (redistribution from the male pocket to the female pocket).
The wise young man today would be wise to stay unentrapped to any female, or just say "Go screw youself in w.s. 101." Their are plenty of sister loving sisters there to sear the illogical female consciousness to the truth.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 01, @10:27AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Another big reason that younger men are savvy to the risks of relationships is that many have witnessed what happens to men in our feminist legal system in relation to divorce, child support, domestic violence, sexual assault, etc.
By virtue of seeing what has transpired over the past three decades of the rise of gyno-fascism in the courts, younger men now realize they can lose everything on the basis of one false accusation by a vindictive female.
Being rational by nature, more and more men are assessing the risks of female entanglement as far outweighing the transitory emotional benefits.
Beyond the legal toxicity, American women have re-made themselves in the feminist mode and in so doing have become less and less desirable.
Men are now showing these reconstituted females the logical consequences of their choices by demonstrating vast male indifference to the formerly fairer sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 01, @11:59AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, what females used to use to attract men into a relationship of marriage and family is used for different purposes today. Females are now just interested in trapping or capturing a man in a situation of financial servitude without any of the male nurturing benefits of marriage and family.
The war between the sexes has never been more hostile, treacherous, brutal, devastating, cruel or unfulfilling for men.
Having sex with a female can be a lot of fun for a guy, but so can sky diving, motorcycles, race cars, crocodile hunting, etc. All can be extremely dangerous, and life threatening, and should only be undertaken, while taking every precaution, especially when engaged in the former. The trail of destroyed male lives is testimony to the need for caution in every dangerous situation. No situation is more dangerous to a male today then that of being involved with a female.
Men are born risk takers, but contrary to feminine opinion they are not fools. Men learn many lessons in the treacherously hard school of life, (also called learn by doing). Once educated they are not likely to be stupid enough to engage "UNCAUTIOUSLY" in life threateningly dangerous behavior a 2nd time. Especially after having been warned by their male seniors. Many of these words will ring painfully in the ears of young men who will yet be brutalized by females in this feminazi world. Let us hope their survival instincts will grow stronger and adapt to the feminazi evil as this article's complaining seems to indicate is happening.
Let the female wind bags blow. It will only more strongly reinforce caution in young men to the shrieking dangers and abuses they will find in the entanglement of feminine relations in a feminazi world.
I hope dating is dead. If females can ask for alimony, child support, child custody, etc., and make charges that put men in jail, then they certainly are not shy and unempowered creatures, and have no excuse for not making most of the effort in starting a relationship. Men clearly are the ones who have the most to lose and should take every step as if it were their last, because a female is the greatest danger, the greatest risk that a man faces in life today.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I found this slightly less finger pointing, but I think she made an effort to make men seem more whiney and women right, yet persecuted. She didn't want to go so far as to say women, with a break-neck desire to match men in selfish sexual behavior might just be partially responsible?
Personally, I don't mind going dutch or staying in, the women seemed kind of whiney in that part of the article: "I want this a certain way but you have to plan it! And read my mind to know that I don't find it disrespectful, contary to what everyone has been telling you for years!" really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 31, @10:33PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
This is Boy Genteel. I'm on vacation, using a laptop and I can't remember my password.
Luna, you rock. I wanted to get that out of the way, because it's true, as is what you just said. Here's my response to that newspaper. Does anyone know how I can send an e-mail directly to Reimer?
She needs to know how many people's feelings she has hurt:
I have two major problems with Susan Reimer's July 29 piece on dating:
--Yes, people are more promiscuous than they were fifty years ago. This is not news, but why does Reimer place all of the blame at the feet of men? On those abysmal reality-dating shows she mentioned, the women are just as hot and bothered as the men. The suggestion that all men are promiscuous and all women are virtuous is a stereotype that winds up hurting everyone.
--If people think that chivalry is dead, I say, "Good riddance to bad rubbish." We need to replace one-sided chivalry with common courtesy and basic human decency. Some say that chivalry is degrading to women, and it probably is. But how come no one worries if it's degrading to MEN? Let's review. According to "chivalry", the man is responsible for asking the woman out, for making all arrangements, for driving and picking her up, for paying for everything even if both people earn the same salary, for holding the door for her, for pushing in her chair, for surprising her with gifts and bold gestures of love, and overall for making her feel special. According to "chivalry", the woman doesn't need to do ANY of this. Believe it or not, there are some guys out there who'd also like to feel special, to feel loved and wanted. This is a human characteristic, not a male or female one.
We need to stop treating people differently based on which chromosomes they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 31, @11:21PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"We need to replace one-sided chivalry with common courtesy and basic human decency."
I'll 2nd that. Do you think fems like the author have a clue that this might have something to do with the decline of dating. Chivalry is a one way street. Even when guys are going down it the right way, they're often told they're wrong because they're not mind readers (or is it mood readers).
Courtesy is a two way street. If the author had half the smarts she pretends to have, she would have figured this out long ago and she would be conducting herself in a more respectful, balanced and objective way when addressing this topic.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hahaha! maybe I'm a homosexual man trapped in a woman's body. If you have any way to conclusively prove my womanliness you're welcome to suggest it.
The whole mind-reading expectations bugged me way before I got into men's rights and all.
Plus, uh, feminists HAVE been saying that chivalry is degrading - that Strong Women should be insulted if men start paying for dinner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Hahaha! maybe I'm a homosexual man trapped in a woman's body
Actually, the possibility that you might be a gay guy crossed my mind after I submitted my previous post.
>If you have any way to conclusively prove my womanliness you're welcome to suggest it.
I don't have one at the moment, but coming up with one might be a fun project. I've been thinking about starting a men's rights organization and creating a test for men and women to take before joining to find out how badly they've been brainwashed over the years by the feminazi's and the media and whether or not they are too far gone to be saved.
>The whole mind-reading expectations bugged me way before I got into men's rights and all.
You've never said to a boyfriend, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you!"?
>Strong Women should be insulted if men start paying for dinner.
I've never heard this from the feminazi's before but I've got to admit I get really annoyed every time I hear a man or woman talk about a man "taking a woman out". It seems to me, this phrase should really only apply to an adult/child relationship. How can any self-respecting woman expect to be taken seriously as an adult and "equal" and use this phrase in conversation? What do you think about this?
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the only way to prove my femininity would a be live nekkid webcam screenshot with all my posts, if I was equipped to - and it was allowed. I rather doubt it is.
>creating a test for men and women to take before >joining to find out how badly they've been >brainwashed over the years by the feminazi's and >the media and whether or not they are too far >gone to be saved.
Hmm... Personally I'd make it more informal, because I was a feminist once, and was convinced. I think presenting your arguments well is more important than figuring who can be salvagable at the door.
>You've never said to a boyfriend, "If you don't >know, I'm not going to tell you!"?
I have never said that, or any variation, because it would be really dumb. I don't care what you think my gender is because of that opinion, most people don't think of the exact same thing, at the exact same thing, and getting angry because someone isn't is just moronic.
>I've never heard this from the feminazi's before >but I've got to admit I get really annoyed every >time I hear a man or woman talk about a >man "taking a woman out". It seems to me, this >phrase should really only apply to an >adult/child relationship. How can any self->respecting woman expect to be taken seriously as >an adult and "equal" and use this phrase in >conversation? What do you think about this?
I was thinking of alternate meanings for the 'taking a woman out' and MOB references surfaced. I dunno, the whole idea of expecting someone else to pay for everything even when you make a moderate amount of money seems immature anyway. Even when my boyfriend was making nil and I was making more than enough to get by on, he didn't like being paid for. So after while I didn't like it either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 01, @02:58AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if they have the same barber, but they appear to use the same bowl.
I can't say that I look forward to her next article, but I'll look forward to her next haircut if she goes for the Larry or Curley look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though this article is an improvement over her last one, it is still a ridiculous mess. I like how one of the complaints that many men have is that women are..."superior." Wishful thinking, I suppose. They can't wait until we crack and say that. Fortunately, the Fourth Reich's propoganda machine hasn't pulled it off yet. I also like how the writer pulls a Dick Gephardt and invents a character for her little story who meets her purpose. If this 24-year-old nimrod does actually exist and he wants things to go back to the way they were (where he wines and dines the girl for a few months and prays for sex) he deserves his self-imposed misery. He is afraid to ask a girl on a traditional date? Just buy a hooker and she'll let you buy her things and if you want she can refuse you sex if you like.
The decline of dating is the single best thing to come out of the FemiDyke Revolution. I am now "pro choice" on dating. If I want to date there are plenty of women who are starving for the traditional "take me out" kind of date. But it is no longer expected so when I just want some fun, I "choose" that option.
If we threw these nitwits lifelines they would find a way to strangle themselves with it and blame us for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this 24-year-old nimrod does actually exist and he wants things to go back to the way they were (where he wines and dines the girl for a few months and prays for sex)
You forgot to mention the bit where the nimrodette in question screws the guy's drug {addicted,dealing} brother all the while using the guy in question for emotional support.
he deserves his self-imposed misery.
No kidding. It's getting so much harder to feel sorry for the morons that, by pursuing relationships with women, push up the 'price' of women (supply and demand - pursuit is 'demand', and the supply of women is fixed, see), which is what allows certain women to act in such an abject manner toward men.
Just buy a hooker and she'll let you buy her things
Not only may that very well work out cheaper than a real gf, it lowers the demand for relationships and hence pushes down the 'price' of women. Hence, the women ('vendors' of affection, if you will) have to offer a more compelling product to stimulate 'sales' (due to weakening aggregate demand but fixed supply).
if you want she can refuse you sex if you like.
LOL that just cracked me up something chronic. Talk about sardonic, barbed sarcasm! 8-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(sighs)If only everyone else could figure this supply and demand thing out. Maybe we'll have a vagina bubble like the tech bubble of 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely relations between the sexes have not been so mean-spirited since the days when women were chattel.
I'm sorry, but this is a cheap shot. She may be a bit more fair and balanced through the rest of the article, but referencing the distant past (with a definite, gender feminist spin) in the guise of an off-hand analogy seems rather like a gentle reminder to the jury that in the battle of the sexes, men have a prior criminal record and women do not. The jury should keep this planted firmly in mind while weighing the testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely relations between the sexes have not been so mean-spirited since the days when women were chattel.
I'm sorry, but this is a cheap shot. She may be a bit more fair and balanced through the rest of the article, but referencing the distant past (with a definite, gender feminist spin) in the guise of an off-hand analogy seems rather like a gentle reminder to the jury that in the battle of the sexes, men have a prior criminal record and women do not.
Damn good point, Hawth. I heartily concur.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
