Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2007-10-10 20:20
Every now and then, something is written in the sub-MSM world that just about sums it all up. This reports on a recent exchange between a woman seeking to become a trophy bride and a man who explains why he wouldn't take the deal. Original posting duplicated here. You will enjoy it.
Like0 Dislike0
Comments
Unbelievable
This story is in most popular on reuters.com.
The mystery banker, who said he fit the bill, offered the woman an analysis of her predicament, describing it as "plain and simple a crappy business deal."
"Your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity ...
Cannot believe that I read it on Reuters.
----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:
Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction
"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."
J. Steinbeck.
Not An MRA
The rich guy who responded to this gold digging whore can't be a MRA.
He mentioned nothing about the corrupt family court system that would skin him alive if he ever was foolish enough to marry this skank.
Unfortunately, he is like too many intelligent men who are just in denial about their legal standing in this misandric society when it comes to marriage and dealing with the entitlement skanks in it.
Leuk, Just because the
Leuk,
Just because the person didn't take the opportunity to mention ever single reason for not wanting to marry the woman doesn't make the guy less interested in men's rights. He was responding to the specific points she was making, which was that she felt her looks qualified her for a wealthy husband.
We shouldn't be attempting to emulate the 'sisterhood' methodology of feminism, where any opinion contrary to the mainstream feminist ideal makes one an enemy of the movement. The only thing that should make one a MRA is a belief that women's "equality" should never require men to be turned into second class citizens. All other arguements stem from that basic principle.
Women Depreciate Faster Than Men
The genius of the reply to this whore's offer was the author's purely economic logic.
Women offer men their beauty; men offer women their wealth.
Beauty fades rapidly; wealth increases slowly.
How many old rich men do you see desperately trying to marry a 50-plus year-old menopausal banshee on hormone therapy?
Mother Nature has a wicked sense of poetic justice!
Seen any photos of Kim Gandy lately?
She's way over the shelf life of any credible feminist trying to attract the next generation of the Sisterhood....
Because it is so superficial, beauty (and the "feminine") comes with an expiration date.
Masculinity, based on principles, is timeless.
It made the NYT!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/business/media/08golddigger.html
Predictably the article author calls the comments made by the unknown responder "sexist"-- but fails to mention the sexism in the original poster's attitude that she wants a rich man and that's that. But that is what we can expect it seems from the NYT.
What's sauce for the goose..
They objectify us, so we objectify them in return. (of course then they complain that they are objectified)
-ax
She can just do the usual,
She can just do the usual, and make a phony DV complaint while she divorces him. Sir, your money would not age better than the gold digger.
Roy is spot-on here.
I have to agree with you here man.
----------
The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek