Tender Is The Nightmare
Women these days think they have the luxury of being picky about men, and you encourage them. You ran a letter from "Almost A Bride," the woman whose fiance has difficulty dealing with conflict. She said, "I'm in my late 40s, and don't want to end up alone. No man is perfect, right?" I have news for her: If she doesn't marry him, she probably will end up alone. I read about a study of women over 65 who'd been married: 25 percent were still married, 50 percent were divorced or separated, and 25 percent were widowed. The article also stated that 70 percent of girls in high school would work full time their entire lives. So much for the marrying the guy and being a full-time mommy dream! Face reality, ladies!
--Realist
Imagine shopping for dinner the way you suggest shopping for a husband: "Oh, look! A piece of rotting meat that's fallen on the grocery store floor! I'll take it!"
This woman's fiance doesn't just have "difficulty dealing with conflict." He causes scenes in public. Feels everybody's out to get him. And the woman wrote, "My wedding would've been tomorrow, but my fiance broke up with me over a triviality, took my engagement ring, and stormed off -- his pattern at the slightest conflict." As I pointed out, "Being with this guy isn't a way to avoid ending up alone, but a near guarantee you'll end up alone -- dozens and dozens of times."
But, hey, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do to get a man! Or, as you put it, "Face reality, ladies!" Yes, ladies, do that. Reality number one: the marketability of skills like wiping a toddler's nose and reading "The Very Hungry Caterpillar." If your husband leaves you for his Very Sexy Secretary, let's hope you didn't have children at 22 after graduating with a B.A. in philosophy. It's wonderful if you can read Heidegger in the original German, but as a newly single mother, adrift at, say, 31, that qualifies you to be an unusually well-read salesgirl at Dress Barn.
Reality number two is human mortality. Damn humans keep getting picked off by buses and drowning in their own nosebleeds. You do mention widows in those stats you're holding up like the Ten Commandments. Those stats tell you how things turned out for a bunch of women somebody surveyed. But because something COULD happen to somebody in your demographic doesn't mean it WILL happen to you. Those particular stats didn't even include couples who've been together for eons but aren't married, like my lovebird senior citizen friends, Kay and Earl, and those cute little old ladies in San Francisco who just celebrated their 55th anniversary of not being allowed to marry with a wedding at City Hall.
Last spring, my friend Cathy Seipp died of cancer. The fall before, she told me she was afraid to be alone, so 15 of her friends became "Team Cathy," and saw that she never was. Did I mention that she was divorced? Not one of us was there because we were married to her or sleeping with her. Face reality, ladies! You'd better make some friends and fill in whatever in yourself you've been trying to patch with a man. Eliminate desperation, and there's no need to settle for the first exploding cigar that falls in your lap. Of course, being pickier may mean that women like "Almost A Bride" will miss out on that "full-time mommy dream" you talk about -- or whatever you'd call life with a tantrum-throwing 3-year-old who's just this side of 50.
What a jerk. So, any woman who wants to get married and possibly have a family has to just take what ever comes down the pike? WTF is that? Some BS get out of jail free card for men to behave any way they please because if we want a man so badly we'll just have to put up with it? Um...sorry but a lot of us are in the "Better single than sorry" catagorie. And YOU my little hombre are definatly SORRY!!!
Chris Feeney at July 23, 2008 3:37 AM
What's the big deal about being alone, anyway? I was married for 13 years and have been single for 7 years (yes, I'm admittedly very, very gun-shy to be married again). Even though I've always earned enough money to support myself, even when I was married, and even though I certainly have less disposable income as a single person, I have found I really enjoy my freedom. For me personally, that doesn't mean a wild -n- crazy lifestyle (nothing against it, it's just not for me). But I like making all my own decisions--about my money, about where I live, when I go out, who I visit, where I go on vacation, etc. etc. I'm lucky to have several close friendships and many hobbies, so I rarely feel lonely. Sure, if I met someone who seemed compatible, I'd certainly pursue it, but I'm just not even at the point of trying to find dates. Being alone may not be for everyone, but I really enjoy it and have no clue why it's seen as a put down or worst-case scenario.
Monica at July 23, 2008 5:00 AM
There's a BIG difference between being lonely and being alone. You can be lonely even if you're in a committed relationship, if you and your partner aren't communicating well (or at all). I think some people just have to have somebody else to focus on, because they still aren't comfortable with who they are. But the bottom line is, no matter where you go, there you are. There's no getting away from that, and you can't depend on someone else to fulfill that void in your life. I settled once. Got less than I settled for. Will NOT be making that mistake ever again. o_O
Flynne at July 23, 2008 5:36 AM
Sign over a bar in a Meat Market - "It is better to be lonely than miserable."
WolfmanMac at July 23, 2008 6:13 AM
Quite frankly women who are fine being alone are far more fun to have a relationship with than someone desperate to settle down
lujlp at July 23, 2008 6:14 AM
I just read where Katie Couric said sexism is more prevalent than racism these days, and this is a good example. Notice how this moron didn't say anything about middle-aged guys ending up "alone" because they won't date anyone over 30. He probably considers that reasonable. But we're just supposed to take whatever fat, boorish, impotent loser comes our way.
He's obviously one of the ones we're not "picking" so we must be "too picky".
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 6:39 AM
It's worth noting that there's a logical error in his letter as well.
Postulate A = Teenage girls are no longer satisfied with the notion that finding someone (anyone!) and breeding is the be-all and end-all of life. They want lives of their own.
Postulate B = Some women who have lives of their own might never find someone (anyone!) and breed.
So, many women might end up in a situation that they've said they not only don't mind, but are quite keen on. And this is a problem . . . why?
Anathema at July 23, 2008 6:54 AM
What's that? I'm sorry. I've been laughing too hard since the end up alone thing stated like it's the worse thing that could possibly happen to really pay attention. Frankly, it's the best thing that's ever happened to me. I like being queen of my castle and my life. But Monica said it best. She expressed exactly the way I feel about it.
T's Grammy at July 23, 2008 6:59 AM
The supply of 'good men' is very limited and the demand is very high. And, with consideration that men are now avoiding marriage because it is a risky financial decision, plagued with a legal system stacked against them, it is no suprise that women ultimately have to take what ever comes thier way.
While I disagree with Realist, that she has to settle for scum, I also wonder the probability (at her age) that she would find a decent partner at least a little better in quality who is also looking for somoene of her age and situation. The odds don't look good for her, and perhaps being single is acceptable.
J.D. at July 23, 2008 7:00 AM
I suppose it could be a problem for some women...though I don't know any. Maybe because in my 40s now, but I don't have any friends who are like, "OMG, what if I end up alone? What if I don't find a man?"
That seemed to be more the case in the late 20s/early 30s when some women were feeling the biological clock ticking and wanted kids. But, even then, it was more about breeding than being "alone".
Now, most of my friends are accomplished, happy, and single...or at least the single ones are happy. lol
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 7:06 AM
I disagree with you J.D. In my 4 years of being single, I've met a lot of "good guys" who really wanted to settled down. I could've married any number of them, but many were not adventurous or passionate enough for me. I'm not trying to have kids, or be taken care of financially, so it was more like, "Why settle for mediocrity? I don't NEED to get married."
Yet, there's no shortage of good guys if a woman really wants to marry...and knows the qualities to look for, which is a big thing. Unfortunately, many women are drawn to the "bad guys" not the good ones.
And I also think that when a women says that she "doesn't want to end up alone" she's usually referring to a breakup with a particular guy, and really what she's saying is, "I don't want to lose my INVESTMENT in this relationship." It's back to that discussion some columns ago about how we don't want to admit we're wrong when we've made a bad investment.
That's usually the only time I hear that phrase - during a breakup. Once the emotions clear, and he's out of her life, she's usually glad she's "alone".
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 7:22 AM
Based on the girlie comments above, I might get the idea that modern women are strong and independent and don't need a man. That may be sort of true, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. In a divorce situation, women nearly always need alimony and child support and "equal" division of assets, even if the man earned $100k and the wife sat at home, watching Oprah and reading Cosmo. She "sacrificed her career" (AKA retired early) and "supported him emotionally", so that he could earn the big paycheck, yada yada.
Furthermore, what women really don't want is someone they deem a "beta". Anyone sufficiently "alpha", will not be able to date one of these independent women for very long before he finds her whining, nagging, and stamping her foot for a government marriage contract.
If modern women were so independent and strong, then things like marriage, alimony, child support, affirmative action in the workplace, and "protected class" status in the corporations would completely disappear entirely because hard charging, "have it all" women could easily provide for themselves and their children. All they would really need is a stud to knock them up, and then they could part ways, with no further entanglements.
P at July 23, 2008 7:39 AM
You can kid yourself that you're an "alpha male" but that's just code for misogynist. There's still a lot of sexism out there, and God knows we pay our dues listening to your sexist rants, at home and work. Anyone married to you would divorce you.
It never ceases to amaze me how jerks like this get married, whine their sexist crap at home, demean and devalue their wives as partners and mothers, then they're SURPRISED when she leaves! And so they play victim about how "taken advantage of" they are by the system. Why? Because it's not all set up like it was in the 1950s anymore, where you could keep us as slaves and share none of the marital assets?
Men like you who think women "read Oprah" and do nothing at home are garbage, plain and simple. We are certainly strong and independent enough not to need someone like you in our lives. You're just mad that we have a choice.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 8:25 AM
lovlysoul: I use the term "good guys" to distinguish them from the "nice guys" (who are chumps, pushovers, and such; see the TLC Show "must love kids" where some of the guys had purchased presumptuous gifts before they even met her), and the "bad boys" (who women are always attracted to but make poor lifelong partners: try as you might, you cannot 'train' them...).
"Good Guys" are a mix of both. The benefits of both without the bad parts.
j.d. at July 23, 2008 8:27 AM
J.D, I agree with that, though it's a little confusing. The "good guys" and "nice guys" are out there, but they often make a bad impression trying too hard.
My point is that if a woman really wants to find good husband material, she can if she gave more of those guys a chance. Perhaps because I started out with a "bad boy", I learned how to spot "good guys". It's a skill more women should develop. They're everywhere if you know what to look for. Unfortunately, many women are still drawn to the self-absorbed, commitment-phobic types...or the downright abusive ones (see above)...then complain that there are no "good guys" left.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 8:39 AM
"You can kid yourself that you're an "alpha male" but that's just code for misogynist. There's still a lot of sexism out there, and God knows we pay our dues listening to your sexist rants, at home and work."
Misogynists aren't born, they're made. Of course, one could say the same about misandry. The difference in my opinion is that misandry is promoted and damn near condoned by modern western society. Realist is clearly wrong if you take the original LW in this case. Overall, I think he's right in that many women might have to be ready for a single life. For some, thats fine (especially those burned badly in relationships) but IMHO for most thats not what they want.
Sio at July 23, 2008 9:05 AM
P, with the exception of child support, I'll sign on for that:
Sorry I ever was stupid enough to marry. Won't be again.
No, no need of alimony. Been working since 16, self-supporting since 18. No need and definitely no fucking way will ever God damn be financially dependent on a man or anyone other than myself.
Raised a child without child support or assistance. Child support = dependent; being free of her father = priceless.
Affirmative action has been discussed here time and time again. Most of us concur that it's mainly been counterproductive. What affirmative action was intended to do would have been better served by discrimination laws. Best qualified person for the job, period. Not someone getting an edge for gender or skin color (whatever skin color; whichever gender).
Caveat on the child support, however. While I was all to happy to forgo it, in our case, don't act like women make a baby alone. Don't want to pay, don't play. Or have a freaking vasectomy. Don't freaking trust a woman saying she's on the pill or claiming she's had her tubes tied. That's just plain stupid. But if you don't want to support a child, you prevent conception. That said, if a woman does something insane like steal sperm from a guy's condom then -- and only then -- is he off the hook for making baby. If a guy's indigent, there's already laws covering that but what the freak is he doing making a baby then anyway?
T's Grammy at July 23, 2008 9:22 AM
For some, thats fine (especially those burned badly in relationships) but IMHO for most thats not what they want.
But people have to realize that it's not up to someone else to make them happy. It's not up to someone else to provide them with everything they need to be happy, because that just isn't possible. If you can't live with yourself, alone or with someone else, no one can fix that except for you. Too many people think that once they find their "perfect love", their life will be all they want it to be. They don't want to (or can't) understand that their happiness comes from within. I'm probably not saying this very well but I know what I mean. The time I wasted looking for someone else to make me happy would have been better spent if I had used it to find out for myself what made me happy. YMMV
Flynne at July 23, 2008 9:23 AM
Call me a skeptic, but there's something deep down inside me that demands proof to back up assertions. This "girls want to become full time mommies"-myth is one of those assertions. Having a baby is one of those life events that a person has absolutely NO concept of whether they will like or dislike until it's "too late." Playing with other people's kids is not like being a parent. Having a baby before the age of 22 is becoming legally responsible for another human being for longer than you can literally fathom. Off my soapbox, now.
In a divorce situation, women nearly always need alimony and child support and "equal" division of assets, even if the man earned $100k and the wife sat at home, watching Oprah and reading Cosmo.
Um, yeah. By your example if I was about to start over as a single mom with several years of "unemployment" (if you can call having a baby while your husband is gone 8 hours a day "not working") I'd being suing his ass for equal distribution, no question. Your problem comes when you imply that the couple has kids. Little Jimmy and Susi shouldn't have to go from living with Mommy in the lap of luxury to living with Mommy in the projects just because Mommy and Daddy wanted a divorce. If your point was to imply that all women who marry "rich" men and have their children are money-hungry and lazy- you should stop watching "Real Housewives of Orange County," because it's rotting your brain.
And here's a story that will completely blow your mind, P. My fiance is by ALL accounts an "alpha male." Like, the professional manager, go-to guy, saved people on 9/11 "alpha male." I am also a professional manager, financially sound, don't need a relationship "independent female." Now, this is the part that might not make sense to you: My fiance asked me to marry him, without any nagging, whining or foot stamping on my part. He asked me to marry him because he felt we made good PARTNERS. Interesting concept, huh? Marriage being a partnership...?
Homeless in Seattle at July 23, 2008 9:55 AM
Jaysus, are you hard up for real problems? A letter about a letter? From an arse? Isn't that what this comments section is for?
Dom at July 23, 2008 10:10 AM
It's a letter about an issue -- one a lot of people worry about. There are already 20 comments here, so clearly it's of interest to a few people besides you.
Amy Alkon at July 23, 2008 10:23 AM
Great points, homeless. But guys like him don't have a clue about being a good partner. Plus, he gives "alpha males" a bad name - he thinks it means being dominant over women.
Maybe some of these guys really get off on the idea that, in this modern age, there are women still sitting around going, "Oh gosh, what if I don't find a man?" Maybe that comforts them. They think that if they can frighten us about the scarcity of men who'll marry us, then we'll settle for assholes like them.
But I really don't think there's a scarcity, especially since a lot of women are simply opting not to marry. Yet, even if there is, a woman wants a truly good partner - one who values her contributions, independence, and unique spirit - not just ANY guy.
We don't need a partner just for the sake of having one. Even a "good guy" might not end up being physically or emotionally compatible with us...so we're ok being by ourselves. Some women, like me, would love to find that "good guy" who compliments our lives, but it isn't a necessity.
My boyfriend is wonderful - caring, passionate, and supportive. He doesn't "make me happy", but he does make my life more enjoyable. I don't have to babysit him, constantly stroke his ego, or listen to him spew a bunch of venomous, rage-fueled philosophies. He's upbeat and positive every day, and that is the only type of person I want to come home to anymore. Otherwise, I'd truly rather be alone, which is the case for most intelligent women these days.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 10:45 AM
Something about that letter reminds me of the old joke about two people complaining about a restaurant:
woman 1: "The food here isn't very good."
woman 2: "Yeah, and such small portions!"
Mmmmm, a dearth of marriagable guys, and those that are around, I'm not attracted to? Sounds great! Sign me up for one of those!
Also, the LW begins: "Women these days think they have the luxury of being picky about men". These days?? This rant is very similar to what Charlotte Lucas said to Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, published in 1813, just before she married one of the biggest morons in all of literature. The difference is that if our fictional Charlotte, an old maid at 27, had not married in 1813, she would have ended up dependent on the charity of her brothers for a roof over her head, food, and clothing. She couldn't have worked, except as a servant. She couldn't have had sex, lest she end up a fallen woman, kicked out of her brother's house and forced to turn to her only recourse, prostitution. Indeed, unmarried, she would have ended up like Jane Austen herself did--living off the charity of her brothers, along with her old maid sister and widowed mother, with no way to determine her own destiny. Followed by repeated moves to a succession of increasingly decrepit houses, and eventually dying of, most likely, tuberculosis, an opportunistic disease much more common in the poor and malnourished than in the well-off. But today, she could make her own salary and way in the world, and not have to depend upon anyone--we've got more options than ever before. So I'm wondering if the LW's whiny complaint has more to do with the fact that it's getting harder and harder for guys like him to convince a woman to give up so much of what she has for his dubious charms, now that the prospects of poverty, dependence, and low status are no longer the stick with which to beat women into holy matrimony? And make no mistake, she is giving up a lot. Because while marriage is a partnership, with a division of labor that is necessitated by the requirements of raising children, there's always the possibility that the husband will turn into a guy like P above, who seems to think that all the marital assets belong to the husband, while the debts (i.e. the funds to raise the kids) belong to the wife. And while you might be lucky enough to equitably divide material assets in court, the husband nevertheless gets to keep the more abstract, indivisible capital, like seniority and experience in the work force, and the wife gets to find out how little her parental activities are worth in the workplace.
Quizzical at July 23, 2008 11:35 AM
"So I'm wondering if the LW's whiny complaint has more to do with the fact that it's getting harder and harder for guys like him to convince a woman to give up so much of what she has for his dubious charms, now that the prospects of poverty, dependence, and low status are no longer the stick with which to beat women into holy matrimony?"
Brilliant, Quizzical!!!
Lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 11:46 AM
I settled once and will never do it again. 8 years married to the wrong person was enough. I have loved being single since my divorce. I love being independent and eating yogurt and blueberry egos for dinner without worrying about feeding the parasite on the couch. I am also in the legal profession and make more than enough money to support myself and my daughter. I declined child support because I didn't need it and knew her father couldn't afford it. As long as he takes good care of her when she is with him, I am happy with our arrangment.
I am happy with my life and I don't need a man. I can take care of myself and live the life I dreamed of all on my own. Now cocincidetally, once I figured that out and started living the life I wanted I met a man that appreciated me for who I am. We've been dating for over a year and are very happy. I am in no rush to marry again but if he asked me to I would say yes. If he doesn't ever ask, it wouldn't make me any less happy in the relationship and in my life. I don't need a man to sign a marriage certificate for me to feel complete or successful.
I like me and I am happy with me. The fact that he likes me too is just icing on the cake.
katie at July 23, 2008 11:55 AM
"The time I wasted looking for someone else to make me happy would have been better spent"
True, Flynne, but you probably wouldn't have learned that quite as thoroughly had you not gone through it.
It's been my experience that timing is the key. I can't be particularly swayed to desire a relationship with anyone right now because I like my solitude so much that Solitude has become my relationship. It took me a long marriage to appreciate this alone feeling and to understand my own desires clearer.
It's human nature to want to couple up with someone, but because I already have done it before, I don't feel any type of desperation as a single person to do so now. If this feeling changes, and it probably will, I won't stay long in a Trifling Arrangement; and, I will be wise enough to value a good thing.
"Sorry I ever was stupid enough to marry." Maybe you were stupid, T's Grammy, but that stupidity taught you valuable lessons about life and about yourself.
The way you repetitiously 'mention' that you wished you had no daughter or grandson kind of gives me the eeebie jeeebies every time you remind us here. Then, after a day of hysterical ranting, you confess that your daughter's sorry-ass ways are due to mental illness? Hmmmm. Apple. Tree. I bet you were pure joy to live with. Just the picture of a loving mother. No wonder she's bat crazy and helpless. A little emotional battery goes a long-ass way. And then that thing about purposely not loving another grandchild cuz you fucked your own daughter up so good. That bitterness of yours has sure paid off. I'm actually not trying to be a total bitch, and I certainly don't know all the details, but have you ever thought that your very conscious loathing has fostered your daughter's blooming mental health issues.
Try a hug. A real one.
kg at July 23, 2008 11:57 AM
There's wise stuff in this book by Ms. Michael Drury, who's probably in her 90s now, about how nobody else can "make" you happy, and that's too much responsibility for another person.
Amy Alkon at July 23, 2008 12:33 PM
I don't think a true alpha male is looking for a partnership either. Since they ARE the dominant type, if they find you acceptable and want to marry you, it means that they think you will be useful to them, kind of like a good employee. They might pay lip service to the idea of making all decisions together, etc. etc., but when the honeymoon is over, they will assume command and expect you to toe the line.
I believe this is a crucial point where women and men differ in their understanding of a relationship, and why so many of them fail. Women assume they are entering into a full equal partnership, and men think they are taking responsibility for a woman (which is why they want to make sure of her loyalty, and their ability to control her). Things inevitably fall apart and everybody's hurt.
I'm generalizing of course, but I think there is a core of truth in this, mostly because of the way boys and girls are socialized growing up, as well as the hormones that affect our behaviour.
I was married and didn't find it to be a partnership at all, and since I'm very independent and always have been, I have no interest in getting married again. I've met lots of guys over the years that were great, decent guys that wanted to get married, or even live together, but it never interested me.
The best thing for me is just dating one guy, we keep our own places, and enjoy missing each other, instead of getting sick of looking at each other every minute of the day.
Chrissy at July 23, 2008 12:35 PM
Great comment Quizzical, I think you've got the LW's bitterness figured out.
Chrissy at July 23, 2008 12:40 PM
Interesting take on things, Chrissy. I really think a guy's ability to have a real partnership depends on his level of satisfaction with himself and confidence (true confidence, not a fake cover-up for deep insecurities). If he's insecure, he'll always view your independence as a threat.
I'm with you on the separate spaces too. I visit my boyfriend only a few days at a time, and usually by the end, I'm ready to come home to my own place, my own routine. I have noticed that urge lessening a little...like maybe I could stand a thrid or fourth day with him (lol)...but, as great as he is, I'm not sure I'll ever be fully ready to cohabitate or marry again.
Once you get used to being able to do whatever you want, whenever you feel like it, it's hard to readjust to having another person there all the time.
I guess this is somewhat threatening to guys like the LW. I mean, as quizzical pointed out, we really don't have the incentives to marry anymore. So, a guy has to be pretty spectacular to even make us consider it, at least by middle age.
I think it's safe to say that the blush is off the rose for most of us regarding relationships. We know, all too well, how challenging they can be. We aren't starry-eyes romantics anymore.
This means men have to really up their game if they want marriage. Learn to share and play fair...even cook and clean. Some probably resent that change, but overall, I think it's made for better-quality relationships among those who can rise to the challenge. Most younger men today wouldn't dream of dominating and controlling a woman the way a guy raised a few decades ago might. And they wouldn't be caught dead calling themselves "alpha males" because they'd realize they sound moronic.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:17 PM
Chrissy - except for one thing - I think the LW is a chick.
I know that the article that conveyed the message of "marry him, already" was written by a woman who was urging women to settle for whatever sperm donor fell into their bed. I guess because being maltreated is better than being alone.
That said, I think that with more men opting out of marriage and even relationships that go beyond FwB, you're going to hear a lot more of this kind of whining.
Because just as a woman no longer needs to marry to survive, a man no longer needs to marry to be considered respectable.
More to the point; other than kids, what the hell do we need each other for?
brian at July 23, 2008 1:22 PM
lovlysoul:
I suspect that the majority of men are not interested in marriage. Most aren't even interested in long-term romantic entanglements. And if the whole "alpha male" thing is passé, please explain this phenomenon.
brian at July 23, 2008 1:25 PM
No, brian, I doubt it. Women don't talk to each other in condescening terms like that ("Face it, ladies!"). Realist is a guy...a very unattractive, frustrated guy, most likely. I mean, he's been reduced to using statistics to try and attract a woman...how sad.
As for your question, some of us really like each other.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:29 PM
There's reading material for every type of deviant on the web...women who screw horses, pedophiles, rapists, etc. Doesn't mean that's the norm...or that it's a "phenomenon"... though it does explain your attitude regarding relationships if that's what you choose to fill your brain with.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:34 PM
I'm going to guess you either didn't click through that link, or you really just massively insulted your man (and probably yourself).
No, you didn't click the link. Click, and be horrified. For they are the Future Of America™
brian at July 23, 2008 1:34 PM
Nah, my attitude regarding relationships was formed 25 years ago. It's only gotten worse.
brian at July 23, 2008 1:35 PM
lovlysoul:
No, you're right. They're usually far more vicious when they're intending to be mean. Especially to each other.
brian at July 23, 2008 1:37 PM
I only needed to glance at it to see what it was...stupid and degrading to both sexes. Insecure men try to find some "system" to luring women or else they demean women with those kinds of labels. You're only insulting yourself to read that crap...and of course, you'll have bad relationships. What quality woman wants to be with a guy who visits sites like that?
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:43 PM
Actually, I've had none. And that's better than one bad one in my book.
And "douchebags" refers to the over-sprayed polished guys who seem to attract no end of high-value (from an appearance standpoint, anyhow) tail. In fact, the lesson learned from such things is "the bigger an asshole you are, the hotter the chicks you will bang."
Which just means I'm not enough of an asshole.
brian at July 23, 2008 1:47 PM
Trust me, you're plenty enough of an asshole. But that's not your problem. If you talk about women like that, you won't get any that are really worth having....those girls are idiotic bimbos. Grow up, read some books, spend time helping others, become a quality guy. Even if you don't ever have a relationship, you'll be doing something worthwile for yourself and society....but take my advice and you just might end up happy with a beautiful woman of substance.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:53 PM
It's one hell of a presumption on your part to think that I haven't already done all those things.
brian at July 23, 2008 1:56 PM
"No, you're right. They're usually far more vicious when they're intending to be mean. Especially to each other."
I'm with Brian on this one. Even in circles where we're supposed to be civil (church committees, PTA, kids' sports) some 'yatches just can't keep from eviscerating someone to maintain their rank amongst the rest of the hyenas. Still living the glory days of high school cheer squad, I guess. Nothing more grotesque than a middle-aged, dried up, bitter Mean Girl in a mini-van, drinking herself into obesity with Starbucks.
Juliana at July 23, 2008 2:05 PM
Hee hee .... sorry but that made me laugh. A man who admittedly has never been in a relationship thinks he knows there is eveyrhting to know about women and relationships. Now that's just pure comedy.
katie at July 23, 2008 2:18 PM
No, Jack Nicholson was pure comedy:
"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability."
brian at July 23, 2008 2:33 PM
First thought upon reading the LW's letter: "But the reality, ladies, is that we do have that luxury." We can hold jobs, own homes, and all of that stuff. Because of that, we have the privilege of being pickier. I for one would be happier to see more women realize that, pick a set of standards for a relationship that they absolutely must have, and stick to it.
I also think I can't really imagine a respectable man who would be content to carry the title of 'the one she had to settle for' instead of 'THE ONE.' You know what I mean?
JMoczy at July 23, 2008 2:45 PM
""But the reality, ladies, is that we do have that luxury." We can hold jobs, own homes, and all of that stuff."
Amen to this exact point- I had a laugh out loud moment in the middle of a sermon on divorce. Not a good time for that, believe me. The pastor made this same point, that since women are more independent and don't have to tolerate the intolerable, divorce rates have skyrocketed. However, he then missed the point that needed to be made. He challenged women to work harder on their marriages rather than abandoning them; instead, he should have challenged both the women AND THE MEN.
Fortunately, there were enough strong, independent, confident women in the congregation that held him accountable for such a gaffe.
Juliana at July 23, 2008 3:09 PM
"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability."
Oh, you're such a sad loser, Brian. I hope you're prepared to remain a virgin...or whatever you think you are. Any man who hasn't even had a relationship - and who bases his "beliefs" on some sick website urging him to be a "douchebag" so dumb bimbos can give him "tail"...and yet he never even gets any...except for maybe a one-night-stand (if that)...is so pathetic! Omg!
And yes, women can be catty towards each other. But, in my experience, we also usually have deeper friendships than men. Our relationships involve more than beer and golf (though that can be included :-).
Sad little men using terms like "'yatches"...hilarious! The only guys I know who are this immature are still in high school. Please, do yourselves a favor and GROW UP. You have no idea what being a real man is about.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 3:55 PM
You're a fool if you think I'm taking relationship advice from the internet, ESPECIALLY from a site like HCwDB (which I read for the sad humor value more than anything else).
Quite frankly, I'm not interested in a relationship. If I can get no-strings-attached sex with a minimum of effort, I'll take it. But even going to the lengths of douchbaggery on the site I linked is too much work.
I've just never found any reason to waste the effort.
And if that makes me something less than a "real man", oh well. Tell me what's in it for me, maybe I'll consider expending the effort.
brian at July 23, 2008 4:14 PM
Well, you're the one who called it a "phenomenon", so obviously you feel it's more than just "humor value".
I can't even begin to tell you what you're missing...and I guess you'll probably never know. "No strings attached" sex doesn't begin to touch the kind of sex you'd get from a woman who feels really safe and loved within your arms. We give as good as we get, and if you haven't progressed to the advanced level of a relationship, then let me assure you that you're only getting the "sex light" version. If that's good enough for you, then fine, but most men ultimately want more.
My boyfriend is a fantastic lover - because and he treats the women in his life with respect. He and I go to Hedonism in Jamaica and have wild, unhibited, nude, out-in-the-open-sex that you can't even imagine! It's not some quick-impersonal-faked-orgasm sex I'd have with a "no strings attached" stranger. It's the multiple-orgasm-reaching-in-every-position-possible-sex that people who are open, loving, supportive and experienced have with each other.
You can't reach that advanced state with "no strings attached" bimbo sex. You'll always be at the beginner level. So, if you really want to grow and evolve, stop believing that "douchebag" crap. That's for adolescents. You'll get much better quality sex by being a good guy, not a jerk. When a woman really WANTS to give you a peak experience, you'll know what I mean, but you're not going to get there by doing what you've been doing.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 4:47 PM
Well, it's kind of a black humor, since I see it all around me every day, so I assume that site is a documentation of the ever increasing debasement of humanity.
brian at July 23, 2008 5:17 PM
lovlysoul: "Yet, there's no shortage of good guys if a woman really wants to marry"
Thank you for that bit of sensible and honest commentary. I enjoy your comments, you are one of the few true 'thinkers' on this little planet. I'm tired of the hypocrisy one hears over and over from women who pick idiots while rejecting perfectly decent guys over stupid nitpicky things ("omg, he brought the wrong kind of flowers, run!!"), and then instead of accepting responsibility for their choices, try to lay the blame elsewhere by pretending "oh you know all the good guys are taken". No, they're not.
(BTW, the preceding paragraph, if the genders were reversed, would sound rather like the classic bachelor who just wants to play around ... I don't mean that offensively)
Frogz at July 23, 2008 5:18 PM
"I also think I can't really imagine a respectable man who would be content to carry the title of 'the one she had to settle for' instead of 'THE ONE.' You know what I mean?"
"Settling" does sound bad, but OTOH, I am not interested in any naive women who even believes in the false concept of "THE ONE". That's a romantic fairy tale for 11-year old girls, and drives some crazy and ultimately COMPLETELY unfulfillable (sp?) search for perfection. There is no "the one", but I do think there is such a thing as lasting, deep, mutual friendship with mutual physical attraction ... it won't work if you're looking for "the one" though, you have to understand that nobody is perfect and that you stay friends because the benefits of doing so outweigh the negative bits.
By modern definitions we've somehow been promised we can "have it all", and now almost any imperfection is enough to put somebody into the "settling" category.
David J at July 23, 2008 5:28 PM
Thanks, Frogz, that's very nice. I see that among my girlfriends, and I just want to shake them. But, in a way, it's what our culture teaches, which is sad...or maybe Amy would argue it's from years of evolution where the caveman with the biggest club got the woman.
I guess that's sort of what Brian is being influenced by - the biggest "douchebag" gets the girl - but it's not true anymore. Maybe temporarily, but most women who've had the douchebag (which is most of us over 30) learn to recognize the good guy. I met a lot of them, really....sweet cops, adorable geeky accountants, responsible single dads just trying to do the right thing...
And even thought many weren't well-matched for me for various reasons, I finally found one who was perfect for me. If a woman keeps trying and keeps in mind the important qualities to search for, she can find a very good guy.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 5:36 PM
>> My boyfriend is a fantastic lover - because and he treats the women in his life with respect. He and I go to Hedonism in Jamaica and have wild, unhibited, nude, out-in-the-open-sex that you can't even imagine!
ah yes, the sexually liberated female. Just what every man dreams of, someone with "experience", and "good in bed". The perfect mothers of our children. I don't know why any man would get legally entangled (ie. married) with one of you, but they do, and in great numbers as well, so my hats off to you. I guess its not as much an issue these days, as a man at least can fall back on DNA testing to see baby if is his. "Mama's Baby, Daddy's Maybe".
On the other hand, the state laws are configured (probably because of female voting), to lasso whatever sap/sucker/loser happens to be married to one of these sexually liberated princesses and compelled by the state law enforcement (ie. guys with guns) to "provide" for her and her child, whether it is genetically his or not, and whether wife leaves him or not.
And with those (men) in the middle class getting their wages garnished at a rate of $1200+/mo, for up to two decades, this is not something to be taking lightly. Its all for "whats best for the children", and keeping her "in the lifestyle she has grown accustomed to". Its a little ironic that the courts consider child welfare in this case, but give women 100% freedom to abort their child because "its her body". A man has no rights, only obligations to pay.
No doubt this is the golden age of feminine privilege and power.
P at July 23, 2008 5:44 PM
P: Dang! I thought I was jaded.
lovlysoul - I cannot tell you the number of women I have talked to who are with men who treat them horribly. I'm a complete asshole, and I wouldn't treat my enemies the way these women are treated by men that they love.
So what conclusion am I supposed to draw from the educated, intelligent 21 year old woman who stays with a man who calls her a "fat cow" and a "stupid cunt"?
I'll tell you the conclusion I draw - and it's that too many of them are listening to the letter writer and that idjit that wrote the book "Marry him, already".
Douchebags have obviously figured out how to keep a woman coming back for more. I just can't bring myself to behave that way. I was raised better than that.
brian at July 23, 2008 5:52 PM
God,P,what an idiot you are. Sexual experience equals not knowing who your baby's father is? That's a leap!
If it makes you feel better, both my children were conceived when I was a virginal bride. And I'm not about to have any more, so no need to worry. I think I'm free to have as much fun as I want at this point.
How sad that you don't think women should learn to enjoy sex...that we should be powerless over our bodies and the sexual experience. You must be one hot, "alpha-male" lover.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 6:04 PM
Brian, that's good to hear.
Well, first off, she's only 21. Cut her some slack. Unless she's a total fool, she'll eventually wise up. A lot of younger girls make that mistake - they fall for the super-attentive (ie: obsessive) guy, who tells them what they want to hear during courtship, then suddenly becomes a controlling asshole after they're more committed. It's a shock...and she's likely hoping he'll return to being "prince charming" once she succeeds at being whatever he wants. Eventually, she'll realize this is totally futile, but right now, she probably thinks it's within her control somehow. She's very young.
Just try to be the good guy you were raised to be. I promise you that there are a lot of nice women who will one day appreciate that. Yes, there are some airheads who don't, but that's no reason to abandon all civility and embrace the debasement of humanity.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 6:16 PM
Because it's not all set up like it was in the 1950s anymore, where you could keep us as slaves and share none of the marital assets?
Fascinating piece of feminist agitprop you wrote there, "lovly"soul.
So housewives and mothers were nothing more than slaves prior to the 60's? That's not how my Grandmother's would describe there lives as stay at home mothers and matriarch's of their families.
Everything you have written in this thread is the perfect representation of the cognitive dissonance that makes up the typical, modern American woman's psyche. You don't 'need' a man...but than you talk about how you cannot achieve the kind of mind-blowing sex unless you have a deep, intimate connection with....a man.
I guess that's sort of what Brian is being influenced by - the biggest "douchebag" gets the girl - but it's not true anymore. Maybe temporarily, but most women who've had the douchebag (which is most of us over 30) learn to recognize the good guy.
LMAO - your self-centered narcissism is quite amusing to behold. This is EXACTLY the "good guys" lament for which you've spent this comment thread excoriating brian for.
He's 21, and no women in his age range give him the time of day. He looks in bewilderment at all of the young, beautiful hot women around him and sees that they do not value him for what our feminist-warped society tells him he should act like to be a "perfect, sensitive, in-touch with his feelings, new-age man!"
But once they hit YOU'RE age range, after having spent their prime years of sexual fertility and head-turning beauty chasing the excitement of the bad boys...NOW it's time to find the good guy to settle down with...after your 30+ years old, your looks begin to fade, and the kind of guys that provide you with excitement are now chasing after no longer give you the time of day. Now it's time for the nice guy, right?!?!?! LMAO.
Plenty of nice guys are wising up to the dynamics of a society that have made this behavior and attitude the norm, and are no longer choosing to play that game.
It's no coincidence that the only women you will here lamenting that "There are no good men anymore" are the women who are past their sexual prime, and no longer command the power of attraction to gain the favors of the kind of men THEY find attractive anymore.
Dave from Hawaii at July 23, 2008 6:48 PM
You're new here, ain't ya?
I'm not 21, I'm not sensitive, in touch with my feelings, or a new-age man.
What I am is 39, jaded, unaware of my feelings, and something of a traditionalist. I'm not exciting by any stretch. I'm just a completely average specimen of Nerdus Americanus.
I know plenty of excellent women. They all share one common problem - they are all happily married to their first husbands, they have families, and they aren't looking for new adventures.
I also know plenty of fuck-ups. They are single, married, divorced or involved, and all of them, to a woman, miserable. They vent their agony to anyone who will listen and are utterly unfazed by the decent men in their midst.
brian at July 23, 2008 7:15 PM
I finally found one who was perfect for me. If a woman keeps trying and keeps in mind the important qualities to search for, she can find a very good guy.
Hang on, I thought you were happy single and wasnt lookin, but it just happened.
Lol, not looking for an argument today. My take on the comments so far is that both sexes have some real points, but neither is taking any notice of them.
The LW is whining stupidly, but I think his point might be that many women are desperate to find someone, but allthough they may be four foot wide and discusting they are often still armed with a list of how their ideal partner will be. Many men are just as urealistic and I think its fairly even between sexes on this. Some people will allways live in fairytale land and end up alone and miserable, blaming the other sex for their misery.
Lovelysoul, you seem to take so much about women so personally even when you admit that many women are not as perfect as you, I do get the feeling you are here for validation tho and things might not really be that perfect. You do say some very good things too and I do hope you are as happy as you say you are.
I dont think anyone should settle for someone they dont like or respect or is less than what they are happy with, but the longer the list of criteria, the less the chances of finding someone.
A strange thing about finding relationships is that people who are searching never find what they want, Yet when you just start to be happy with yourself and life, amazing things happen. Desperation is obviously unattractive, and happiness is attractive. I suppose that is why women are attracted to guys who dont really want relationships, and guys are attracted to women who are confident and self assured.
I really hope this gap never closes because anything that stops people breeding at the unsustainable rate they, do is a good thing in my book.
Al at July 23, 2008 7:25 PM
Everything you have written in this thread is the perfect representation of the cognitive dissonance that makes up the typical, modern American woman's psyche. You don't 'need' a man...but than you talk about how you cannot achieve the kind of mind-blowing sex unless you have a deep, intimate connection with....a man.
You seem to be unclear on the difference between want and need. That's not cognitive dissonance, that's vocabulary. "need a man"=can't make one's own way in the world, can't get a fulfilling job or earn one's own living, can't have the status of a mature adult without a husband.
"want a man"=enjoy exploring all the facets of a complex and intimate sexual and/or romantic and/or emotional relationship with a man, because you're both having a lot of fun, not because other options are limited.
re: Plenty of nice guys are wising up to the dynamics of a society that have made this behavior and attitude the norm, and are no longer choosing to play that game.
You and the LW keep warning that the boys are going to take their toys and go home once women get too old and have waited too long. But we keep saying "So what? We don't need you!" So next time, choose a threat that isn't just a transparent wish of yours that things were that way in order to fulfill your bitter revenge fantasies.
Quizzical at July 23, 2008 7:35 PM
Sorry for my mistake - after re-reading everything, I guess I mixed up your references to a 21 year old woman w/ yourself in my haste to reply to lovlysoul.
Al - Lovelysoul, you seem to take so much about women so personally even when you admit that many women are not as perfect as you, I do get the feeling you are here for validation tho and things might not really be that perfect. You do say some very good things too and I do hope you are as happy as you say you are.
I dont think anyone should settle for someone they dont like or respect or is less than what they are happy with, but the longer the list of criteria, the less the chances of finding someone.
A strange thing about finding relationships is that people who are searching never find what they want, Yet when you just start to be happy with yourself and life, amazing things happen. Desperation is obviously unattractive, and happiness is attractive. I suppose that is why women are attracted to guys who dont really want relationships, and guys are attracted to women who are confident and self assured.
While much of this is spot on, I think you got the last part wrong. Guys are attracted to women who are 1) physically beautiful, and 2) pleasant company.
I'll take a shy, uncertain and not so assured woman who is polite, thoughtful and pleasant to be with over a "confident and self-assured" shrew any day.
Dave from Hawaii at July 23, 2008 7:35 PM
You and the LW keep warning that the boys are going to take their toys and go home once women get too old and have waited too long. But we keep saying "So what? We don't need you!" So next time, choose a threat that isn't just a transparent wish of yours that things were that way in order to fulfill your bitter revenge fantasies.
Au contraire...I have no bitter revenge fantasies.
It's quite fascinating to see the assumptions (like I have a bitter revenge fantasy) and shaming language SOME of you ladies resort to anytime any man has nary a negative word to say about the current feminist zeitgeist.
Dave from Hawaii at July 23, 2008 7:39 PM
Dave, all I can say is that the men I attract now are even hotter than the men I attracted when I was an innocent little 20-something. Yet, when I was younger, I didn't quite realize the power I had, so I "settled" for a "bad boy" because, quite frankly, "bad boys" were the only ones who had the guts to approach me. The "good guys" were too shy and figured I wouldn't date them....and, unfortunately, I was too shy to approach them.
Yet, as I matured, I realized this and learned to be more assertive. I CHOOSE to be with a good guy now - one who is also drop-dead gorgeous. There's nothing desperate about it, and I hope that Brian ignores your hateful cynicism and maybe realizes earlier what I did much later - to overcome that shyness and go after what what he truly wants. Beautiful girls his age are often very shy too...which makes them easy prey for the assholes out there, who are usually bold enough to walk over and buy them a drink while the shy "good guy" watches from afar.
I can't speak for every girl, but that is honestly how I ended up with a "bad boy" type - he literally chased me down the street! Then, gave me some really smooth lines and wouldn't take no for an answer. Today, I still get the same kind of attention - I'm just smart enough not to fall for that anymore.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 7:47 PM
Dave - you should try having a conversation with a non-fucked-up 22 year old. You'll find that most women in the next generation have written off "gender feminism" as the abject failure it was.
You need to simply accept the fact that a not insignificant part of the last two generations of women in the Western world have given themselves over to the bitterness of "fighting the patriarchy", whatever the fuck that means. And the ones that didn't are happily attached and aren't looking for someone who's going to spew venom at them for their ill-behaved contemporaries.
brian at July 23, 2008 7:54 PM
Dave I hear what your saying:
I'll take a shy, uncertain and not so assured woman who is polite, thoughtful and pleasant to be with over a "confident and self-assured" shrew any day.
When I was younger that is how I felt, and very strongly, but after marrying that very sweet girl I have found that without the confidence and self assurance, it gets pretty boring, It is a joy if she blooms into self assurance and confidence, but sometimes not even the nicest guy can help her do it.
Lovelysoul is dead on too with this:
Beautiful girls his age are often very shy too...which makes them easy prey for the assholes out there, who are usually bold enough to walk over and buy them a drink while the shy "good guy" watches from afar.
It is a shame that many women confuse self assured confidence with spiteful arrogance.
Al at July 23, 2008 8:06 PM
Or more accurately use spiteful arrogance to make up for lack of confidence.
This is also the case I feel with the women who have a huge list of requirements for a mate, they project that no one is good enough for them because they feel that they are actually not good enough for anyone, Lack of confidence and fear breeds many things in many people, it is usually very clear to those around them but totally invisable to themselves
Al at July 23, 2008 8:16 PM
"Tell me what's in it for me, maybe I'll consider expending the effort."
Brian, honestly I think you know what's in it for you and that scares the hell out of you. I've got nothing against no strings attached sex, but a steady diet of anything gets boring after a while. Not to mention having nothing but casual encounters prevents you from having to become truly intimate with someone. So you never have to risk the possibility of getting hurt. Sad, but it's your life. Something tells me that you might be a better guy than your insulting and thoughtless comments would suggest, though. You sound more hurt than bitter.
Lucy at July 23, 2008 8:26 PM
Al, I think it can be confusing for a lot of women. Knowing what I know now, I feel like I could teach some young girls (and older ones)the difference between healthy self-confidence and arrogant manipulation.
I remember my dad saying, "He never lets you breathe!" My ex called all the time, sent gifts, showered me with affection and attention. It was too much...obsessive. Looking back, I can see how my dad was right. Yet, we women are kind of culturally trained to believe all those actions are POSITIVE signs...that he really loves us so much...not that he's obsessive and controlling...and possibly dangerous.
I haven't had a perfect life. I really appreciate the good parts of my life now because my earlier life sort of resembled Julia Roberts in "Sleeping with the Enemy". For many years I lived in fear and under domination of a very controlling, highly manipulative, emotionally unstable man, so I am personally sensitive to that. I wish I could spare every young girl what I went through.
But I really don't consider myself anti-male. I very much respect and appreciate most men. Despite my marital experience, I've had some wonderful men in my life - dad, brothers, and lovers. It's just hard to talk about the bad guys without sounding that way.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 8:29 PM
But I really don't consider myself anti-male. I very much respect and appreciate most men. Despite my marital experience, I've had some wonderful men in my life - dad, brothers, and lovers. It's just hard to talk about the bad guys without sounding that way.
Ah, consider too that it is exactly the same for men
Al at July 23, 2008 8:33 PM
Where the hell did THIS come from?
I'm not hurt. I simply gave up.
brian at July 23, 2008 8:37 PM
Despite my marital experience, I've had some wonderful men in my life - dad, brothers, and lovers. It's just hard to talk about the bad guys without sounding that way.
You need to take responsibility for who you let in your life, for what you didn't look at. Most people don't change. What changes, usually, is that you're forced to finally deal with the truth you probably tried to ignore all along out of wishful thinking. And that sort of thing usually comes out of an unhealthy need for a partner.
Amy Alkon at July 23, 2008 8:43 PM
I know ive asked this before but who was the famous female singer over there who said:
Why is it that women marry a man with the intent to change him, only to leave later saying 'your not the man I married'
Al at July 23, 2008 8:52 PM
Absolutely, Amy. I didn't see it. And then, when I did see it, I tried to make it better by getting us into therapy and hoping things would change. But he is a bi-polar narcissist with a 160 IQ...who could even sway hardened therapists. Some medicated him. Didn't help. One finally made me see what I was up against and that it wouldn't likely improve.
But, you're right, it all was due to an unhealthy need for a partner. I was 19 when we met, alone for the first time, living in NYC. I was scared and he seemed protective.
Now, I know you can only protect and fulfill yourself. I accept where I failed there, but I've also forgiven myself because I was indeed very young and naive...and he was (and is) extremely charming, and even to this day, some of my closest friends don't "see it." They only see the gifts and flowers and jewelry and money...his attractiveness and charisma.
So, I've had to stand against a lot of opposition, actually, which has made me pretty strong. I believe I'm strong enough not to make that mistake again. I've spent a lot of time (and therapy) considering who I should let into my life...which is why I know that women can be more aware of the positive and negative signs, and they should never feel so needy to have a relationship that they ignore their own best interests.
lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 9:14 PM
The original letter writer had a point, and women delude themselves on it.
Their value on the marriage market, i.e. what kind of man they can attract and marry, degrades over time. Because their beauty and fertility fades. And no amount of cosmetics and exercise and yoga and fertility treatments (hideously expensive, often dangerous and associated with cancer and/or birth defects) can change that. It's biological reality.
JUST as important is the character of the man, i.e. a man inclined to loyalty, trustworthiness, who will stick by the woman when times get tough.
If a woman wants to marry, she ought to do it when younger than when older, all things being equal. If not, realize that she can't go back in time and be young again. Reality: most of the high-value, accomplished, loyal-faithful, attractive, good men are off the market by their late twenties or early thirties. Married to, btw, a woman 4-6 years their junior. A woman at age 45 is NOT going to attract much interest from her age peers, EVEN IF she's Teri Hatcher or the like. Male attention will be from men in their late 50's and 60's. This is reality. Men the woman letter writer's age who are "worthwhile" marrying (high income, loyal, attractive, good character) will have no problems attracting a mate 10 years or more their junior. This is also social reality women should not delude themselves upon.
Yes of course a woman can and should have her own financial independence. Be able to provide on her own. BUT ... If she wants a marriage she ought to maximize her ability to choose the best man when she has the most power. A woman is not as beautiful and fertile and attractive at 45 as she was at 25. Men don't care much about status and education, more physical beauty (indicative of reproductive ability) and character and decent intelligence. This is also a biological truth women seldom admit but is like gravity nonetheless true.
As for being alone, women often fool themselves on this point. Women not famous columnists lack social networks to provide for them. The idea that fragile, constantly churning networks of "friends" will provide some "sisterhood" support over a lifetime is laughable even though I've seen it time and again (almost always expressed by women in denial about their own fate). The atomized nature of modern society, extreme mobility combined with social isolation makes keeping any network of friends long-term impossible. Quick, how many Junior High friends still are next door to you a full 30 years or more later? Marriage is a way to keep companionship around and loneliness at bay, providing one chooses WISELY.
A woman who delays marriage too long (or chooses the wrong man to commit to) risks ending up alone. No one is more "INVISIBLE" and poorly treated than a woman past menopause, ignored by pretty much everyone ... save her husband if he's a good man and loves her.
I would agree with Alkon above. Theodore Dalrymple (pseudonym, retired UK Physician Anthony Daniels, no relation to the Star Wars actor), noted in "Life at the Bottom," that women in violent relationships (his patients) went from one violent and abusive man to the next. The pattern was pronounced and repeated. Even his nurses chose violent men, and found ordinary decent chaps "boring." His questions, did they not see the tattoos extolling violence, the scars on the shaved heads indicating bar fights, the prison tattoos? Yes they all saw it but believed they would exhibit more control over the men than they actually did. They wanted more masculine, macho, violent men because they found them "exciting."
Women are IMHO better served by a more realistic appreciation of the limits of their beauty and ability to control men, and more reasoned and lengthy assessments of men's character. Rather than short-term decision making. Less sex, more love in other words.
whiskey at July 23, 2008 11:43 PM
David J: I don't really think there is such a thing as "THE ONE," either; the use of that term was just to illustrate the difference in levels between something like "what have I got to lose" and "with you, I've got nothing to lose."
It's perfectly fine to settle, compromising on the things that you find you can compromise on. What isn't fine is the kind of settlement people make that eventually let down both parties. Changing your religion (or changing to one), deciding that you can/can't have children because your partner does/doesn't want them while you do/don't, 'overlooking' reprehensible traits, and so on. If people could just pick and set their priorities and learn to cope with not necessarily getting what they want right away (or having to work at certain aspects of themselves first in order to get what they want), I think they could more and more increase the value of their partners and themselves.
JMoczy at July 24, 2008 1:26 AM
JMoczy:
Yes, but how many people truly know what they want in a mate? Hell, how many people truly know what they want in a house?
I've done more thinking about what I want in my next television than what I want in a woman. Mostly because I haven't a clue what I'm SUPPOSED to want. People aren't neatly quantifiable into resolution, image quality, and response time.
brian at July 24, 2008 4:58 AM
We do a lot of defending here on a woman's right to choose to be alone. So, why, all the attacks on Brian for choosing to be alone? It's just as perfectly acceptable for a man as it is a woman. Of course, maybe I'm defending it because I understand that choice.
Look, man or woman, if you're not willing to put the work into a relationship, or don't like what your choices out there are, and you are fine by yourself and enjoy the pleasure of your own company, alone is a valid lifestyle choice. Not only valid, but if you don't think a relationship worth the effort (and I don't), it's really the responsible choice, just as you shouldn't have children if you aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices.
As for this, whiskey: "The idea that fragile, constantly churning networks of "friends" will provide some "sisterhood" support over a lifetime is laughable even though I've seen it time and again (almost always expressed by women in denial about their own fate). The atomized nature of modern society, extreme mobility combined with social isolation makes keeping any network of friends long-term impossible." Friends come and go. No shit? Whoever said that it remains constant? Newsflash, when you reach adulthood and make an initial group of friends, there's no law that they are the only friends you make for the rest of your life. You will make friends, you will lose friends. Some friends will be the kind you can lean on in an emergency and some will not. The thing is, unless you have serious issues and are not there for your friends, you will have friends that are there for you when you need them. Duh.
T's Grammy at July 24, 2008 6:08 AM
Whiskey, you are so wrong. Perhaps if you're talking about wealth or procreation alone, but definitely not character. If anything, I'd advise young girls to WAIT to find a mate because the guys they attract may only be interested in their looks, not in them.
I married young - the peak in your theory - and I didn't get the "best guy withim my power". Wealthy narcissist - yes. Good character - no.
And when it was over, and I began dating online, I had HUNDREDS of responses within hours! Attractive, nice men...many much younger than me. So, unless you've actually BEEN on the dating market as a single woman, how can you know?
I've actually been on that market, and, trust me, there is still plenty of selection. Very few mens ad's say, "I'm looking for a womb". They're not all interested in younger women and they're not all taken by 40. In fact, I met a lot of men who had never even married by 40, which surprised me.
Some, like my boyfriend, had married hopelessly immature women, who left them, so they are definitely not interested in revisiting that scenario.
There are some dating sites dedicated to wealthy people. The men there, in general, were looking for young "sugarbabies". They'd say so, straight out, in their ads. Those guys are not, in my opinion, of high-character, but they're entitled to search for whatever they want. I still met a few nice guys there too.
My point is that in this age of online marketing - which vastly increases what anybody can look for - at any time - there are broad selections for EVERYONE. Old women, fat women, rich men, sugarbabies, sugardaddies...guys in wheelchairs...the list is endless!
So, after my experience, I especially don't think any woman should feel that her best days - or best guys - are behind her. Character tends to IMPROVE with age, for both genders.
lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 6:16 AM
This is a funny story about two middle-age women finding lots of sex - and maybe even love - online. It's called "Sleeping Around Craigslist"
http://www.alternet.org/sex/90855/sleeping_around_craigslist/
lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 6:42 AM
Whoa- smoking hot thread on this topic, may be way forgotten by now, but to be fair, lovlysoul, Brian did not use the term yatches in his post as you asserted: "Sad little men using terms like "'yatches"." That was moi...
juliana at July 24, 2008 6:45 AM
kg, at least you admit you're an ignorant ass when you condescend to admit you don't have all the details. Frankly, it's glaringly obvious that you read half a post and still carry a grudge over a previous difference of opinion. Get over yourself already. You are not all that.
As for "loathing" my daughter, screw you. If I didn't love her, she would be out of my life already. I don't have anything to do with people I loathe. (My, my, my, don't we sound intelligent using a fancy word for hate?) Just because I love my daughter and my grandson, doesn't mean I have no reason to regret having her and your only problem with me is that I have the balls to admit it. Yes, I know it sacrilege for a mother -- let alone a grandmother -- to admit she wouldn't (gasp) have any children if she had it to do over again but that's a mentality I won't condescend to -- it's exactly the same mentality that keeps women in burkas in some places in the world. I will slay a sacred cow and say if I knew then what I know now, if I knew just how hard it was going to be, I wouldn't have had a child. I'm honest, deal with it. Doesn't mean I don't love her. If I didn't we wouldn't have made it through her first year of life together let alone her current 25.
Also, it's glaringly obvious you only half read my posts, see red at my brutal honesty (one of my favorite movie quotes is springing to mind: you say you want the truth, you can't handle the truth) and spout off without all the facts. Her mental illness stems from a mixture of genetics, being molested by her father and skipping state to protect her from said father -- not me. She had a nervous breakdown and made a suicide attempt (I thought by now the high suicide rates among children who were sexually molested was common knowledge, my bad not guessing the depths of your ignorance) a little over a year ago. She had a falling apart -- doesn't even really reach the same level of nervous breakdown -- a few months ago, not even close. She's coming out of that now (due in part to my forcing her to stand on her own two feet; due in part to CPS placing T with his daddy and putting certain conditions like treatment and medication on her getting him back and moderating her to see that she maintains them; due in part to treatment and going back on medicine after having gone off it) and knew I was feeling like I failed her and set me straight, telling me straight out that I was largely the reason she didn't make another suicide attempt, that she would have been much worse off without me, that I have taught her, by example, to fight, that she only has confidence that she can learn to manage her illness (since you're ignorant about mental illness I'll fill you in on this newsflash -- from diagnosis to management takes years; hell, full diagnoses of all that's wrong can take years in and of itself, then there's finding the right medications, therapies, etc. and it's extremely individual).
One thing all knowledgeable parties do concur on: she'd be dead right now if not for me. She'd have never lived to be an adult. Bad mother that I am I gave up my whole life to save hers. OMG, yes! You are so right! What I gave up for her does seem to her astounding. She does get overwhelmed by the enormity of it when she thinks about it. But I wouldn't change that if I could because the only way to change the enormity of my sacrifice to her would have been not to make it and every day that she was safe was a day I was grateful to myself for having the strength. Not every woman would have.
She says she wouldn't have come back from her depression without my support and her desire to mother her son. Her best friend endured sexual abuse her whole childhood because she had a mom not half as strong as me who looked the other way and refused to believe the obvious. My daughter very bluntly told me, I know it seems like I'm screwed up but you're the reason I'm not worse like her. (This woman is a good woman but she has some very out-there problems sometimes -- she goes through stages of things like thinking her house is possessed and periodically freaks out over how emotionally reliant she is on her husband who is incredibly patient and loving with her. She has mental and emotional issues that are so extreme she's on disability.)
Now that I've told you a bunch of shit that's none of your business, I fully expect you to still find a way to twist this around and blame an uncontrollable thing like mental illness (which you are obviously ignorant about) on me. Go ahead. Just don't wonder why I ignore it. Tell me, would you also blame me if she was diabetic or had cancer? Unfortunately, what she is ill with is even more complicated than those two complicated diseases and cannot be diagnosed or treated as easily.
Bottom line, something I've said all her life that still holds true -- as far as I'm concerned there's only one person in this world who gets to judge me as a mother and while that person these days vents on me quite a bit, she still says I'm a good Mom.
T's Grammy at July 24, 2008 6:48 AM
T's Grammy, I know we've had our differences, but I just want to concur that dealing with mental illness takes many years - to get proper diagnosis, meds, and management. Nobody should judge you - just like they shouldn't judge me for sticking it out so long with my ex, trying to get help with those same issues - because nobody fully understands unless they've walked in your shoes. It's painful and exhausting, and I can completely understand why you would say you wouldn't choose to do it again if you could go back in time.
I also have a mentally ill, retarded brother. It's been a nightmare - getting the right diagnosis, finding meds that work...then, they stop working and you have to try something else...on and on.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and I'm sure my parents, deep down, regret his adoption, but they love him and have done right by him. They are wonderful parents for enduring it all...and so are you.
lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 7:33 AM
Thank you. lovlysoul. Exactly.
I don't know if you go to any family support but it's been invaluable to me -- in education about mental illness alone. And because those who don't have to deal so intimately with the mentally ill don't understand.
Hell, it's pretty new with us and I'm just beginning to understand. I think she's catching on quicker than me actually because she also tells me you don't get it, I think differently than you do. It is very, very hard to comprehend.
T's Grammy at July 24, 2008 7:50 AM
"And "douchebags" refers to the over-sprayed polished guys who seem to attract no end of high-value (from an appearance standpoint, anyhow) tail. "
Douchebag: A man who actually puts some time, money and effort into his appearance to attract women. Usually has good social skills.
Nice Guy: A lazy, pudgy, badly dressed slob with no social skills who thinks he deserves a supermodel and who can't get laid.
JoJo at July 24, 2008 8:20 AM
Jojo - try this instead:
Douchebag: A man who puts excessive effort into making himself appear to be wealthier than he is, who invests tremendous time in social manipulation to convince women to put out. Women he will ditch in two to three weeks.
Nice Guy: A guy who gets shit on for the first 20 years of his life and decides to say "fuck the human race".
brian at July 24, 2008 8:33 AM
"He's 21, and no women in his age range give him the time of day. He looks in bewilderment at all of the young, beautiful hot women around him"
And how 'hot' is this 21 year old man? If he can't get a 'hot chick' maybe he should take a good look at himself and ask himself "why would a hot woman want me?"
Or just maybe, looks shouldn't be the only criteria for picking a date.
JoJo at July 24, 2008 8:47 AM
Oh, c'mon, now, Brian. Good douchebag definition, but nice guys do not have to be victims, any more than nice girls do.
Nice Guy - a man who has standards and integrity he won't compromise just to get laid, who treats women with respect, and who realizes that not every woman will find him irresistable but that doesn't mean the whole gender is wicked or that the whole human race is fucked. He keeps trying until he succeeds.
You shouldn't whine, "poor me...I got shit on." That isn't attractive to many women (or men). My guess is that you haven't had it any worse than many of us here. We've all had our crosses to bear. We've all dealt with jerks and people who've taken advantage of our good nature, and people who broke our hearts or rejected us. That happens to everyone if they live a life.
You can't just take your ball and go home, whimpering, because you didn't win a few games. So what? There are other chances! If you quit playing, of course, you'll never win. But what will that prove? That you're "right" about the human race? You're just setting yourself up for failure so you can justify not trying anymore.
Don't quit, Brian. If you've not been successful, then evaluate why. Ask a friend to give you an honest assessment of things you might change. Read something besides douchebag.org...that is NOT a good system.
Yes, those guys get laid a lot, but when they're 50, they've already had 3 divorces and several kids who hate them, and they're on "Sugardaddy.com" with a bad toupee and a beer belly trying to get some callous Russian golddigger, who's not even that hot, to have dinner with them. It's much sadder than whatever you think your life is.
You're actually ahead of the game now. You're in the prime of life and you've got a chance to find someone worthwhile to love.
lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 9:01 AM
Given how many guys that are significantly uglier than I am that are in relationships at some level?
But again, why argue substance when straw-men are so much more fun?
I think the reason for the popularity of the DB is that many young women have convinced themselves that all they want is a "good time" which seems to involve large amounts of alcohol, tattoos of celtic knots over their ass-cracks, and posting drunken, naked pictures of themselves on MySpace.
Then by the time they're 30, they hear the biological clock ticking, their mothers are pestering them for grandchildren, they're bagged out from all the partying, and no man wants them.
And then fucknozzles like the LW are urging these women to "settle", so they get knocked up be an aging DB who wakes up one morning to decide she's just not hot enough, and off he goes. Or they marry some nice guy, get bored with him, make up some shit about abuse, and leave with the house, the kids, and half his pay for the next 20 years.
so maybe the question you ought to ask is "why are so few women attractive to the aging nerd?" It might give you an insight into why the majority of the women I find attractive are already spoken for.
brian at July 24, 2008 9:14 AM
Look, you can always find examples of the worst of human nature - the dumbest people searching for the dumbest things. If you focus on that, it will be all you see. And you can convince yourself that there's nothing worthwhile for you because all you see is either married women you want or "coke whores" (as we affectionately call them here in FL)that you don't.
But you're just taking two extremes and not looking for the middle ground. I simply do not beleive that there are no eligible, attractive women your age loooking for a nice, nerdy guy. Nerds are in these days!
I do, however, believe that most of the women who fall in that category do not want a whiner...somebody who talks about getting "shit on" by the human race. Keep saying that, and your prospects are dim.
lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 9:31 AM
If Brian wants to take his ball and go home, that's well within his right to do so, and I doubt he'll find many people who care one way or the other. Relationships aren't for pussies. They take stamina, the willingness and ability to learn from one's mistakes and a strong psyche.
MonicaP at July 24, 2008 10:12 AM
BRAVA, Amy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marie E at July 24, 2008 10:16 AM
I haven't punished myself by reading this whole thread, but I think I can summarize:
Women to Men: We don't need you to be happy! We're just fine all alone.
Men to Women: We don't need you to be happy! We're just fine all alone.
The women blame the men 100%, and the men blame the women, 100%. No self-reflection or insight to be seen.
And yet...here you are saying it again and again to each other, apparently in the belief that repetition will make the mantra true.
Todd Fletcher at July 24, 2008 10:38 AM
No, Todd. I'm saying that the risk-reward ratio doesn't work out.
MonicaP:
The ability to learn from mistakes (whether one's own or other's) is what drives many to stay alone.
Perhaps it's living in the northeast that's the problem, I don't know. I do know that there is a massive difference in the way people behave up here compared to other parts of the country that I've visited.
brian at July 24, 2008 10:51 AM
"I do, however, believe that most of the women who fall in that category do not want a whiner...somebody who talks about getting "shit on" by the human race. Keep saying that, and your prospects are dim."
lovlysoul I can see where you're coming from 100% but I'm 31 and in that boat and don't see a way out of the cycle. Because sometimes this is just a fact, and you can't very well LIE going into a new relationship can you? ("oh yeah I've had a fantastic life" *nix*). I don't just "feel like" I've been "shit on" my whole life - I really HAVE, much more than 95% of other people, consistently for the first 20 years of my life, and I had no support system at home or elsewhere - I don't know if you can ever appreciate what it's like to be an intelligent male on the bottom of the social rung, apart from a family background of being bullied since small, you don't know what a guy knows through, it can't be described, males are vicious things when u r an outcast.
When younger I somehow managed to block it all out and pretend throughout my 20s that I was over it all, and during that time I was never single, felt (mostly) happy, and had mostly good (and steamy) relationships with some very attractive women.
Then one day I came to a rapidly dawning realisation I was still badly playing the "submission" role in certain work relationships and elsewhere, to great harm ... so to try conquer this I dug deeper into the 'whys' and bam, sudden midlife crisis and in the process all those crappy memories started coming up. There I am working through all this tough sorry crap in my past, expecting support from my supposed life partner I'd been with for YEARS, and bam - almost instantly get-dumped (at the same time I also had a nasty attack at knifepoint by a street gang which was rough on me at just the wrong time, then she ran like the wind, so much for support). So yeah women don't want to be in the same room as the guy who even admits after five years he's been the loser who got shat on. But now TF what? I can't block it all out again, I gotta deal with it, and I surely can't lie about it, nor can I claim I was born at 30. And you can't dodge these things when you're getting to know someone new seriously.
A moderatively attractive female who has been through hell will have little trouble finding a decent man who will love and support her. A guy who has been through similar is - and you even admit - automatically an outcast who has virtually no chance. You talk about your experiences but it's just not the same for men; by your own description you had plenty of guys running after you and still do, most guys aren't much put off by a woman who was treated badly. Try that being a man.
Men are required to give emotional support to women in relationships but it's fully a one-way street, anything in the opposite direction seems to be "immediate dump the guy" grounds. A woman loses respect for a man who ever needs her support during tough times - but isn't that what a relationship - partnership - is supposed to be?
Now if you say no woman will want a guy like this then maybe brian is right, the answer is to give up and find something else? Maybe a sugarbaby.
Whatever the case this is something I'm working through. I have to. But now I'm in the odd position that I must pretend that some big issue for me doesn't exist if I want to enter a new relationship, WTF. Or be honest and have 99.9% chance of getting dumped. Which makes the situation worse, it's a snowball. Hiding the issue doesn't help, women of course sense you're hiding something and then run away. I've found so far if they sense ANY sign of unhappiness they are too selfish to even ask, they just turn and run, those are my experiences as 'newly single guy'.
"And how 'hot' is this 21 year old man? If he can't get a 'hot chick' maybe he should take a good look at himself and ask himself "why would a hot woman want me?""
Yeah right. Fact - 99.9% of hot women really "just want to have fun" and have air in their heads (no exaggeration - I did a little informal polling of hot women's descriptions on online dating site and the pattern is so precise it is frikkin scary, it's like someone cloned all these women ... they state openly they want "fun fun fun", the few who want money too will phrase it subtly e.g. "i love to travel") - anyway, some men just don't fit the "fun x 10" profile - I contend a mere fundamental personality incompatibility with any man who has even half a brain, rather than anything personal or anything the guy has "done wrong". These "hot" women who like douchebags just want fun and excitement, they're instinctively and probably brainlessly acting out some genetic programming. Many of these may never even achieve sentience, but the few capable of "learning" will later use rationalizations to justify their earlier "mistakes". Exceptions exist but are rare. Genetically, women have some programming to want to "fuck the bad guy to get his genes, then use the nice stable guy they don't have the hots for for security to raise the child", and one way or another many try play that programming out in this 'post-feminism' world. This would only be natural in nature; the 'bad guys' were strong but didn't hang around - so you had two imperatives, (a) get good seed and (b) raise the resulting offspring - and two different male profiles are required for each task.
But if you're just looking for "hot women" and resentful for not getting the "hot woman" because you - arguably - are superior to Joe Fun-Fun-Fun Airhead ... well, you gotta just get over that these are the wrong types of women for you, they're dumb as bricks, rather go look for someone with the right combination of attractiveness and intelligence. Complaining that the hot chicks don't dig you while ignoring some that might, is a lot like the hot chicks who complain to their decent nerd friends how they "can't find a decent guy" while f-cking some douchebag.
Frogz at July 24, 2008 11:04 AM
PS nerds aren't "in", never have been, never will be - not amongst Western cultures anyway.
Frogz at July 24, 2008 11:07 AM
Wow, Frogz. I'll have to digest all that. But I will tell you that I have a son who is a nerdy, brilliant outcast, so I do know how horribly cruel boys can be to one another. I actually had to remove my son from school for awhile because of the merciless bullying. He's 18 now, going off to college, but I suspect it won't be that much easier for him than it has been for you. And I've witnessed the same sort of dark view settling within him too.
So, it's similar. I'm not saying you should lie about what you've been through, and I disagree that women won't respond to male vulnerability. We love to feel needed and want our man to lean on us emotionally. It's just a matter of degree. You can't unload this on the first date. You can't be so needy or cynical that you seems unstable.
But, most importantly, you have to set your radar for the girl who has COMPASSION. She might not be on "match.com". She probably won't be at a bar too often. She may be serving food at a homeless shelter...or running a marathon to benefit cancer victims. Those are venues where you're more likely to find a quality girl with a good heart - and sensitivity - which is what you need.
Then, take it slow, reveal your pain in small, digestable bits. I can't guarantee it will work out - all of us have had failed relationships. There are no guarantees in romance - unless you quit trying, which guarantees failure.
lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 11:43 AM
Few people in any relationship, romantic or otherwise, want to deal with someone's emotional baggage right out of the gate. It's never, "Hi, my name is MonicaP, I have trust issues stemming from mistreatment from an alcoholic, abusive older sister and an indifferent mother, my self-esteem took a hit from my possibly gay ex-husband who wouldn't touch me with a 10-foot pole, and oh, by the way, I like hiking and video games." Expecting emotional intimacy and the ability to deal with deep-seated issues right from the start is unreasonable.
Also, insisting that your hurt is the hurtiest hurt that ever hurt is not likely to appeal to other people who have also been hurt and yet plug away.
MonicaP at July 24, 2008 11:50 AM
But, you're right, it all was due to an unhealthy need for a partner. I was 19 when we met, alone for the first time, living in NYC. I was scared and he seemed protective.
Now, I know you can only protect and fulfill yourself.
More feminist agitprop brainwashed thinking.
Truth: Men and Women NEED each other. I certainly do not have the arrogance and hubris to look at the way nature (god/evolution...whatever you believe) designed our species to live.
Look at this garbage of referring to pre-60's women as being nothing more than slaves to men...and that women NEED to become breadwinners to become "free." This is a completely vacuous and asinine view of the historical condition of the Patriarchal social arrangement.
How many housewives "trapped into the slavery of cleaning the house and caring for the kids" chafed away in misery, jealous of their "oppressive" husband prior to the proliferation of the feminist indoctrination in mainstream consciousness?
I think not. I think most women of the previous era knew what their husbands endured in putting his health and life on the line in coal mines, construction sites, law enforcement, civil service, fire fighting and all the other hazardous occupations that Fathers have endured over the ages to provide for his wife and children. Who was enslaved to who? The man who had no choice but risk his life and limb so that his family had food, shelter and sustenance? Or the wife who organized, cleaned and maintained the conditions of that sustenance? Neither was enslaved to either! Both brought their strengths to the table to create a balance that resulted in strong, nuclear families that formed the basis for a well-ordered, civilized society!
It was only after hard-working men (who were motivated by the desire to provide for their families) were able to create the technologically advanced society of luxury and comfort that the family-destroying mindfuck of feminism was able to catch hold and turn an entire generation of women into useful idiots for the elitist social engineers bent on subverting Western Civilization into a collectivist dystopia.
A man and a woman, joined together to procreate progeny bring a masculine and feminine influence to create a balanced environment that is optimal for rearing offspring.
We are two sides of the same coin...a representation of Yin and Yang.
However, it was the feminist zeitgeist that brainwashes most modern women into thinking that Yin has had all of the breaks in life, that Yang was nothing more than slavery and oppression at the instigation of the Yin, and that all Yang needs to stop trying to be Yang but strive to supress all Yang instincts and behavior and instead compete and contend with Yin.
Funny though...when it comes to the hazardous occupations that kill and maim men regularly, you feminist who defiantly declare "I don't need a man!" aren't exactly rushing in to fill that particular gender gap. (Just look at the statistics for occupational mortality and injury...there's a statistical gender gap you NEVER hear about in the mainstream, feminist-warped media).
Finally, I have to say that just because I am pointing out flaws in feminist-extremist inspired thoughts that permeate the attitudes of lovlysoul and other women on this thread does not mean I hate women, am disgruntled or obsessed with revenge on the female gender...or that I can't get laid, or not in a relationship, or any of that other garbage feminists use as there favorite rhetorical weapons to try to shame men into silence.
In short, you women have gone to great lengths to emphatically state that you don't need men to define you, provide you with happiness, support you or protect you...but than you turn around and deride any man that declares the same thing as some indication that he is a loser, a nerd or some other less-than masculine definition.
Do you have enough self-reflection and intellectual honesty to see the cognitive dissonance displayed by such discourse?
Dave from Hawaii at July 24, 2008 12:57 PM
Yin and Yang are EQUAL. Women didn't even have the right to vote, couldn't control their own money, couldn't control their own bodies and reproduction, couldn't do anything but grovel if they were abused by a dominating husband...so you can't call that "two sides of the same coin", Dave.
Your philosophy is just too stupid for words. You're probably a white supremist too...and don't believe in the holocaust...those darned Jews made the whole thing up just for sympathy, right? The poor white American male has suffered the most oppression throughout history. It's all a conspiracy to keep you down. Please!
Nobody is saying we don't need each other in a broader, societal sense. We're just saying we don't all need to have romantic relationships, particularly marriage. But, obviously, some do want one - some are hurt or angry that they can't find one. We are simply addressing those expressions.
lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 1:17 PM
"As for "loathing" my daughter, screw you. If I didn't love her, she would be out of my life already."
This is the crux of my point.
"carry a grudge over a previous difference"
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Listen, you're right. I don't know a whole lot about mental illness, but I know a whole lot about kids. Your tough-as-nails, straight-forward-bitch type attitude is great for certain situations. My point is that I hope you know also how to be a patient, loving, quiet listener sometimes as well.
When you say you wish you wouldn't have had a kid or grandkid, it strikes me as not just careless thinking but also primarily a shock-value statement that keeps in line with the persona you like to project. It is clear you love T by the gaming, the stories, even the name you go by. What is a little sad to me is that you write (repeatedly) that you would have been better, smarter, happier, etc. without him, her, any of it. I hope, for his sake, he never finds that out. But still, I do not know all the particulars and if every second of motherhood was the pure hell, sacrifice, and suffering you describe, I feel very, very sorry for you all. Truly.
Words, my friend, are not innocuous (my, my, my...another big word); I just hope you recognize the power of them on small people. If she had another kid, you would love him or her, just as you do T. It's the same worry that every mother who considers the prosepect of a second child has; Parents are often surprised at the power of that love they weren't sure they had in them.
And as a genuine side note...the way you rant and rave sometimes, all the inside information with you as the lead actor, the way you use name-calling as an attempt at mind-bullying shows a little imbalance, which is one of the reasons I made the initial post. Calm the fuck down sometimes, man. It minimizes the credibility of your good points.
kg at July 24, 2008 1:17 PM
I think both men and women have been hurt in relationships, but men don't have an outlet to talk it through the way women do by talking with each other. Maybe seeing a therapist would help keep the bitterness and anger at bay.
Chrissy at July 24, 2008 1:27 PM
Yin and Yang are EQUAL. Women didn't even have the right to vote, couldn't control their own money, couldn't control their own bodies and reproduction, couldn't do anything but grovel if they were abused by a dominating husband...so you can't call that "two sides of the same coin", Dave.
Yin and Yang are equal...BUT DIFFERENT. Each side brings it's own elemental makeup to create a whole.
Perhaps that's a little to complex of an idea for you to comprehend, since you've done nothing to refute what I've written, but have resorted to exhibiting more of the simplisitic, idiotic thinking that is the hallmark of the feminist brainwashing.
Prior to the suffrage movement, plenty of MEN didn't have the right to vote. As for control their own bodies and reproduction - puhhleazze. That is such an infantile statement, indicative of the typical feminist mindset that seeks to absolve all women of the responsibility and consequences of their own behavior.
Women in this country have always had the right to choose their husbands, and who they were going to sleep with. As Amy always says, don't sleep with a man unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences. Women have ALWAYS had the choice of disgression in who has the opportunity to impregnate them.
The only "reproductive freedom" for which you mindlessly parrot the feminist line is the freedom to avoid the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior...ultimately the right to practice infanticide and kill that baby in your womb.
Your philosophy is just too stupid for words. You're probably a white supremist too...and don't believe in the holocaust...those darned Jews made the whole thing up just for sympathy, right? The poor white American male has suffered the most oppression throughout history. It's all a conspiracy to keep you down. Please!
LMAO. You are too stupid to realize just how brainwashed and indoctrinated you are. Using speculation of my ethnicity and bigotry as an ad hominem attack is just a pathetic attempt to avoid a substantive, logical refutation.
You know nothing about me, or what I think about such matters as race - especially since I'm not even a "white" American male.
Nobody is saying we don't need each other in a broader, societal sense. We're just saying we don't all need to have romantic relationships, particularly marriage. But, obviously, some do want one - some are hurt or angry that they can't find one. We are simply addressing those expressions.
What is society but a collection of individuals, impacting the general condition by their own, personal behavior? Ergo - this attitude of yours, that you "don't need a man" is an individual manifestation of what has become the cultural zeitgeist. And this personal attitude affects the "Broader, societal sense." You fail to see the connection between the ubiquity of your attitude and the results of it's proliferation.
Your attitude is just another example of what has become a major contributor to the current relational dysfunction that results in this insane "war of the sexes." But the resulting ubiquity of broken homes, shattered lives ground up by the divorce industry and an entire generation of children raised without a Father and all of the attendant pathologies are a testament to just how destructive your attitude has been on a "societal sense."
You cannot disconnect your individual actions and attitudes from society as a whole, when a majority of women share your same point of view.
Dave from Hawaii at July 24, 2008 1:49 PM
"Women in this country have always had the right to choose their husbands, and who they were going to sleep with. "
Yeah, those black women in the pre-civil war south had so many choices, didn't they?
"As Amy always says, don't sleep with a man unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences. Women have ALWAYS had the choice of disgression in who has the opportunity to impregnate them."
Those dirty whores! How dare they use birth control! How dare they want to have sex without getting pregnant! How dare they want the same freedom men have always had!
As for the 21 year old who wants to bang a 'hot chick', he's probably one of those pudgy, pasty choads who lives in his parents' basement and spends his spare time playing WOW and playing with his action figures. Gee, why on earth would a beautiful, stylish woman pass him up?
JoJo at July 24, 2008 2:17 PM
"Women have ALWAYS had the choice of disgression in who has the opportunity to impregnate them".
That is so ridiculous, not to mention misspelled. So rape doesn't count? How many men have borne children because of that?
My mother-in-law was Catholic, married off young to a man she barely knew at her family's insistence. She had no say in who she married or how many children she had! Her abusive husband had sex with her whenever he wanted...cheated on her and abused the kids too...which came to number SEVEN. Where could she go with seven kids? She had no money or education except typing and mothering. In those days, there was practically no divorce, so she took his abuse until he died.
The echos of that abuse, and the mental illness it caused, ultimately came to haunt me and my children. Yet, thankfully, unlike her, I had a real choice. You may glorify the old days, but there was nothing "equal but different" in the way women were treated and the rights they had.
I'm not an ardent feminist. Never even been to a meeting. But I still have enough knowledge of history and how oppressed women have been...and still are in most societies in the world...to realize that you're full of crap. As much as you feel you've suffered as a man, there's no comparison, and you just sound foolish trying to repaint the past with women having all these supposed "freedoms" and "rights". It's nonsense!
Society is always evolving. Women in this culture no longer need men who will subjugate them or hold such absurd beliefs. Even if this means more divorces, that is the price for social transition. I think that will ultimately balance out as equality becomes the norm and domineering men like you, who can't adjust to the changes and still long for the 1800s, become appropriately extinct.
lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 2:28 PM
Yeah, those black women in the pre-civil war south had so many choices, didn't they?
Oh I see...so based on the horrible injustices inflicted by slavery, we must ensure that ALL women are indoctrinated to believe they don't "need men!" Excellent rationalization there.
The single biggest disaster to the Black community has been the destruction of the nuclear family, and the creation of inter-generational poverty by replacing the males role as provider with the welfare state.
Those dirty whores! Your words, not mine....
How dare they use birth control! Pray tell, what does that have to do with the "I don't need a man" attitude I'm excoriating?
How dare they want to have sex without getting pregnant! How dare they want the same freedom men have always had!
What freedom was that? The freedom to have wanton, promiscuous sex without consequence? Guess what dear, there is no such thing. Sexual Behavior ALWAYS carries consequences with it.
As I said, you brainwashed feminista's always refer to the "bad old days." I know plenty of older women, my grandmothers on both sides of the family included, who laugh at this idiotic idea that they were "slaves" or that they were "oppressed."
But never mind substantive, logic based refutations. Grossly exaggerated hyperbole, ad-hominem attacks and speculation of my supposed bigotry amply demonstrate the intellectual vacuity of the brainwashed mind.
Dave from Hawaii at July 24, 2008 2:34 PM
Ok, you know what? There's so much dust in the air from all these straw-men it's bothering my allergies. I'm going to walk my dog now. See if you can keep the dust down.
One question though - who's this 21 year old that JoJo's on about?
brian at July 24, 2008 2:51 PM
That is so ridiculous, not to mention misspelled. Ad hominem, transparent shaming language and now using the grammarian argument for the informal medium of a blog's comment thread? The irony of this coming from a women going by "lovly" is so delicious.
So rape doesn't count? How many men have borne children because of that?
Who said rape doesn't count? Than again, why should it? Rape has always been a crime. Why is this crime a justification for the instigation of the feminist paradigm that revels in misandry, promulgates the dysfunction of the genders and fosters the proliferation of broken homes?
My mother-in-law was Catholic, married off young to a man she barely knew at her family's insistence. She had no say in who she married or how many children she had! Her abusive husband had sex with her whenever he wanted...cheated on her and abused the kids too...which came to number SEVEN. Where could she go with seven kids? She had no money or education except typing and mothering. In those days, there was practically no divorce, so she took his abuse until he died.
The echos of that abuse, and the mental illness it caused, ultimately came to haunt me and my children. Yet, thankfully, unlike her, I had a real choice. You may glorify the old days, but there was nothing "equal but different" in the way women were treated and the rights they had.
Yes, so the personal experiences you speak of are the legitimate basis for throwing the baby out with the bathwater than, huh? Society is so much better off now that a minority of horrible marriages has served as the perfect justification to decimate the entire institution, eh?
I'm not an ardent feminist. Never even been to a meeting. But I still have enough knowledge of history and how oppressed women have been...and still are in most societies in the world...to realize that you're full of crap.
So tell me, what specific point have I made is "full of crap?" I notice you fail to address anything substantive of note - like how in "the bad old days of female domestic slavery" it was men who often sacrificed their lives and health to provide for his "oppressed slaves."
As much as you feel you've suffered as a man, there's no comparison, and you just sound foolish trying to repaint the past with women having all these supposed "freedoms" and "rights". It's nonsense!
Where have I indicated that I've suffered as a man? The only nonsense here is the continued insistence of people such as yourself that seek to wear the mantle of victimhood based on your gender and your completely myopic view of how the sexes related in the past. You constantly refer to women as slaves and chattel in the past without even acknowledging the basic truths I pointed out about how Men generally did not exactly live the life high on the hog, maliciously and gratuitously oppressing their wives because they are "evil males."
Society is always evolving. Women in this culture no longer need men who will subjugate them or hold such absurd beliefs. Even if this means more divorces, that is the price for social transition. I think that will ultimately balance out as equality becomes the norm and domineering men like you, who can't adjust to the changes and still long for the 1800s, become appropriately extinct.
Yet more assumptions you make of me - assumptions for which are baseless since you know nothing of me. I'm certainly positive that my wife's description of to me to her family and friends does not include the words racist, bigoted, controlling or domineering.
I've done nothing but offer some critical observations of the sacred cows of feminism that you've espoused here. I've challenged your arrogant and narcissistic statement of "I don't need a man." From this I've gotten blanket declarations that I'm racist, a bigot and now domineering. It would be hilarious were it not so mind-numbingly predictable.
The only thing I'm speaking of here is the current societal norm in which women have actually become the domineering gender based on the mistaken notion that you are all victims simply because of your gender, and your myopic point of view that women all suffered tremendously at the hands of the male gender.
Guess what, darling, there were plenty of women that were just as capable of making the lives of their husbands and children just as miserable in the "bad old days" as there were men like your Grandfather.
Dave from Hawaii at July 24, 2008 2:54 PM
Go Dave, some beautiful points there, most of which I can remember arguing in the past, which I have since kind of forgotten due to being beaten into pandering to womens thinking. Women so often use moods, children, withholding of sex and happiness for control. It can be enough to break the strongest of men. When I look to my grandparents on both sides, everyone knew who the boss was, it wasnt pop or grandfather. I cant think of a single relationship I have ever known where women were treated with all this suppression and violence that is getting spouted round here. Is it the experiance of any of these women personally, this horrible life that women used to lead is such a 'victim cry'. Ok women couldn't vote back then but either could a lot of other people. The point is you can vote now, you can work if you want, you can have kids or not have kids. So whats the problem, why are you still crying foul over things that you perceive happening years ago.
I dont even want to vote ffs.
And this freedom men had and have. Busting your ass into an early grave, risking your life to provide for a family is still my reality now. I spent 8 years building a business and trashing my body on a daily basis pumping concrete, invested 200 grand into a machine that was previously on the road and working only to be told that I couldn't drive it on the road because it was 10cm longer than it should be. Fought with the roads dept who is full of career women with shocking attitudes and little comprehention of what their job even was, many of them who couldnt even speak english. But you know we have to give women jobs to make the numbers look better. This put me out of business. Ive just spent 12 months working in the desert constructing mines, working to get out of the debt incurred fighting them. I work 26 days straight 12 hours a day in up to 55 degrees heat for most of the year to get 4 days at home with family. I then have to spend most of that cutting firewood, mowing or fencing to cover things that she cant do. Now I am back here for 6mths resting, I am looked on by society as some lasy ass loser.
I can tell you the only reason I wouldnt swap roles with my partner is because I know how fucked it is to be playing the mans role. I would love to be spending most of my time with the kids, and looking after the house.
Most men aren't bitter and we get on with what we have to do, but if you want to hear bitterness, just start harping on about how tough women did it 100 years ago, men did it 10 times tougher then as well.
Al at July 24, 2008 4:03 PM
Truth: Men and Women NEED each other. I certainly do not have the arrogance and hubris to look at the way nature (god/evolution...whatever you believe) designed our species to live.
I believe we are using different definitions of the word "need". This thread all started because the LW warned women of the dire consequences of not marrying at a young age and risking ending up alone. By saying I don't NEED a man, that means that I can still live a good life without a husband, and don't have to marry any old guy who comes along just so that I don't end up alone. When faced with the choice of bad marriage or happy single life, happy single life is better. Best: happy married life. Worst: unhappy married life. Second best: happy single life.
Look at this garbage of referring to pre-60's women as being nothing more than slaves to men...and that women NEED to become breadwinners to become "free." This is a completely vacuous and asinine view of the historical condition of the Patriarchal social arrangement.
You may think it's garbage to say that women NEED to become breadwinners to become "free", but if you ended up a single, penniless, 40 year old woman in 1920, with scant marketable job skills and 3 children to raise, in a workforce in which women were discriminated against legally, you'd find out just how necessary it is to be a breadwinner. You've basically said that men and women NEED each other to be happy, yet you say it's garbage to need to become a breadwinner. But it's the reverse: it's nice to have a life partner, but food on the table, a roof over one's head, and the means to make sure your kid are well cared for are far more important on the scale of necessity than is a life partner. Now, things are arranged so that having a life partner generally makes the necessities more easy to obtain. But sadly, in life, there are no guarantees that that situation will last forever. That's why people have savings. And that's why it's important to have marketable job skills.
I think most women of the previous era knew what their husbands endured in putting his health and life on the line in coal mines, construction sites, law enforcement, civil service, fire fighting and all the other hazardous occupations that Fathers have endured over the ages to provide for his wife and children. Who was enslaved to who? The man who had no choice but risk his life and limb so that his family had food, shelter and sustenance? Or the wife who organized, cleaned and maintained the conditions of that sustenance? Neither was enslaved to either! Both brought their strengths to the table to create a balance that resulted in strong, nuclear families that formed the basis for a well-ordered, civilized society!
OK, you see what you did here (and in the paragraphs following it, but this would get too long if I included them all)? You just provided zero verifiable facts, and instead painted a rosy, stereotypical picture of what you imagined life was like in the past. There's no point in refuting that because you've not provided anything concrete to argue against--just a strawman argument you pulled out of thin air. "I think" followed by a string of non-fact-based assumptions isn't an argument.
Funny though...when it comes to the hazardous occupations that kill and maim men regularly, you feminist who defiantly declare "I don't need a man!" aren't exactly rushing in to fill that particular gender gap. (Just look at the statistics for occupational mortality and injury...there's a statistical gender gap you NEVER hear about in the mainstream, feminist-warped media).
Again with the vague generalizations? As I recall, women have fought pretty damn hard to get jobs as firemen, policemen, positions in the armed forces, astronauts, miners, fishermen, etc. And these aren't just vague assertions. See here for data: http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/coalMine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Mine_Workers
http://www.firerescue1.com/laborissues/articles/237683-An-FDNY-pioneer-Captain-who-fought-for-womens-right-to-be-firefighters-retires/
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/18/world/fg-policewomen18
http://www.pff.org.pk/article.php3?id_article=61
re: shaming language used to silence. Here are some of the phrases you've used: "the family-destroying mindfuck of feminism"; "turn an entire generation of women into useful idiots"; "simplisitic, idiotic thinking that is the hallmark of the feminist brainwashing", "You are too stupid to realize just how brainwashed and indoctrinated you are.", etc.
If you're so against shaming language, then don't use it yourself.
In short, you women have gone to great lengths to emphatically state that you don't need men to define you, provide you with happiness, support you or protect you...but than you turn around and deride any man that declares the same thing as some indication that he is a loser, a nerd or some other less-than masculine definition.
I don't know about anybody else, but I was protesting people claiming that women NEED men lest they suffer the dire fate of oldmaidhood. Being an old maid, and other such terms, are very much shaming language meant to scare and shame women into marriage. I don't recall calling anyone a loser or a nerd, so I see no point in addressing that comment of yours.
Prior to the suffrage movement, plenty of MEN didn't have the right to vote.
Right. And that sucked. And no one here is claiming that men were happy or better off that way, or were duped into wanting the vote. But you've claimed that women were happy and life was fair before feminists came along and convinced them they weren't happy and were being ill-treated. That women weren't allowed to vote, and all the many negatives that went along with that, contradicts the rosy, happy picture you painted. Don't change the issue under debate just to squirm out of the factual inaccuracies of your statement. Other things that contradict it: in the U.S. until the turn of the 20th century, in divorce cases men automatically got the kids, and the moms had no rights. Wives weren't allowed till the late 19th century to acquire property independent of their husbands so in cases of divorce, stood to lose everything that wasn't protected by another man--father or brother. Beating of wives was legal. Women couldn't borrow money from banks. Women's ability to serve on juries was spotty (http://womenslegalhistory.stanford.edu/articles/juror.htm), etc. All inequalities. Your arguments hinge upon broad generalizations that so-and-so group was happy that way. But look: we can go back and forth all day providing anecdotal evidence that so-and-so was treated unfairly, and some other person was discriminated against, and some other person had it better than yet another person. But such arguments are pointless. There's always some person you can point to or anecdote you can make up to support your position. What we need are hard and cold facts demonstrating inequality. And the bottom line is that the law favored men. Time after time after time. And plenty of women were unhappy about it. And none of your pointing out that some woman or other WAS happy, and some man or other WAS oppressed, will change the reality of the fact that society had numerous unequal laws and treatments, and BECAUSE OF widespread discontent with it, and lots of fighting against these things, laws were changed. So your rosy utopian past just didn't exist.
As for your scorn at comments that women couldn't control their own bodies' reproduction: you seem to be sorely misinformed about the law. Until the 1970s, there was no such thing as marital rape. A married man had complete control and access to his wife's body at all times. Even in the 1970s, the concept of marital rape was laughed at. So, no, ultimately there was no legal protection for women to control their own reproductive abilities. And birth control information was restricted, as well, and often illegal or impossible to obtain. And although there were laws on the books against rape, the stigma was so great that very likely few spoke up about it. THAT'S the real shaming language--too afraid of stigma to get justice. Compared to that, being called names by random people on the internet is pretty laughable as something to complain about. And don't even get me started about the inability of slaves to complain of rape.
I've challenged your arrogant and narcissistic statement of "I don't need a man."
OK, you got me here. How do you figure it's narcissistic to say one doesn't need a man? If you've ever met someone with narcissistic personality disorder, you'll see that they need lots of people around them so they can bask in admiration, all the time--they're not complete without a cadre of hangers on and toadies and scapegoats. If you're talking about how, in the more general definition of the term, a narcissist is in love with him/herself, well, then how do you possibly figure that goes hand in hand with not needing a man? No one has said that they don't NEED a man because they're so fabulously wonderful and perfect that no one is good enough for them. It's HEALTHY to not be so needy and lonely that you're OK with not having a significant other; that even though people might call you names and attempt to shame you because you're single, you don't need other people's approval to be happy. It's HEALTHY, not narcissistic, to be content enough with oneself that companionship is not required at all costs.
Quizzical at July 24, 2008 6:51 PM
Am I the only one picturing Dave sitting at his computer wearing a dirty t-shirt, stained boxers and crocks as he tries to cram as many words that he thinks sound smart into a single sentence all the while trying to plan his clan's next mission on WoW. If I'm not, I suggest you do. It makes reading his responses more entertaining.
katie at July 24, 2008 6:59 PM
Ok, Q. you win the internet.
Good night.
brian at July 24, 2008 8:03 PM
Actually, I'd like to add one more thing.
The same defective thinking that leads LW and others to ridicule the unmarried woman for her selfishness also forced many men who were unsuitable partners into marriage.
Seriously - Let's pretend that it's 1958 instead of 2008. How likely would a never-married 39 year old man be to have a business, a home, and be a respected member of the community?
I'll tell you how likely - NOT AT FUCKING ALL. If a man wasn't married off and having children by the time he was thirty, he was considered unreliable and immature. Not someone worthy of any respect or responsibility.
Can we at least agree that men have the option now of living a full life without having to chain themselves to a hateful shrew just to have some street cred?
Or would Al and Dave prefer that every man be paired off with a woman, without concern for the compatibility of temperament?
brian at July 24, 2008 8:10 PM
Am I the only one picturing Dave sitting at his computer wearing a dirty t-shirt, stained boxers and crocks as he tries to cram as many words that he thinks sound smart into a single sentence all the while trying to plan his clan's next mission on WoW. If I'm not, I suggest you do. It makes reading his responses more entertaining.
No, you're probably not. And that is as sad as it is inaccurate.
I personally like to read an alternative point of view, and generally don't feel a need to visualise the person who's presenting it. I think an argument can stand apart from the person who makes it.
Rob Case at July 24, 2008 8:28 PM
Brian: There's no real way of ever knowing everything it is we need or want, but at the same time most people know. Hell, most people even know when they're being desperate enough to haggle just so they won't have to deal with whatever it is they don't want to deal with alone.
Just as a note, I think people can be happy if they feel they need/want one night stands or whatever. It takes all kinds, that sort of thing. So long as it doesn't interfere with normal everyday life (you know the drill— eating, sleeping, holding a job, paying your bills), well, who should care?
JMoczy at July 24, 2008 9:43 PM
lovlysoul> My mother-in-law was Catholic, married off young to a man she barely knew at her family's insistence. She had no say in who she married or how many children she had!
(Ignoring earlier arguments of rape for a moment, because I suspect that was far more the exception than the rule, and in any case was never regarded as acceptable anyway ...)
Were arranged marriages really common amongst Catholics? I honestly don't know much about this, AFAIK my grandparents all had completely voluntary marriages (and where pregnancy came long after the marriage). Were they traditional arranged marriages, or are you referring to the values that forced somebody to marry if they got knocked up?
If they were traditional arranged marriages, were they forced for both sides? Or did men pick the girl they wanted, and the unwilling girl was forced to submit to that? If arranged for both sides, then wasn't it equally bad for both the man and the woman being forced to marry somebody they don't want to? Why would it be only the women in that case suffering oppressively with this choice forced upon them? Men could also be unhappy in marriage, and I don't know any man who would be happy marrying any random woman.
Now if you mean that the values of a society forced marriage upon a couple when a woman accidentally got knocked up, surely the forced marriage applied to both sides? I mean there again, the man is forced to marry a woman he might not have wanted to (you could say then he shouldn't have slept with her - but, rape aside, the exact same thing applies to her, she shouldn't have slept with him either --- Dave has a point --- in those days there WAS no 'Pill' so sex MEANT possibly pregnancy and forced marriage FOR BOTH). I see no reason to assume that if a girl accidentally got pregnant, that it means the man definitely wanted to marry her but she didn't want to marry him. I don't see any reason to assume any bias favoring either gender actually ... surely most sex was stupid 'heat of passion' anyway (unless the girl actually wanted to snare the man by getting pregnant, which definitely also used to happen, but then it means she did want to marry him and possibly he not her - she'd already made an active choice in such a case). As far as I know, young men were often forced by their parents to marry the girls they knocked up ... surely that is AS bad for the man if he never really wanted to marry that girl (and presuming no abuse).
By the way was it also considered taboo to divorce (or go the police) even if a man abused you? Generally speaking, what were the recourses for abused women back then?
brian> One question though - who's this 21 year old that JoJo's on about?
LOL, good question, I think he/she is just trolling with stupid insults and no rational reasoning behind them.
In general I do think Dave From Hawaii has some very good points - REGARDLESS of the causes for it (and ignoring katie's stupid ad hominem to derail the point), the 'family unit' is today in trouble, it is epidemic, it is bad, and it IS a problem for the upcoming generations ... divorce rates are sky-high, kids are being raised by single moms/parents everywhere and yes this often causes problems and causes great deals of stress inside homes etc. Courts favor the women, men get screwed over and become bitter, many don't even want to marry anymore because it's not even worth the risk. Does nobody see how ABSURD things have become? It's not inherently some indictment of all feminist principles, so don't be so overly-defensive as to ignore that there are some real problems here that deserve at least a second look. I personally don't think that the majority of women were these oppressed abused downtrodden unhappy housewives, but regardless, there is nothing INHERENTLY shameful or bad about the 'traditional' concept of a housewife who focuses on creating a good home environment to raise children in while a (decent non-abusing) man brings home the income. Yes, if there is abuse or whatever, that's a problem, and yes, women deserve to have choices. But today's sky-high divorce rates AREN'T over things like "he was physically beating me unconscious" or "he rapes me every night" --- they seem to mostly be over things like "he leaves his socks lying around" or "he's boring" or he "doesn't fulfil my spiritual desire for passion bla bla" or other such nonsense as I recall the original-original LW (that the LW is referring to) was on about ... (actually many divorced women have to go to great effort to try vilify the males to justify their own bullying actions as well as get as high as possible settlements).
David J at July 25, 2008 4:55 AM
@Quizzical: I agree with most everything you've said, but would just like to point out that just because married men might have been able to legally get away with abuse in the home, that does NOT mean it was the NORM in the majority of homes for women to actually get beaten and raped. You almost paint a picture that 90% of women were being beaten and abused - as if men are all so deranged they would all beat women given half a chance. But there WERE value systems that mostly held such things in check, I was raised with very strict values against such behaviour and those values did not come from feminism nor were they enabled by them, they were passed down through generations ... nor were they shameful, such values were held in esteem by society - men who were known to beat women have always been looked down upon by even their peers (which is why when it happened, they always had to try keep it a secret).
Yes, bad stuff did happen and it was correct to fight that, equal rights is great, but we may have gone a bit too far and now "thrown the baby out with bathwater" by assuming it must've all been bad. Though bad stuff happened, it was in a minority of cases and the majority of households were likely actually more or less happy households in which nobody got beaten or abused or raped.
David J at July 25, 2008 5:21 AM
... and those 'happy households' (which yes existed), and that concept of men and women decently merely fulfilling different roles towards the COMMON task of raising a family well, is the Yin and Yang Dave is trying to get at ... we've gone too far in vilifying this very concept and making it shameful.
David J at July 25, 2008 5:25 AM
This is a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but I fail to see why birth control is always associated with promiscuity. People were having plenty of sex before. They were just forced to get married when the results became clear, or sent to "live with an uncle" for a few months until after the baby was born.
I was a virgin when I got married. Five years later, after my divorce, I'd had a total of one partner. Birth control helped me avoid bringing helpless lives into an awful marriage and likely poverty, since I was the only one working, and three jobs, at that.
Now, if I choose to remarry and have kids, they can come into a healthy relationship where they will be cared for physically and emotionally. If that makes me a dirty slut, so be it.
MonicaP at July 25, 2008 7:10 AM
Dave J, it may not have been the norm, but that's not what matters. Laws are changed to address injustices for the FEW, which is how you reach justice for everyone.
I'm sure there were pleasant slave owners in the south. In fact, being from the south, I KNOW there were. Many of my ancestors owned slaves, and treated them well, and many were HAPPY to be slaves. They knew nothing different.
Some who wanted to justify slavery would point to that: Look how happy they are! Their needs are being met - our cotton is getting picked. Everything works well...all harmonious and peaceful. We NEED each other! Slavery is good!
Well, obviously, that didn't make it right. Because there were many unhappy slaves. Some just acted happy but weren't. They had no choice. They were trapped in a societal system that gave them very few rights and freedoms.
And so were women. Doesn't mean ALL women were abused. Doesn't mean some husbands weren't happy and completey fulfilled either. Many slave owners were frustrated and unhappy with the slaves they bought. Some were stupid; some didn't work hard or breed well. They got a bad lot.
But the husbands were free to own land and make money and vote and leave their marriages - even take their children - if they wanted. Their wives were not.
Slave owners were free to go buy more slaves if they wanted. They had rights that would allow them to remedy their unhappiness. The slaves did not.
I'm not a slave - not claiming to have ever been a slave - but I'm trying to explain why feminism arose and laws were changed. Dave might wish there was some group to champion the rights of "the poor male"....but they already HAD rights..just like slave owners did. So, this is why there was no big "Help The Poor Slave Owner" movement. No matter how difficult their individual lives may have been, they weren't oppressed!
Quizzical has done an excellent job siting how women were oppressed. I think it's good that we aren't anymore - even if that, initially at least, has wreaked some social havoc.
There are many, especially in the south, who still feel granting slaves freedom has created social havoc. There are white men, right now, sitting on their front porches decrying the fact that those "n-----s ever got freed!". "All they do is live on welfare, have babies...." blah, blah blah.
Doesn't make them right. Justice was done. Society shifted to a more correct course. There will, of course, be some social havoc as a result. There will be some negatives. But THANK GOD we've done the right thing. Dealing with the havoc is a small price to pay for righting what was terribly wrong.
lovlysoul at July 25, 2008 7:25 AM
Btw, "lovlysoul" was my online dating name because "lovelysoul" was apparently taken, which is why I started using that - not because I can't spell. So, I'll use the correct version here.
lovelysoul at July 25, 2008 7:31 AM
Lovelysoul, you should use whatever name you want. It was a cheap shot, anyway.
MonicaP at July 25, 2008 7:35 AM
Why is it that I see so many articles and online comments that say things like "Women shouldn't choose to marry late, they need to face reality, they get less attractive over time".
It's bizarre, because at 31, I'd say about half my friends are married. The other half knows perfectly well that they are getting older. They aren't "choosing" not to marry... they aren't finding anyone.
It's so weird, who ends up married and who doesn't... it isn't necessarily the prettiest ones or nicest ones who get married. I don't get it... I see some of my friends who are tall and thin with flowing hair, who have interesting hobbies and who are nice people, and they can't find anyone. Whereas the married ones (including me) aren't necessarily the more attractive ones. (I'm not saying we are hideously ugly, just not model-looking).
But this whole blaming women for "choosing" to stay single is bullshit. They don't all WANT to be single.
NicoleK at July 25, 2008 8:46 AM
I think 'Realist' (the LW) NEEDS women to need men, because he (I think it's a guy) feels that he won't ever get one unless the cards were stacked in his favour. He must have low self-esteem to think that the only way he could get and keep a woman was if she had no choice in the matter.
Chrissy at July 25, 2008 8:59 AM
Sorry to break it to everyone but I believe Dave's personal situation and that everyone else here is relevant to the conversation. He has made some blanket insulting assumptions about women and if he wishes to continue to do so he has to understand that perhaps those of us he is insulting might make a few assumptions about him.
Internet environments like this tend to attract people that feel the need to vent their own prejudices and bitterness in a venue where they will not be ignored or judged based on their own life choices. The danger in this type of annonymous environment is that people take advice or criticism to heart without knowing the context of the posters life experience (or lack of). It happens not only here but all over the internet everyday.
As one those "selfish single moms" in the world I am very insulted by the assumptions and miss information being spouted here. No matter how Dave or anyone else here tries to dress up their reponses to make them sound like they are quoting their college thesis, it doesn't change the intent. There are a number of guys here with a real chip on their shoulders regarding women. Its scary to read alot of these types of discussions, but I try to not let it ruffle my feathers too much but I see most of it as just bitter ramblings of men that have trouble interacting with women.
katie at July 25, 2008 9:09 AM
How likely would a never-married 39 year old man be to have a business, a home, and be a respected member of the community? I'll tell you how likely - NOT AT FUCKING ALL.
Yeah. My father didn’t get married till 33, and there was HUGE pressure. My grandparents even threatened to disinherit him!
Does nobody see how ABSURD things have become?
Yes. We had a whole conversation about this earlier this week on Amy’s blog: http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/07/21/why_do_parents.html
I personally don't think that the majority of women were these oppressed abused downtrodden unhappy housewives, but regardless, there is nothing INHERENTLY shameful or bad about the 'traditional' concept of a housewife who focuses on creating a good home environment to raise children in while a (decent non-abusing) man brings home the income.
No, nothing inherently bad about choosing that life-—but inherently inegalitarian to have laws and social practices to prevent/make nearly impossible any other choice. But I don’t think anyone was arguing against the choice, just against it being compulsory.
I agree with most everything you've said, but would just like to point out that just because married men might have been able to legally get away with abuse in the home, that does NOT mean it was the NORM in the majority of homes for women to actually get beaten and raped. You almost paint a picture that 90% of women were being beaten and abused - as if men are all so deranged they would all beat women given half a chance.
I did not mean to imply this. I’m just saying that because of the inegalitarian laws and social practices, there was little potential for recourse in cases of abuse. While we can talk about individual anecdotes of abuse, without fancy scientific survey data from the eras we’re talking about, it’s laws that help to indicate trends and make generalizations.
Now if you mean that the values of a society forced marriage upon a couple when a woman accidentally got knocked up, surely the forced marriage applied to both sides? I mean there again, the man is forced to marry a woman he might not have wanted to
Yes and no. Certainly there were many forced, unhappy marriages on both spouses’ parts because of these circumstances. But the fact that there were large numbers of illegitimate children tell us that clearly a significant number of men didn’t marry their child’s mother, especially if the girl was of a lower class. And such a decision was disastrous for child and mother, as accounts of 18th and 19th century London prostitutes can show. Complicating matters is the practice in England at least in the 19th century and likely longer, that couples would fool around until pregnancy, and then get married, with a sort of unspoken rule that if a guy went all the way with a girl (of his own class), that meant that he had the intention of marrying her.
By the way was it also considered taboo to divorce (or go the police) even if a man abused you? Generally speaking, what were the recourses for abused women back then?
Depends when and where you’re talking about, so it’s hard to generalize. In some instances, divorce was impossible. In some, support from parents or siblings could help, in others there wasn’t that support. The police weren't much help.
If arranged for both sides, then wasn't it equally bad for both the man and the woman being forced to marry somebody they don't want to? Why would it be only the women in that case suffering oppressively with this choice forced upon them?
Difficult to quantify unhappiness. Certainly there were men who were screwed over by arranged marriage just as the reverse is true. But when oppression in connection with arranged marriage is discussed, it’s oppression of women that gets more attention, because in societies where there is arranged marriage, generally there are also more ways that a man can abuse his wife than the reverse, and fewer ways women can seek recourse. For example, women will tend to live with her husband and her husband’s family, far from any of her own support networks. In pre-revolutionary China, husbands were free to be unfaithful, but a woman could be summarily divorced for being unfaithful, or even just for being jealous (i.e. angry at her husband’s unfaithfulness). In India, where arranged marriage is the norm, bride burning is a problem (google it). It’s important to say, though, that it’s not just the husband that might do this, it’s the husband’s family, including his mother—-so it’s simplistic to say that it’s men vs. women, since women might be the oppressors in such situations. But the point is, the risks to women of arranged marriages are greater: no control of sexuality (no concept of marital rape; divorce or death if unfaithful); no rights to kids (in Muslim countries, the children are part of the father’s family, so divorced mothers are often cut off completely from their children); limited or no access to money; no rights to work; limited access to non-domestic realms; no support network; can be beaten.
Quizzical at July 25, 2008 9:21 AM
Quizzical> "because in societies where there is arranged marriage"
I know there are many problems with arranged marriages in other cultures, but I was actually specifically asking about arranged marriages in OUR culture, historically (and if we had such things per se) and thus how that relates to how Western culture evolved in the context of feminism and other trends ... it was a response to a mention by lovlysoul of what I couldn't tell was a reference to an "arranged" marriage or a "forced" (e.g. by pregnancy) marriage.
> No, nothing inherently bad about choosing that life-—but inherently inegalitarian to have laws and social practices to prevent/make nearly impossible any other choice. But I don’t think anyone was arguing against the choice, just against it being compulsory.
I'm all for freedom of choice but I do get the impression that that kind of life as a choice has become vilified and stigmatised for women. It may not be encoded in the legal system, but imagine what kind of response a little girl today would get from peers and adults if she proudly professed to wanting to "grow up to be a good housewife/homemaker and raise a bunch of kids" when asked what she wanted to do with her life? People act like this has become a Bad Thing. I'm sure there'd be loud gasps and shocked faces, and she'd be denigrated and told to have more "ambition". Hell, in my day girls would commonly profess to wanting to be "secretaries" and stuff like that, and even that became ridiculed as feminism's influence swept through. (Yet even I'm old enough to remember how my sister was denied what she initially wanted to study at university because, and the letter stated explicitly, she was female and how her choice was not appropriate for a female.)
David J at July 25, 2008 9:57 AM
I really can't believe there are semi-intelligent people today who can even argue that women weren't truly oppressed.
As you say, happiness isn't quantifiable, especially from a legal sense. We can't mandate happiness in either gender - and there will be unhappiness on both sides. All a society can do is attempt to give its citizens equal rights and freedoms that can plausibly lead to the PURSUIT of happiness.
How can any reasonable person argue that women - more than men - historically lacked those rights?
To use my analogy above, it's like arguing that slaves were probably much happier than we've been lead to believe. To me, what these guys are focusing on is totally irrelevant details. "What were her legal recourses? Did she marry due to family pressure or because she got knocked up?"
These guys arguments are just as absurd as saying: "A lot of slaves probably really enjoyed working the fields...how about that, huh? Ever thought that they might've WANTED to pick cotton? I mean, they could've run away, couldn't they? Did their family pressure them into slavery? Surely, they weren't all unhappy! And their masters probably weren't all that happy either...they still had to toil in the hot sun watching over them and providing for them....their lives were pretty hard too!"
Yeah, sure, many slaves probably enjoyed their work. But they didn't have an opportunity to pursue any other forms of happiness. And it's a part of human nature to adjust and try to find happiness where you can.
But that doesn't negate the fact that their options were decided limited in comparison to those who had rights and freedoms protected by law. And that was also the case with women.
lovelysoul at July 25, 2008 10:03 AM
Of course, people are going to judge other people for just about anything. We have SAHMs judging working mothers for not caring enough about their kids to stay at home. We have working mothers treating SAHMs like ignorant nobodies because they like being at home with toddlers. But this is all a cultural pissing contest between groups trying to pressure others groups into their way of thinking. There are no actual laws that prevent women from either working or staying home, and that makes all the difference.
MonicaP at July 25, 2008 10:17 AM
"but imagine what kind of response a little girl today would get from peers and adults if she proudly professed to wanting to "grow up to be a good housewife/homemaker and raise a bunch of kids" when asked what she wanted to do with her life? People act like this has become a Bad Thing. "
You're damn right I'd think it was a Bad Thing for a little girl to have no other plan for her life than to find a man to be her meal ticket for her entire life.
The divorce rate is over 50%, the economy is in the toilet and even in the best planned life, accidents happen.
Any woman who thinks that she's going to find a man to support her for life is living in a fool's paradise.
Too many women found out that 'forever' didn't last past his mid-life crisis.
JoJo at July 25, 2008 11:36 AM
>>I really can't believe there are semi-intelligent people today who can even argue that women weren't truly oppressed.
This may surprise you, but there were diaries written back in those days. And, feminist professors have gone charging into those diaries in historical archives. And, even feminist professors have admitted it wasn't like they were taught.
One that comes to mind was a book written by a woman professor in the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, Iowa. She studied diaries of Iowa pioneer women. The first surprise she had was in many cases it was the women who pressured their husbands to move to Iowa. And, to the degree possible, the woman's needs in housekeeping and caring for the children were high priority to the men.
Other diaries of women in other places responded to the feminists of the 19th Century that they did not understand why women needed to vote. That the men were taking care of the women and children, and it was their job to handle the political environment.
MIDDLETOWN, USA told of the work place as late as the 1920's. Jobs were so dangerous that no sane woman then or now wanted that sort of job. It was not the social rules or regulations that kept women out of the workplace. It was the nature of women to avoid physical danger.
Today, around 93% of people who die on the job are men. Women today, as 150 years ago, avoid dangerous jobs, then whine when the men in those jobs make more than Ms. Career with her Victoria's Secrets. "Why," they whine, "Should a man using a chain saw up a tree make more than a woman sitting at a desk with a college degree in Woman's Studies?"
Knowing a bit of history, real history, not feminist revisionism, I cannot understand how anyone with 1% of a mind can believe women were oppressed.
irlandes at July 25, 2008 11:45 AM
Saying that women have not been oppressed or simply chose to not have rights is just plain ridiculous and hardly worth fighting about. Its a convenient revisionist view of history. Pretending the oppression of women never happened is just like pretending there was never race discrimination.
katie at July 25, 2008 11:56 AM
From diaries of pioneer women you surmise that all women weren't oppressed?
Just because some women found contentment within their limited choices - or failed to realize how their lives could be different with greater freedoms (you don't necessariliy miss what you've never known) - doesn't mean they weren't oppressed.
It's well known that people who are held in captivity will often start indentifying with their captors. Therefore, you might even be able to find some diaries to support a theory that no one was ever really imprisoned or kidnapped throughout history, but it would be blatently false...and just as stupid.
I bet you could even find some great slave diaries too. My dad has a slave book of songs they sang while in the field. So, gosh, they were actually SINGING so they must've been joyous about picking that cotton! Maybe slavery wasn't so bad afterall!
Of course, there are physical differences between men and women, which accounts for our career choices. Yet, I have a beautiful, petite girlfriend who is a firefighter, and she loves it. More and more women are joining the military too.
lovelysoul at July 25, 2008 12:46 PM
LovelySoul and Monica, my reference to the spelling of LovlySoul was not a cheap shot...it was the counterpoint to LS pathetic attempt to rhetorically cut me down by pointing out an apparent misspelling in one of my posts. I merely illustrated the absurdity of her tactic by giving it right back to her.
Am I the only one picturing Dave sitting at his computer wearing a dirty t-shirt, stained boxers and crocks as he tries to cram as many words that he thinks sound smart into a single sentence all the while trying to plan his clan's next mission on WoW. If I'm not, I suggest you do. It makes reading his responses more entertaining.
Katie - I'm sorry that my level of discourse is above your level of comprehension. I guess "big words" are a little too much for your feminist brainwashed mind to comprehend. If you have a college degree, I suggest you seek a refund from whatever institution gave it to you.
You can also try Hooked on Phonics or some other similar product. Perhaps than you can actually respond to my logic based assertions instead of speculate on how I look, how I am in real life, and other such garbage that is nothing more than a shallow attempt at discrediting me with intellectually shallow ad hominem attacks.
See, the difference between me using terms like Feminist-mindfuck, and feminist brainwashed minds, and your speculations on my state of masculinity is that I have made a number of points that are observable truths for which you are incapable of even contemplating, as it runs counter to your indoctrination or is simply expressed in a vocabulary beyond the scope of what you are capable of understanding. I'm calling it like it is based on you and others writing on this very thread, while your attacks on me are based on nothing more than your speculations and shaming language.
In short, you seek to marginalize my opinion by implying I am an unhygienic nerd that is addicted to socially autistic activities like WOW and is a social pariah unable to attract a woman. In short, that is the only way you can deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by your reading of the truth I wrote.
THAT is called "shaming language" and is easily identifiable as a standard tactic from the feminist playbook. So when I call you or any other person out on that, and say you're brainwashed, that is an observation, not a baseless attack.
Sorry to break it to everyone but I believe Dave's personal situation and that everyone else here is relevant to the conversation. He has made some blanket insulting assumptions about women and if he wishes to continue to do so he has to understand that perhaps those of us he is insulting might make a few assumptions about him.
Assume all you want. I speak of observable behavior of a large segment of the population that anyone can ascertain for themselves by watching with an objective, open mind. It's not hard to look at statistics of divorce, broken homes or the common denominator found in so many pathologies evident in today's society: the proliferation of single mother headed homes.
Internet environments like this tend to attract people that feel the need to vent their own prejudices and bitterness in a venue where they will not be ignored or judged based on their own life choices.
People in glass houses should be wary of casting stones.
The danger in this type of annonymous environment is that people take advice or criticism to heart without knowing the context of the posters life experience (or lack of). It happens not only here but all over the internet everyday.
What danger? The danger of having truth endanger the comfort you seek in taking on the mantle of playing the victim?
As one those "selfish single moms" in the world I'm glad you've acknowledged your personal character fault. Perhaps you can work on being less selfish and improving yourself.
Since you are so intent on trying to expose my personal life as a means of denigrating me, tell us katie...did you kick the father of your child(ren) out of their lives because you were "bored?" Did you "fall out of love?" Or was he a cheating bastard asshole that was a total jerk?
Before you reply to that and take the typical tact of the useful idiot spouting feminist misandry, understand that blaming the state of your Fatherless offspring as ALL his fault, you are implicitly admitting at your own failure of judgement in deciding the character and quality of the man you allowed to impregnate you.
I am very insulted by the assumptions and miss information being spouted here.
Who's made the assumptions here? I've specifically engaged the words written by lovlysoul and others. You and others are the ones that have been based the primacy of their arguments on making assumptions about my masculinity, my social standings and my desirability to women.
No matter how Dave or anyone else here tries to dress up their reponses to make them sound like they are quoting their college thesis, it doesn't change the intent.
This is how I write. Every word I've written on this thread has a distinct and meaningful definition in context to the ideas I am conveying. I've added no fluff or filler to try and obfuscate or confuse people, or to assume a false facade of legitimacy. If it is beyond your level of discourse, that is your intellectual failing, not mine.
There are a number of guys here with a real chip on their shoulders regarding women.
More baseless assumptions. I have a chip on my shoulder against mindless, feminist inspired drivel and propaganda being parroted as if it were factual. You ladies speak of the injustices of women "oppressed" by being housewives. I look at such myopic "I'm a VICTIM BECAUSE OF MY GENDER!" arguments and shake my head in disbelief that such garbage has become the conventional wisdom. Women were no more oppressed than men were in the "bad old days."
Its scary to read alot of these types of discussions, but I try to not let it ruffle my feathers too much but I see most of it as just bitter ramblings of men that have trouble interacting with women.
What's scary is that women like you fail to actually consider an argument put forth on it's own merits, but resort to simplistic tactics like shaming language and baseless assumptions of my relational skills with the female gender.
The only trouble I have with interacting with women is when I encounter the likes of you that are trapped into an ideological mindset that cannot even comprehend an opposing viewpoint or debate honestly.
So what's your next point? I can't get laid? I have fungus under my fingernails? That no woman would want me, so I'm raging on the internet?
I'm sure objective readers of this thread will be utterly convinced by the brilliance of your rhetorical tactics.
(By the way dear, that's what you call "sarcasm." Look it up before you further embarrass yourself by continuing to point out that my prose is of a higher degree than you are capable of understanding.)
Dave from Hawaii at July 25, 2008 1:49 PM
[quote]Yet, I have a beautiful, petite girlfriend who is a firefighter, and she loves it. More and more women are joining the military too.[/quote]
Yes...now tell us: did your petite girlfriend perform the exact same physical requirements as men to become a firefighter? Or did she past the "gender-norm" lowered standards the feminists lobbied for to fulfill their quota objectives?
Oh, and get back to us when all you feminist-minded women lobby for the right to be registered with selective service for the draft.
Dave from Hawaii at July 25, 2008 1:54 PM
Dave, you are just like those racists sitting on their porches decrying the end of slavery, longing for yesteryear...when society was so much better and things were simpler, at least for them.
And, in a way, they are right, and so are you. There was less social complexity. Some of the social problems that exist now did not exist then because the whites could keep the blacks contained and essentially things were more peaceful.
Now, with more rights and freedoms, some blacks have chosen to commit crimes, procreate irresponsibly, form gangs, sell drugs, etc. That's what happens when you give people freedom of choice - some will choose poorly.
And, yes, feminism has created similar social problems. With more rights and freedoms for women, there has obviously been an increase in divorces and related problems.
But nobody (with the exception of racists and misogynists) wants to go BACK to the oppressive times in either case. For as much social havoc as both historical revolutions created, there has also been tremendous positive gains.
Yet, you don't see that because you are blinded by hate - just as the racists are. You can show the racists all the bright, compassionate black people doing great things with their freedoms and education - making our world a better place - but they won't acknowledge it. Doesn't fit with their prejudice.
To them, there is only one glorious period in history - and that was when they were dominant. And you are exactly the same...which is what makes us picture you as a sad little man typing hateful, prejudiced rants on your computer...because you ARE.
lovelysoul at July 25, 2008 2:28 PM
I don't know, lovelysoul. I think Dave from Hawaii is hilarious, getting his panties in a wad over something he's misunderstanding. I don't really see him as a shlub in dirty clothes. I imagine him knee deep in reference material, shouting at his computer, "I am invincible! You mere mortals can only dream of comprehending my supreme vocabulary. Puny homo-sapiens!"
I'm not going to attempt to change his mind. At this point, he has entirely too much invested in the argument to see things through any window other than the one he's currently peering through. Besides, thanks to DOH, this thread has started to bore the crap out of me. And not because my inferior feminist mindfucked girlie intellect can't hand the weight of his giant, throbbing man brain, but because I edit his kind of writing for a living. I know when someone is compensating for poor writing and fuzzy logic by using large vocabulary to browbeat people into submission.
DOH, you win. Not because you’re right, but because I am going to go home now for some consequence-free fucking with the boyfriend I want-not-need, right after I buy some dinner with the money I made myself. Good night.
MonicaP at July 25, 2008 2:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eK8Edl-Htg
Good luck, everybody.
jon at July 25, 2008 3:00 PM
ls, will you quit trying to compare me to racist?
I'll break this down for you in simple terms so that even katie with her limited vocabulary can understand...
* I don't believe the old days were some kind of utopia where everything was perfect. But taken as a whole, society was a lot more civil, and there were far more intact families and Fathers involved in raising their children. The crime statistics, incarceration statistics, and the marriage/divorce and out-of-wedlock birth statistics all back up this initial assertion.
* Abuse, infidelity and other such horrible actions by bad men were already grounds for divorce, prior to the feminist revolution of No-Fault Divorce.
* In the name of a MINORITY of abusive men in marriages, the feminist movement lobbied to change the divorce laws into the current, No-Fault system and the set up of unconstitutional family courts that regularly discriminate against men and fathers at the expense of the children. You keep trying to compare women of the past to slaves and the institution of Patriarchy to the institution of slavery. Tell me, dear, what is the definition of slavery?
From Google: # bondage: the state of being under the control of another person
# the practice of owning slaves
# work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
Now dear, wrap your head around this: What would you call a man whose wife one day decided that she was "bored" and "no longer in love" with her husband. So she cheats on him, than files a false TRO against him, claims she is afraid of him so the authorities kick him out of the home. Than she gets the house, kids and the bank accounts, while her unfortunate husband than has to work and have half or more of his wages garnished by the State in the name of alimony and child support. Who is enslaved now? Through no fault of his own?
* Women were no more oppressed by the Patriarchal structure than Men. THAT is my point in discussing the history of Father's as providers laboring in hazardous occupations.
You think most men were happy to risk their lives and health by descending into coal mines for back breaking labor? That they did such things just for the heck of it? Yet the feminist point of view looks at the housewife of the exact same era where most fathers worked such professions, and only looks at her domestic chores and says she's "enslaved and oppressed."
This is myopic, intellectually dishonest and is really nothing more than a transparent attempt to paint the past as some horrible existence for women and that men had all the perks of society.
sad little man typing hateful, prejudiced rants on your computer...because you ARE.
Please...can you not let go of this pathetic tactic of trying to shame and belittle me with unfounded assumptions? It's getting really old.
I am not hateful. I am not sad. But I am certainly prejudiced. I'm prejudiced against the typical mind-rot feminist types such as yourself trying to pass off baseless insults and speculations of my personal life as substantive arguments.
My prejudiced is base on my observations on the reality we all live in today. And what I see disturbs me greatly.
I am disturbed by the cultural zeitgeist that preaches that Fathers are not necessary, that men are nothing more than idiots and buffoons as portrayed by the mainstream media, and I'm especially prejudiced against women such as yourself that repeat misandry-laden garbage and cannot acknowledge any points that are presented to them that they have no logical response to, but have to resort to grade-school level insults and unfounded speculation on my personal life.
Dave from Hawaii at July 25, 2008 3:02 PM
Dave- The fact that my small contributions to this discussion, which only took me a few minutes to type, prompted your above response/attack I think shows that you have a lot of hostility towards women or at least women who disagree with you.
All of our opinions to a certain degree are colored by our own experiences which tells me that you have perhaps had women in your life or around you that have either “played victim” or one of the many other things you have accused me and the other women here in this discussion of doing. Although I have had men in my life that have been selfish or treated me badly I have never made the assumption that all men are selfish and treat women badly. Your point of view is obviously based on your person experiences. I think I and the other women here are trying to tell you that your blanket assumptions of the entire feminine gender are incorrect. If you are truly as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you have to acknowledge that the fact you have never been in an actual relationship with a woman does not make you qualified to make these kinds of judgments.
Your assumptions about me being a feminist are laughable. I am as far from a feminist as a woman can get. Just because I can support myself and my child, doesn’t make me a feminist. It makes me responsible and self sufficient. I get the feeling that women like me scare you. How else do you explain such hostility?
Your assumptions about my former marriage are just sad and pathetic. I know you were attempting to push my buttons but all it did was make me feel sorry for you. You really have a lot of anger against some one and for whatever reason you chose to direct it at me. I won’t take it personally because you don’t know anything about me. If you did you would know I am probably one of the most understanding people you’ll ever meet. I’m not afraid of a spirited debate but I won’t waste my time arguing with irrationality.
Your attacks against single moms are actually rather disturbing and I’m really hoping that you were being sarcastic and don’t actually believe what you just said.
I'm not going to debate my intelligence or education with you either. I suspect I would win that battle. Your writting reminds me of writting samples that recent law school graduates submit to my firm with their resumes. They fluff up their briefs and petitions with words and phrases they think makes them sounds well read and educated yet the substance is lacking. Sadly, I believe ten years ago I submitted the same sort of dribble with my resume and transcripts. I have since learned that no degree of "fancy writing" can make up for unfounded conclusions and total lack of logic.
Perhaps in the future if you stopped hating women long enough to actually get close to one you'd see the error in your conclusions. If you choose not to its your loss. We really aren't that evil or scary. We don't bite ... unless you ask us to.
katie at July 25, 2008 3:04 PM
I think all here need to see this movie and then revisit this thread . . .
"Westward the Women"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044205/
Jay J. Hector at July 25, 2008 3:42 PM
Dave, I don't know why you think abuse was so rare in those days. Rates of domestic violence against women are still pretty high, so you have no idea what went on behind closed doors then, especially since women were virtually powerless and marital rape was legal.
Besides, what good did it do for a woman to divorce her husband when she had a limited education and very few options to support herself and her children? You just don't get it - women were almost totally DEPENDENT on men. Marriage and motherhood were basically their only options. I guess that's the way you'd still like it.
Anyway, I agree with MonicaP (you're so funny MP!), this is getting old. We're not going to sway your opinion about your "male victimhood".
I'm leaving for a romantic evening with my boyfriend - the one I don't need, but badly want (especially since he doesn't think or talk like Dave). I'm treating him to a hot night of consequence-free sex in a fancy hotel room I'm paying for with my own money. So, there are some benefits to female independence, Dave. If you were less of a woman-hater, you might find that out.
lovelysoul at July 25, 2008 4:05 PM
The fact that my small contributions to this discussion, which only took me a few minutes to type, prompted your above response/attack I think shows that you have a lot of hostility towards women or at least women who disagree with you.
Your small contribution was a pathetic attempt at speculating that I must be some sort of "loser" AND trying to "win" by purposely using "fancy" language. That wasn't even a contribution, it was an attempt to marginalize and silence me by using rhetorical tactics. It's bullshit, and I called you on it. Oh, and I really didn't expend much effort in typing it.
Why do you and the rest of you feminist-minded ladies keep trying to tell me that I'm hostile towards women as a gender?
I'm hostile towards the group-think mindset you all continue to parrot, and your attempts at silencing me with baseless speculation.
All of our opinions to a certain degree are colored by our own experiences which tells me that you have perhaps had women in your life or around you that have either “played victim” or one of the many other things you have accused me and the other women here in this discussion of doing.
My opinions expressed here are mostly based on my experiences with what you all have written here...which perfectly reflects the current cultural climate of misandry and feminine-superiority.
I don't associate with people in my life who "play victim." People that have no self-perception or refuse to take accountability for their own actions and behavior, and instead seek to blame the 'other' for every problem and fault they experience are people that generally contribute nothing but negativity and drama into your life. Life's to short to waste it on people like that.
I think I and the other women here are trying to tell you that your blanket assumptions of the entire feminine gender are incorrect.
I have not made a blanket assumption of the entire feminine gender. Believe it or not, there are plenty of women that agree with much of what I've expressed on this thread. Not all women take Women's Studies indoctrination courses in college.
All the generalizations I've made here are about the Feminist mindset, the feminist dogma and blatant misandry you all have utilized in trying to attack me.
If you are truly as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you have to acknowledge that the fact you have never been in an actual relationship with a woman does not make you qualified to make these kinds of judgments.
Where my dear have you discovered this 'fact?' LMAO. Oh wait...I know...no woman would EVER date, let alone sleep with, a man who has the point of view I do, right?
Why can you not discuss the topics at hand without continually trying to bring my personal life into it?
Your assumptions about me being a feminist are laughable. I am as far from a feminist as a woman can get.
Except that you and the other ladies on this thread have repeatedly used phrases that are straight out of the feminist playbook. "I don't need no man!"
Just because I can support myself and my child, doesn’t make me a feminist. It makes me responsible and self sufficient.
Kudos to you. Now tell me...how many other single mothers do you know of that are truly responsible and self-sufficient? Because women that receive court ordered child support, alimony and/or State welfare subsidies are NOT responsible, independent nor self-sufficient.
I get the feeling that women like me scare you.
Oh yeah. I'm quaking in absolute fear right now. "katie" has told everyone my awful secret...that I'm a pathetic geek typing in my dirty boxers, playing WoW!!!! She's exposed me for being a fraud because I utilize a college-graduate level vocabulary! Worst of all, she let everyone know the FACT that I've never had a real relationship with a woman!!!!
God please help me...I don't know if I can handle anymore anonymous internet discourse with such a fearsome and intimidating women like katie and lovelysoul!
Your attacks against single moms are actually rather disturbing and I’m really hoping that you were being sarcastic and don’t actually believe what you just said.
I know you've already admitted to having difficulties with reading comprehension...but for the sake of anyone else reading this, I'll clarify:
I do not attack single mothers with a thing I've said here. What I have attacked is the feminist extremists that have lobbied for the legislation that has resulted in the current state of affairs. Many of the social problems evident in society today stem directly from the breakdown of the institution of marriage and the expulsion of the father from the home. Our prisons are full of young men raised in single mother households. Our streets are full of young, wild males that are raised without a father in their lives.
The statistics on this are undeniable. Go re-read Amy's post on the Black family from the other day. It is EXACTLY that for which I speak of.
I'm not going to debate my intelligence or education with you either. I suspect I would win that battle. Your writting reminds me of writting samples that recent law school graduates submit to my firm with their resumes. They fluff up their briefs and petitions with words and phrases they think makes them sounds well read and educated yet the substance is lacking.
Except you haven't demonstrated how I've "fluffed" up anything. What have a written that is lacking in substance? Fact is, I am educated, and I am certainly well read. Re-read what I've written, and you will find plenty of minor grammatical errors and typos - that's because I'm typing with a natural flow, and I'm not editing or re-reading anything. I'm writing extemporaneously, and my extensive vocabulary is just a reflection of how I think, and of just how well-read I am.
The only thing you've demonstrated is that you speak out of your ass and make all kinds of speculative assumptions about that which you literally know nothing about - my personal life, my educational level and my social status. YOUR rhetorical tactics are the ones quite clearly lacking of any real substance.
Dave from Hawaii at July 25, 2008 5:14 PM
I'm leaving for a romantic evening with my girlfriend - the one I don't need, but badly want (especially since she doesn't think or talk like lovelysoul). I'm treating her to a hot night of consequence-free sex in a fancy hotel room I'm paying for with my own money. So, there are some benefits to male independence, LovelySoul. If you were less of a man-hater, you might find that out.
That's a real clincher in a discussion of ideas isn't it?
Rob Case at July 25, 2008 5:28 PM
Rob...why do you have so much hostility? It must be that you don't know what it's like to have a relationship with a woman and you play WoW!
Dave, I don't know why you think abuse was so rare in those days. Rates of domestic violence against women are still pretty high, so you have no idea what went on behind closed doors then, especially since women were virtually powerless and marital rape was legal.
Why do you think it was so prevalent? I don't say it was rare...I say it was a minority of men that did such things, but feminist laws have all been based on the assumption that the majority of men were abusive rapists to their wives. The feminist movement threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. On the basis of SOME bad marriages, the institution of marriage has been eviscerated.
Besides, what good did it do for a woman to divorce her husband when she had a limited education and very few options to support herself and her children? You just don't get it - women were almost totally DEPENDENT on men. Marriage and motherhood were basically their only options. I guess that's the way you'd still like it.
And this is where you do not understand that yes, Women were dependent on men...just as men were dependent on women. It's called a symbiotic relationship.
Aside from that, the idea that women could not run their own businesses, or work, or choose to not get married and raise kids is an out and out lie. Just do a little research. Look into names like Jane Addams, Gabrielle "Coco" Chanelle. Here's a book that directly contradicts your feminist talking point: The Female Economy: The Millinery and Dressmaking Trades, 1860-1930 Full of the history of female entrepreneurs...all becoming wealthy, successful business women. I wonder how they all achieved such success, when the Men of their time were so busy oppressing them with their dastardly Patriarchy?!?!?
Anyway, I agree with MonicaP (you're so funny MP!), this is getting old. We're not going to sway your opinion about your "male victimhood".
By challenging your assertions that females are victims of male oppression, I DO NOT claim to say that males are victims. I'm only pointing out the myths, fallacies and lies you women delude yourselves with.
I'm leaving for a romantic evening with my boyfriend - the one I don't need, but badly want (especially since he doesn't think or talk like Dave). I'm treating him to a hot night of consequence-free sex in a fancy hotel room I'm paying for with my own money.
So, there are some benefits to female independence, Dave. If you were less of a woman-hater, you might find that out.
Who said I hate women?
Dave from Hawaii at July 25, 2008 5:51 PM
"Chanel earned the nickname of “Coco” from soldiers for whom she performed at a local cabaret and also caught the attention of another admirer, who in 1914 helped her set up shop as a milliner in Paris".
So, a woman could become a cabaret dancer, or a dressmaker, and maybe, just maybe, if a male admirer helped her, she could be successful. You're right, that really gave women a lot of choices for independence.
I wonder how many men had to depend on an "admirer" to set up a business or get a bank loan? Must've been a lot since there was a such great "symbiotic relationships" between the sexes.
Lisa at July 25, 2008 6:13 PM
So, a woman could become a cabaret dancer, or a dressmaker, and maybe, just maybe, if a male admirer helped her, she could be successful. You're right, that really gave women a lot of choices for independence.
So, according to the feministas on this thread, women had NO CHOICE. As soon as I provide a couple of examples of women that did in fact run their own businesses and establish independence, you can qualify it and discount it as irrelevant?
Did you bother to read on Jane Addams? She was not only a successful female entrepreneur...she was BLACK.
Gee, I wonder how the racist, misogynistic bad ole Patriarchy managed to let her get away from being oppressed....
You know, it's really not to hard to google successful business women in American history. But I guess it's easier to just repeat the feminist mantra that women had no choice, all were oppressed!
Dave from Hawaii at July 25, 2008 6:23 PM
Dave-
Go back and read your prior posts, where you admit to never having a relationship with a woman and read the full out personal attack you posted towards me, then go back and reread your most recent post to me. I am overwhelmed by your hypocrisies and contradictions. I actually was giving you credit that I thought your beliefs where based on negative female interaction you have had in your life but it clear to me now you really are just a woman hating jerk. Thats not "shaming language", its the truth.
I'm not going to waste anymore time on you. Good bye.
katie at July 25, 2008 6:25 PM
ls:
Rates of domestic violence against women are vastly overreported, and are dwarfed by domestic violence BY women. Check with Dr. Helen on that one.
Also - history will likely record the day that universal suffrage was enacted as the beginning of the end of the American Republic. From the point that people who had no stake in the economy started voting, we have been on a continuous slide into socialism.
Yes - I'm saying that granting the vote to those who do not either own land or own a business is responsible for the unsustainable growth of government.
None of which is even remotely on point for this thread. Although the second-wave feminist movement in the 70s and the insistence that all women needed to be career women and becoming a mother at all was considered "treason against the sisterhood" certainly led directly to the point at the beginning of the thread - which is women finding that by the time they've hit their mid 30s, they have to settle for a substandard man because all the good ones have been taken.
I mean, heaven forbid we find a stable middle ground where a woman can be self-sufficient, but not be derided for being a stay at home mother when she's 24. Half the population now considers her to be a sell-out, and the other half a leech.
Something ain't quite right with that.
brian at July 25, 2008 6:28 PM
That wasn't the norm and you know it. You're trying desperately to bulk up your inane argument that men had it just as tough.
You've never been completely dependent, I'm sure. Men were not dependent on the kindness of women to make their way in the world. Why don't you try that for awhile and see how it feels before you preach to us about it?
Lisa at July 25, 2008 6:35 PM
Go back and read your prior posts, where you admit to never having a relationship with a woman and read the full out personal attack you posted towards me, then go back and reread your most recent post to me.
Take your own advice and re-read yourself...a little more carefully.
The ONLY reference I made to my own personal life and relations with females was this one:
"I'm certainly positive that [b]my wife's[/b] description of to me to her family and friends does not include the words racist, bigoted, controlling or domineering."
How could I have "admitted to never having a relationship with a woman" when I've been married for over 10 years?
As for personal attacks...the very first post you ever addressed towards me was this:
Am I the only one picturing Dave sitting at his computer wearing a dirty t-shirt, stained boxers and crocks as he tries to cram as many words that he thinks sound smart into a single sentence all the while trying to plan his clan's next mission on WoW. If I'm not, I suggest you do. It makes reading his responses more entertaining.
I guess that's not a "personal attack," eh? Any invective or ad hominem I directed towards you stems from your initial foray into the debate with that little vignette of a well reasoned, rational and logical response to the points I previously made.
I actually was giving you credit that I thought your beliefs where based on negative female interaction you have had in your life but it clear to me now you really are just a woman hating jerk. Thats not "shaming language", its the truth.
My beliefs are based on observed reality. From seeing unscrupulous and manipulative individual instances of women who have used the current system to immorally and unjustifiably screw over their husbands and mess up their children's lives, all aided and abetted by a system set up specifically by feminist extremists to destroy the nuclear family and promote dependence on the State.
Dave from Hawaii at July 25, 2008 6:55 PM
That wasn't the norm and you know it. You're trying desperately to bulk up your inane argument that men had it just as tough.
My inane argument that men had it just as tough? Actually I said it was tougher, because the majority of men "in the bad old days" worked in blue collar professions that were often hazardous. But I guess being a house wife was such a terrible existence, that occupations where death and injury commonly occur don't rate in comparison, eh?
You've never been completely dependent, I'm sure. Men were not dependent on the kindness of women to make their way in the world. Why don't you try that for awhile and see how it feels before you preach to us about it?
No, men were dependent on women to give them a family and a HOME. It is two things any man who has them holds near and dear to his heart...and as I said, it was those two things that provided a VERY strong motivation for a man to risk life and limb to provide for her and their children.
Dave from Hawaii at July 25, 2008 7:00 PM
Odd fact I learned from the Peabody Essex museum in Salem...
The leading cause of death for women in the 1700s was catching on fire while cooking. The fireplaces were big, and you would walk around in them when you cooked. Add to that the flowing skirt you're wearing and, well...
So housewifery wasn't always as safe as it is now, either.
NicoleK at July 25, 2008 7:22 PM
You are correct Dave. I attributed one of brian's post as being one of yours. brian is the one that has admitted to never having a relationship. I wasn't making assumptions about you but repeating what I believed you had said.
Now go back and read what you have said to me. You have attacked in a personal manner that is down right vindictive and cruel for no reason at all. My minor contribution to this disccusion was a joke about picturing as loser making the garbage you spew easier to take. I made no assumptions, I made a joke. You on the other hand have done everything you have wrongly accused me of doing . You have made assumptions and attacked me over and over again. You have serious issues that you need to deal with.
The fact that you are married makes this all the more disturbing. I feel sorry for your wife.
katie at July 25, 2008 7:43 PM
Wow, been away all week, just read this entire thread, and now I'm exhausted and terribly sad.
Maybe we should all just accept that men and women will never get along? We want different things, at different times, and on different days, or we don't know what we want, and we're influenced in what we're supposed to want, and in what we're supposed to be doing with our lives, by the opinions of total strangers, the government, various special-interest groups, the church, the media, our friends and our relatives, and People magazine. We rarely agree on anything. We want to love and be loved on our own terms, but we want to be independent, but not all the time. We want to be alone and we want to be together, but only when it suits us. Men treat women badly, women treat men badly, and there's apparently some sort of contest going on, the winner of which is the gender that has been treated the worst of all throughout history. Some women, and some men, are assholes some of the time, and some are assholes all of the time, but we're all assholes in different ways, and we can't even agree on what constitutes an asshole.
Seriously, what's the point???
catspajamas at July 25, 2008 10:17 PM
We really don't know much about each other. And everyone is shaped by their own personal experiences, so maybe it would help diffuse some of this bitterness if I explain a little about myself and what shapes my views on this.
I own a small resort/trailer park in a popular tourist town in FL. I also live in a house on the premises, so as a landlord, I am in a somewhat unique position to observe couples and their domestic situations.
Granted, a trailer park may seem to attract a lower-quality element, but here, where houses are extremely expensive, these are working class people - precisely the kind Dave admires so much.
We have fairly frequent domestic violence situations. The cops have my cellphone on speed dial. As the landlord, I am usually awoken in the middle of the night to deal with any police call on my property.
Honestly, in 20+ years here, I've never seen a case of a man being beaten up by a woman. I have, however, had several women show up on my doorstep sobbing, with bruises or cuts, after having been hit or threatened by their significant other.
To the best of my knowledge, the police have never taken a report here involving a man being beaten up by a female. There are the more common drunken squabbles, where both parties seem equally culpable, but when it comes to real physical violence - or threats of physical violence, especially involving weapons - it is, at least in my experience, almost always male towards female.
Last year, one of my former tenants - a sweet girl named Georgia - was shot and killed by a guy she had lived with for only a few months. He killed her, then held the cops at bay for several hours threatening suicide before finally surrendering. He is awaiting trial.
So, that is what has shaped most of my feelings on this matter. Not "feminist studies"...or the "zeitgest"...or whatever you call it, Dave...not the "feminist playbook" either. I don't even know what that is. Like many women my age, I grew up basically taking my freedoms for granted and wasn't too interested in studying feminism.
I also don't hate men. For the most part, I love and admire men. I have lots of great male friends and tenants who'd never lay a hand on a woman.
Yet, for me, this rosy picture you paint of the benevelant husband, working hard in the coal mines, then coming home and always treating his wife in a loving, tender, respectful manner....well, it conflicts greatly with the reality I've experienced.
Not because I'm some hardcore feminazi. It's just what I've observed in the real day-to-day functionings (and dysfunctionings) of couples around me.
Ironically, many of the couples who are the most dysfunctional and violent have the longest relationships. Some have been married for over 20 or 30 years - forever locked in this co-dependent, "symbiotic" battle with each other.
I personally wish more women had the guts to end these relationships. They have the choice - the rights and freedoms feminism gave them - but they often stay regardless of what help or services are offered. The night before Georgia was killed, she turned down an offer of protection from the domestic abuse caseworkers.
Yet, I have seen and helped a few get out, and it was hard enough - even with all the assistence that we have in place today -restraining orders, police escorts, spending money, etc. The women still face very difficult transitions - getting settled in a new location and finding new employment. They also have to summon the courage to face their abusers in court - no small feat.
So, I really cannot fathom what a woman of past eras - already so dependent on her husband - did when confronted with abuse. My gut reaction - based on my experiences here - is that most of them probably just took it.
Therefore, I see it as a positive thing that women today have the rights and opportunities to support themselves and shape their own destinies. Not just to be wives and mothers (though I strongly support that choice too). I think they should have the same opportunities - to own land and start businesses and fly planes and choose from a BROAD range of professions, just as men do.
That's not an assessment that I particulary want or need to have. I have no "feminist agenda".
Based solely on my own pretty extensive observations, I just don't buy the "benevelant husband, alway looking out for the little lady, hearth and home" overly optimistic view.
Even if that's 99% true, a woman should not have to count on the kindness and stability of a man for her livelihood and security.
lovelysoul at July 25, 2008 11:08 PM
No, because their fathers were real men. If a man struck his wife, he could expect retaliation from any number of sources - her brothers, her father, her sons.
Now? "call the police".
One thing that never gets much consideration is the fact that humans are quite violent, and respond very well to legitimate threats of violence. Prison is too abstract to really influence the chronic losers to behave. The threat of the father-in-law raining down blows upon his head, however, is quite the inducement to behave.
Another is the function of shame. There's no such thing any more. In some ways, it's good. But in most, it's not. There is no shame in a teenage girl getting knocked up any more. There's no incentive (there's that beating again) for a boy to behave himself, and man up if he doesn't. There's no incentive for people to not shit on their neighbor's lawn. And there's no shame in a man maltreating his wife.
Of course, with the confluence of "discipline" and "beating" in the minds of most modern people, a man showing a misbehaving wife the back of his hand is horrid - why, he might even spank his children. But at a time when a man was legally responsible for the actions of his wife and children, he was expected by society to keep them all in line.
But I seriously doubt that domestic violence was anywhere near as prevalent as it is today. I was raised, not 40 years ago, to believe that it was never acceptable for a man to strike a woman. Teenagers now are regaled with tales of "smacking the bitch around" to the approving grind of half-dressed women. And then we're surprised when they do?
As to your view of DV being primarily male-initiated, I suggest you look at the stats in the northeast. It's a different world up here.
brian at July 26, 2008 5:42 AM
"Why do you and the rest of you feminist-minded ladies keep trying to tell me that I'm hostile towards women as a gender? "
Um, because we read your posts?
As for Dr. Helen, she's full of shit. According to the CDC, in 96% percent of domestic murder cases the victim is female and the perpetrator is male.
Brian, you assume that every abused woman in the past had a living father and/or brothers who were ready, willing and able to defend her physically. Pretty big assumption, and one I doubt was true most of the time.
JoJo at July 26, 2008 7:13 AM
You have got to be kidding, brian. Every woman in the olden days not only had a benevolent husband, but also a benevolent father and brothers too, who were always there to do the right thing...and punish her husband for striking her...well, unless he was merely "disciplining" her? That makes absolutely no sense. Completely contradictory.
I'm going to excuse your comments though since you have no experience with relationships.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2008 7:15 AM
ls - did I say every? No. Try reading comprehension. The majority of men didn't tolerate such things. Hell, in some places in the west you'd get yer ass beat for not tipping your hat to a lady.
Second, so far as discipline goes, there's a world of difference between a swat on the tush and a fist to the jaw. And when your head is the one that winds up in the stocks, you have a pretty big incentive to keep your entire family in line. And if that takes a swat on the ass, that's what it takes. Or do you consider a mother spanking her child to be a horrendous form of child abuse too?
And you can try to excuse my comments all you like. Can I excuse yours because you don't have a dick? Thought so. Lack of direct experience with something does not preclude one from observing the actions of others. I think I can draw some strong conclusions about relationships from watching other people's failures.
You and JoJo suffer from the same myopia - that if just one woman has a hard life, then all of society must be reordered to assume that all men are abusive cads all the time.
And JoJo, you can call Dr. Helen all the names you like, it doesn't make her wrong. She's done the research. Female on Male DV is the most under-reported crime in America. And part of the reason for that is that if a man calls the police to report an incident, he's likely going to be arrested. Here in CT, the police MUST arrest someone when there's a domestic disturbance call. Most of the time, that's the man, regardless of who did what to whom.
brian at July 26, 2008 7:27 AM
I think you've watched way too many westerns, Brian. And it is clear that you glorify women being "disciplined". You said "back of the hand", which isn't how anyone gently swats a tush. Back of the hand is meant for the face.
I don't need a dick to recognize when a man has issues with violence and control. Your whole commentary gives that away.
And since the CDC statistics directly contradict what you believe - as well as support everything I've observed for over 20 years - you cling to some "northeastern women are more violent" theory? They must be pretty bad aims if they rarely kill.
Men are much bigger and stronger than most women. It's an unfair fight, at best. Women can be nasty verbal and emotional abusers, but even when drunk out of their minds, most don't think, "It's a good idea to punch this man who's twice my size in the face." That will only cause him to explode in rage.
Just doesn't happen like that, Brian. If men in my park were being abused, they'd be complaining to me...I'd see evidence of that. I'd personally call the cops and back them up.
I do agree it's stupid to have to arrest someone. Like I said, there are drunken squabbles, and my cops usually just tell them to separate and sleep it off. If that's the way the laws are in the northeast, this could easily explain any difference in stats.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2008 7:54 AM
I'm always amazed at how women who claim to be intelligent refuse to back up their arguments with logic but persist in simply calling men unwashed losers who can't get a woman and live in their parent's basement. Another popular tactic seen on this thread is calling any difference of opinion an 'attack'. It seems we're all supposed to live in a rainbow strawberry shortcake world and never disagree. Such a charmed outlook, in which simple disagreement is dubbed 'an all-out attack'. In a way I envy you, and the conflict-free life you seem to lead.
Can any of the women here not see the difference between 'feminist zeitgiest' and 'sitting in stained boxers and crocs' per the direction of the comments? One is commenting on a social situation and one is a direct 'attack', a real one. Women all to often (99% of the time?) take a remark about women in general as a comment about *them* personally and come out swinging. 'Not ALL women are like that! 'I'm not like that!'without ever addressing the issue at hand.
Something that happens to one woman surely happens to all of them, doesn't it? Lovly's grandmother was allegedly forced into marriage against her will (despite it being against the law in all 50 states) so that proves to her that all women were oppressed, were slaves, and were in loveless marriages.
There's also the 'I have such great sex and you don't' argument presented. All the standard feminist/female rejoinders have been used today except for small penis size. Good work, ladies, getting them all into one thread...
The diversion tactic that really had me scratching my head was ridiculing someone for using language that is too good! Eh!!?? Someone with a wonderful vocabulary who can write succinctly should be made to feel bad about it? How is someone expressing themselves well and attempt to make someone else feel bad? Amazing...
Here's a link to an article on a CDC (Center for Disease Control) published in their journal in May of last year-
http://tiny.cc/cEqwx
I haven't time to go and reproduce the original article, and it's summed up quite well anyway.
I'd love some real discussion about this, about the social constraints and shaming that keep men from reporting DV etc and not cries of 'But that's just one article!' but I won't hold my breath.
As Brian, DaveinHawaii and DaveJ explain,men are no longer going to be willing to risk the court system in the event of a divorce, and the best way to do that is not to marry. They are not blowing smoke.
crella at July 26, 2008 8:23 AM
Frankly, I can't stand westerns. Don't watch them at all. And I don't "glorify" a fucking thing. There was a time when anyone badmouthing anyone else publicly was likely to be shown the back of the hand. Sure, it's a hit to the face. It still doesn't constitute abuse. Abuse is a recurring physical or psychological assault. Not a "shut up" slap.
Right. Said of the man who got into precisely one fight in high-school. Sure, I might have tripped the random schmuck and watched his head bounce off the wall, but he had it coming to him.
Quite frankly, if I ever felt the need to show a woman the back of my hand, I'd show her my back instead and that would be the last time she heard from me. I have no desire to hit a woman. Besides, my mother would kill me if I did.
I also feel no need to control anyone. I don't want that responsibility. I wouldn't have lasted long in colonial times, I suspect.
The CDC statistics are based upon REPORTED incidents. There are some states where men can't even be the legal recipient of domestic violence. Hell, in Connecticut when "sexual harassment" became all the rage, the law explicitly stated that only women could be the victims. That changed when it became obvious that the law was being abused.
Of course, Dr. H could be making it all up, and there are no abused men. But I suspect that's unlikely. And there's a good reason why more men kill than women. An average man could kill a woman with a few punches. An average woman needs a weapon to accomplish the same task. So even if the guy doesn't mean to kill her, he just might. Not that excuses it.
Frankly, I could give a fuck either way. In most DV situations, it was plain to just about everyone that knew the couple that something was gonna happen. It's very rare that a guy is sweet as candy until the ring goes on and then becomes an aggressive, controlling, abusive pile of shit. And the ones that do pull that off are usually sociopaths, and they all have a tell.
I'm just tired of hearing the same smears about men - how we're all abusers just waiting for our moment, and how we're all one breath away from going on some rape and pillage spree so society needs to psychologically neuter little boys to prevent this happening.
I'm most tired, however, of a vocal minority of angry activists being the ones who shape public discourse and public policy.
brian at July 26, 2008 8:23 AM
Has any woman here suggested neutering little boys or anything like that? For god's sake, many of us are mothers of boys!
Yet, you guys are the ones suggesting that we should be happy to go back to the dark ages where our benevolent husbands and fathers could care and "discipline" us like children, or we could become dressmakers or saloon dancers.
When we naturally disagree, you call us rabid feminists and spew venomous labels at us....saying we're just "parroting the feminist playbook". We couldn't possibly have any direct knowledge or personal observations. We're all just "brainwashed".
That is truly condescending. And, frankly, the men here started the broad stroke criticism of our entire gender....telling us life was better for us when we were dominated and dependent...or worse, that there was no domination at all...just "symbiotic relationships"!
Nobody was attacking you. If you recall, I was trying to help and encourage you to find a relationship when this started.
It was your hostility - and Dave's - in talking about women in general that resulted in what you probably both wanted. You were just baiting us. No woman is going to have a "healthy debate" about how much better her life was before she could even vote.
This is just pointless. You think all men in the past behaved like John Wayne - or some sadistic yet loving "disciplinarian" super hero - and Dave is so obsessed with "cognitive dissonence" and his "feminist zeitgist" that he can't see one positive thing in female independence or modern times.
My 90 yr old mother-in-law, by the way, was not forced into marriage, nor knocked up. She, as a virgin, married a very handsome, successful man, who her father and brothers all approved of - and yet, he did turn out to be an abuser. Believe it or not, it actually happened. And nobody rode in on their white horse to save her and her seven abused kids from him. And all she had was secretarial skills, so there was no practical way out for her.
Don't cry for her though. When the cruel bastard finally gave himsef a heart attack at age 62, she inherited all his money and has been dancing the jitterbug ever since.
Karma notwithstanding, however, life was not better in those days - at least for us. Maybe for you and your back-handed "discipline." But not for us...or our children.
Abused (and bullied) children often grow up to be fixated on control and dominance. If you're made to feel out of control as a child, you'll want to be forever in control in your personal life. Your commentary about "discipline" and your overall hostility towards women seems very telling to me, in that regard, but I can only guess.
But I'm tired of this thread. There is no healthy debate going on here because our only choice is to agree with you about the "good old days" and that's just not going to happen.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2008 9:16 AM
ls, I don't need encouragement to involve myself in something I don't want.
And I don't know what gives you the idea that I'm nostalgic for the past. As I said, I couldn't care less. I simply object to you taking the anecdote of your grandmother and saying that ALL WOMEN were similarly abused. It simply ain't so.
And I've talked to several women who feel that women in general had it better when they weren't expected to have both a career and a family. My mother was a stay-at-home mom. She got no end of dirty looks from "liberated" women in the 1970s for not putting the kids in daycare and having a career in some cube farm. Sure, this is a personal anecdote. But unlike your blanket assertion of completeness, I have evidence to support the fact that there was, and remains, an undercurrent in our society that tells girls and women that they are betraying women if they don't have a career.
When you look at how many laws are on the books now that start from the 1970s feminist assertion that all men are rapists, it's rather stunning. Add to this the burgeoning paranoia associated with men in public spaces (doubly so for single men) where there are children, and a guy could get to feeling that something was up.
What we have now, is revenge feminism. Feminists, who start with the distorted view of history that you possess, add to it their years of "women's studies", decades of psychological bullshit, and manage to create an environment where men willingly pass laws that turn themselves into second-class citizens.
And whether you consider yourself a feminist or not, you're living proof of just how embedded in the modern American psyche it has become.
brian at July 26, 2008 9:56 AM
And ls, women DID have it better before they all could vote. Everybody did.
Now, we have not just undereducated women, but undereducated men, and people of every race, creed and sex who have no stake at all in the system using their precious "right to vote" to skew things in their favor.
I pay more than 50% of my income in direct taxation (i.e. taxes whose value I can only control by working less). And most of the appropriations that the money goes to are things that I never voted for, but are voted for by people who don't pay into the system at all.
And this is due, in part, to the belief that all natural persons regardless of their circumstances, ought to have a say in how they are governed. Instead, they decided to vote themselves rich off the backs of the productive classes.
Nice idea in theory. Disastrous in practice.
And I'm saying this as someone whom, if my beliefs on voting rights were enforced, would not have been allowed to vote until 7 years ago.
brian at July 26, 2008 10:03 AM
That is not true. I just spent the last thread defending stay-at-home moms - as long as they have an education and skills because, like it or not, it isn't practical for a woman to rely solely on her husband's benevolence and support. Great if she has that, but it's not guaranteed. And it never was.
Do I think ALL men are abusers? No! I never said that! I've totally said the opposite. Nor do I think all men are child-molestors, but I'd be a fool not to be watchful of my children because it CAN happen.
The reason most women have to work today is because of taxes and the high cost of living. The average family of 4 in the 50s only paid around 10% of their income for ALL taxes - local, state, and federal. Therefore, a family could get by on just one income. That's not the case today, yet feminists do not hold all the blame for that. It's our entire "gimme gimme" mentality towards government.
I do agree that things were probably better societally when a woman could choose to focus on parenting (assuming she truly had the instinct and patience for it). I agree that many women, such as myself, relish domestic duties and probably resent being forced into the workplace.
But there are a whole lot of women who WANT to do different things, besides just mothering, and many accomplish both having a career and raising good kids.
For instance, I know two women pilots. One was an ex-fighter pilot, who graduated top of her class from the Naval Academy. Their kids are great! Sweet, responsible, well-rounded kids. Working moms are NOT the problem.
At any rate, "working moms vs SAHMs"...or "absentee fathers"..."or out-of-wedlock parenting" are whole different debates than this has been.
Saying women aren't (and weren't) really abused much because their dads and brothers would avenge them...and that life would be so much better if almost all women stayed home....or not do anything more challenging or gender diverse than dressmaking.
Maybe Dave is the only one making that silly argument, but it sure sounded like you were backing it up. And, if so, you're not going to find much agreement, or a civil debate, with most women by painting such a rosey picture of the past, when we lacked basic protections and opportunities.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2008 10:37 AM
It may suprise you, but I rather agree with you that people should have a stake in the country before voting - perhaps owning land (as it was originally) But BOTH genders.
lovlysoul at July 26, 2008 10:41 AM
ls - Dave may have been arguing that life was all beer and skittles in the 1800s. I was not. I was simply arguing that your grandmother's experience was not the norm.
However, modern feminist discourse is based upon precisely that myth - that women have always been oppressed, never owned land, never did anything but cook and pump out babies.
And there is a large, and growing, movement (even worse in the UK) toward normalizing the view that any adult male that is in the presence of children is a molester or pervert.
And I think we might agree on voting rights. Race and gender aren't terribly relevant - mostly because a woman who owns either a business or property is likely to be capable of putting thought before emotion.
brian at July 26, 2008 11:05 AM
Hello ladies !!! I have decided to only address you for now because the men here really are out to lunch. I have never read a more pathetic string "we are victims" posts in my life.
The problem with the men here is that they are so caught up in their victim melodrama that they aren't even really paying attention to the conversation. Over and over again they are accussing us saying or believing things that in no way reflect what we have said. You can't debate some one that just makes stuff up when its convenient to their argument. Instead of deciding on their own who we are what we believe, they could have just asked and we could have told them. I have actually read a few things that they have said that I agree with, but since the other 90% is so completely absurb I am afraid to give them any credit at all.
Here is my point of view on marriage and divorce. In the "good old days" if a woman left her husband for whatever reason she was disowned by her family and disgraced by society. That is not feminist propoganda, it is the truth. Women who never married were old maids that could either be a teacher, a maid, a whore or live on scraps given to her by her married brothers or sisters. It was not a good life for women. There was alot of rape and abuse back then. Women had no rights.
How has it chnaged now? Women have rights, but in the family courts women are basically given free license to financial rape ex-husbands and their "babbies' daddies". Even in my own divorce, I had to actually stand before a judge and plead my case for not wanting child support. We have shared custody and I make twice as much as her father but the courts automatically try to force every man to pay for a failed marriage. Most states are community property states now, but there are still some that allow for some sort of spousal support or alimony. I presonally think that the minute a man puts a ring on your finger it doesn't mean he has to support you for the rest of your life (or you get remarried). Its ridiculous and out dated. There is no reason any adult woman or man shouldn't be expected to support themselves.
My sister had her husband sent to jail for abuse even though I know from first hand experience she was an equal partner in the abuse. But sadly he ended up with a felony conviction and she got to have her "i'm a victim" pity party. I have no respect for women like her, but I know there are plenty of men who do abuse without provocation and deserve to go to jail.
So ... I don't sound much like an evil feminist, do I? In fact I don't think any of us ladies here are evil feminists. These guys came here looking for a fight and we got pulled into the fray. Let's let them get back to fellatiating each others poor victimized egos and stay out of their way.
katie at July 26, 2008 11:34 AM
lovelysoul, you should take a look at Erin Pizzey and her book "Prone to Violence". It talks about exactly the phenomenon you're describing, where partners abuse each other, goading each other to violence. This is why most domestic violence consists of shouting matches where one party is driving the verbal part and the other party responds with the physical part.
Nobody is saying that women don't get injured at higher rates in DV. Why is that? Anyone can tell you that men are bigger than women on average and can inflict greater harm. Women shouldn't engage them for the same reason that a 150 lb man shouldn't (and usually doesn't) engage a 200 lb man.
Pete at July 26, 2008 11:46 AM
Oh, no doubt. I've seen women goad it on. I hesitate to use the phrase "ask for it", but it has applied to some situations. But the sad thing is that this is learned behavior. Both the man and the woman likely grew up in homes where either verbal or physical abuse occurred, so it's absurd to think that DV wasn't present in previous generations.
I'm not just referring to spousal abuse either. Many men are horribly abused as children by their fathers. My ex was, then he would try to "discipline" our son the same way. Never our daughter, just the son. Like his father never beat the girls only the boys. And my own father would "whip" my brothers pretty mercilessly, with "switches" and belts, but never me.
So, even men who wouldn't dream of striking a female often believe it's somehow ok to pummel their sons, which I personally feel only propogates violence all the way around. Even if a girl isn't physical hit, she grows up with all that drama and conflict around her, so she may choose a man - and an environment - that feels "familiar" and involves DV.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2008 12:42 PM
JoJo> You're damn right I'd think it was a Bad Thing for a little girl to have no other plan for her life than to find a man to be her meal ticket for her entire life.
Thank you Mr/Ms Strawman, but nowhere did I even remotely claim that a woman should ever not have some means to support herself. You seem to be so brainwashed that you cannot even imagine a woman can BOTH want to be a homemaker primarily AND have a backup and not be "looking for a meal ticket". Way to distort the argument in order to - exactly as I mentioned, funnily enough - totally vilify and deride the very idea of wanting to first and foremost be a homemaker as not even on the table.
You've actually helped prove my point, thanks.
lov(e)lysoul> To me, what these guys are focusing on is totally irrelevant details. "What were her legal recourses? Did she marry due to family pressure or because she got knocked up?"
Um, slow down here, you've misunderstood me ... these were genuine, neutral questions, completely in the interests of objectively understanding the FACTS of those times better, because I genuinely don't know ... if the answer was "no legal recourse" then why not simply say that, I would've accepted it at face value. You seem to have assumed some value judgment in my questions that wasn't really there, which now makes me sorry to say just a little less likely to accept your responses at face value.
David J at July 26, 2008 1:14 PM
Just to add to that response to JoJo, I actually know many women (who DO have skills and could find a job if they needed to) who WANT to actually stay home to raise their children properly, they aren't "oppressed", it's their VOLUNTARY CHOICE (remember - choices - what feminism was supposed to be about?), hard as that might be for you to believe.
Personally I think raising children well is a highly noble endeavour. I don't know too many people who literally LOOK DOWN on child-raising (except you). Does the very existence of such women offend you? I don't 'get' the need to try stigmatise the free and voluntary activity of someone else, as if one is projecting one's own insecurities onto other women or manipulating their emotion towards your own agenda.
David J at July 26, 2008 1:20 PM
brian> But I seriously doubt that domestic violence was anywhere near as prevalent as it is today. I was raised, not 40 years ago, to believe that it was never acceptable for a man to strike a woman. Teenagers now are regaled with tales of "smacking the bitch around" to the approving grind of half-dressed women. And then we're surprised when they do?
It's also now illegal for the fathers-in-law / brothers-in-law etc. to intervene violently today, this would be "assault" or even attempted murder (except in the unlikely non-premeditated case of immediate acts of self-defence - not applicable for most domestic abuse as it usually happens when the in-laws aren't there). In this respect it's not just that those men "used to be real men" and are now a bunch of wussies - it's that, by that definition and in the context of clobbering an abuser, it's now against the law to "be a real man" (and it's not smart a decent man going to jail just to get a few punches in on an abuser).
David J at July 26, 2008 1:28 PM
Dave F H> And this is where you do not understand that yes, Women were dependent on men...just as men were dependent on women. It's called a symbiotic relationship.
This is true in various respects ... not just child raising activities ... for example "modern man" might be able to cook and do basic housework, but "traditional man" was useless in these areas (hell I'm only about 30 and remember when I was a kid it was still considered a 'bad thing' for a man to cook), especially as back in the day there were no microwaves or frozen convenience dinners etc.
There were roles.
I agree these roles should never be enforced by law, people should have choices, but that doesn't mean the roles are evil, it's the lack of choice that was evil.
David J at July 26, 2008 1:37 PM
Sorry, Dave J, I shouldn't have lumped your questions in with the rest. I just felt you were basically asking, "Why didn't she leave?"
I'm sure in the 30s, she had some legal recourse, but I know it would've been fighting great social and family stigma, plus poverty, since she had 7 kids and limited work skills.
And I am one of those women who always wanted to be a SAHM - and we've kind of argued this before, last thread. Some here think that's really being a sell-out, or a leech. In fact, last thread, a man was fighting with us about THAT. He feels all women should work and claims he would leave his wife if she ever wanted to be a SAHM. Now, you guys are proponents. Just goes to show you can't please everyone, right?
I think a woman should be where she is happiest because a happy mother is the best kind. Although I love cooking - even cleaning - and baking cookies, I realize those tasks would bore someone like my friend, the pilot, to tears!
So, I don't believe she should be guilted into staying home and doing that if it's not her thing - the kids would only feel her resentment - nor do I believe that anyone should make me feel like a loser because I enjoy working from home and being more domestic. We all have our particular personalities.
Can't we just be nicer to each other and respect differences of opinion instead of taking every comment to the extreme?
If I say, "There's some abuse in the world" I'm not saying "Every man is an abuser!" It's like some of you are just so ready to stereotype and label that you misunderstand what someone's true views are.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2008 1:46 PM
lov[e]lysoul
I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent. There was a bit of straw flying about, and if I thought some of it was coming from your direction, then I was wrong.
I have heard the argument presented time and again that all men are oppressors, etc. And when you make any criticism of women's behaviour, you invariably get the JoJos and Katies of the world who immediately assume you are unclean and living in mom's basement. And that kinda sets me off. I get that way.
I've never been against options. I've never believed that women belong "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen". But I believe that the prevailing attitude that women can "have it all" is enormously damaging to society as a whole.
Something has to give. And if we are to have a generation of children that are prepared to deal with the world rather than whine about it, then we are better off when women put off their careers to raise their children early. Biology puts a hard limit on the length of time you can have children. But I know plenty of women that have careers (or start businesses) after their children are in their teens. And that way there's no need to "settle" for the first sperm donor that walks by.
And, having neatly tied things back to the original topic at hand, I'm going to go have a beer. Because I can.
brian at July 26, 2008 4:40 PM
I found this today http://aremenevil.blogspot.com/
and then this one by the same author
http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality2008.blogspot.com/.
What I see every day is that women always feel it's important to be coy. Wouldn't it be so refreshing that if for once women would actually be direct, honest and straight forward? Women hide their true intentions and that is why they cannot be trusted. I don't like the 'cattiness' thing to begin with- it's actually very boring, yet women feel this is just oh so cute and clever and find mens' honesty and openness to be even stupid. If someone is condescending to honesty, that tells you all you need to know about them.
Obama at July 27, 2008 2:39 AM
It's harder for men. Women are much more difficult to live with anyway- you have to watch your p's and q's and worry about that stupid crap that only a woman is ridiculous enough to care about anyway. 'Appearances' and nonsense- even every woman I have ever met will tell me they cannot stand the company of other women themselves.
I only want a woman to get me off, but after that.. I really don't know any other way to say this- I am repulsed by women, not physically of course obviously- it's the way they think that just turns me off- their gay little attitudes that are so weak and spineless. Women are cripples of the soul. I've only met one or two women in 39 years that were O...K. And no, my mother isn't one of them. But most of them are either just garbage or monsters as people. It's the feminism thing too. I depise all the women I work with. I really wish they would all quit & they're all such idiots they don't even know that I can't stand them.
You see, next all the females on here going to say I'm 'gay' because I hate women or I'm a serial killer. This is just yet one more aspect of American women that is so repulsive. (And no I'm not from another country) I am an attractive guy, Einsteins, why do you think I have so much experience with women? They all think they are just SO intelligent and perceptive, but they are always wrong. I have a daughter too- I don't like her either for all of the same reasons. She's fake & a flake & a skank that is norm now in this country.
Obama at July 27, 2008 3:29 AM
I agree with crello, when you read through, it is quite laughable for kate to come out with:
The problem with the men here is that they are so caught up in their victim melodrama that they aren't even really paying attention to the conversation. Over and over again they are accussing us saying or believing things that in no way reflect what we have said. You can't debate some one that just makes stuff up when its convenient to their argument. Instead of deciding on their own who we are what we believe, they could have just asked and we could have told them. I have actually read a few things that they have said that I agree with, but since the other 90% is so completely absurb I am afraid to give them any credit at all.
when its pretty obvious that is just what the girls have been doing.
I just cant understand why, when women allready have their selective equality they are still harping on about the past. Smart women allready know they are on a good thing and have a large degree of control over men.
And on the dv thing, I was the abused in an abusive relationship years ago, it really amazed me the lengths that she would go to to make me hit her, and how furious she became when I didnt, and how visciously she could attack once she realised I would never hit her. In the end when I left and met my now wife she became a stalker tried to tell my wife that I beat her up and then went to the police and told them the same, they didnt beleive her and wouldnt support her case so she went to the courthouse and lodged it herself, the police then were forced to come and remove me from my yacht untill court day, by the time that came she had taken and disposed of it and there wasnt a single thing I could do about it. She was a total nutter. I dont hate women for her actions, but I dont beleive there should be systems or laws which can be abused, if anyone will abuse something out of spite a woman will do it best.
Al at July 27, 2008 8:13 AM
oh and lovelysoul, paying tax is a stake in a country, I find it pretty incredible that you speak of womens oppression and slavery and then turn around and would like it to be that only the cotton farmers can vote and the peasants dont own anything so dont have a right. Being that women are still so suppressed wouldnt this be taking the vote back off most of them. Feminists simply dont want equality, they want total control of men and everything else. Greedy people discust me, whether male or female.
Al at July 27, 2008 8:28 AM
I think the problem with the LW's advice to other women is that women who have issues with finding and settling down with a nice guy fall very broadly into two categories. This is a major generalization, of course, but a useful one, I think.
The first type of women suffer mostly from a lack of self esteem. Because of issues in their childhood or just plain old poor judgment, they wind up with a man who doesn't treat them well.
The second type suffer mostly from unrealistic expectations. These are the women who have bought into the belief that a man will complete them and meet all of their emotional needs.
Telling either type to settle doesn't help. For the first type, this will simply reinforce their decision to stay with a man who mistreats them. For the second, the advice might seem correct, but it won't work. Those women will simply marry men who can't meet their every emotional need and feel miserable for the rest of their lives (and make the guy miserable too). Telling them to settle doesn't deal with the main issue, which is that they need to reevaluate their idea of what a relationship should provide.
Jannah at July 27, 2008 10:31 AM
I think this has just degenerated into such hateful, weird commentary. I didn't realize so many men hated women so much...even their own daughters! (how sick!) I've just never experienced that.
I've also never blogged or commented anywhere before. I just came here because I really liked Amy's column. I found her to be so bright, sharp-witted, and logical. And I assumed that's what we all had in common.
So, I really wonder why you women-haters, like Obama, are here? If you hate women and feminism so much, why are you reading a smart woman's advice column?
And Al, a dumb electorate isn't good for this country. Voters who aren't invested in the country and just want something for nothing are going to vote in obvious ways.
I don't know exactly how to address that, but having an investment, such as property ownership or a business, is something to consider. Plenty of women have property and businesses now, so that wouldn't deny them a vote. This country was founded as a democratic republic, not a democracy, and the founders believed the electorate should have a stake upon which they were voting. Of course, at that time, they could only perceive that as being male and white, but that doesn't negate the general merit of their idea.
lovelysoul at July 27, 2008 3:54 PM
I am nearly 72yo and can ,with hand on heart,
tell you ladies that wives in the Uk always
ruled the roost,apart from,of course,the wealthy,landed gentry type.The husband would come home from work and hand his unopened pay packet directly to his wife.She was responsible for everything that mattered except work.How anyone can say that wives had no rights beats me.Sure enough,in law,a husband was responsible for his wifes debts but no way was he accorded privileges in law or socially.Nearly all the social life was had by the wife and very few husbands went down the pub simply because they didn't have control of the money.Most men were henpecked to distraction .On DV,yes,every road had one
family who would row every saturday night,the
protagonists were well known and other people would shut their windows.These couples nearly always stayed together,they were like Punch and Judy,the puppets,it was their nature,both of them, and believe me the wife could give as much as she got,thats why the joke of the rolling pin came in but ,here is the point,they loved each other come what may and anybody that tried to interfere with their
sporadic fighting would get turned on by both of them.There are countless cartoons depicting this sort of thing.It wasn't man on woman violence or the other way round,they didn't agree, they had a quarrel but they still looked after each other to the nth,it was them versus the rest of the world.Try to assimilate this,it might not suit you but thats how it was.It certainly was not as your feminist
teachers have tried to instill in you.You must
treat as you find and not have preconceived
ideas.If you didn't start off by using feminist rhetoric which appears to be almost
the exact wording on any blog I have seen,chances are that your debaters would also moderate their tone.
It ain't all "black and white".
michael savell at July 27, 2008 3:55 PM
I never knew English women had so many rights. So, Ann Boleyn was just a fluke beheading?
lovelysoul at July 27, 2008 4:03 PM
Considering she was married to the king (who was an enormous sphincter), I'd say yes. Most guys didn't have the means to have their wives beheaded for "crimes against the state" or whatever made up method he came up with to dispatch his wives before he invented the C of E.
brian at July 27, 2008 5:28 PM
Oh so your one of the self proclaimed smart electorate, I really cant believe you put that into print, I have suspected for a while reading this column, that you morph into whatever is convenient for your argument. Good on you for sticking to your guns on this one tho. Your comments are so hypocritical it is rediculous, but it does fit with you having a trailer park as you have your own little queendom of peasants to boss around, capitalise on and make the rules to suit yourself. I sure hope that trailer park owners are included in the vote in your ideal world because I will hear you screaming foul all the way from here otherwise. I feel absolutely sickened to the core.
Al at July 27, 2008 6:50 PM
It is my mistake tho, I thought America was a democracy. Isnt it in the name of democracy that America can run all round the world killing people.
You accuse men of wanting to turn back the clock to control women. Yet now you suggest turning it back as long as you are in control. It is exactly this sort of thinking that makes America the most despised country in the world.
Men like Obama must have had a mother just like you.
Al at July 27, 2008 6:56 PM
Nothing hateful about it ---how can you hate someone over the internet? Really, it isn't that important.
We don't hate you, we just don't agree with you.
PS. Who hates their own daughter? I don't recall any man saying he hated his own daughter here, although god knows I could have missed it...
crella at July 27, 2008 7:20 PM
You know, the more I think about it the more I think that there is absolutely no point in discussing the favorite feminist point that 'women were oppressed for thousands of years'. I want to say "And??" There is no woman alive who was alive in the Victorian era, alive in the Wild West, alive during the Industrial Revolution, alive in colonial America.
What does it have to do with the lives of women NOW? I realize that bad things have been done in the past, and we've learned not to do them again, legislated against them (slavery, debtor's prison, indentured servitude, press ganging etc).It's good to remember the past so that we do not repeat it of course, for human nature does not change all that much despite societal advancement.
But--to constantly harp on how bad women had it, and to castigate the present generation of men for sins committed by men in the past reeks of a reparation mentality. How many of the women on this thread were THEMSELVES forced into marriage, deprived of property rights, not given the vote, not given rights to own property, or to inherit? I'd be willing to say nearly 100%, if not 100% of you have never experienced any of this. Whatever the sins of the past, the men of this generation were not the perpetrators, and you were not the victims. We could be making progress, but this stubborn insistence in proving how bad women had it way back when keeps us mired in the past. American feminists are obsessed with the past, but what does it accomplish now? It's busy work.
It would seem much more practical to focus on say, women in Africa undergoing GM, or the plight of Muslim women in many countries. The fact that women were once oppressed (as goes the argument here) in no way affects the life of the average American woman, in fact it was past injustices that spawned the laws and freedoms we now expect as our due.
Even if it were all true, what do you expect to come from constantly harping on it as if it's relevant to your own life? I would think that present abuse , even if beyond our own shores,would be much more relevant.
crella at July 27, 2008 7:39 PM
This is what Feminism looks like from the outside
Sat Jul 26, 11:47 AM ET
BERLIN - Two drunken British women went on a rampage on a charter plane, hitting one flight attendant with a bottle of vodka and trying to open a cabin door as the aircraft was cruising over Austria at 10,000 meters (32,800 feet), police said Saturday.
The staff on the flight from Greece to England eventually forced the women back to their seats and the pilot made an emergency in Frankfurt on Thursday, police told The Associated Press, confirming a statement they had issued on Friday.
The identities of the women, aged 26 and 27, were not released, but police said the 26-year-old may be charged with attempted assault and interfering with air traffic.
Both women were released, police said.
The rampage occurred when a flight attendant denied the women alcohol because they were visibly intoxicated, police said. The 26-year-old took a swipe at a cabin attendant with a bottle of vodka, then attempted to open a cabin door.
"Apparently the 26-year-old wanted to catch some fresh air," the statement said, in an effort to make light of the altercation.
The two women were taken into custody by police at the Frankfurt airport and given a breathalyzer test. Both were legally intoxicated.
After an hour in Frankfurt, the flight continued on to Manchester, England.
Obama at July 27, 2008 8:00 PM
No, Obama, this is what being stupid, drunk and assaultive looks like, regardless of the gender of the people involved. Feminism has nothing to do with it. Using this incident as an example of Feminism = Bad undermines any argument you're capable of making.
You may be an "attractive guy", in your own mind of nowhere else, but you're also an idiot. Pardon me for not being coy about it.
catspajamas at July 27, 2008 8:34 PM
See? Another slur. No argument, just an insult. You're a woman, catspajamas?
What Obama is undoubtedly referring to is the fact that both women were released. Does it ever happen to a man? Ever?
crella at July 27, 2008 8:37 PM
Yes, I am a woman, and Obama made no argument that I'm aware of.
Still, lets assume you're correct, and that he was referring to the fact that these two very stupid women were released. In the majority of cases of drunk behaviour and assault the perpetrators are released in the first instance - often pending an investigation, possible charges and court appearances. The law is very clear on the circumstances under which people can be detained for more than 24 hours. Being released doesn't preclude further legal action. The likelihood is that two men, under the same circumstances, would have also been released.
catspajamas at July 27, 2008 8:50 PM
Oh, I very much doubt it. Most things that happen on airplanes are now classified as felony crimes. Trying to open the airplane door must be as dangerous as trying to set your shoes on fire, where is that guy now? Gitmo?
crella at July 27, 2008 8:57 PM
Don't know where he is, although he's certainly in prison. Here's the thing: he was arrested on an American plane (therefore US territory, therefore felony), was quickly identified as having a very lengthy and violent criminal record, as well as flying under an alias because his real name would have set off all kinds of alarms. These are the sort of things taken into consideration when determining if someone should be remanded into custody (as he was) or released (as the women were). There's no indication from the news article that the women met any of the criteria for being held in custody. The shoe terrorist was also undoubtedly treated particularly harshly because he tried to blow up a US plane. So I don't think this particular example bolsters the argument that these women were treated less harshly because they're women.
catspajamas at July 27, 2008 9:14 PM
And since we're talking about slurs, let me clear: I'm basing my assessment of Obama on the contents of all his posts here, more specifically:
"Women hide their true intentions and that is why they cannot be trusted."
"Women are much more difficult to live with anyway- you have to watch your p's and q's and worry about that stupid crap that only a woman is ridiculous enough to care about anyway."
"I only want a woman to get me off, but after that.. I really don't know any other way to say this- I am repulsed by women, not physically of course obviously- it's the way they think that just turns me off- their gay little attitudes that are so weak and spineless. Women are cripples of the soul. I've only met one or two women in 39 years that were O...K. And no, my mother isn't one of them. But most of them are either just garbage or monsters as people. It's the feminism thing too. I depise all the women I work with. I really wish they would all quit & they're all such idiots they don't even know that I can't stand them."
"They all think they are just SO intelligent and perceptive, but they are always wrong. I have a daughter too- I don't like her either for all of the same reasons. She's fake & a flake & a skank that is norm now in this country."
Wow!! No slurs there, and lots of reasoned arguments. Is it possible its acceptable for Obama because he's a guy??
catspajamas at July 27, 2008 9:35 PM
Wow!! No slurs there, and lots of reasoned arguments. Is it possible its acceptable for Obama because he's a guy??
I didn't get the impression Obama was putting forward a reasoned argument. I don't think he was proposing anything 'acceptable'.
He was just being honest about what he thinks. He was being ruthlessly sincere.
It's so rare now - far harder to find than reasoned arguments or over-scripted acceptability.
Of all the thousands of wasted words above, Obama's post is the only one I can remember.
Rob Case at July 28, 2008 12:44 AM
Yes but it's not his opinion of *you* is it, where "idiot" was directed at him personally. I have commented on this thread that many women, when faced with something they disagree with, will immediately call a name or otherwise insult the person in question instead of discussing that which they disagree with. This thread is full of such posts.What rejoinders did you make, if any, to the above posts? They are your 'reasons' for calling him an idiot, you're saying.
Did he call *you* an idiot? Did he call *you* a monster, flake or skank? It looks like he didn't. You disagreed with his opinions by calling him an idiot. That was the crux of the post I made upthread. It was the impression I was left with after reading darned near the whole thread.
crella at July 28, 2008 12:45 AM
The above is in answer to catspajamas, sorry I did not make that clear.
crella at July 28, 2008 12:47 AM
When he says, "Women are ... " he's talking about all women. That includes me. Its no less offensive to me than if he'd called me by name. And given that he doesn't have experience of all women it's also inaccurate. I could certainly have addressed his posts in more detail but frankly I didn't think anyone who makes unsupported generalizations about half the population of the planet is open to discussion.
Obama has formed an opinion about a lot of women, including apparently his daughter, who he refers to as a "skank". I formed an opinion of Obama based on his posts here - slurs against all women generally, plus an article he proffers as evidence of the evils of feminism that is in fact proof of nothing at all - and I voiced that opinion. So, what's the difference, exactly? I suppose rather than singling him out I could have said, "Men are idiots ..." but that wouldn't have been accurate, or fair to the rest of the male population.
Rob: When I said, "No slurs there, and lots of reasoned arguments" I was being sarcastic. I can accept that Obama's being honest and sincere in his opinions. Me too.
catspajamas at July 28, 2008 1:27 AM
Sorry, forgot to mention the two links Obama provided for our edification. They're both entirely offensive to and negative about women. To paraphrase Crella, it appears that when faced with something he disagrees with Obama will immediately throw out a bunch of insults instead of discussing that which he disagrees with.
catspajamas at July 28, 2008 1:43 AM
That's because he's a troll.
brian at July 28, 2008 4:47 AM
Cats, note that none of these guys answered my question about what they're even doing here.
I mean, they come to a strong, independent, modern woman's advice column, even though they clearly can't agree with much of what she writes. They start trashing women, with blanket statements of how we all "screw over" men, etc.
Then, when we defend ourselves, they say, "See, all you feminist bitches want is to castigate us, neuter little boys,"...and on and on...even though NOTHING like that is even REMOTELY said or implied. It's the classic bait and switch.
They also claim we're not "debating the issues", yet when we try, and may have an opinion that differs from theirs, like I did with Al, we're assaulted viciously. Now, I'm a "peasant owner" and bad mother. So much for debating an issue.
These guys come here for only one reason - to fight. They come here knowing this column will attract strong independent women and they're looking for "feminists" to bash. Practically every post of theirs is filled with an almost palpable RAGE and bitterness, even when they try to hide it.
And it's a shame because this is a nice forum, with some very thoughtful, articulate people of both genders, but they're ruining it.
lovelysoul at July 28, 2008 6:10 AM
Well when he says 'all women' , if you know he's wrong, then it doesn't include you, does it? He's a man with an extremely pessimistic view, or a troll, who knows? Either way you know he doesn't know you, ignore him. I did.
Now Obama's posts may be based on rage, lovly but I think that for the most part (Davein Hawaii, brian and others but I'm not taking the time to scroll up and list every man who made logical points) the guys are just passionate. I didn't read either rage or desperation in their posts.I don't see anything 'vicious' and if you can call an internet spat an 'assault' then I really don't know what to say.
crella at July 28, 2008 6:38 AM
"These guys come here for only one reason - to fight."
No, there is no 'fight.' You & 98% of U.S. females need to be-educated and the only way that is going to happen is by a man. And as far as 'strong' independent women.. well, here's where you begin to start learning.
1. No man has ever been impressed by a woman's occupation, unless it is stripper, model or professional cheerleader for his favorite team. Honorable mention for aerobics/yoga instructor or nanny.
2. Few men are impressed by women's salaries. They know perfectly well that most women will quit paid employment the moment they feel they can. A woman's salary only matters to a man who doesn't want to support a non-employed wife or have kids.
3. Men with their own careers generally don't want wives with careers if they want a family. They're looking for a wife and mother to their children, not a co-husband. Men who don't have careers are much more open to the possibility, but then, no matter how much money a woman makes, she has no interest in men who makes less than she does. And as it turns out, most women consider their own income to be "her money" while that earned by the man is "our money". There are exceptions, of course, but this is the general rule.
4. The mere fact of having a career means you are too focused on it in the eyes of most professional men. They know perfectly well what it means since they work with women like you every day, furthermore, they also know that few professional women have any sense of proportion or perspective. You made a choice, now deal with it. Buy a cat... or five, and stock up on Duracell.
5. Men aren't intimidated by you, your intelligence, your education or your pay packet. They are, however, intimidated by the divorce courts. They are extremely disinclined to dally with the sort of women who show any inclination towards depending upon the legal system to solve relationship problems and professional women are far more likely to do so it seems."
Situation7 at July 28, 2008 6:51 AM
That's fine, if you feel that way, but you don't speak for all men. As I mentioned, a few threads back, a man was arguing that he wanted ONLY a wife who had a career, not one who would stay home and raise the children.
But you are nicely making my point. If crella can't read the underlying hostility towards women in your type of message, there's no point in trying to explain how phrases like "you need to be educated" give it away.
All I'm asking is if that's how you feel about women, why come here to read Amy's column, then? You can't possibly agree with her advice or be impressed by her, since she's not a cheerleader or a stripper.
It seems that your sole motivation is to find women you can "educate" with your male superiority rants, and since this is a forum BY an independent, careerminded woman, whose advice usually supports independent, careerminded women, and whose audience naturally appreciates her views, not yours, this isn't the best place for you or any of the other men who have such radically anti-female views.
So, I'm just asking you politely to leave. Find a forum that is more accepting of your views, because you are creating too much conflict here.
lovelysoul at July 28, 2008 8:14 AM
Well, I've got to hand it to you, lovelysoul, for continuing to fight the good fight. There's a point at which I realized this was largely not worth my time. But since you're wondering why there are all these misogynists here, it's because Amy has acquired a reputation of being anti-feminist and pro-"men's rights", because she's willing to call many of the women who write to her on their bullshit; she advocates that women pay their own way, and for their own dates; and she's made a number of statements against feminists, and thereby gained the ire of a number of feminists, who have written letters to the editor against her in various places where she's published.
Quizzical at July 28, 2008 9:40 AM
Crella: "Well when he says 'all women' , if you know he's wrong, then it doesn't include you, does it? He's a man with an extremely pessimistic view, or a troll, who knows? Either way you know he doesn't know you, ignore him. I did."
Oh, come on now - he's certainly including me when he makes such statements - whether he's factually right or wrong is, let's be honest, open to interpretation, but HE thinks he is. And that's a little scary. You mentioned earlier that I should discuss what I disagree with - point taken, and I think you and I have been having some discussion (with no input from Obama). Now you're suggesting I ignore him?
Now we have Situation7 chiming in with his apparently encyclopedic knowledge of all men and "98% of U.S. females" - holy crap, he and Obama must be busy, handing out all those detailed questionnaires, analyzing the resultant data, and coming to conclusions.
I can't speak for everyone here but from my experience there seems to be a lot of generalizing - common (and generally negative) traits and motivations applied to entire genders based on a couple of the experiences of a member of the opposite gender. Its like if I get mugged and robbed by a Lithuanian then all Lithuanians are, by extension, muggers and robbers. And as I said, I could have used the Obama is an idiot therefore all men are idiots argument, buts its NOT an argument - just a stupid statement - and it gets us nowhere.
Anyway, like lovlysoul, I am genuinely curious ... why are you here? How'd you find this column and what prompted you to keep coming back?
catspajamas at July 28, 2008 9:54 AM
Gosh, this thread constitutes about 100 pages worth of printed text now.
I found this column via an ALDaily link (I forget what it was about right now) and come back firstly because I enjoy Amy's clear, direct unabashed and honest writing style and commentary and values and topic choices etc., and secondly because there aren't that many other places on the Internet where you can find reasonably intelligent 'community discussion' i.e. amongst the comments.
Frogz at July 28, 2008 10:15 AM
Yeah, quizzical, I realize that. Ironically, I agree with Amy, and never was a feminist or big defender of feminism myself. I abhor the way men are either villified or cast as idiotic doofuses in the media, and I agree that a lot of women are mindlessly paranoid of men and/or abuse gender situations, and I even agree that our courts are unfairly biased against men.
But there is a vast difference in those views and the hateful garbage these misogynist are spewing.
If we could have a CIVIL discourse on these specific issues, I think they'd be surprised at how anti-feminist many of us are, but they seem to only be willing to accept us bowing our heads and "admitting" that we're all out to screw men over, and that we, as a gender, have singlehandedly caused most of society's problems. That's not going to happen....it puts me and every other female on the defensive.
Kinda like being a white supremist and going to a black forum and expecting them to just say, "Oh, yeah, good points! We ARE all worthless negroes!" Not very likely.
If you want to have a healthy debate, you have to allow the other side to maintain some dignity. You have to give them some breathing room - so they can acknowledge your good points without necessarily acquiescing to everything - but these misogynists are so hostile, that can't happen.
Some of their points are indeed valid, but like someone said earlier, when they use such condescending language and sound so angry, you don't really want to give them any credit.
I just hate to see every thread end up in a gender war.
lovelysoul at July 28, 2008 10:20 AM
Yeah, Frogz, the gender wars are always good for LOTS of discussion - although this might be a record : )
lovlysoul: "I abhor the way men are either villified or cast as idiotic doofuses in the media." You've got a point there. A lot of ads these days, and a lot of TV sitcoms, seem to be based on the "stupid guy, smart and pissed-off woman" model - e.g. Everybody Loves Raymond, Still Standing. Its kind of the reverse the I Love Lucy days (ditsy woman, pissed-off man". It may well seem to some guys that they're being targeted - although I have to stress that I have no responsibility for network programming.
"Feminist" is kind of a loaded word for many people - and its difficult to quantify - means different things to different folks. When someone asks if I am one I have to ask first what it means to them.
Anyway, this professional woman took the day off work, so she's going out to her favourite coffee shop, to flirt with the much younger server who makes way less money than she does but is quite impressed with her job and intelligence, but not intimidated in the least.
catspajamas at July 28, 2008 10:46 AM
Ah, that's the best part of Mondays.. about 75% of the females don't show up & thatk God! Go ahead & just take the rest of the week off, will you? You just get in the way & lower company morale anyway. Thanks in advance.
Obama at July 28, 2008 11:20 AM
Geez, with all this screaming back and forth about how men and women don't need each other, why does this thread go on and on for pages?
We don't need each other, purely and simply. The point could be argued from now until the Judgement Trumpet blows, but honestly who cares?
Men: Stop trying to garner the approval of women. All that does is lower yourself to the status of beggar. Live your life exactly as you see fit, and to hell with the shaming language and "you're just bitter" invective. If being who you are and being happy with it aren't enough to attract a woman, she is doing you a favor, trust me.
Women: Stop trying to convert those who choose to be themselves. Forcing conversion upon the heathen leads to nothing but resentment. Just don't complain about how you aren't getting what you want in a mate, because nobody should have to live up to your standards. The shaming language does nothing but infuriate.
The world is full of defective and dysfunctional people. Statistically, there is evidence that there are more of these than of happy people, especially in the realm of marriage. Stop worrying already about your perceived slights and injuries, and just live your lives.
Curiepoint at July 28, 2008 12:42 PM
To anyone that has bothered to read this entire thread in it's entirety, I'd like to make a few succinct observations:
My original point was this - women in this thread have referred to the past history of American life and repeated the feminist mantra that women were oppressed and virtual slaves and victims throughout all of this countries history.
I merely pointed out that this was a myopic, inaccurate and distorted view of how the institution of marriage was based on the traditional Patriarchal arrangement.
This distorted view of the past, I contend, is directly attributed to the influence of the feminist extremist movement.
To put the "bad old days" in perspective, I referenced the fact that life wasn't so great for Men either - that most men worked in laborious and hazardous occupations to support the wife and kids at home. To say that housewives where nothing less than domestic slaves forced to endure horrible oppression without a thought as to how most men had it back then is the perfect demonstration of the "mindfuck" I commented about that has become the feminist zeitgeist.
As for lovelysoul, I've been a fan of Amy's column for at least 10 years or so that her column has been syndicated in our Weekly. And yes, I enjoy what she writes because she certainly does not parrot the mindless tropes of feminist dogma, and she is quick to point out stupidity to both men and women...unlike the totally feminized, all-men-are pigs attitude that pervades the typical advice columns in syndication.
For pointing these things out, women such as lovlysoul, katie, et al, have implied that I'm a loser, unsuitable for a relationship with women; that I hate women; as well as speculation that included "feeling sorry for my wife."
And yet, these women that have used these underhanded, speculative and insulting rhetorical cheap shots are the ones complaining about how this forum is being ruined?
Dave from Hawaii at July 28, 2008 1:46 PM
catspajamas:
No. The reason that the servers are nice to us is because they're paid to be.
It's not really fair to him for you to flirt, because if he doesn't find you attractive or interesting, he can't say so or he'll suffer (either in lower tips or in disipline).
I still think we've been invaded by trolls.
brian at July 28, 2008 3:08 PM
Dave, I don't know why you assume that my objection over you saying women weren't oppressed means that I gave "no thought" to how hard men's lives also were. I think it was extremely hard for both genders.
My dad has a diary (he loves collecting these) of one our ancestors who was a farmer at the turn of the century. It's not an emotional "Dear Diary" sort of thing but basically a day-to-day description of what he and the entire family did. The men were plowing fields, tending livestock, building barns, and the women were canning, cooking, churning butter, and sewing, and they were all tanning leather and making shoes and utilizing just about every resource they had to survive.
Every chapter or so, there's a brief reference to the doctor coming by and delivering a baby, then being paid with a pig or a cow.
It certainly wasn't easy for anybody. Childbirth alone wasn't as safe as it is now. Women frequently died - or their childen died in infancy or early childhood.
I feel deeply for those men, but as a woman, it is naturally easier for me to relate to the feminine side. And I know that in addition to life's inherent hardships, women were also expected to adhere to the wishes of the man.
Even when he was a benevolent, caring man - not abusive at all - he still maintained a subtle control over her. I know this even from watching my grandmother with my grandfather. She couldn't overtly disagree with him - or just go out and buy a new dress or a household item if she needed one without his permission - or even drive a car! He didn't "allow" that....so simply because it wasn't HIS preference, she was limited in her choices and freedoms. Her role, like most wives of that era (at least in the south) was all about pleasing him.
That, to me, is oppressive.
Men, like my grandfather, could still go out, drive into town whenever they felt the need, purchase what they needed, have a drink with their buddies at the local pub, and release some steam from their very hard lives. They were much more free in that sense, as well as having all the legal advantages that women did not.
Men could also choose not to marry and still have the ability to support themselves, yet an unmarried woman would usually have to rely on the support of fathers or brothers and face considerable social stigma. In the rural south, there weren't many women becoming successful clothing designers in those days. In fact, there still aren't. Life is about living off the land.
So, it's not a "feminist mindfuck" that makes me see the injustice of this scenario for women. Yet, I don't minimize the difficulties both males or females faced.
That is the difference in our commentaries. I'm trying to find some common ground with you without saying, "women weren't oppressed". But it seems like you need TOTAL agreement with your argument in order not to become insulting. That is what has ruined this discussion.
lovelysoul at July 28, 2008 3:36 PM
Well, I was more trying to poke a little fun at the 5 Rules of Human Behaviour posted earlier by Situation7 - not very effectively, apparently : ) Its really hard to convey sarcasm or humour via e-mail.
However, you do make a valid point, and I agree that in most server-customer relationships you have to be careful not to put the server in a difficult position. I should add that I've been a regular at this place since a bunch of neighbourhood twenty-somethings opened it several years ago. The whole place doesn't yell, "Norm!" when I come in, but they're are all well aware that I'm a good and consistent tipper regardless of the gender of the server or the flirtation level.
Trolls (sigh). Maybe we can all start off fresh with Wednesday's letter?
catspajamas at July 28, 2008 4:04 PM
lovelysoul, That was the first logic based response I've gotten from you or any other woman on this thread, without all of the cheap shots and baseless speculations on my social status, masculinity or personal life.
That is a rational (though there are points for which I would still disagree with you on.) response to the points I brought up.
Had you and katie and others relied on that means of debate, we would not have had this debacle of a "ruined" discussion.
That being said, I only want to add this: you describe the typical Patriarchal arrangement in your grandparents marriage.
Your grandmother married the man who she submitted to. This is nothing more than the principle characteristic of the female sex drive: hypergamy.
This is the perfect example of the feminist zeitgeist that purposefully denies this basic observation: Women will always seek to mate with the highest valued mate she can attract. Your grandmother submitted to what she viewed of as a dominant, superior mate.
And for this, you see horror. You see your Grandfather as being "abusive" and "controlling."
No, he was being dominant...and that is the very traits that attracted her to him in the first place, and what kept her married to him over all the years until he died. But you simply cannot see it that way, because the feminist indoctrination that permeates our culture renders you incapable of recognizing this.
Most women will not admit even unto themselves that they are highly sexually attracted to a male they perceive of being higher status than they are.
THAT is the exact manifestation of the feminist mind-fuck that I speak of.
Dave from Hawaii at July 28, 2008 4:09 PM
Feminism is elite social engineering designed to destroy gender identity, making women masculine and men feminine. Now courtship and monogamy are being replaced by sexual promiscuity.
The gesture of a man opening a door for a woman illustrates how men and women relate. We all know that a woman can open a door herself. But when a man does it, he is affirming her femininity, beauty and charm. When she graciously accepts, she is validating his masculine power. This trade, a woman surrendering physical power in exchange for a man's protection (i.e. love) is the essence of heterosexuality. In order to develop emotionally, men and women need this mutual validation as much as sex itself. Sex is an expression of this exclusive contract.
Under the toxic influence of feminism, women open their own doors. Neither sexual identity is validated; neither sex matures emotionally. Men feel redundant and impotent; women feel rejected and unloved.
Situation7 at July 28, 2008 4:51 PM
Dave...(sigh). First, can't you see that your comments are somewhat insensitive and condescending? The "first logic based response I got from you" doesn't exactly warm my heart.
But, anyway, thanks for trying. I do get that you're attempting to be nicer, which I appreciate.
You are wrong about my grandma though. I mean, she was like 14 or something when they met! She was extremely young and naive. I strongly doubt her marriage had much, if anything, to do with "sexual attraction" or "status." They were both very poor. It was more likely a religious and family-influenced match, as they met in church, and my grandma was a devoted southern baptist all her life.
I did not say he was "abusive"(perhaps you are confusing my grandma with my mother-in-law again). He was a nice man, but he was still oppressive of her freedoms - not allowing her to drive or shop or go almost anywhere without his presence and approval.
If you want to call it "dominance" rather than "subtle control", as I did, go ahead, but it's really the same thing. Control is a form of oppression. How would you have liked not ever being "allowed" to drive a car?
My grandma died at 99 (long after he did) and she always had to depend on the kindness of other people to drive her places - to church, the grocery store, etc. She never complained, but I was saddened by her helplessness and dependence. She had such a wonderful spirit - loved talking to new people and visiting new places - and I think if her world had been broader, if my grandpa had "allowed" her greater freedoms throught their life together, she could've accomplished many wonderful things.
Yet, he wasn't particularly loving or romantic or concerned with her best interests. She did not stay married because he was so wildly attractive. She stayed married because it's what was expected then, particularly of women.
Even after he went senile for 10-15 years and was ultimately placed in a nursing home, she dutifully visited and cared for him, even as he cursed at her or didn't even know who she was anymore.
She told me once that she had thought about leaving him once when he was unfaithful, but it just was never done in her world. It was DUTY, not attraction, that held those marriages together.
Can you not show any empathy for her situation? I've agreed with you about the difficulty of men's lives, so it would be nice if you could try to find a little compassion for what she endured.
lovelysoul at July 28, 2008 5:01 PM
You know, everyone is obsessed with that word 'misogynist' as if if has some deep meaning (which it doesn't- just says hates women in the dictionary) but of course if you 'hate' women that would imply there is suppossedly something wrong with you. I don't wmen as a gender anyway- most of the females in the world still know social boundries and know how bhave like humans (men are the only ones who adhere to the values our gand parents did and this is the very reason women mock U.S. men today). I like poeple who are... likeable- U.S. women are no longer likeable. I don't like the smell of dirty socks either- this doesn't mean something is wrong with ME.
Obama at July 28, 2008 6:32 PM
lol, hey dave. where did you get the impression that i thought you were a loser. I could have sworn I agreed with you on several points, Maybe you thought that was sarcasm, it wasnt.
I do disagree with yours and lovelysouls idea that you have to be rich and own things to be able to vote, it reeks of white supremist thinking and i think you are a dead set tosser for thinking it, Paying tax IS a contribution to society.
You cant have a strong economy without lots of peasants doing all the work and paying all the bills.
As has already been pointed out about Amy, is that she is known for making fair comment on women and men, it was a woman who pointed me to this column. It is fairly rare in a woman to actually be fair so she gets respect from some men for that.
If everyone was to agree on here LS it would not be interesting and funny, it would be boring. I know you hate criticism, but i love it. I am not here as you are to validate my thinking I am here to challenge it. This has not degenerated into total mindlessness it is one of the most successful threads there have been, even if in size alone.
If you want to have polite agreement on everything, go and have coffee mornings with your many friends. Or am I right in believing you are a very alone, sad woman sitting in front of your computer making up your ideal life to help you feel better. Obamas 'fake and flake' springs to mind everytime I read you. And where did i say your were a bad mother, maybe that is just a bit of guilty truth leaking out of your subconsious because I never said it or thought it
Al at July 28, 2008 7:41 PM
"You mentioned earlier that I should discuss what I disagree with - point taken, and I think you and I have been having some discussion (with no input from Obama). Now you're suggesting I ignore him?"
Well yes, if he really bothers you that much, and you are sure he is an idiot, why bother? Some people are not worth trying to discuss things with...you have to deal with people on a case-by-case basis, no? :-)
crella at July 28, 2008 8:23 PM
"Misogynist: a man who hates women as much as women hate one another."
Obama at July 29, 2008 3:13 AM
Al, I don't mind differences of opinion - on issues - but making personal low shots is mean, though we've all done it in times when we're really passionate. Yet you, and a few others, seem to do it for no real reason at all, which is even worse. I've noticed you've kept saying things like that about me, so I guess I must address it.
I work on my laptop almost all day. That's how I sell my vacation rentals, pay bills, etc. I've never gotten into these sorts of debates, and I must admit, this does become rather addictive. I should be doing other things, but it's so easy to refresh the page and see what strange comments there are. I fear, if I stay here much longer, I may ultimately have no friends or much of a life left...but a few weeks ago, I did! :-)
And I'll be happy to post a photo of my boyfriend and me, taken at my resort, if you'd like to see it. I tried the other day, but this doesn't seem to allow photos. If you know how I can share it with the group, let me know. But I can back up everything I've written about my life here. Can you?
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 6:32 AM
I''d like to address the comments Obama and Dave have made about this idea of women desiring dominance and status.
I will admit that, when I was very young, I was attracted by those two things, which is why I ended up marrying a wealthy, dominant man. But, let me tell you, after a brief while of experiencing his dominant behavior, I lost almost all physical attraction for him.
I was amazed at how quick it went, really, which left me stuck in a marriage with someone I really didn't enjoy even touching, although there was nothing physically wrong with him - or his lovemaking. He was very attractive superficially, but his total dominance was, in fact, a turn-off.
I agree there's probably some evolutionarily programmed pull for women to find men who are dominant, or else, more likely, we get dominance and masculinity CONFUSED...which I think men do as well.
After I became single again, I decided I would not look for "status". I didn't care how much money a guy made. I've learned that doesn't make you either safe or happy. I was looking only at the quality of the person.
My boyfriend now is a big, strapping guy - 6'2, 210, muscular. That, to me, is very attractive and masculine. Yet, he doesn't dominate or try to control me. He is, in fact, secure enough in his masculinity that he doesn't need to "prove" it by doing things like that. He is a gentle, loving protector.
So, men can be masculine - real men - without having to dominate or control a woman. There are probably some S&M chicks who love to be dominated, but for the rest of us, it is unappealing.
Yet, masculinity - everything that makes you physically different from us - is, and hopefully always will be, attractive.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 7:04 AM
Btw, Al, you said, "Men like Obama must've had a mother like you"...that's just unecessary.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 9:37 AM
WOW! So this means women are suddenly going to fall in my lap? HA! Try being a man sometime- get back to me & let me now how it goes, until then what would you know about being a 'real' man or any man for that matter. The sheer arrogance of your thinking you know anything about it is stupid enough as it is. Not to mention that what women say & what women do have nothing in common. I have reached the conclusion some years back that if I am not interested in a woman sexually, I have no reason to ever speak to her- what could I possibly ever learn? How to be deceitful, dishonest, with a sense of entitlement that, even if I were as amoral as a woman to learn, wouldn't even be work for me as a man?
Women make me feel dead and empty inside because I actually understand them now that I'm older and more experienced - almost 50. When I come into contact with most females today I go out of my way to make them feel just as dead and empty as they make me feel. Men hate women who don't understand them, women hate men who DO understand them.
Obama at July 29, 2008 9:43 AM
Well, I'm sorry you've had so many bad experiences. I don't pretend to know what it's like to be a man. I'm sure it's very hard and frustrating, and it's easy to become bitter if you've been mistreated. But most of us, male and female, have been mistreated, and we keep plugging away rather than trying to hurt others or make them feel "dead and empty." Being so full of hate is no way to live, Obama.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 9:52 AM
LS: While I agree with most fo your points on this thread I's like to point out that "After I became single again, I decided I would not look for "status". I didn't care how much money a guy made." is governed by you being an independently successful women. That would be precisely what you so throughly hated in me expecting of my wife.
As far as the actions of the past. Never saw any of this shit personally. My dad's parents were quite independent of each other very happy paid the bills jointly and the remaining money was pooled for fun shit. They vacationed all over the world regularly. Grandma drove to work every day grandpa took the train due to a combat injury that made driving dangerous. They made the decision jointly. My mother parents were pretty much the same way.
Situation7: If your using specific numbers you really should have some stats to back it up. As far as I can see while you maybe correct for your local area it's not representative of the US and sure as shit isn't representative of the world. Most of the successful men I know won't touch a women unless she's career oriented, though not to the exclusion of family.
The main issue here is that we are all from geographically different locations. IE: Trailer parks in the north east are for the destitute (section 7 housing) while in Florida it's more for the working class. If you are from the south where it is expected for you to be a wife and mother there is nothing wrong with doing so but if you from a career oriented community from the north east you're gone get looked at funny if you waste a Masters degree and become a permanent house wife, or my favorite an LLM.
Obama: If you think your daughter is a skank then you may actually correct but you are deffinatly at fault for it.
vlad at July 29, 2008 11:18 AM
HA! That's funny- 'mistreated' terms like a child would think in. You're talking about a different subject.
I'm talking about the very nature of females themselves that I observe even from a distance when I'm not involved and have been for decades. Once upon a time U.S. females used to be tolerable because society required good behavior from them, so the good outweighed the bad-not any more- now it's bad and then it never stops getting worse.
It's not hate- it's 'dead and empty,' and it doesn't ahve anything to do with me personally other than the fact I am not naive, and there's nothing worse than living your life naive, and most men are naive, I know I used to be just like them. A woman's entire dog and pony act cannot even work without the naive trust of them by men.
Obama at July 29, 2008 12:01 PM
"Obama: If you think your daughter is a skank then you may actually correct but you are deffinatly at fault for it."
Just one more of the endless list- men are always and to blame whether they are not. I was warm and loving all through her childhood and then into her teenage years.
No, the reason she is this way is because women today have no social constraints (becasue of feminism) and have a license to be as shitty of people as possible with no accountability to anyone or anything. She is no different than the vast, vast majority of them today. Feminism hasn't improved women, it has dehumanized them.
Obama at July 29, 2008 12:13 PM
Obama ~~ If we all let you have the last word will you PLEASE go away ???!!!
Pussnboots at July 29, 2008 12:15 PM
Sorry "LS: While I agree with most fo your points" should read "I agree with some of your points"
vlad at July 29, 2008 12:15 PM
"I was warm and loving all through her childhood and then into her teenage years." Are you going to tell me that you were all pro women (naive to use your term) and then all of a sudden discovered that all women hollow vindictive creatures when she became a teen?
"No, the reason she is this way is because women today have no social constraints (becasue of feminism) and have a license to be as shitty of people as possible with no accountability to anyone or anything." So to paraphrase "I did everything right and society turned my daughter into a skank." Wouldn't this be that same self serving cop out you so merrily accuse women of doing.
The problems in our society are part due to a rapidly shifting world and partly self serving stupidity. Both genders have directly contributed to this. Giving women the right to vote was like all legal action a double edged sword. On one hand you brought in a great many house wives with no grasp on reality but you also brought in women who did not want to be house wives, positive non submissive female role models. All legal changes are double edged swords that screw one group but help a different one. Once they got the right to vote we as men were no longer responsible for their mistakes. This also helped because the nasty self serving man hater did not have to beguile some good natured idiot to become successful.
vlad at July 29, 2008 12:29 PM
"Are you going to tell me that you were all pro women (naive to use your term) and then all of a sudden discovered that all women hollow vindictive creatures when she became a teen?
I loved my daughter because she was my flesh and blood and I hoped she would be different and I could make that difference. I was wrong.
"Wouldn't this be that same self serving cop out you so merrily accuse women of doing."
No, it's an entirely different set of circumstances. You're confusing yourself.
"This also helped because the nasty self serving man hater did not have to beguile some good natured idiot to become successful."
This is where you are naive again. 'Successful' women are always a fraud because they can get nowhere without riding the coat tails of man one way or another. Can you say Hillary Clinton?
It's going to take so much more than me to educate you- it's all very complex and you're best experience is going to be life + A LOT of reading.
Obama at July 29, 2008 12:44 PM
Obama, I'm just curious, are you single, dating, married? I don't want to assume anything about your situation, but with your view of women, I would imagine you want nothing at all to do with them.
I agree with ls, no matter what has happened in your life, the bitterness is hurting you more than any of the women in your life. If women bother you so much, and you can't move past the anger, maybe you should join a monastary (one with all men), or move to Saudi Arabia, and perhaps find some peace.
Some women that have lived through abuse at the hands of men join a monastary (with nuns).
Chrissy at July 29, 2008 1:11 PM
Vlad, I appreciate your views too. You always have a unique slant on things. Even when we disagree, we can still have a lively debate without getting ugly.
And you've made some great points about how geography effects our perspectives, and the gender roles expected of us. My southern background probably encouraged more submissiveness and homemaker-type values than many of my northeastern contemporaries.
I also agree with what you just said. This is like a pendulum swinging - with one gender now feeling more disenfranchised than the other, yet before it was completely reversed. Positive social change can't happen otherwise. The pendulum tends to swing too far in one direction before finally settling back to the middle.
Feminism didn't "dehumanize" all women. There are some who are indeed despicable, just like some men. But to say ALL women have no feelings - no love or compassion or redeeming values - is so wrong. Just as it would be wrong for us to say that about ALL men.
To me, it seems that some men are just very angry and frustrated at having to work harder to get what was once much easier for them to acquire - a wife, a girlfriend, or maybe just a good lay. To be crude, I've heard some men express how mad they are that women control "all the p--sy," like it should be theirs to control.
Yet, now, they actually have to work to earn a woman's respect or love, and even then, she may not choose to give it to them...or she may choose to take it away. She's not just going to "submit to their dominance" anymore, or be a "good girl" because society demands that. Her choices are much broader than the limited ones my grandmother knew. Now, she can be as rotten or as kind as any man can be.
This leaves some men feeling very lost. They don't know what role to play anymore, or what the new rules are, or how to successfully relate to women (other than to make them feel "dead and empty"?). So, they blame it on us - the whole entire population of women - rather than their own inability to adapt to change.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 1:12 PM
"'Successful' women are always a fraud because they can get nowhere without riding the coat tails of man one way or another." I know plenty of lawyers and doctors that would disagree quite strongly.
"it's all very complex and you're best experience is going to be life + A LOT of reading." Hey yoda I'm not 15 years old. While not close 50 my old dad is way past it and he's of the same opinion as I am. Being a mooch is a learned behavior.
"Can you say Hillary Clinton?" Your holding up Hillary as an example? Did I miss her winning the democratic vote or something. Yeah she did try to do so and failed. BTW most successful men do the same thing. Look at George W. II.
"No, it's an entirely different set of circumstances. You're confusing yourself." How is no it's not my fault society screwed me a different set of circumstances?
vlad at July 29, 2008 1:12 PM
"Feminism didn't "dehumanize" all women." It did not do shit to be honest. I know plenty of women who were either per feminism or from a different country. There were man hater way before feminism and there were also narsastic dick heads (the term comes from ancient Greek). There were also single moms (WWI WWII etc.).
The only thing that I see feminism did was make it more socially acceptable. So single mom's don't hide their faces in shame (single moms should not have to hide in shame). Willingly becoming a single mom was also around way before American feminism. Amazonian are just one example. People would still fuck like bunnies but only when no one was looking. Prmiscouse people would still get busy just wouldn't brag about it.
Divorce rates are up yes but how much of that is feminism (even the militaristic version) and how much can be traced back to an increase in self serving concepts and behaviors not tied to feminism. BTW ALL of my mother friends from the old soviet union are divorced and feminism never got there in the same way it is here.
Marriage rates are also down but that looks like it's predominantly in the lower income sector. CNN had a story a while back (that the boosted from some other source) about the rise in stable married with children homes among the college educated. College is where the radical feminists hang out, the ones that actually do want us (men) castrated or simply exterminated. Picture pink daleks with boobs.
vlad at July 29, 2008 1:29 PM
Read the abstract here and you'll see what i mean.
http://tiny.cc/EKXQQ
vlad at July 29, 2008 1:36 PM
vlad, once again, very interesting take on things.
I suspect there were single moms in WWI and WW2 mostly because their husbands were killed. I don't think it was ever unacceptable to be a widowed single mom, but to make the choice to be was certainly stigmatized in this country, at least until the 60s...not the Amazon; they've never had the same social or family structures we have, so that's not a fair comparison.
But I do find it interesting about the Soviet Union. Eastern block women are tough in general. The few who've worked for me have been tough as nails, whether they were raised with feminism or not. The American male doesn't know how lucky he has it until he takes on some of those women! A friend of mine married a model-type from Hungary, and I thought she was going to eat him alive! lol
And my sense is that younger, college-educated couples are trying to keep their families more intact and avoid the divorces they witnessed in their parent's generations.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 1:47 PM
Some good books to start getting yourself educated on what trainwrecks in decay U.S. women have become are (and all of these cite endless hard sources):
1. The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female by Nancy Levant
2. The Politically Incorrect Guide
to Women, Sex and Feminism By Carrie Lukas
(this is one of the most popular ones)
3. Cruel Hoax by Henry Makow, Ph.D.
There are more, but even so, all you really need to do is look around you. Pull your head out of the TV- turn it off. It's making you brainwashed and dumbed down- and modern education and political correctness- all brainwashing disinformation that give you a distorted view of reality.
Plus a lot of you may be unaware of this, but the net is EXPLODING right now with countless blogs and websites by men (and even women) who are completely disgusted and sickened with how western women have become- in England/Europe and the U.S.- not to mention the family court system.
Obama at July 29, 2008 1:48 PM
"Yet, now, they actually have to work to earn a woman's respect or love, and even then," Actually even back then men had to do that. They had to earn the respect of her parents in order to get them to approve the wedding. Yes it was easier in some ways and harder in other.
Convincing a well educated well meaning father with a hot daughter that you were a good match was a hell of a lot harder than convincing some dippy teenager that you love her.
Also I suspect (just a logical conclusion) that women were slightly more plentifully than men in dangerous job communities (mining towns). As you were more likely to die in the dangerous job when you start it than when you have some experince. New miners had to wait for the canary to die the old hats often knew when to get out before the bird died. This would be my experince as a commercial diver. The older guys could usually tell safe from un safe long before the surveys came back.
vlad at July 29, 2008 1:49 PM
"Convincing a well educated well meaning father with a hot daughter that you were a good match was a hell of a lot harder than convincing some dippy teenager that you love her."...roflol
lovleysoul at July 29, 2008 2:00 PM
"Amazon; they've never had the same social or family structures we have" We don't have the same social structure we had in the 50's. Different social structure would not invalidate my point. It was obviously around before feminism. Also in the old soviet block during WWII it was not looked down on because it was the norm. Look up the casualty rate from the eastern front and your see why. Include not only the combat loses but Stalins purges and ethnic cleansing by all sides.
"It's making you brainwashed and dumbed down- and modern education and political correctness- all brainwashing disinformation that give you a distorted view of reality." Actually the one thing that really opened my eyes to ice hearted militant feminists would be taking a master level womens studies class. There were only 3 or 4 women in a class of about 25 that actually follow the stereo type of the feminist, one was in her 50's and no it wasn't the teacher. The other female students though they were bat shit crazy.
Book list? Shit give me some time and I'll make you a book list that will prove what ever the hell you want. Earth is flat, Sky deity created the earth in 7 days, Moon landing was a hoax, 911 was an inside job, vaccines are part of an Illuminati conspiracy to wipe out the poor; just let me know which you would like. The last one I know has books available from Amazon.
vlad at July 29, 2008 2:03 PM
"The only thing that I see feminism did was make it more socially acceptable..."
... to be a flake and and skank and a retched person from Hell. Thank you. But if you don't think that's a 'big deal,' than you and I do not share any of the same values & I would never associate with you.
"...about the rise in stable married with children homes among the college educated."
Those 'marriages' are not going to to last. Maybe you haven't heard about the 50% divorce rate (and rising). Why? U.S. women are not marriage material. They best they are in a domestic situation are roommates with a bad attitude (and even that's if you're lucky) with the court system insanely backing them all the way.
Obama at July 29, 2008 2:07 PM
Obama, I haven't read those books, but I can make a wild guess that they're basically about many of the social problems - single parenting, the breakdown of the family, etc -and how feminism hasn't exactly led to better or easier lives for women.
That may all be true, but there's a huge leap between that and returning to the past. You can easily argue that ending slavery created the same social problems. Many blacks have worse lives today than when they were "cared for" by a master.
But most blacks don't want to go back to being slaves, and most women don't want to go back to the patriarchal system.
I mean, I could go live on that bigamist compound in Texas with some benevolent husband, and I'd have other wives to help raise my kids and get at least three-square meals a day...fresh, homemade cooking too...that's always an option for me or any woman. But I wouldn't want that kind of life, even if it was technically "easier". I'd live in a slum before giving up my freedoms like that! And I daresay most other women would agree.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 2:15 PM
"..Moon landing was a hoax, 911 was an inside job, vaccines are part of an Illuminati conspiracy to wipe out the poor.."
You don't even need books for that- just listen to Alex Jones or Coast to Coast AM- which I get the impression you must. Yes those are crackpot ideas for kooks. The problem with U.S. women you can see ever day all around you, & these books help to explain what you are seeing.
Obama at July 29, 2008 2:15 PM
"I do not share any of the same values & I would never associate with you." Thanks you just made my day. But that aside it did not make these people "a flake and and skank and a retched person from Hell." Just like the clean needle program did not increase the number of drug addicts. Just like making alcohol illegal didn't do shit for curbing alcoholism. These people were always there they just hid it better. Since they hid it better there's no way of knowing one way or the other if feminism increased the prevalence not just observability. Flappers were around before feminism and so were prostitutes.
vlad at July 29, 2008 2:16 PM
"The problem with U.S. women you can see ever day all around you, & these books help to explain what you are seeing." It's not a question of seeing it's a matter of interpretation and bias. Same shit as you get from the truther idiots.
"which I get the impression you must." Your the one that knows who they are and what stations play them.
vlad at July 29, 2008 2:22 PM
Yes, vlad, but single womnen could basically only BE flappers or prostitutes then...not doctors or pilots or lawyers, like your mom.
What Obama is saying is that it was better when women were forced by society to be "nicer" to men. He longs for the time when we were more afraid to speak our minds. He thinks that means we were "good" then...and we're "bad" now...wretched skanks from hell, in fact. Even his own daughter, which is unbelievably sick for a father to say.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 2:28 PM
"..and how feminism hasn't exactly led to better or easier lives for women."
How about for everyone and for the whole of society? Yes Carrie Lucas discusses how feminism is not even in the best interest of women. Being a dumbed down, abortion happy, STD spreading skank and a flake may have not have been the original goal of Feminism, but this is what it now means. It didn't work out-it was a failure- give it up.
Being a decent person as a woman is a far cry from a cult or slavery. You're going way out on a limb there to paint the way society existed and flourished for thousands of years
as some kind of lunatic fring & you know & I know you're full of it. Why is it so hard for you to be accountable for your actions and to answer to someone? Why? Because is it so hard for you to be a decent person? Yes, I sometimes get the impression that women would rather cut off their right arm than to be held accountable for what they do wrong.
Sorry, but this is the very reason you need to listen to a man and do what he says every day of your life.
Obama at July 29, 2008 2:30 PM
"Just like the clean needle program did not increase the number of drug addicts. Just like making alcohol illegal didn't do shit for curbing alcoholism. These people were always there they just hid it better."
You just put the modern female's behavior on the same level as drug addiction or alcoholism. Thank you. :)
Obama at July 29, 2008 2:35 PM
I'll do it, if you'll do it....because I think you're in need of becoming a much better person too. Go ahead, pick the MAN and we'll BOTH do whatever he says all day long...
You wouldn't do that, would you? Yet, you're enough of a despicable asshole that you expect a woman to do it.
If anybody needs to become a better person it's you. So full of anger and hate for an entire group of people...even calling your daughter names like that! You honestly think you're a good person?
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 2:36 PM
"women were forced by society to be "nicer" to men.
You seem to have a problem with society. Prefer living in a cave do you?
"He longs for the time when we were more afraid to speak our minds."
And we've all heard what you've had to say- and it doesn't add up to much. We've heard enough.
"He thinks that means we were "good" then...and we're "bad" now...wretched skanks from hell, in fact."
Being more well behaved usually does require some threat of punishment doesn't it? I don't know, say like going to jail for commiting a crime?
"Even his own daughter, which is unbelievably sick for a father to say."
Let me help you out, you poor, confused one. The way my daughter is, that is sick. The fact I talk about is called the truth.
Don't worry, all of this isn't going to matter too much longer- better party up ladies, living like subhumans- cause the party's soon going to be ending for a number of reasons.
Obama at July 29, 2008 2:44 PM
"I'll do it, if you'll do it....because I think you're in need of becoming a much better person too. Go ahead, pick the MAN and we'll BOTH do whatever he says all day long..."
I already do listen to a man. It's me. I'm a man. YOU are the woman.
"You wouldn't do that, would you? Yet, you're enough of a despicable asshole that you expect a woman to do it."
I can tell you're going to need a lot of re-education.
"If anybody needs to become a better person it's you. So full of anger and hate for an entire group of people...even calling your daughter names like that! You honestly think you're a good person?"
I didn't make my daughter a fake, a flake and a skank. Moral judgement is not something you are even capable of as a woman. Women have no moral compass. One more reason they need to be told what to do.
Society needs a structure, without it we get abominations like you or my daughter, the cites turn to ghettos, we get crappy, corrupt leaders and the economy collapses. Ironically, once that happens, the only 'freedoms' you'll have left are to scrounge in a dumpster. "I am woman, hear me dumpster dive."
Obama at July 29, 2008 2:58 PM
vlad: "Actually the one thing that really opened my eyes to ice hearted militant feminists would be taking a master level womens studies class. There were only 3 or 4 women in a class of about 25 that actually follow the stereo type of the feminist ... " That's a good point. Hard-line feminists tend to be in the minority but, like radicals in all walks of life they tend to be the most vocal, and cause the most dissent. Their greater visibility has the effect of making them seem to wield more influence than they actually do. Its the fringe elements that make the most noise that get noticed - they get heard from a lot while the majority of us are just going about our business.
Obama's starting to remind me of someone else who used to post on here a lot, who was replaced by someone else. Is it possible they're all the same person???
Anyway, he's clearly upset about what he perceives as the state of the female gender today. Depending on his own experiences he may well have the right to be upset, but I think its oversimplification to blame one thing (feminism) for all the problems he perceives. His daughter's problems are likely the result of a number of influences too complicated to measure accurately: "skank" culture (courtesy of Birtney and Paris "et al", Entertainment Tonight, and the like; some nature; some nurture, or lack thereof; peer pressure; the economy; the culture of entitlement ... and the list goes on. Does feminism have some influence on all these things? Sure. But to pick one thing out of the mix and blame it for all ills - not logical, and not supported.
The world's a scary place in all kinds of ways, and there's a lot to be angry and scared about. When that happens there's a natural tendency to find one boogeyman to blame for all your problems (the 'f' word!!!) but the world, and people, are way more complicated than that.
catspajamas at July 29, 2008 3:04 PM
catspajamas,
What you're grappling with is that Feminism was the major societal shift- the Earthquake that set off the domino effect of everything else- all the rest of the societal problems we suffer from today. Men haven't really changed all that much.
There is an anthropologist that I read named Richard Lax, who was explaining how this continent is going to be taken over (and is just beginning the early stages) in 50 years by any and all cultures who believe in traditional family values with men as the leader of the family.
Even if you're a hardcore femarroid you cannot deny that the human race cannot function like this- white America is dying - birth rates down, abortions- in Europe it's even worse. It may very well be why the government is so lenient on illegal immigration- Hell can you really blame the Mexicans or the Asians, middle Easterners, etc. for not wanting to 'assimilate' to U.S. culture when they see what diseased, dumbed down, miserable abominations American women are everyday all around them?
If Feminism somehow demonstrated that it worked it at least somehow worked in at least one strong way it might be different- but it doesn't even work for women's own selfish agendas Ameican women are miserable and refuse to admit it- but you can see it in theri body language and in their eyes and a lot of them living in poverty- alone with children. Feminism was also a very elitist concept as well. It was only designed for a tiny minority of belligerent white college educated women anyway- but even with it's very best examples of 'success'- can you say Hillary? It still doesn't really even work with this tiny, tiny 2-3% of women, while the rest of the population suffers a huge, huge cost.
Obama at July 29, 2008 3:31 PM
Amen, catspajamas. You're always the calm voice of reason here. Anybody, male or female, who would villify an ENTIRE group of people is sick. I mean, the nazis had lots of what they felt were "valid" reasons for doing that too, but it doesn't make it right.
Obama doesn't know every woman in this country. In fact, I doubt he truly knows many at all, certainly few or none as friends. Yet, he somehow feels qualified to judge every single one of us - even his own flesh and blood - as worthless.
That was precisely the sort of mentality the nazis had, which is scary - not only for his total lack of a "moral compass," but that he fails to see how he's the most immoral and emotionally bankrupt person here. If he ever truly cared for his daughter, he would STILL be trying to form a bond with her, but it sounds like he's written her off too...along with every other female in the human race.
Of course, if I had a father who hates my ENTIRE GENDER with such a passion - who thinks HE is the only judge or jury - I think I'd want to be as far away from him as possible. I can't imagine what bigoted rants that poor girl grew up listening to...omg! To have to listen to his type of "education" for years? It's amazing she's functioning well enough to be a "skank." What a survivor she must be!
Lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 3:42 PM
O, I have to say this is the most literate post from you so far. I see organized paragraphs and, in some spots, actual sentence structure, even a stab at making up a new word (should have been femarrhoid, by the way). Good for you!
You're still completely full of crap, but ... baby steps.
catspajamas at July 29, 2008 3:44 PM
"I can't imagine what bigoted rants that poor girl grew up listening to...omg! To have to listen to his type of "education" for years? It's amazing she's functioning well enough to be a "skank." What a survivor she must be!"
Ha! Leave pyschoanalysis to the experts, Freud. I didn't raise my daughter telling her how women were skanks or anything else negative. It's been quite a while since she's lived with me- almost ten years. Most of my education on all of this has happened well since then.
I've known a lot of women- countless gf's, hundreds of female co-workers, a wife, on and on and on- it's the opposite- because of so much exposure to women over the years I have been able to study them, plus much reading. Women have a 'hive' mentality as well. So I don't even need to know you to get the picture. Men are the more rugged individual types that are much harder to pigeon hole. What you need is less education in Feminism and an education in heterosexuality.
Obama at July 29, 2008 3:55 PM
'O, I have to say this is the most literate post from you so far. I see organized paragraphs and, in some spots, actual sentence structure, even a stab at making up a new word (should have been femarrhoid, by the way). Good for you!
You're still completely full of crap, but ... baby steps."
Ha! This is a comment section on a blog, not the place for essays, so my lack of effort in grammer is appropriate for the forum- all of which of course has nothing to do with the concepts we are discussing- nice try at ad hominem. By the way, I'll spell words I make up any way I please. Make up your own word.
Obama at July 29, 2008 4:01 PM
" - all of which of course has nothing to do with the concepts we are discussing- "
Poor boy, you're not discussing concepts. You're just ranting and blaming. You haven't for a second considered any of the ideas anyone else has put forth, and when asked direct questions by other posters you don't answer.
Here's a question: why do you call yourself Obama? Really, I want to know. I don't know the guy at all but I'm surprised that he's someone you'd reference. Enlighten me.
catspajamas at July 29, 2008 4:28 PM
Obama, you're supposed to be the role model - of love and compassion, not hate. Maybe you kept your anti-female verbiage down, but kids know when their parents are bigots. They hear what you DON'T say, as much as what you do say.
And it's bad enough if a parent is bigoted against a separate segment of society, but to hate the very gender that includes your child? You don't have that right!
You can be the biggest bigoted ass in the world unless you have a child, but after that, you owe it to her to find positive qualities in her gender that she can look up to. Maybe you swallowed your hateful words, but I doubt you pointed out any females to admire, since you don't know any that "impress you", except "strippers and cheerleaders". Then, you wonder why she became a "skank"????!
You're supposed to show her how men should treat her. What did you say? "When you grow up, find a man and listen to what he tells you to do every day of your life!" Nice.
Even now, can she come to you for compassionate support, especially when you hate her ENTIRE gender, which you've admitted even includes HER? How does that conversation go?
"Dad, I have a problem..."
"Well, I've been reading and I've learned that all US women are evil skanks from hell...and so are you!"
"Uh, thanks dad, for those words of wisdom. I think I'll go now."
You're the one who needs "educating," especially on what it means to be a good father. Why don't you focus less on judging women, and every way we've "failed society", and focus on how YOU'VE failed your child.
It's laughable that you think you can judge us for all that's wrong with the world today, yet you can't even be the kind of man your daughter can look up to!
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 4:52 PM
I must just say that in spite of some serious over-generalisations and a few fallacies here and there, Obama does have *some* valid and even important points. It's not the best idea to dismiss points out of hand just because they're exaggerated or presented by someone that comes across, um, a tad abrasive, though it's understandably natural to want to do so.
Obama> "This is where you are naive again. 'Successful' women are always a fraud because they can get nowhere without riding the coat tails of man one way or another."
Best to avoid words like "never", it makes it too easy to debunk the entire statement presenting a few counter-examples (very easy), and then losing what might've been some elements of truth in the generalised case (though I'd like to see evidence, or even better, everyday examples than H Clinton - admittedly I know many women who are successful due to their own hard work and smarts, but this could be "selection bias" - they're the kind of women I'm most likely to associate with).
Obama> "Why is it so hard for you to be accountable for your actions and to answer to someone? Why? Because is it so hard for you to be a decent person?"
You're seemingly speaking mostly to LS, who as far as I can tell is by far a decent person (if you pay attention). What kind of things are you talking about?
I get where you're coming from though, Obama, because I also often observe the many hypocritical and selfish (and dumb) ways in which many women do behave - and I get your point on this being mere rational observation, not necessarily personal bitterness (or rather, that this does actually exist as an objective phenomenon INDEPENDENT OF whether or not I am bitter). Though I do get the feeling at least one or two women here have trashed Obama just because they don't like to hear what he's saying (e.g. the unconstructive "If we all let you have the last word will you PLEASE go away" comment, which if you analyze it, is an example of ego-driven assertion of presumed higher status, pandering to the herd to corroborate said status by defining another target as low-status).
Anyway, from my own experience, I don't think either men or women are on average more or less "decent" than the other --- but I do think men are generally more 'honest' and open about what they are and think than women, so for women there is this additional level of hypocrisy which seems to make it worse. And yes, in the older days there were probably fewer avenues for women who happened to have lousy personalities to express their true nature, because so many were not financially independent - I mean this is only logical - consider, most people are not nice to their bosses because they really love their bosses, but because they need the job to earn income (and the reference if they change jobs) - I've heard so many people say that if only they won the lottery they'd tell their bosses to "F off". It seems logical that financial dependence could keep bad behaviour in check. I've seen people - men and women - become FAR more horrible people the more power they attained. The true test of a man's character, as they say, is to give him not adversity but power.
I came across this in a (rather vapid woman's) blog today and it sums up much of what irritates me about female behaviour today:
"We started off with a cocktail each and wee catch up... of course. Drink it All Mandy has crazy new cling-on who has decided after one week on dating that he LOOOVEESSA her, worships the ground she walks on and wants to be her boyfriend now. She started off with some subtle sms’ saying – "Hmm fab – how about we just take it easy” had the a sit down and said I like you but what’s with the crazy cling on stuff... well that didn’t go off well. He’s gone from love crazy clingon to single white male in a week... Now the sms’s read more like.”Back off you physco or I’ll put the cops on you.” Luckily Mandy’s got some mean cop friends that’s on standby."
This type of behaviour and talk is very common (there was a LW on this column a few weeks back who did something similar). Do you think this woman REALLY believes this person is so dangerous they need the POLICE? No, I don't think so. What they're actually doing is simply what used to be called "bullying" - they're just finding somebody to be the trampled-guy, and trampling on him, and the only reason to do this, is to express their believed high status.
Men want looks, women want status. What's changed here is that in the old days women used to find a man to get status, while nowadays women try to TRASH a man in order to assert their supposed higher status. It makes them feel that they've attained status because they get to feel they are above the man that used to represent status. But the irony is that they're not truly emancipated - they are still unwittingly defining their status relative to males (and backing it up, again ironically, with the need of strong alpha-type males i.e. cops as their physical defence).
And they say only men have egos. The female ego has been unleashed, and it's far worse :/
What I find hypocritical is not admitting the true nature of their own behaviour. If you're a horrible person who wants to bully some guy, just call yourself a horrible person who wants to bully some guy, don't pretend it's something sophisticated!? What's with pretending a guy is a deranged stalker simply for liking a woman? Why is this so common? You'd think deranged stalkers were falling out of every tree. Perfectly decent men are being treated like deranged freaks on a large scale by entitled princesses.
I wonder what kind of men these types of women eventually end up with, if any. I mean, that act is only 'cute' when you're young and attractive.
I have a female friend who always seems to have somebody or another trying to chat her up and bothering her on her cellphone, and she always makes out to be so irritated by, you know, yet another loser who wants to get into her pants. Yet somehow these kinds of guys keep getting her phone number. Good for the ego to subtly string 'em along a bit, I suppose.
I think I'm cottoning onto what LS says though, that one should not focus on these but try seek out the decent females who are intelligent enough to 'get it' too ... they do exist ... otherwise I can see myself indeed becoming bitter. Yes it is more difficult to find such women ... because they seem to be like needles in an ever-messier haystack. And nowadays if you even express that you like a woman you get treated like a freak, quite frankly I sometimes wonder if it's even worth all the hassle. I suppose I should get out more though, but usually going out results in meeting more of the same vapid clones.
Obama> "... this continent is going to be taken over (and is just beginning the early stages) in 50 years by any and all cultures who believe in traditional family values with men as the leader of the family"
This I agree to a large extent is happening, in fact, if you look at the demographic trends, but disagree a little about the causes. By current trends, in just 42 years whites will be a minority in the USA (fact), but if you look at the groups with the largest population trajectory - Hispanics - they too have high rates of single-parent families (and it's mostly single moms). The real problem with our (Western) culture, and it's unique to our culture in spite of some bogus claims otherwise, is that it's somehow become the cultural norm to have as few babies as humanly possible. Yes contraceptives "allowed" it, but cannot explain the extreme it has been taken to. Just because families CAN plan to have so few babies that their own people will die out, doesn't mean that this makes the most sense to do.
Pseudonym at July 29, 2008 5:45 PM
If you find me so 'controversial' then I've got some substancial, mainstream writers who are completely in bed with me- figuratively of course. Here's an excerpt from The Cultural Devastation of American Women by Nancy Levant
"We are free to have extra-marital affairs, multiple lovers, to abort children, to disrespect and ignore the traditions of our families and religions, to use men like ATMs, to back-stab our friends and family members, and to take thousands upon thousands of family dollars for personal use in our missions to look like (and act like) teenagers.
We are free to have children with as many men as we choose, and to bankrupt multiple men with mandatory child support payments. We are then free to ignore children by paying far more attention to maid-cleaned, spotless, and magazine-cover homes, where no cooking is achieved, no family memories are created, and no shoes are allowed to be worn on the white carpets of the “new” American home. We are free to give our children computer software to keep them addictively occupied for YEARS, and then complain about their lack of social skills.
We are free to completely ignore the FACT that our children are SUFFERING with mean-spirited and incompetent mothers – children who are hungry, starved for attention, and mistreated by non-stop extracurricular sports regimens, drive-thru bags of dangerous food, teachers and public school indoctrination camps, completely ignored spiritual needs, and disrespect and contempt of their children’s fathers.
Sadly, this list has become the typical “home” scenario for America’s children and husbands. “Home” has become sterile because the women in American homes have lost their senses under the highly political guise of “liberation.” So, another question begs – what does liberation mean to American women? Does it mean the freedom to vote? Freedom from historical gender bondage? Freedom from ownership? I don’t think so. Today’s American female is free to be an idiot – a shallow, self-involved, pathologically vain, completely incompetent, and angry person – angry to the tune of making the anti-depressant industry the largest profit maker, bar none, for big pharma. Stupid is what stupid does."
Obama at July 29, 2008 5:58 PM
Obama, you say women have never achieved anything, I should point out that two of the three books you cite that we should read on the topic ... were written by women. I don't suppose they were riding someone's coattails.
Frogz at July 29, 2008 6:02 PM
Well, vlad, at best, he is being a hypocrite with his own daughter. I'm sure that's what he'll say - that he isn't "this way" around her. He keeps his true self hidden.
But I was thinking about it, and you know he said the only women who "impressed him" were "strippers and cheerleaders." Maybe yoga instructors. So, it doesn't take Freud to see that if his daughter is a "skank", then she's trying to impress him...to be the only kind of woman he "admires"...which breaks my heart.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 6:02 PM
See lovelysoul, this is hilarious
Al at July 29, 2008 6:08 PM
I think it's heartbreaking, Al. But if you're making a comparison, bear in mind that Obama said that he hated his own daughter, that she was a skank. When someone says something like that, they're making it personal. I never said anything like that, so your comments were out of left field.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 6:15 PM
"Obama, you say women have never achieved anything, I should point out that two of the three books you cite that we should read on the topic ... were written by women. I don't suppose they were riding someone's coattails."
No, here's what I said, "I've only met one or two women in all these years that were O...K. And no, my mother isn't one of them. But most of them are either just garbage or monsters as people."
I haven't met these women and I'm sure these two women WERE riding a man's coattails somehow- to get their books published, etc. I didn't say they didn't. Cut the crap with the 'cross examination' BS- you suck at it & I guess you don't even realize that it's just another way of saying you have no argument or anything of value to say.
"you know he said the only women who "impressed him" were "strippers and cheerleaders." Maybe yoga instructors. So, it doesn't take Freud to see that if his daughter is a "skank", then she's trying to impress him...to be the only kind of woman he "admires"...which breaks my heart."
I didn't write that. That was someone else on here. And by way why do you care about my daughter? She doesn't care about anyone but herself, the standard for most young women today- so you're care about her?
Obama at July 29, 2008 6:30 PM
Anybody can write something painting the absolute worst picture of American life. But I know WONDERFUL mothers. They're not ignoring their children, especially when they're driving them to sports events - where the kids are having FUN - that's why they have to stop for fast food...because the moms are so devoted to the kids needs and activities, they barely have time to cook. That's the worst thing in American society?
I'm sure if it was a mother, who was reading lots of anti-male literature, even though she has SONS...and writing that she hates her son because he's a "bastard"...you would call her an unmitigated bitch, a horrible role model and a hypocrite....but it's ok for you to do it!
That's what should be written about. That's something truly sad in American life...not a mom running her kids to T-ball!
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 6:30 PM
"because the moms are so devoted to the kids needs and activities, they barely have time to cook. That's the worst thing in American society?"
Here's what it says, "and mistreated by non-stop extracurricular sports regimens.." That means parents way over do the sports crap- & it doubles as really more neglect. There's been countless articles about this since the 90's- don't read much? Then there's the other 99% of the article. What is your deal exactly that you are so 'out of it?'
Obama at July 29, 2008 6:42 PM
I apologize if that was written by someone else. I don't want to scroll back up to see who. It doesn't really change much if you're still saying you've only known one or two women who were "ok."
I care about your daughter because I am (believe it or not) a compassionate, decent person. You cannot think you really hide this anti-female perspective from her. Your prejudices and disdain for her gender is so evident, and that's not your job as a father. You should be supporting her aspirations, giving her positive role models...and how can you do that if you only know "one or two" women who are ok?
And she needs to admire her father, but she can't admire someone who either hates what she is and what she stands for....or who hides what he really thinks. She can't even know you.
Besides, she can't be very old if you're only 50, and it's normal for young people to be self-absorbed. That doesn't make her a "skank" that you just give up on.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 6:50 PM
Pseudonym: "Selection bias" - that's a valid point, and may be part of the reason Obama's perception is skewed towards the extremely negative? I suspect if you primarily hang out around twits you begin to see the world as full of 'em. Certainly, if you watch enough sitcom television you'd start to believe the planet is populated by disciples of Oprah.
And O, as has been pointed out before, listing books and cutting-and-pasting chunks of them doesn't validate any of your points. I mean there were "substantial mainstream writers" that believed phrenology was a valid science.
With regard to Nancy LEVANT, she can't say what "freedom" means to everyone, and neither can you. She can guess, or make assumptions, based on her own experiences, but she can't know unless she's somehow polled the entire planet. She is correct that in today’s society women are free to be idiots, in the sense that society often lets them get away with it and all too often doesn't hold them responsible, or accountable, for their idiocy. But that particular "freedom" isn't restricted only to women, and just because that "freedom" exists doesn't mean that everyone is making use of it, and to suggest otherwise is just so obviously illogical. I honestly can't understand why you don't get that. Or maybe you do and you're just enjoying pulling everyone's chain here?
catspajamas at July 29, 2008 6:56 PM
Here is an example of who the author was talking about- a famous idiot this time- who has no consideration for her child's need for a father- only cares about HERSELF:
From No role for dad, says Minnie (MSN, 7/23/08):
Minnie Driver (pictured) has revealed that she has no plans to include her baby's father at any time during the birth.
"I'm not married and I don't know if I'll stay with the guy," she told the New York Post.
"My mum and aunt Serena will be with me, as will my best friends, a midwife and a yoga teacher. And I'll be the wailing monster at the centre.
"It's great to be an independent creature. Today you don't need a man any more. In the old days, a baby without marriage and people would put you out. I'm very into feeling this female thing."
She also had an unlikely companion to help her through the early months.
"With this pregnancy I was very sick the first four months. My black Labrador, Bubba, my forever constant loving companion, knew it," Minnie revealed.
"He'd see me lying on the couch. He'd stay with me. He felt for me."
The 38-year-old, who is expecting her first child next month, announced her pregnancy in March on TV, though she has kept mum about the identity of the baby's father - only saying that he's English and in the same business.
"If he wants to come out and talk about it, he's more than welcome to," she said.
"But since he doesn't live his life in the public eye, it's something I want to keep private."
obama at July 29, 2008 6:58 PM
I'm not "out of it". I don't need to read about it. I'm THERE - at those games. I see those parents - coaching the teams, taking the kids for ice-cream afterwards, practicing ball in the park. If that constitutes "neglect", you're crazy!
American parents today spend FAR more time with their kids than any generation before them. In the past, kids were really a work force. On farms, you had as many as you could because many died, and you needed the labor!
As far as really listening to kids and caring about their thoughts and feelings, todays parents - at least those I'm running to school and ballgames with - are the best. You don't know what you're talking about.
But really, that is the worst you and that dumb author can come up with? That moms are overscheduling their kids, buying fast food, and caring about the carpet? To hate a whole gender for that?!
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 6:58 PM
Maybe Minnie Driver found some of your reading material in the father's bathroom, and maybe she knows she's having a girl and doesn't want that kind of man to be around her. You don't know the circumstances.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 7:05 PM
"but she can't know unless she's somehow polled the entire planet."
She's only talking about the U.S. We have what is called a 'culture' and 'trends' look them up sometime & women are the WORST at buying into all of this crap.
"But that particular "freedom" isn't restricted only to women,"
OOOOh no, that 'freedom' in regards to sex, children and family which she is referring to is only for women. Get a woman pregnant sometime then let me know how it goes. As a father or husband, you don't even have any RIGHTS much less any 'freedoms.'
Obama at July 29, 2008 7:07 PM
"that is the worst you and that dumb author can come up with? That moms are overscheduling their kids, buying fast food, and caring about the carpet? To hate a whole gender for that?!"
Uh, no there's that part about being modern women being what used to be called 'whores' she mentioned. Might want to read it again. Then there's everything I've said on here. She is an example of a mainstream writer who shares a lot of my criticisms but puts it all in a milder fashion for someone like you to digest- you know, the type that needs the truth spoon fed to them?
Obama at July 29, 2008 7:13 PM
Me:
Obama, you say women have never achieved anything, I should point out that two of the three books you cite that we should read on the topic ... were written by women.
Obama:
No, here's what I said, "I've only met one or two women in all these years that were O...K. And no, my mother isn't one of them. But most of them are either just garbage or monsters as people."
No, this is exactly what you said, and what I was referring to:
"'Successful' women are always a fraud because they can get nowhere without riding the coat tails of man one way or another"
The word "always" is pretty unambiguous. Or are those book authors not 'successful women'?
Frogz at July 29, 2008 7:22 PM
"Maybe Minnie Driver found some of your reading material in the father's bathroom, and maybe she knows she's having a girl and doesn't want that kind of man to be around her. You don't know the circumstances."
No, I do know the circumstances, because she mentioned them in the article. She said she doesn't need a man to have a baby in today's society. That is called a societal trend and a complete lack of respect. You're either playing dumb or you really are dumb- those are the only two possibilties, and I don't think anyone could be that stupid.
Obama at July 29, 2008 7:22 PM
Obama:
"Cut the crap with the 'cross examination' BS- you suck at it & I guess you don't even realize that it's just another way of saying you have no argument or anything of value to say."
You're making silly assumptions now, because what you don't seem to realize is that I happen to agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm dissing you only because I think your overly strict generalizations are harming your own point, and I thought I could help you by pointing that out, but clearly you refuse to even try to see that. You state some EXTREME generalizations (e.g. that there has never ever been a successful woman ever) that are far too easy to debunk. Even saying "99% of women" would make your argument a lot easier to swallow than "100%".
Frogz at July 29, 2008 7:28 PM
"The word "always" is pretty unambiguous. Or are those book authors not 'successful women'?"
You're doing nothing but clowning here. 'Successful' in regards to the image they project as in doing it all on their own & you know it. You're one of those types that gets off on making everything overly academic. People like you never really 'say' anything.. just like you.
Obama at July 29, 2008 7:29 PM
The quote in obamas last post has some very true points in it, for the most part though I dont think it has much to do with feminism, at the end of the day it is greed, and both sexes are equally guilty of it, America worships greed, it is sought after and celebrated, Australia is losing its values as well and sliding in the same direction.
Feminism became just another vehicle of greed for those who felt they werent getting enough.
I agree with many of your more moderate points lovelysoul, and I hope you are honest to yourself as you say you are. My 'attack' on you stems from the greed/power component in your comments on voting, it stinks and you havent addressed it. You come fom a less than affluent background or area, you married into money and now think that others are below you to the point that they shouldnt even have the right to vote. Many of the people you grew up with and many of them women that you claim to support would fall into that category. I simply cannot understand that.
I have seen quite a few families in the last few years that have appeared to be quite well adjusted grounded people, inherit money and property from their parents and suddenly become a different class of people. Sadly it does seem to be the women who become a class above their former friends more so than the men. It is sad in a way but also very amusing. Women do seem to be quite fickle in this area and responsible for much of the appearances factor in having the biggest cleanest house that a child cant even play in for fear of it being messy. So many peoples self esteem and confidence rides on what other people think of them.
Al at July 29, 2008 7:34 PM
Well, I've tried ... and I freely admit I give up. You can't have a discussion with someone who can only rant and repeat other people's ideas, and that's a shame, because there's some good stuff elsewhere here.
- 'night, all!
catspajamas at July 29, 2008 7:34 PM
"You state some EXTREME generalizations (e.g. that there has never ever been a successful woman ever) that are far too easy to debunk."
Always or ALL are for practical purposes, so you don't get bogged down- just like we are doing now- it's the same as in a casual conversation. People get too caught in being PC police or trying to be school teachers- there isn't enough time to list the handful of exceptios. Trying to spring on that like a cheap attorney is usually nothing more than a way to side track the real issue. If people really don't know that it's for practical purposes than they've got some serious issues.
Obama at July 29, 2008 7:36 PM
lovelysoul:
I think it's heartbreaking, Al. But if you're making a comparison, bear in mind that Obama said that he hated his own daughter, that she was a skank. When someone says something like that, they're making it personal. I never said anything like that, so your comments were out of left field.
Those last couple of posts werent there when I wrote that.....this thread is moving FAST lol
Al at July 29, 2008 7:39 PM
Obama:
'Successful' in regards to the image they project as in doing it all on their own & you know it
No, I don't, "successful" means doing something productive that improves the world, it's not about "image". Surely writing those books would qualify. Are you trying to redefine "successful" now? You stated all successful women are frauds. Ergo, you're saying no woman can ever be a success on her own. Nothing "academic" about that (whatever the hell that means), it's plain straightforward English.
Frogz at July 29, 2008 7:39 PM
I don't know any modern women who are "whores." I do have a male friend who is a porn star, so I guess I could surmise that most men are immoral "whores". Doesn't make me right. But I bet I could find literature to back me up, written by some bitter person who agrees.
You have your own twisted picture of the world, and you're taking a few facts of modern life and molding them to fit your idealogy.
And, there again, that says nothing about your duties as a father, which is to teach compassion for others, including women.
You're sitting here judging modern moms for taking their kids to sports activities, which presumably makes them horribly neglectful parents, yet YOU CALLED YOUR DAUGHTER A SKANK!!!
I don't know any parent who talks like that about their own child. That's far worse than a mom overscheduling activities or putting on lipstick!
How can you talk about "moral compasses"? How can you judge other people as parents? How can you believe that you, and you alone, are the judge and jury of what is right and wrong? You're like some twisted christian moralist.
Abortion is wrong, but hating your child once she's alive is ok? Having a child without a father is wrong, but BEING a father who LIES to his child and reads literature detailing what a worthless skank she is - that's the RIGHT way to be a dad?
I know it's pointless. Catspajamas is right. If you only hang around with certain people, or read a certain perspective, you'll believe that's what the world is about. I can't tell you how many truly wonderful women are out here...because you are BLIND to it....even to the good in your own daughter.
I've known twisted christian fundamentalists like that too. They don't see anything beyond "saved" or "unsaved", and if their kids don't live exactly the way they think they should, then they just write them off as "worthless sinners" and "going to hell". They believe their idealogy as fervently as you believe yours.
It's sad, but when someone is such a rigid-thinking and unforgiving person, there's no hope of opening up their minds or hearts.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 7:43 PM
Obama:
Trying to spring on that like a cheap attorney is usually nothing more than a way to side track the real issue. If people really don't know that it's for practical purposes than they've got some serious issues.
Did you read what I wrote? I wasn't attacking you. I wasn't "springing on you". I even agreed with you on many things, and I'm trying to help you get more people to see your viewpoint. I was just TELLING YOU the straight undeniable FACT that people are going to be less inclined to bother to listen to your arguments if you make absolute 100% generalizations using words like "always" instead of "almost always". This is just a fact, you're setting up your own straw men - which are easier to knock down.
There is a very big difference between the word "always", and words like e.g. "mostly". Words have precise meanings. Use the word that you mean. There is no other method of communication. You cannot say "oh it's just casual conversation, interpret me loosely please" - and even if it was, you should know that people jump on anything you might give them to trash your point. Do you really want people to actually listen to your points, or are you just trying to set yourself up to be 'persecuted' by pre-caricaturing your own arguments?
I did actually believe that when you wrote "always" that you meant "always" - and I hoped that providing you with counter-examples that you might actually respect, that you'd realise "always" is not the appropriate word.
Now you want to have a long argument defending your use of the word "always", instead of just saying "yeah you were right, I meant 99%" or whatever.
Frogz at July 29, 2008 7:49 PM
lovelysoul,
You are hopelessly confused. you need to get a firm grip on how the world, relationships modern culture and all the rest works before you try to understand what I'm discussing here & I don't have the time to do that- nobody has the time to do that. I truly don't know what your major malfunction is with basic comprhension.
Obama at July 29, 2008 7:57 PM
"I didn't write that. That was someone else on here."
The point stands though, if you think 'all successful women are frauds / riding coattails', then in your view your daughter also can't succeed without being a fraud or riding the coattails of a man (and she will pick up on that view).
Frogz at July 29, 2008 7:57 PM
My problem with "basic comprhension" is that you are dodging anything that points out your own failings and hypocrisy...all the while judging women harshly and blaming our gender for almost everything wrong in western society. Yet, men get a free pass.
Therefore, what I "comprhend" is that you aren't a fairminded or compassionate person, much less a decent one.
Goodnight.
lovelysoul at July 29, 2008 8:06 PM
"And we've all heard what you've had to say- and it doesn't add up to much. We've heard enough." What we I don't like when half literate gutter bunnies speak for so stop using we ass clown.
vlad at July 30, 2008 5:51 AM
"You seem to have a problem with society. Prefer living in a cave do you?" Your the one who's blaming society for your own failings as a parent.
"I can tell you're going to need a lot of re-education." Wow now we are echoing the sentiments of most comunists regimes when they come to power.
"Though I do get the feeling at least one or two women here have trashed Obama just because they don't like to hear what he's saying" I think he's a tool and I'm male.
"We are free to have extra-marital affairs, multiple lovers, to abort children, to disrespect and ignore the traditions of our families and religions, to use men like ATMs, to back-stab our friends and family members, and to take thousands upon thousands of family dollars for personal use in our missions to look like (and act like) teenagers." Yup my wife has a friend just like this, sure. She4's been pretty much forgotten by the rest of them. Same bigoted stupidity that lead to all sorts of historical screw ups. BTW where is Levants getting her information. The shit she is describing is nothing more than supposition. This is quite obvious with the "We are free to" crap. Yes oh wise writer you we are free to do a great many things. Why not actually prove that we do them. Also lets see what tax bracket she is reffering to and what geography
"If you find me so 'controversial'" Nope just stupid, near sighted and narrow minded.
"I haven't met these women and I'm sure these two women WERE riding a man's coattails somehow" Wow assumptions are evidence. Your into energy healing and magic beads ain't you.
"That means parents way over do the sports crap- & it doubles as really more neglect. There's been countless articles about this since the 90's- don't read much?" Yes but there have been a lot more articles in medical journals that more active kids lead better longer lives. While I can see you point that it can and is over done at times.
"As a father or husband, you don't even have any RIGHTS much less any 'freedoms.'" As a result of the system that some of us are trying to change, you however are being singularly unhelpful in this venture by proving the militants correct, thus hampering those who are trying to change it.
"People get too caught in being PC police or trying to be school teachers-" Aren't you the one claiming to educate us filthy heathens.
"I've known twisted christian fundamentalists like that too." I know plenty of people that have this mentality but are neither Christian nor fundy.
BTW Obama given you advanced age you'd be interacting with older women so the judgment should be made for your generation not mine. If you are chasing those from my generation and getting rejected then they are right to do it and your a tool. Yes I know personal attack but hey when some hind brained yoda wana be wants to educate me I take it as a personal offense.
vlad at July 30, 2008 6:42 AM
Nicely done, vlad. But, like I said, he's not going to address anything that points out the weaknesses of his arguments or his own hypocrisy.
I mean, his daughter just DECIDED to be a skank. It had nothing to do with HIM as a parent.
Yet, a modern women, who happens to schedule one too many T-ball games, or takes some pride in her appearance, is a neglectful parent who is ruining her child, her family, and bringing down all of western culture.
He rails, "Why aren't you ACCOUNTABLE for anything?" But does HE take accountability for putting even one messed up child out there - dumping her on society? No.
In the next month or two, I am contributing a well-raised SON to society - an extremely bright, already Stanford University educated, non-skanky, certified pilot and young MALE to society!
So, doesn't it seem, by his own twisted standards, that I'm making more of a positive contribution to society than he is? You can't just berate moms for their failures, then give us no credit for our successes.
Oh, except, of course, the failures, like his daughter, are always the mom's fault, and the successes are only to the dad's credit...even when he's basically not around...that's probably his stupid argument.
lovelysoul at July 30, 2008 7:16 AM
BTW just out of morbid curiosity. If parents are bad for putting the kid in front of a TV/computer and they are bad for getting the kids to play sports (even if over doing it) then what should in your mind a parent do?
Less computer/TV, less sports, then what should the kids fill their time with? Hanging on the street?
You criticize everyone else's parenting approach but refuse to enlighten us with your masterful child rearing approach.
vlad at July 30, 2008 7:52 AM
vlad: "Less computer/TV, less sports, then what should the kids fill their time with? Hanging on the street?"
Yeah, why not? We did this all the time when growing up and it worked fantastically ... we rode our bikes, skateboarded up and down the streets, played in the 'veld' (wild areas), played sports, socialised with friends, learned about computer programming, drew pictures ... really just all sorts of things ... we always knew where the 'limits' were and didn't (usually) overstep them, and were taught to avoid strangers etc., and we all survived and grew up to be functioning productive independent adults. We just didn't have constant parental supervision hovering over us like some Big Brother 1984 thing. Why is that such a scary idea? It's good and healthy for kids to have unsupervised time, and I fully intend to raise my kids with elements of that lifestyle too. I can't imagine how horrible it would have been to have near-constant supervision --- that's unhealthy, and anyway impossible, which is why parents feel the need to use machines as "proxy supervision". (We also weren't over-covered in silly knees/elbows/helmets etc. padding.)
David J at July 30, 2008 9:58 AM
David J: Its strange, isn't it? Most of the kids in my neighbourhood got fired out the door after breakfast and told to, "Go do something. Just be back by suppertime." And we did - we made our own fun and amused ourselves, within certain boundaries of course (no playing on the highway), although there was a lot of tree-climbing and riding our bikes off home-made ramps at high speed and into the occasional wall. As you say: no helmets, elbow and knee pads. Unless there was a tornado on the horizon we were pretty much all outside.
There was invariably one parent on the block that over-protected their child to the point of embarrassment (couldn't leave the yard, couldn't get dirty) but now they seem to be multiplying. I suspect that the constant bombardment of news, the bulk of it bad, is frightening people and a lot of parents are over-reacting out of fear. A lot of kids don't walk ten blocks to school anymore, out of concerns that they'll be snatched off the street, hit by a car, or god forbid get wet or tired. I work with a guy who brings his toddler daughter in sometimes but every time she touches something he wet-wipes her little hands. She might have actually picked up a germ. He and his wife have padded all the sharp corners of their home. Last time I was over they had foam rubber chunks taped to the corners of the coffee table.
My folks figured - correctly, I think - that there are going to be bumps and bruises in your life. Best to learn how to deal with some and avoid the others. The first thing they did was to let me crawl around in the garden and stuff dirt in my mouth - gotta build up a resistance to the icky stuff early in life.
If someone, especially a parent, takes care of everything for you, you tend to grow up expecting that everything will be taken care of in perpetuity. Parenting has got to be a tough job but the idea of it is to create a fully-functioning independent adult and for that you have to give them the freedom to make (and fix) their own mistakes and think for themselves.
There's a "nanny state" thing at work here, also. Bike helmets became mandatory in my city last year and this spring I got tagged for not wearing one while on a bike path in the park. I tried to make this argument with the (I suspect) 22-year-old cop. Didn't work.
catspajamas at July 30, 2008 10:38 AM
"Yeah, why not? " Should have been more specific. The question was for Obama directly, I ws waiting for some odd ball answer he didn't bite. I did the same thing as a kid. The only rule was bike/board/horse equaled helmet. A busted knee or wrist is your problem. Once you become a brain damaged imbicil then it becomes everyone else's problem.
I know at least one set of parents who padded everything. They even put a mattress under the 4 ft tree house. He could not and still can't do shit for himself.
I'm also against kids having ever second of every day manged makes for rigid and flaky people. I just guessed that he would be against them running free in society as well.
vlad at July 30, 2008 1:23 PM
Has anybody noticed that even AMY has abandoned this thread- and it's her blog?
Sandy at July 30, 2008 1:58 PM
Yep -- and who can blame her? Or us??
Pussnboots at July 30, 2008 9:17 PM
[If someone, especially a parent, takes care of everything for you, you tend to grow up expecting that everything will be taken care of in perpetuity.]
Seems these trends are entering the workplace now ... I've seen myself and heard several people complain that younger workers 'behave like' and 'expect to be treated like' children.
[There's a "nanny state" thing at work here, also. Bike helmets became mandatory in my city last year and this spring I got tagged for not wearing one while on a bike path in the park. I tried to make this argument with the (I suspect) 22-year-old cop. Didn't work.]
Yea .. I have a huge problem with nanny-state bike helmet LAWS, I think they do far more harm than good on many levels (especially the normalization of the nanny state psyche, which means treating all adults like big children --- same problem). They should be voluntary.
["Yeah, why not? " Should have been more specific. The question was for Obama directly ... The only rule was bike/board/horse equaled helmet ..]
OK. Yeah, I agree they're sensible for horse-riding (though should still be voluntary) ... I used to ride and have seen quite a few people knock their heads when falling off horses. Horse-riding lends itself far more to head injuries than cycling, not just because of the particular height and use of stirrups, and the way you're likely to fall, but NB, unlike bicycles, horses are live animals and are unpredictable, they often spook or try throw you off or charge etc.
[Has anybody noticed that even AMY has abandoned this thread- and it's her blog?]
I doubt she's fully "abandoned" it, but just reading this thread now would almost be a full-time job :) ... she's probably just busy.
David J at July 31, 2008 11:29 AM
I know this is a long and hopefully dead thread, but I don't think the "culture" that Obama is so promoting is going to spring from the Hispanic community. He's talking about Islam. When he suggested its already happening in Europe, that's what I believe he is referring to. As if its a good thing.
And doesn't that make the screen name "Obama" appropriate in a twisted way? There's the whole "Obama is a Muslim" conspiracy group so he could be supporting the idea of Obama for Prez in hopes he'll introduce Sharia law. Or maybe he's anti-Obama and this whole rant is some warped and twisted attempt to hijack the name and associate it to craziness? Anyway, I don't think you could pick that as a screen name without SOME political agenda.
Anyway, what he talks about wanting isn't 50's style family values and behaviour. He wants women to do whatever a man says...like a possession, a pet, a dog. Sound familiar?
moreta at August 1, 2008 12:37 PM
Moreta ~~ Great observation. A couple of days ago I almost posted a speculation to the effect that Obama was probably as close as he dared to come to Osama, but I chickened out for fear of starting a furor (another one).
I hadn't thought of the angle that he's trying to give Obama the candidate a bad name, but that's a real possibility.
Hopefully he's gone now, but you never know. Maybe Amy exiled him to join Jeff and Poo-Martin in the naughty corner.
Pussnboots at August 1, 2008 10:08 PM
necesidad de comprobar:)
Infellazeno at August 4, 2011 11:08 PM
Thought I might add this "If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies... It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it." - Albert Einstein
Karry Bomer at September 16, 2011 5:27 AM
Leave a comment