Men Living Longer: Women Hardest Hit
The New York Times has an article today entitled, "The Bell Tolls for the Future Merry Widow"(Hat tip: swlip.com). In this pathetic excuse for an article, the theme appears to be that because men are living longer, this might put a cramp in women's lifestyles. For example:
And then the article points out these pearls of wisdom from sell-out, I mean psychologist, John Gray:
John Gray needs women more than women need him -- who else would buy his stuff? Yeah, John, that will help you sell the remainder of whatever sell-out crap for women you are peddling this month.
Finally, this advice from another "expert" really puts the icing on the cake:
Hell, if I was married to a woman like the author of the Times article, Kate Zernike, I would probably die early too. However, with fewer young men marrying, maybe women like her coming up won't have to worry about a husband. I hope that with increased longevity and Viagra, men will find that living single in their later years will beat out a black--I mean, merry widow--who wants nothing more than a free lunch herself.
There's a famous parody of a Times headline -- "World Ends: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit." But this is beyond parody: "Men Living Longer: Women Hardest Hit" (Hat Tip: swlip.com).
By necessity, women have gotten used to a life lived for long periods without men. They have had the advantage in life expectancy since the late 19th century, when overall longevity started to climb. More than men, women have developed strong friendships to support them in their frailest hours. They have forced doctors to pay attention to their health concerns. They no longer have to cater to men. Travel companies now cater to their interests.
And then the article points out these pearls of wisdom from sell-out, I mean psychologist, John Gray:
"Women don't need men as much as men need women," said John Gray, the therapist and author of, most famously, "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus."
"Men have this expectation that women should take care of them," Dr. Gray said. "And she has her own expectations, that she should be there for him."
Particularly after retirement, she is not used to having him around quite so much. "It's different taking care of him for dinner, as opposed to him being home all the time, and expecting her to make every meal," Dr. Gray said.
(Men who divorce also remarry faster; within three years, compared with nine for women.) They're looking for love, Dr. Gray said, but they're also looking for lunch.
Then there are the disputes over sex. Dr. Gray said a woman's sex drive increases as she ages, while a man's declines. But then, is Viagra upsetting that balance, putting men in retirement homes permanently on the prowl?
John Gray needs women more than women need him -- who else would buy his stuff? Yeah, John, that will help you sell the remainder of whatever sell-out crap for women you are peddling this month.
Finally, this advice from another "expert" really puts the icing on the cake:
And a shorter widowhood means women will be better off financially, largely because, as Heidi Hartmann, a labor economist and the president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said, "Money attaches to the men."
There is a lot of poverty among older single women, so if men live longer, that's good economically, for women and men," Ms. Hartmann said. "Men are generally happier when they're married. The women may not be happier, but at least they've got more money.
Hell, if I was married to a woman like the author of the Times article, Kate Zernike, I would probably die early too. However, with fewer young men marrying, maybe women like her coming up won't have to worry about a husband. I hope that with increased longevity and Viagra, men will find that living single in their later years will beat out a black--I mean, merry widow--who wants nothing more than a free lunch herself.
There's a famous parody of a Times headline -- "World Ends: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit." But this is beyond parody: "Men Living Longer: Women Hardest Hit" (Hat Tip: swlip.com).
195 Comments:
Is there a correlation between fewer men marrying and men living longer?
This is a wonderful example of lumping many people's experience as if it is a single experience, and trying to draw conclusions from it.
I'm all for statistics showing us the broad trends of what is happening to people, but it's a bit over-the-top to guess how people's feelings are going to change. When you are old and your spouse dies, you grieve, even if the death is expected. Doesn't that fairly overwhelm whatever subsidiary feelings we might have?
We will have other feelings, of course, each to his own kind.
My mother has been a widow for over 10 years. She has many friends in the same situation. They play cards, go to exercise class, travel together, and generally make the best of the situation... but I don't know any of them who are the least bit happy about being widows.
I like your outspokeness, Dr. Helen. But sometimes I have to ask, what do you have against women? Why the anger and the resentment? Sure, there are plenty of things in this life that are unfair, but surely you are not going to deny that women have been on the bottom rung for the most part until recently.
I for one, am not going to start any pity party for white men.
Americanwoman,
“I, for one, am not going to start any pity party for white men.” Nice. I don’t think Helen is against women; rather she’s for men, which is the point here. And I can’t speak for Helen, of course, but as for me—I don’t want your pity because it seems to come with baggage.
Rick Lee,
Same deal with my mother—a widow of twenty years this May. She got the money but what she wants—to this day—is the man.
Jeff
AmericanWoman -- are you sure you aren't Greg Kuperberg?
I wonder what Ronald Lee the economist meant by this: "Even given the limited capacity of men..." Limited capacity of men?
The article certainly is convoluted and does almost everything possible to put good news in a negative light as well as entirely from the perspective of how increased life expectancy affects women.
While it barely touches on changing social norms, i.e. more men cooking, cleaning, etc. it largely ignores them and draws on examples of my parents' generation and before. And why is it that mowing, painting, household repairs, killing insects :-), etc. are never counted as domestic chores by those counting the woman's workload.
And I don't know about men needing women. I guess it may be unusual for a man not to be desparately seeking a woman. I post I wrote several months ago about not actively seeking a date or to re-marry still gets hits almost daily. I happily cook, clean, do laundry and the rest for myself and my kids just knowing someone can't take it all from me just because they are "not happy" any more. There is no significant woman (or man but I'm not gay) in my life and I've never been happier.
My mother was "hardest hit" when my dad died a short while ago. True, she no longer has to make all those meals for Dad, now she makes them for herself and has no one to talk to across the table.
And people wonder why men are finally beginning to stand up against feminism.
Sick!
Helen,
As someone who will have a real PhD in psych, I have to mention that John Gray "PhD" does not. Here's the relevant info from Wikipedia:
Gray's books and other publications typically refer to him as 'Doctor John Gray' or 'John Gray, Ph.D'. According to his website, he earned a Ph.D. in psychology at Columbia Pacific University[1] - a correspondence school that was forcibly closed by the California Department of Consumer Affairs in 2001 after a judgement that found that CPU "awarded excessive credit... to many students" and "failed to meet various requirements for issuing Ph.D. degrees"[2]
Also, I love how that moron says that women "aren't used to having men home all the time." You know why? Because they were working. Boy, isn't it terrible that now an old man gets to finally retire and stay home with his wife?
Americanwoman -- isn't discrimination not just gendered (and raced), but classed, as well -- and arguably, far more so the latter than the formers? In fact, hasn't the vast majority of humanity, both males and females, been 'on the bottom rung', alike and together, for the vast majority of our history?
Haven't the differences in power and status between both males and females of the peasantry, versus the power and status of males and females of the aristocracy, been much greater and far more discriminatory than the differences between males versus females within each of those classes?
Which would you have rather been, historically -- a male peasant, or a female aristocrat?
The vast majority of human beings, male and female alike, have throughout history been used and abused by a bullying, brutal, ruthless elite -- which was also composed, likewise, of both males and females. Before women could vote in the usa, could women, as slaveowners, nevertheless buy, sell, "own", and thereby use and abuse other human beings at their whim -- including men?
Which would you have rather been, in recent american history -- a male slave, or a female freewoman?
I have been feeling sort of down this weekend, but I've got to tell you that your comments about Dr. John Gray provided me with some much-needed comic relief. Thanks for telling it like it is!
Glad you blogged this. I had serious cognitive dissonance when I read the article in the morning... I was scratching my head and looking for some hint that this was a parody...
Also, it is well known that John Gray got his PhD from a degree mill (that may have closed down by now), so I don't like him being called a "Dr."
"Journalist Living Longer: Readers Hardest Hit"
Great post. When can men and women stop playing zero-sum games?
"The year 2006 should not be allowed to pass without at least a quiet celebration that this is the first year in human history when—across almost all the world—women can expect to enjoy a longer life expectancy than men."
Hmm, yes with a few of notable exceptions:
Saudi Arabia:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.33 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.13 male(s)/female
total population: 1.2 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
United Arab Emirates:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.55 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 2.73 male(s)/female
total population: 1.43 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
Oman:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.44 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.23 male(s)/female
total population: 1.25 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
(all stats from the CIA World Fact Book)
These countries have population trends wholly opposed to the worldwide norm.
What an interesting post to read on the morning of my anniversary. My wife (who is ten years younger than I) says that I'd better not die soon, because she didn't marry me for money but for my company. (This is good, as I'm an artist and don't have a lot of money)
As for women not being used to having their husbands around 24/7 before they retire, I wonder if Dr. Gray works from home as do I and a lot of creative professionals?
matt andrade
Matt Andrade,
Good point. A lot of couples now--both men and women work from home and are used to having each other around constantly.
I wonder if Dr. Gray expects his wife to feel as negatively towards him as the way he thinks women feel about men. I sure hope not as all the book sales in the world cannot make up for the insensitive gold digger he would have to be married to. However, maybe he is getting what he deserves, given his penchance for thinking that women are the self-centered boobs he thinks they are. The truth is, that many women are grief-striken from the loss of a husband and find that their world is not the free-wheeling merry widowhood that this silly article would have one believe.
We all need each other.
g
Feminist marketing sells.
The message that men a bad and women are good or that men are dishonorable and women are victims are the norm. I no longer wonder why fewer people watch television or read newspapers, instead I speculate, that like myself, many others now use the Internet for information and entertainment.
I also stopped attending my church (Willow Creek) because of the constant feminist messages in the plays and sermons.
Women have equal access and opportunities, as such the feminist movement ought to be over.
“World Ends: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit”… too funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights
If this is the view that some women have, it certainly explains why many men are resisting getting married. Apparently when we do, we're not dying off soon enough and leaving women with our money so they can go party.
Wow, sign me up for that.
Anyway, that whole article was more insulting to women that it was to men. Contrary to what "Americanwoman" might think, Dr. Helen's criticism of it is a tribute to woman (insofar as she is suggesting that most women don't act like that), not evidence of her disdain toward them.
What did we expect from the Times?
"By necessity, women have gotten used to a life lived for long periods without men."
I'm only going by what I've read above, but it looks like he's saying that somehow women are "used to" life without men (in other words having men die off at a younger age) before they ever live a life without men! What utter tripe! How in the world do you get used to being a widow before you've ever been one?
"Particularly after retirement, she is not used to having him around quite so much."
So let me get this straight - a couple has a complete change in lifestyle upon retirement... and he is shocked because there is a period of adjustment. (but apparently only for the woman - the man has no adjustment to make to retirement at all as far as I can determine from this article)
"(Men who divorce also remarry faster; within three years, compared with nine for women.)"
Is this stat for older women and men or for all women and men? It's a well known fact that there are far more older women than older men. Therefore, the reason for this lopsidedness is so simple it practically leaps up and smacks us in the face... A woman can't marry again if there is not an available man to marry! Seems pretty straightforward to me. Then again I hate statistical references like this - they mean ZERO in the context of the article because we have no way of knowing how the stat was derived.
With just a quick read through the portions you've posted, these are only a few of the items I could pick on. All in all - seems like a pretty lame article saying, once again, that women are better off without men.
TO: Dr(?) John Gray
RE: Dear John
"It's different taking care of him for dinner, as opposed to him being home all the time, and expecting her to make every meal," Dr. Gray said.
I do 95% of the cooking in this household, bozo.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The vast majority of the truly great cooks are men.]
I think a lot of women are unable to remarry when their spouses die because men tend to marry younger women...and so the pool of available men their own ages gets very small.
As for "Merry Widows", I think they make the best of it because they have to. I had a friend in her 90's. After 20 years she said that seeing his name on mail/documents was painful--she still missed him.
I'm sure if I lost my husband I'd feel the same way. He's the light of my life (most days!)
Here is an interesting article about the possibility that all of us may live to be 100. Changes the retirement planning a bit, eh?
There is a drug out there better than Viagra.
No doctor's prescription required.
You might have to ask your kids where to find it.
Re: circumcision.
It is being promoted in Africa as a way to reduce the risk of AIDS.
It may not be mutilation after all. It may be a health measure.
The studies of cuircumcision and HIV in Africa were discontinued early because the results were so overwhelming that it was considered unethical to maintain a control group of uncircumcised men.
I don't know how the custom arose way back when, but perhaps it was because of experience.
Imagine if that NYT article was just some post on a random blog. Would it be worthy of wide scale distribution and rise to the top of the ten thousand or so blog posts today? Nope.
If every "insightful" piece from the NYT had to compete like that on a daily basis, well, I think I know what would happen.
I'm not a great fan of the poor old BMJ which I've only ever read much for the jobs section before I attained fame and fortune as a hospital doctor: but to be fair I think the celebration is about getting to grips with high maternal mortality in childbirth, and maybe female infanticide come to that. You don't have to be neurotic or feminist to think that's good. The point is that when the're not killed off prematurely by such things, women live longer than men.
[I'm male and my wife tells me I'm not a New Man]
I agree with AmericanWoman that it is terribly unfair that men held sway for so long. It has been especially difficult for me, as women make up half of my direct ancestors. (Coincidentally, same for my wife.)
And yet I suspect that AmericanWoman is being hypocritical here - she may very well have a family tree composed of one half men herself.
Men need women? Evidently you've not been to San Francisco or Hollywood.
Eric:
Take some advice from one who's been there: Regurgitating the pablum you were taught in your college gender studies course will not -- I repeat, not -- get you laid.
Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."
Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."
"The point is that when the're not killed off prematurely by such things, women live longer than men."
The horrible thing is that the good doctor appears to be serious.
Guess what, doctor? I can now reveal, exclusivly on this web site, that if men were not killed off prematurely by various things, they would live as long or longer than women. Amazing how this works, isn't it?
I'm a feminist? Maybe, but while I don't think women should be discriminated against (and anyone who says they are not is a twit) but I also don't feel they should get preferential treatment.
What I object to in the blog is the perceived (by me) nastiness of it.
You want to talk about the rights women had in merry old England? How about the right, nay, the DUTY of a man to beat his wife if she misbehaved. And shall we even go to Saudia Arabia or Iran to see how women fare around the world? Or the fact that black men (newly freed slaves) had the right to vote in the US 60 years before any women did.
Yes, there are plenty of gold digging C***s in the world, but you silly men keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a big pair of boobs and big eyelashes. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve.
If anyone asked me why I read Dr. Helen from time to time I'd tell them this: It's a relief to find an accomplished woman who doesn't believe men are guilty until proven innocent.
As for the trend of men not marrying, I'm part of that crowd, and while I'd like to get married and raise a family, I've seen too many of my friends come home from a business trip to a handwritten note followed soon by a phone call from a lawyer not to think twice about the whole enterprise.
How have I failed to identify myself? Your rambling posts doesn't really make much sense.
What is circumcision doing in the comments here? BTW in Africa the incidence of AIDS is much lower for circumcised than not.
I prefer to have equal rights by law and not be 'protected' by my husband/father/brother if it means he can also control me.
The rest of your comment is sick nonsense.
So in order to have myself 'protected' in a life threatening situation, I have to give up my freedom to have a man protect me. Sounds pretty chauvanistic to me. I'd rather get a gun permit.
I'm not pro-female or anti-male. I just choose not to ignore the fact that women and blacks and other groups did face discrimination and that is why now, arguably, there are laws and programs to adjust that. The fact that there is now backlash testifies to the fact that these programs have been successful.
Can't stand the competition, white boy?
"It's different taking care of him for dinner, as opposed to him being home all the time, and expecting her to make every meal," Dr. Gray said"
What. The. F---.
Can this clown really be serious? Has he been asleep for the last 30 years? I understand he published what was basically a long, academic-prose style version of Cosmo but that sentence couldn't be more condescending if he added a reference to her womb making the woman irrational.
Americanwoman:
"Maybe, but while I don't think women should be discriminated against (and anyone who says they are not is a twit)"
You just read an original article, a follow-up article, and about 50 posts illuminating in various detail how men are being discriminated against.
Your parenthetical aside would seem to reveal your real problem with Dr. Helen. She observes that men today are -present tense- net-sufferers of discriminatory policies and trends. You refuse to concede that point to her, and think she's a twit.
That's your issue with Dr. Helen. Spare us the "hostility" and "anger and resentment" pap. And I find that suggestion of horror that lowly negroes were allowed to vote before women to be deliciously revealing.
You're right, of course, on your stand concerning freedom and self-determination vs. protection and chivalry. Every person should have (and have had) the right to determine their own fate and be responsible for themselves. The fact that society didn't agree does not give women born after the fact the right to live as first class citizens at the expense of men also born after the fact.
Fourthwire,
There are no level playing fields. Only weenies whine about the playing field.
Dr. Helen, you're doing a great job, but you were way too soft on the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's former gofer "Dr." John Gray. Why the quotes around "Dr."? Not for postmodernism, but because his degrees are from the not-so-esteemed Maharishi University and the no-longer-accredited diploma mill known as Columbia Pacific University. Doubters can find the sad details through Google search.
fourthwire:
And how would that be better than having some demanding hag around constantly, Einstein?
Ahem. We prefer the tag "crone" over "hag". But we'll settle for "old harpy" in a pinch. ;-)
Anonymous: There are no level playing fields. Only weenies whine about the playing field.
Playing fields are usually level at the outset of the game. It's what's in the players which makes the difference in the end -- unless some whiny players force "equal outcome", and then the game just isn't any fun any more.
Nothing new here. Feminism can never let its guard down, lest men reassert their patriarchal tyranny. Anything that's good for men, must be a threat to women somehow.
I think that's in the NYTimes stylebook.
And who said anything about starting a pity party for white men? The good doctor frequently points out how feminist dogma and ideological overkill is harming society and serving a false mythos, but that's not treason to her sex.
We should be aiming for what is healthy, not affirmative action for the injustices of history.
My problem with feminists is that they think they can reverse gender roles (which have been in development for, oh, 10,000 years) by getting some laws passed by politicians they gave a lot of money to.
Put a naked man next to a naked woman and guess what you notice? They are COMPLIMENTARY. They are not COMPETITIVE and they are not meant to be. Feminists want women to compete with men, and not be complimentary to them.
The institution of marriage and the nuclear family were THE civilizing influences of the human race. Feminists hate these 2 things with a passion. The reason why is within the domain of Dr. Helen's profession, not mine. I suspect it is somewhere in the vicinity of father hate, father love, father abandonment, father abuse, etc.
I like men are from mars, women are from venus. Forget the academic credentials. It seems to make a lot of sense.
Men are direct and insensitive. Women are complicated and indirect. This takes academic research?
-Same anon as the anon above.
AmericanWoman:
Seriously, the NYT's basically points out that women are manipulative bitches with no compassion for their husband's life who eagarly plan for the day that he drops like a fly so they collect a hefty sum, slurp margaritas in the sun and you call me anti-female?
American Women has the right to legally exterminate her off-spring yet She still complains about being oppressed at the 'bottom of the rung'. American women has attained the power of Medea's barbarism.
At 44 years of age I am the first generation of orthodox feminism and I am angry at the lies and deceptions orthodox feminism hoisted upon Womenhood these past three decades.
Gloria Steinam may have burned our bras but she left a legacy of sagging size DDD siliconed breast worn on anorexic bodies and botoxed-filled faces screaming about the plight of Eve Ensler's vagina while surrounding themselves around, defending and becoming the very male chauvinist pigs they so detested.
American feminisim is a joke.
As a liberated female I look to the those women in Africa for strength and courage who, instead of succumbing to weaknesses and helplessness of victimhood, do not exterminate their off-spring but will grow their own food to ensure their children survive. As a result of their strength African females are today the majority farmers.
American women live in prosperity yet we have been convinced that children will ruin our lives.
American women have been convinced that it takes an entire village to raise a single child but men are not necessary.
American women have been convinced that thirteen year old girls have the emotional stability to exterminate her off-spring without parental knowledge yet eighteen year old males are just children who are incapable of making their own decisions.
As a liberated female I cannot identify with feminism. Yes, I am angry at the Sisterhood.
Susan
It's interesting to me how much of these discussions are predicated upon class assumptions -- as if working-class men digging extra holes in their belts to stave off the hunger pangs are somehow oppressing the fat, middle-class women who think that walking to the water cooler qualifies as exercise.
Dr. Helen is right to approach writing like this with open mockery. Who takes this sort of drivel seriously, that anybody in the real world must take seriously?
"I for one, am not going to start any pity party for white men."
and:
"Can't stand the competition, white boy?"
So, Americanwoman is a racist and a sexist. How charming.
There are a species of women who believe that the elevation of women requires the degradation of men. But most women WANT a man in their lives, just as most men want a woman in their lives. The frustration within most relationships comes from a lack of understanding of the inherent differences between men and women, and an unwillingness to accept those differences.
I have a son and two daughters. I see this lack of understanding and frustration played out in their relationships with one another. But as a father, I stress to my son that he MUST learn to accept that the differences will always be there. More importantly, he must learn to appreciate and value the way women look at life and circumstances because it will help him be a better man.
I stress that same things with my daughters. It is not enough to acknowledge that men are different. They must learn to be grateful for those differences, and learn to value a man's perspective. Unfortunately, in our modern society, that message is much harder to convey to daughters than it is to sons. Our popular culture tells women they can have it all. But that is a lie. NO ONE gets to have it all their way, unless they intend to spend their lives alone. And who really wants that.
Scott Harris
fourtwire,
While you whine about the playing field, the rest of us will be prevailing on that field and tipping it in our favor. How's life from the sidelines, weenie?
Yes, there are plenty of gold digging C***s in the world, but you silly men keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a big pair of boobs and big eyelashes. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve.
Not a boob man myself so I can't speak to that, but I kinda, sorta agree with you here. If a guy allows himself to be taken advantage of financially, I have no sympathy, like I have no sympathy for the woman who puts out after an expensive dinner and never gets called back.
However, as a never-married male in his early 30's, I have to say, that beyond attractiveness, I don't find that many women around my age or younger to have all that much to offer. Their personalities aren't that great (they seem to be influenced by a combination of feminism and an entitlement mentality; they want equality AND expensive engagement rings), they're unable or unwilling to do even modest amounts of household chores, and us men still seem to have to pick up the bills, even if the woman makes nearly as much as we do. If she makes more, she won't date us anyway.
So, for many guys, if it weren't for sexual desire and being physically attracted to women, we'd probably drop out of the dating pool entirely.
Not complaining really, just an observation. I'm in relationship currently, but I didn't mind being single and kind of miss it (Oh, the free time I used to have).
Although, what I didn't like was the assumption made, mostly by women, that if you were 30 and single you must be gay. As if not wanting to get involved in a situation where the odds aren't really in your favor makes you gay.
"By necessity, women have gotten used to a life lived for long periods without men. They have had the advantage in life expectancy since the late 19th century, when overall longevity started to climb."
I guess by this logic, you could say the original rise in women's life expectancies was also a bad thing. After all, before the late 19th century, women used to routinely die in childbirth, leaving many young widowers. These men were probably used to being alive for decades after the deaths of their wives. I'm sure that when their wives began to survive childbirth, and regularly live past menopause, it really put a cramp on their lifestyle.
So, in conclusion, I modestly propose that all humans be euthanized at age 40 to prevent the huge burden of having an old spouse.
Lollia
fourthwire,
The objective of the game is to tilt the field in one's favor. And weenies who whine about level fields haven't figured out the game yet. I have the field tipped my way. How are you doing?
fourthwire,
Now that you understand the game, let's see how you do. What took you so long, weenie?
Wow, this thread has really degenerated into the law of the jungle although fourthwire, you are quite a comedian. I nearly busted a gut with your quip about the bananas and "my tailed wonder."
fourthwire,
I agree you have not relied on geniuses like me to determine which concepts you do or do not understand. That's why you are whining for a level playing field, while others reap the rewards. Figured out how to tilt it yet?
>> You just read an original article, a follow-up article, and about 50 posts illuminating in various detail how men are being discriminated against.
>>
Please show where I have said that men are not being discrimated against, although it seems more likely they are being harmed by reverse discrimination for women.
>> And I find that suggestion of horror that lowly negroes were allowed to vote before women to be deliciously revealing.
ER, that is the point, I was told upthread that women can't complain because the discrimination against them was nothing compare to that of blacks. If that is so, then why didn't women have the right to vote?
>> Seriously, the NYT's basically points out that women are manipulative bitches with no compassion for their husband's life who eagarly plan for the day that he drops like a fly so they collect a hefty sum, slurp margaritas in the sun and you call me anti-female?
>>>
I'm no fan of the NYTimes myself, and find most of these Dowdish article crap.
But I don't think we need to attack one sex, or one race, or one group in order to elevate another.
I do think most of the perceived 'anti-white-male' attitude is just that, perceived. I'm at a situation at work where the office is 70% black female. We've been told that in choosing new people we need to be more diverse. I think it's a hoot, personally.
Meanwhile the overall make up of our senior management is - you guess it - white males.
So excuse me for not sending out those pity party invites just yet.
I used to respond to put-down artists until a wise man (my father) pointed out that the singular contribution of the put-down artist to the world is the put down.
fourthwire,
Feel free to laugh at me. I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
If your father was a "wise man", then apparently the laws of genetics need urgent revision, my hairy Rhodes Scholar!...;-)
You have me confused with the anonymous simian; I'm the anonymous mutant. By your fatuous example, the singular contribution of the put-down artist to the world is the put down.
"Not particularly valuable information, but thanks for trying....."
It would have been valuable if you had more than one neuron--distinguishing among the different anonymous posters would become possible. You're welcome, in any case.
Anonymous,
Teasing is good for some folks. If it benefits you, I recommend you continue. And while you are teasing and whining about level playing fields, I will be taking a lion's share from the playing field tilted in my favor. Ain't this a great country?
fourthwire,
Feel free to disregard my recommendations. The more the weenies whine, the more I tilt that playing field in my favor. That leaves more for me. Ain't this a great country?
It's like the old Henny Youngman joke:
"Why do Jewish men die before their wives? Because they want to."
All the lady-hate is just nutty. I too, seomtimes wonder about the apparent underlying self loathing of Helen for her sex. I kind of wonder what it is she's driving at. Women should die faster?
I hope my husband outlives me. I love him and think he's irreplaceable. And I don't think he has a bad deal at all, either.
4thwire, try to control yourself. You should give up hallucinogenic suppositories.
Gender Trench War. I used to try to be a conscientious objector, but got conscripted anyway. Since this is one war where deserters don't get shot if caught, I deserted.
Little Lion has made the best comment of the lot - the marriage strike requires absolutely no effort. All a man has to do is nothing, and it continues. The more men who do nothing, the faster it grows.
The multiple Anonymii are welcome to the playing field, however tilted it may be. I've gone fishing. They all ought to think I'm great because I won't be hanging around to cramp any old woman's lifestyle.
fourthwire,
I don't know what you believe, but I do know you whine a good bit about the situation from which I am prospering. Ain't this a great country?
fourthwire,
Perhaps I could determine what you believe. But the whining is far more obvious. Keep it up. The more you whine about that playing field, the more it tips in my favor. The more the field tips in my favor, the more I prosper. Ain't this a great country?
The closeness of two married people is a heart issue, not one of needs and wants. It is a spiritual thing, non-tangible. To reduce the nature of this to who gets what and who wants to be left alone---or who's glad to be left alone....speaks of a sad state that some find themselves.
g
AmericanWoman,
"Yes, there are plenty of gold digging C***s in the world, but you silly men keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a big pair of boobs and big eyelashes. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve."
Yes, there are plenty of Wife-Beating A**holes in the world, but you silly women keep going for them, don't you? Can't resist a bad boy image and a redemption fantasy. Seems to me that some of you get what you deserve.
Cheerfully yours,
Patrick
Anonymous and fourthwire -- GET A ROOM!!!!!!
A CHAT ROOM!!!!
PLEASE!!
Your conversation simply isnt THAT interesting.
GO AWAY!
I'm in my 50s and find myself single and dating. I agree with the recent comment about women not having much to offer. I've been surprised at how shallow and self centered most of them are, and this is a group of mature individuals. Their idea of gender roles is stuck in 1960. The man pays for everything, comes up with all the suggestions, and the sweet little thing does nothing, contributes nothing.
Oh, and they all say "where are all the good men?"
This is part of their plan to become elected to the National Academy of Science. They should be encouraged!
"where are all the good men?"
Out fishing so we don't put a cramp in all these single older women's exciting social lives.
fourthwire,
Feel free to mock me for beating you. Love that prosperity! Ain't this a great country?
This thread demonstrates why intelligent corporations never use e-mail or desktop videoconferencing
to build a project team unless the participants have held at least one face-to-face meeting.
Text-on-a-screen-identities are inherently abstract and often become aggressive, and the descent into "projection" happens pretty quickly, especially among the Type A's of both/all genders.
The cyber-sociology of the rumble is almost as interesting as the content of commentary!
Anonymous/Susan (isn't that an oxymoron?)wrote -- "Gloria Steinam may have burned our bras but she left a legacy of sagging size DDD siliconed breast worn on anorexic bodies and botoxed-filled faces screaming about the plight of Eve Ensler's vagina while surrounding themselves around, defending and becoming the very male chauvinist pigs they so detested."
Everyone who has enjoyed this rumble-thread should also read Ariel Levy's new book "Female Chauvanist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture."
(Quote) -- "Without a doubt there are some women who feel they're most sexual with their vaginas waxed, their labia trimmed, their breasts enlarged, and their garments flossy and scanty. I am happy for them. I wish them many blissful and lubricious loops around the pole. But there are many other women (and, yes, MEN) who feel constrained in this environment, who would be happier and feel hotter -- more empowered, more sexually liberated, and all the rest of it -- if they explored other avenues of expression and entertainment."
I would humbly propose that lurking not very deeply beneath the excellent turbulence of this entire thread lies the tragedy of desires unfulfilled.
For both ... err ... all genders.
( Let's invite the trannies to post here OK --- very valuable perspective for a gender-conflicted crowd!)
- anonymous 143-3/bDIS
So much anger, so little time.
Helen:
I'm not the same anonymous from any of the above but rather from the Men's News Daily post.
That you chose to essentially complement fourthwire (that's certainly how he took it, I think) speaks VOLUMES about you. And it ain't good.
It's one thing to be rude. But this man generally does not even engage in the discourse but simply hurls epithets like the simian he accuses everyone else of being. Disagree with him on anything and he immediately refers to you as a moron, idiot or worse. Frankly, he appears to be off his meds.
And you think he's funny? Well, hey, it's your site. But, as several others have commented here recently, know that your colors are showing.
There is really no reason to subject us tp the confusion of multiple anonymi when nicknonymity is trivially simple. Just pick any random word other than my chosen name grain and use it as a consistant identity.
By the way, there are some sports for which deliberately non-level playing fields are specially constructed.
This reminds me of something my grandpa (always a comedian) once said. My grandma is wonderful, and he loved her very much, but asked once if he had any thoughts on why men often die first he said, "Because they want to."
fourthwire,
I do love the prosperity that comes from the playing field tipped in my favor. I also love the advantages in schools, universities, scholarships, employment, promotion, and loans. And the advantages in court are wonderful.
Your whining keeps people from taking your issue seriously because nobody pays attention to a weenie. Thank you. I really do appreciate the sacrifices you have made for my prosperity. Ain't this a great country?
The closeness of two married people is a heart issue, not one of needs and wants. It is a spiritual thing, non-tangible. To reduce the nature of this to who gets what and who wants to be left alone---or who's glad to be left alone....speaks of a sad state that some find themselves.
I agree and disagree. First, all human relationships are about needs and wants. If we didn't have a need or desire for companionship, love, sex, etc. we'd all become hermits.
However, I do agree that a good, "spiritual" as you call it, relationship between two people shouldn't, or more appropriately, won't be reduced to excessive score keeping about who gets or does what. The problem is, most couples don't reach this level of spirituality on the first date. So at that point, the issue of who brings what to the table is very much at play.
Chsis,
Perhaps I am malevolent and juvenile. If that is the tactic that tilts the playing field in my favor, then it's a pretty good system.
I agree most of the inventions and scientific advances have been made by men. That's simple history. I applaud them and enjoy what they accomplished. So what? They were also made by white folks. So what?
There are two parallel games in progress. One is tilting the playing field in one's favor. The other is playing on that tilted field. The smart folks have always tilted the filed before playing on it.
There have never been any rules when it comes to tilting the field. Good luck with your chivalry. How's it working for you?
fourthwire,
Thanks for repeating your initial post. It's a classic loser's whine. Keep up the good work. Ain't this a great country?
The anonymous poster above reads suspiciously like the Strawfeminist.
yet another anonymous said
Perhaps I am malevolent and juvenile. If that is the tactic that tilts the playing field in my favor, then it's a pretty good system.
Malevolent, juvenile, self-centered, self-serving, vicious, vindictive, and a user.
Thanks, Anon, for showing us the true face of western womanhood today. The rare exceptions like Dr. Helen, and those handfull of supposed "equity feminists" who get praised way out of proportion to what they actually contribute, will not be enough to keep the majority of men fooled forever. Men are wising up to what women are really like, and the fact that all these appeals to men's sense of fairness for the past 40 years have been nothing but an elaborate hoax to tilt the playing field to women's advantage. As Lincoln said, you can fool all of the men some of the time, and some of the men all of the time, but you can't fool all of the men all of the time.
"What a strange game... the only winning move is not to play."
- Wopper
You can stand the playing field completely on its side for all I care. I caught on to your game almost 40 years ago. I knew this hoax was never about "ee-kwal-i-tee" and "fairness", but rather about tilting the playing field completely to your advantage.
The problem for you is that now you and others of your ilk are stuck on it, playing with yourselves. More and more of the other side have simply quit the field and are refusing to be hoodwinked into coming back no matter how many names you call them. The marriage boycott is now being supported by a quarter of all single men. As Anon6:26 said, more and more men are finding out that women simply have nothing to offer, particularly older women.
Enjoy your proposperity, perks, and legal advantages. A man still has to come close to you in order for you to get your hooks into him, and the young and foolish get fished out of the pond early, leaving only the cagey and elusive.
It really doesn't matter how tilted the playing field is to your side, if you are the only ones on it.
Zed,
OK. Perhaps I am malevolent, juvenile, self-centered, self-serving, vicious, vindictive, and a user. What's your point? The playing field is still tipped in my favor, I still prosper from it, and all we hear from the whiners is talk, talk, talk.
Ever wonder how the millions of men who are successful do it? It sure isn't by whining. Maybe you should ask them, if they will even bother with a whiner.
Keep on whining. I'll keep on tilting the field in my favor.
Anon said, again...
Keep on whining. I'll keep on tilting the field in my favor.
Keep tilting, I quit the game long ago. You won't win what I have. I don't have to ask successful men how they did it, I learned that back in the 60s and have been following that path ever since. In my mid-40s, I took 6 years off the career grind to travel the world, ride my motorcycle, and fish. I work about a 37 hour week, come and go as I please, I'm on track to retire early and comfortably, and I have complete peace and quiet in my own home. All my married friends envy me and use my place as a refuge where they can run away from the nagging.
I'm not whining, I'm gloating.
Chris Key:
Oh, so CHIVALRY was the reason that men kept women with no voting rights, no property rights, no equal rights to work or school, etc.
I'm glad you cleared that up. I realize now how ungrateful I've been.
Wait.
You said men are intellectually superior to women? And you accuse women of being malevolent?
Also, you said the innocent women of the present and future will pay for the sins of their "feminazi" sisters? Wait. Weren't you one of those making the argument that it was immoral and illogical for feminists to argue for special treatment now based on historical abuses?
Zed,
Well done. As I said, there are millions of successful men around. Maybe you can tell some of these weenies how it's done. So what are you whining about? Is that how you succeeded?
anon said
Maybe you can tell some of these weenies how it's done.
Mostly the same thing they are saying, which you keep calling "whining."
It's simple - don't get married. Most of the well-off men I know didn't. Most of the married ones are just squeaking by.
"Perhaps I am malevolent, juvenile, self-centered, self-serving, vicious, vindictive, and a user. What's your point? The playing field is still tipped in my favor, I still prosper from it, and all we hear from the whiners is talk, talk, talk."
Actually, "talk" from "whiners" is not all there is. Men are suing women for sexual harassment, battery, and discrimination in increasing numbers, and are winning those cases as well. Men are fighting back in family court in increasing numbers. Those are the actions you can see. What you can't see, but which plainly exists, are the men who refuse to hire "women's studies" majors, men who refuse to associate with self-declared feminists, men who donate to charitable organizations for fathers. Then there are men who refuse to come to the rescue of a girl they see attacked in an alley, men who refuse to stand up to a girl peer of theirs being bullied in school. Most widespread are men who, believing that to get the most out of life they need to be manipulative, self-centered, self-serving, vindictive, and a user, as Anonymous claims to be, these men turn into the very thing that feminists hate: mysognists. You can see the widespread evidence of this attitude in rap music, for example. Men of that sort routinely don't give a damn about women, because they have learned that women don't give a damn about them. Is that the sort of world that feminism was supposed to create?
What a sad, disgusting thing, if so. All this evil does is breed more evil. Anonymous seems to believe that the so-called "playing field" (as if life is just a game) will be forever "tilted" in her favor. But reality has a way of showing how false that perspective really is. There is no "playing field." We're all just people. And being vindictive, manipulative, and wicked to every man you meet doesn't say much about men, but it does say a lot about you. Enjoy your wealth, however you get it. It will never buy you happiness, which you certainly lack, as anyone who professes to be so wedded to materialism and vindictiveness surely is.
level playing fields
I always preferred the field be level or tilted in the other direction. That way when I when I win or accomplish something, it's something I did not just a result of a tilted field. When I was younger and still a good basketball player I often would give the other team an advantage. It just made my victory better.
One of the feminist heroic events was when Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in a tennis match. It doesn't seem to matter that she hit into a double court while he hit into the singles or that he was allowed only one serve. King was in her prime and one of the top female players in the world. Riggs was 55 years old, 25 years past his prime and not even the best seniors player.
Of course, enjoying your own accomplishments or accomplishing anything means little if you measure life by your material possessions.
Just wondering, Sydney, what kind of job do you apply for with a women's study degree anyway? Seems it would be limited to certain social services and academia. And, what man would want to associate with a feminist of such as anonymous above? Only a masochist.
"Sydney, what kind of job do you apply for with a women's study degree anyway?"
Lord knows. I consider them un-employable. Even people with a high school education have more sense than them.
Sydney,
I intend to enjoy the prosperity I gain from the tilted playing field while I wait to see any results from your whining.
Don't tell the weenies here there is no playing field. The tilt to the field is their excuse for personal failure.
I'm always amused when I hear or read a bunch of women's studies majors complaining about how there are not enough female CEO's of fortune 500 companies, or not enough females in the hard sciences, or whatever.
Here's a hint: If you want more women in these fields don't major in, or encourage other women to major in, women's studies.
dadvocate,
If material posesssions mean so little, why are you whining about them?
Some how this story fits into this discussion. If, for no other reason, a humorous break.
"Don't tell the weenies here there is no playing field."
But there isn't. There are only people. And you, with your possessions, in your loneliness.
Sydney,
Does that mean the whiners are wrong when they say the playing field isn't level? If so, what are they whining about?
Can you tell us more about my loneliness? I haven't said anything about loneliness. Perhaps you can tell us about it?
"I haven't said anything about loneliness. Perhaps you can tell us about it?"
Here's a hint: manipulative, self-centered, self-serving, vindictive people usually don't have any friends.
Perhaps with all that money you're getting from your beloved "playing field," you can buy yourself a clue.
Sydney,
Come on, Sydney. You can do better than that. Just make the case that I am lonely because some of the whiners here made accusations.
That beloved playing field that is tilted in my favor is a gold mine. I shouldn't have to buy myself a clue. You made the statement. Can't you stand up like a man and defend it? Try it. Maybe you'll like it and give up whining.
So, are the whiners wrong when they complain about the tilted playing field? If so, we see a lot of whining about nothing here.
Who agrees with Sydney that there is no playing field?
I've seen many playing fields, none of them tilted though.
Although, some do have mounds in the middle. Does that count?
rizzo,
Is that a vote for the idea the playing field is level for all?
Chris,
You said,
"A Human who views life as a *game* is an immoral brute that deserves to be shunned and ostracised from all communities that they are a member of, as such a person is a parasitic scavenger who preys on the kindness of the innocent."
Does this include the whiners who complain the playing field is not level?
Life is not fair, and I don't expect it to be. But I DO expect the law to be fair: the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution says it shall be. Unfortunately, far too many legislators and judges have forgotten that clause and need a reminder.
so anonymous with the tilted field, you get it all, money, power, responsibility then, as the state altered the field to benefit you, what about the other people it didnt benefit, but then again you are self absorbed, and only looking out for your own selfish desires.
you moan about its all talk talk talk. but thats what men do. we talk, we create meme's we pass on knowledge due to our talking. we dont waste it on frivolous does my bum look big in this. and this site is all about talking or discussing as it should be.
to denigrate all people (men) who dont accept that women are the all high worshipped goddesses, by calling them whiners and weenies, and so on, you are just creating more opposition to you and your point(less) of view..
try to imagine if you can or are able too, that its a man saying the same things you are saying, that women shouldnt whine if the field isnt tilted into their favour. imagine, it that women are called whiners and weenies, or slackers, for even complaining that the system is wrong. if you feel disgust then you are a sexist, you are a misandrist.
Mercurior,
I do benefit enormously from the tilted playing field.
I also observe there has been no time in human history when the field was not tilted one way or another. Why should we think it will suddenly become level now? Can anyone tell us a time when the playing field was not tilted in favor of of some group? (This is directed towards those who think there is a playing field.)
This is why I say one game involves tilting the field, while another involves playing on it and reaping the rewards of the tilt.
A whiner is not someone who refuses to worship women; it's someone who whines about his situation. You can see many of them on this site. There are millions of successful men who are not whimers. I don't know if they worship women. It doesn't matter.
it's someone who whines about his situation.
So you're saying the entire feminist movement is the result of a bunch of whiners?
dadvocate,
Of course. Look at history.
dadvocate said...
So you're saying the entire feminist movement is the result of a bunch of whiners?
and liars.
In true P.T. Barnum tradition, the suckers have not been given an even break, nor a "level playing field", and never will be. From day one, feminism has been an elaborate hoax and scam perpetrated for the purpose of giving women even greater advantage than they already had.
The only question that remains is whether the suckers are ever going to wake up, realize that they have been played for suckers, and stop going along with it. Based on what I have seen going on for the past 40 years, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Just a question? Did any of you geniuses speak up when pro-white-male bias was rampant, or was that Ok with you?
You seem to have a lot to say about pro-female bias, but not a lot about why it came about in the first place.
During my lifetime, approx 50 years, there's always been a pro-female bias of some sort. Women were never expected to perform the more dangerous, difficult jobs. Men opened doors for women. Women (and children) were always saved first in life threatening situations. Women were always given more consideration and protection. It was even socially acceptable for the female in a married relationship to do nothing to earn an income whether children were present or not.
But there were some constrictions that women found odious. Now they generally expect all the old considerations plus new ones. In reality feminism wasn't about throwing off chains but about getting more and more privileges and entitlements, a have your cake and eat it too situation.
"Did any of you geniuses speak up when pro-white-male bias was rampant?"
Yes, I spoke up. And I marched.
And I've lost track of how many thousands of pages I read and how many man-months I spent in seminars and what-not when it would have been much more fun to be out cycling, nightclubbing or watching a movie.
So, with all due respect, take your snide attitude somewhere else. This isn't about a "pity party" but an objection to bias double standards--or are you too wrapped up in your hate to understand that?
pst314,
Of course it's a pity party. The whiners like the sound of their own whimperings. At least give them credit for a good whine.
The REAL question was not asked be the article,
"Why do men die before their wives ?"
-- They want to.
Dr Helen has been oddly silent.
She must be contemplating what to do now that the sperm bank of commentary has been released on her site.
Girl.... you need to respond to this tsunami wave of testosterone.
(And I use the term "girl" with affection, especially given your studio signature photo. Yes, you are "hot." And, you intended to be, right? ;-) )
So Dr. H., (your intellectual persona...) what do you make of this fairly unusual flood of commentary on your site?
You have obviously noted the commercial potential, right?
But, more importantly, what have YOU learned?
Anonymous 11:10:
I have mainly been silent because I have actually had to work--remember, I still have a job outside of this one!
You ask what I have learned from this exchange of comments on this thread. Just as a general impression, I think that it is interesting that there are some women (like AmericanWoman and a few others) who can't stand the fact that there is a little corner of the world where men can exchange a few ideas about how they feel about men, society and justice.
I think they are so threatened and entrenched in the idea that women and minorites have special privileges and goodies being tossed at them by the left that they would rather trash the idea of the democratic principles of freedom, equality and fairness and make a deal with the devil.
Some women (or sockpuppet men) on this thread say that I seem anti-female etc. I don't care what they say, because the truth is, I care more about the universal principles free societies aspire to--freedom for the individual, rights for all individuals, equality under the law, equality of opportunity, and an inherent right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--than I do about being reduced to my sex in order to be thrown a few goodies by the feminists in exchange for being faithful to the "sisterhood."
I think many of the men and some of the women (although not many on this thread who are antagonizing others) understand that equality begins and ends with responsibility, fairness and individual rights--that is what this argument is about. It is a struggle between those like AmericanWoman who believe that revenge and injustice will make up for the problems of the past and those who wish to see the democratic principles that this country strives for prevail. I hope the latter wins out.
jw said...
I faced life threatening discrimination due to several factors. That is the way it is/was. What seem odd is the open support among some peopel for MORE dangerous and life threatening discrimination against males! That is a sick and perverted indicator for our society.
The power differential you speak of applies to a very small group of men. Most of us do not have a single man in the "powerful white male" group within our respective genealogies.
The above is true and should be obvious to all. Yet, you seem to want to punish men for having power, that they never had.
I do not understand such thinking.
It is called "feminism", which literally breaks down into "FEMININE-ism." It has nothing to do with reality, but is based entirely on how a woman feels. It is literally NOT thinking, but but instead is based on feeling. If a woman feels "oppressed" or "harassed", then, by god, she IS and that's all there is to it!!
The mentality you are seeing, jw, comes from the Marxist influence in feminism, which divides people into classes - men being the class with "power", and women being the class without "power". It doesn't matter that a woman might be wealthy, educated, and in the top levels of the social register, while the man is a coal miner or steel worker - it is all based on identity politics.
Hundreds of "wimmins's studdees" programs all over the westernized world have been churning out hate intoxicated little zealots for the past 30 years. Their purpose in life is to punish men of today for all these mythlogical atrocities of history which they have been drummed into their heads. It's a cult which has been financed by our taxes for over 3 decades.
Evidence to the contrary is irrelevant and is refuted, discarded, and shouted down - as we have seen ample evidence in this very thread. In fact, logic itself is dismissed as male/andro/phallo-"centric" and replaced with that "speshul wimmin's way of knowing" which means simply how she fee-yuhls right now.
Such people are never going to be swayed by reason, logic, and argument. As Oscar Wilde once said - what passes for thinking with most people amounts to nothing more than rearranging their biases. Women like AW outnumber women like Dr. Helen by thousands to one, and they will attack her as readily and quickly as they attack men, as we have also seen in this very thread.
That's what we face. They are going to continue to try to shout us down and shut us up with insults. They live for the purpose of hurting men - it is what gives their pathetic lives meaning. They won't stop as long as their terrorist tactics keep working and men keep giving them everything they ask for. If there is one thing that men should have learned from the past 4 decades, it is that. Sadly, it seems that most men still haven't. So many people still cling to the propaganda that feminism was about "fairness", when it always has been about tilting the playing field even further to women's advantage, and instilling in women hatred and contempt for men, boys, and all things male - because, you know, all women are victims of all men, and always have been. That "patriarchy" thing.
Zed,
Can we count you as one of those who thinks the playing field exists?
Helen said
It is a struggle between AmericanWomen who believe that revenge and injustice will make up for the problems of the past and those who wish to see the democratic principles that this country strives for prevail. I hope the latter wins out.
The great thing about holding the latter beliefs is that simply by holding them, the person wins. The person who takes responsibility for his own life also takes control of it as a direct result of that responsibility.
AmericanWomen may think they are hurting men and getting their revenge, but they are wrong. The people they are really hurting is other women - the ones who have silently gone along for the ride and enjoyed the playing field temporarily being tilted in their favor. Carey Roberts wrote a great summary of it called Women lose when Feminists Bash.
AmericanWomen have become so addicted to the goodies tossed to them by the left that they will find it very difficult to survive without them. Their bashing men alienates men from women in general, and a rapidly growing number of men are simply turning their backs on women. The silent complicity of the majority of women does nothing to counter the impression men are getting that all women are like AmericanWomen.
Articles claiming that US mothers "deserve" $134,121 in "salary" simply create the impression in men that Wives are like yachts, luxuries which cost far more than they are worth.
AmericanWomen are seeing the failure of their strategy of relentless attacks and hatred. More and more men are simply going their own way and refusing to hand a woman the loaded gun of marriage and child support. And so far, the best that most women (yourself being a clear exception) have to offer is "Well, not all women are like that!" Well, not all the toadstools which pop up in my front yard after a rain are poisonous either - but even the ones which aren't don't have enough flavor to make it worth the risk that they might be.
The way I see it, this battle is for women like you to fight. Articles like this one, "Men should prepare themselves for a shock," she told a recent conference. "Women's dissatisfaction lies at the bottom of their mind like magma. Husbands don't understand they are despised and disliked by their wives." convince men that marriage is a very expensive way to become so despised.
It's a lot cheaper, less stressful, and apparently makes women happier for men to simply avoid them. Given how unpleasant AmericanWomen are, that's a win-win situation for both sides.
Helen,
You wrote, "Just as a general impression, I think that it is interesting that there are some women (like AmericanWoman and a few others) who can't stand the fact that there is a little corner of the world where men can exchange a few ideas about how they feel about men, society and justice."
Can you tell us who can't stand the existence of the "little corner of the world?" I have seen people engage the content of postings on that little corner, but have seen nobody object to the existence of that corner. Can you help us out by elaborating?
JW,
Can you give us the specifics of the "life threatening discrimination" you mention? How was your life threatened? What was the specific discrimination? How was that discrimination linked to the thteat to your life?
Zed,
Did the article saying mothers deserve $134K make you think wives were like yachts? Are wives like yachts? Do you speak for all American men? If not, what percentage do you think you speak for? What percentage of American men think wives are like yachts?
Do you think Helen is a yacht?
American women aren't like yachts, but more like Harley Davidson's.
Louder, more expensive, and more dysfunctional than their Japanese counterparts.
I kid, of course.
American women aren't like yachts, but more like Harley Davidson's.
Louder, more expensive, and more dysfunctional than their Japanese counterparts.
And, there are those men who would rather push their Harleys than ride a Jap bike.
I'm not one of them. Happy pushing, guys. :-))
Dr. Helen replied --
(excerpt re. feminist women) "I think they are so threatened and entrenched in the idea that women and minorites have special privileges and goodies being tossed at them by the left that they would rather trash the idea of the democratic principles of freedom, equality and fairness and make a deal with the devil."
Why would you use the term "by the left" instead of "by feminism?"
VAWA 2005 was passed by 100% of Republican Senators and House Reps.
So, how does one equate misandry exclusively with "leftism?"
Are you seeking to posture yourself as a conservative-feminist?
How do you see a way forward, hopefully a way out of the rad-fem zero-sum gender wars?
Women and men connecting on a personal level, i.e. overcoming the bile and toxicity of the past 40 years of the Evil Patriarchy myth?
As a cinema afficiando,I really appreciate your (B/W retro) photo, and it's intriguing that you chose to do such a "glam shot" as your signature; references to Vivian and Marlene et. al.
Though I suspect that your mind is your most seductive organ, Dr. H. ;-)
And you have not yet actually responded to much of the content of the past 3,000 posts.
Your job may be changing soon...
While I'm not DrHelen, I surmise that 100% Republicans voted for the VAWA becasue they are cowards, as are most of our politicians at this point in time. They are more interested in figuring out how to get the most votes instead of doing the right thing. Hence, John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."
dadvocate,
Politicians do act to get the most votes. If they please their constituents by their votes, the constituents vote for them. They are doing what the people they represent want done.
Gee Dr. Helen, it's a good thing you have a blog, because you must be a REALLY bad psychologist.
I am certainly not 'entrenched in the idea that women and minorites have special privileges and goodies being tossed at them by the left', I don't agree they are 'special', simply equal.
For the record, I consider myself a libertarian, not a democrat or left leaning. I have always supported myself in adulthood. I don't think women should have privileges, but rights, equal to those of men. And I don't see how this threatens men unless they are unable or unwilling to compete fairly with women.
If women are succeding, I think it is wonderful. I don't see that men are failing or falling behind, just that things have changed for both sexes. Men are also free now to pursue other interest rather than being the breadwinner and have all the onus on them to suppor the family.
I don't agree with women who want it all, endless maternity leave AND promotions and raises at work. I don't have children and have made that decision. I therefore feel that since I don't take months off at a time, I will advance quicker than my mommy co-workers (or perhaps those daddy coworkers who chose to take leave). And there is nothing wrong with that.
The issue that is quite apparent to me is the HOSTILITY here, from you and most of the men. How dare some women believe they have rights! How dare women live longer than men, and not shrivel up and die as soon as their husbands do.
What I have seen here is not about society and justice. It is blind hatred and envy.
Whether you chose to acknowledge it or not, the US and the world is still owned and controlled by white men. And will continue to be so for a long time. So you can all relax.
Chris,
A parasite does live off the host. Is it your contention that all the millions of working and productive women in our society are parasites?
I agree that women have not made the scientific contributions that men have made in the past. That does not mean they do not make them today, and certainly does not demonstrate thay cannot make them.
We can explore that idea further by noting that Indians and East Asians have not made nearly as many scientfic contributions in the past as white men have. However, we observe them making huge contributios today. (Are we observing a logical fallacy at work? Oh, dear!)
Hey, folks,
I haven't seen anybody offer a period in history when the playing field was level. Maybe Chris can help us. If the playing field has never been level, is it a logical fallacy to think it ever can be level? (I love to see posters call Logical Fallacy.)
Chris,
Are men who refuse to Enter the workforce until it offers them a fair chance parasites? Some host must be feeding these cellar dwellers.
I wonder if the cellar dwellers who refuse to enter the workforce because they think it is unfair have considered going on strike. That might force the rest of us to reconsider and give them what they want.
To All:
I have been taking care of my invalid parents for 5 years. Both have been free from the burdens of housekeeping and all of the other tasks of taking care of oneself. My mother recently died from colon cancer. There isn't one day where my Dad doesn't miss her. Noy because he isn't being taken care of. Mother lost the ability to do that years ago. It is because he loved her, loved her more then anyone else in the world and after 65 years of marriage widowhood is not a new opportunity for fun without his wife, he misses his soulmate.
Our whole family thought Dad would go first, his health was the poorer of the two before the suprise cancer hit my Mom. Mother would often state "I don"t know if I can stand life without Popi. Not because she feared being taken care of. Not because she was a shrinking violet, she raised 6 kids, she grew up during the depression. She also had friends in her church for companionship. It was because she loved my father with all her heart and even the love of her 6 kids, multiple grandkids and great grandkids could ever replace my father.
This wasn't Hollywood love. It was real, it had all the normal problems that all relationships had. And this isn't a call for all widows to go out on the iceflow and await death in despair. But neither one looked forward to life without the other. Because they loved each other. This gross article that paints longer life for men as a burden for women is disgusting.
Anonymous said...
neither one looked forward to life without the other. Because they loved each other. This gross article that paints longer life for men as a burden for women is disgusting.
At long last a voice of sanity among the long and ugly diatribes. Obviously you are a different Anonymous than the one so blinded by her own hatred that all she can see, no matter what is presented to her, is her own hatred being reflected back.
When it comes to being "anti-woman", I view articles which say that "Women's dissatisfaction lies at the bottom of their mind like magma. Husbands don't understand they are despised and disliked by their wives." is far more hateful toward women than men who are still trying to dialogue with them. This distortion and stereotyping ends up harming everyone - and I believe women most of all.
Unlike the husbands referred to as "sodai gomi (big rubbish)" I am not in for either surprise or shock. I have known since my freshman year in college (back when Richard Nixon was still president and still popular) how much feminists despised and disliked men. I started then learning how to live alone, instead of after spending most of my life working to support a woman who hated me, but kept it a secret until she could lay legal claim to half of everything I had worked for - without having to endure putting up with me in the bargain.
Instead of spending that $134,121 per year on someone who detested me, I worked less, saved more, and spent the time and energy on developing those skills which in times gone by I would have relied on a wife to contribute to the marriage. While at first I was acutely aware of missing out on what your parents, and my parents, had, watching virtually all of my friends reach the same circumstances I was in via the much more expensive and painful path of divorce convinced me that I had made the better choice. Seeing the venom coming out of the AmericanWomen in the comments here, shows me what a bitter and painful life experience I managed to avoid.
Anonymous 2:46:
Thanks for the real reason that this article is so repulsive--it reduces human beings to a wallet and a lunch maker, and views men's longer life as a burden rather than a blessing. The authors of articles such as this, perhaps, have never know the kinds of feelings that your parents shared. Too bad.
Your right zed. No gold digging beyotch will get her hands on your money. Lucky you.
How sad this all is. I hope my daughters grow up with more empathy and emotional intelligence than many of their adult counterparts appear to have.
I am a single father, but I hope my daughters can find love and companionship when they grow older. It will be difficult, as society seems hell-bent on throwing away anything positive from the past.
Certainly, the legal bias men encounter in family court will likely continue as they grow older, as will the negativity that was evident in the article that started this thread. It is no wonder that marriage is rapidly becoming the choice for the uneducated and poor as opposed to the informed and well-off.
Dr. H.,
You are really playing "cute" with the tsunami wave of comments that men have gifted you on your blog here.
You have written little, and thought less.
Girl, yes girl ...
Maybe time to ask yourself what you wanted to happen when your provocative sense of yourself started to get noticed?
Oh, BTW ... I'm still on your side.
But you better describe it soon.
There is plenty to be said for women who play both sides of the game. Wanting 'special priviledges and equality' at the same time. Not ever going to happen.
But really, to deny that there has been systematic discrimination and that 9 out of 10 divorces and custody cases are made up of men not paying for their own children is a bit much for me.
Yes, there are bad women out there. Alert the media.
AmericanWoman said...
Your right zed. No gold digging beyotch will get her hands on your money.
Why should they need to, AW? Remember - a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. Now that you have all those nasty white men refusing to play the game, I'm sure women will own the whole world in no time flat. The playing field is tilted to their advantage, and that's just the way they like it. Now, if they can just find a way to get all us inconvenient men to die even sooner, their all-woman utopia is just around the corner.
Anonymous 6:53 :
Why don't you respond to the article or to Dr. H has written rather then spouting vague cryptic insults. How was she "playing cute"? She read an article, posted her critique, and opened her views up to responses. "Describe it soon" ? Ok. What exactly do you want her to describe? Instead of smug rightousness, why don't you go after her ideas and tell her what she got wrong. Good, bad, she presented an argument. Why don't you try it.
Zed,
You sound like Peewee Herman when he falls off his bike. "Yeah, I meant to do that. I did. I really did. Yeah I did."
I think zed and Chris Key would make a lovely couple.
American Woman,
You very much overestimate the number of men who do not pay for their children and underestimate the number of women who do. The truth is, the number of deadbeat moms out there is large and growing. Fathers who pay greatly outweigh those who do not. Moms get away consistently with not paying support even if the father wins child support from a mom, there is little enforcement. I have dealt with this many times firsthand with male clients who care for their children and can't get the courts to enforce child support payments against the ex-wives. Here is an article on deadbeat moms:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html
Chris,
You point out a lack of inventions by women in the past. Again I ask, "So what?" What does that lack tell us about modern women?
The Asians did make some strides in the past. But their contributions to modern science paled compared those of white men.
Black Africans? How did their contributions in modern science compare to those of white men?
In general, what do past contributions of particular groups tell us about the present abilities of those groups?
Chris,
You wrote, "Women are supported by the state, and the state is supported by men, therefore women are benefiting at the expense of men. In today's society, men are the hosts who are required to fund the programs that empower women."
How about this?
BLACKS are supported by the state, and the state is supported by WHITES, therefore BLACKS are benefiting at the expense of WHITES. In today's society, WHITES are the hosts who are required to fund the programs that empower BLACKS.
All we have to do is get a list of per capita income by group. Then we substitute group names showing a higher earning group is subsidizing a lower earning group.
This would show that Indian American men are subsidizing white American men.
And how about those guys who won't enter the labor market because it isn't fair? Are they supported by women? Parasites?
I like the way neither Dr. Helen nor any of her regular supporters here could be bothered to confront the Chris Key.
He says women are intellectually inferior to men. Your silence suggests to me that you agree. If you thought this attitude was wrong and destructive, I'm sure you would have stood up to censure him, as you have suggested that right-headed women should do in the face of discrimination against men.
I'll have your back when you have mine, alright?
No, no-- I suspect he has expressed what is a common sentiment amongst you all. And you wanna tell me that this attitude doesn't affect how women are treated in the workplace and in their personal lives?
Furthermore, I was talking to a friend of a friend last night. He is married to an Asian woman. He mentioned that at one point in their relationship when she was going to be away for a month, she told him that it was ok with her if he went out and found somebody to have sex with--that she understood he probably couldn't go that long without. He explained that Asian women put their man's desires above all else. He admitted that this was indeed the attraction--that Asian women are attractive because they seem helpless and often have low self-esteem such that they let their men do whatever they want.
I think this is also a pretty common sentiment.
What kind of insecure fuck needs that?
I thought I would try the Chris Key game that Anonymous 12:19 detailed.
The top 1% of earners in the US pay over 1/3 of all income taxes. Therefore...
99% OF MEN are supported by the state, and the state is supported by 1% OF EARNERS, therefore 99% OF MEN are benefiting at the expense of 1% OF EARNERS. In today's society, 1% OF EARNERS are the hosts who are required to fund the programs that empower 99% OF MEN.
Anonymous 1:56 said...
I like the way neither Dr. Helen nor any of her regular supporters here could be bothered to confront the Chris Key.
Why should we bother to do your work for you? You have the advantage in schools, the advantage in law, and the advantage in jobs. You can kill anyone you want to - child, man, or even another woman - and get away with a fraction of the sentence a man would get. The playing field is tilted entirely to your advantage. Have fun playing on it without the help of those awful "white males." You and others of your ilk have alienated all the men who once supported you.
Anonymous 5:06,
Most white men are very active in society and the economy. It's a small minority who choose to be uninvolved recluses nursing their wounds and blaming others for their wrecked lives.
little lion. Good point. People such as Chris Key are best ignored. Attempting to argue with them only spurs them on to spew more of their garbage.
I find the problem with most advocacy groups is that they have to have a villian. There is a lot of injustice in the world but I don't belive an entire group is the cause of it. Just as the 'lefties' love to blame Bush for everything under the sun, some men (in this particular case) who have perhaps had unfulfilling relationships (to put it mildly) with women and now appear to be very bitter.
I'll be the first to speak out against women who use men and children as a meal ticket. But I don't really see a wholesale 'pro-women' advocacy out there. I do see backlash due to some long standing 'rules' that have changed. I guess that has to be expected to some extent.
Thanks for the link Dr. Helen. 2 million deadbeat dads vs 289K deadbeat moms. That's pretty close to 9 out of 10 deadbeat dads vs moms. But I'm sure as women do gain more and more equality they will be right up there with the men!!!!
I think the more significant number is the percentage of those required to pay child support who actually pay. The article says 57% of women pay, and 68% of men pay.
The more significan number is the parcentages of each froup that pay. 57% of women required to pay support do so. 68% of men do so.
americanwoman, I think you miss the entire point here:
I'll be the first to speak out against women who use men and children as a meal ticket. But I don't really see a wholesale 'pro-women' advocacy out there. I do see backlash due to some long standing 'rules' that have changed. I guess that has to be expected to some extent.
First, most men, to some extent, expect to be used as meal tickets. We grow up knowing that, chances are, we're going to be the one bringing home the majority of the income. Sure, it would be nice to marry a woman who makes more money, but women tend not to marry men who make less.
The fact that we are treated as a meal ticket isn't the problem. The problem is that we're often denigraded as we do so. What's the point of handing most of your money over to your wife and kids, and then having them tell you (or make you feel) that you're worthless? I don't personally have this problem, but I suspect many men do.
Second, you don't see any wholesale pro-women advocacy out there? Are you being serious?
Third, guys, for the most part, don't care that the rules have changed. It's not about backlash. I would guess that almost all the men who have commented here would have no problem with a woman doing (or having the opportunity to do) the same job they currently do, provided they could do it competently.
The problem for many men, I suspect, is a certain level of isolation and alientation where they forego much of their wants and desires for the sake of others (i.e., working to support a family, paying exhorbitant child support payments, etc.), only to be treated as if they are the cause of all of society's ills.
And then if they complain at all, the only responses they hear are "Quit whining" or "What's the problem? Men used to have it so much better in the past." As if he personally had anything to do with what happened in the past.
So for many men, the response is to say "Screw it all" and forego the wife and family and focus on his own wants and needs instead.
Men are constantly told that they have all the power, but I know few men who really feel all that powerful.
Chris Key,
I have no idea how one can state there will be agreater number of female inventors in the future. Who cares? My question was what does past inventing by any given group tell us about their future prospects for inventing.
Chris,
You said, "The problem with your argument is you have failed to state that the vast majority of money that is collected by the state is then redistributed to women..."
Wrong. Consider defense, highways, transportation, social security, medicare, medicaid, and interest on the national debt. Those items make up the vast majority of state spending. Do you think the vast majority of each of those items goes to women?
99% of men are still parasites living off 1% of earners who act as hosts.
AmericanWoman said...
I think zed and Chris Key would make a lovely couple.
8:50 AM
Well, it was only a matter of time - a homophobic slur. Manipulative, underhanded and bigoted. AmericanWoman, you and a pig's asshole would make a nice couple; well, until you couldn't stand the sexual competition any longer.
'The more significant number is the parcentages of each froup that pay. 57% of women required to pay support do so. 68% of men do so. '
The number of men not paying child support still dwarfs the number of women not paying. Personally, I feel any person who doesn't pay child support should be wheeled out and shot. But, again, using a small percentage of the total of deadbeat parents as an agenda is non-productive.
I would love to get to a place where all relationships work out, all children are wanted and cared for. But we all know that isn't going to happen.
Too many people, men and women, have this awful victim mentality that their life sucks because of something that someone else has done, and that progress to the entire race, sex, political persuasion of that person. It is sickening when women do it and it is just a sickening when men do it.
We've all become a bunch of whiners and it is sickening.
rizzo, There is no need for any man to feel like a meal ticket. I don't mean that just because he is the sole support. A marriage is supposed to be a partnership. Just as a business partnership one partner may be better at one skill and others at different skills.
Right now roles are being redefined and I think it is great. I don't feel men should always be the bread winner and the woman the homemaker. Or that couples need to have children in order to be happy. Or that you need to be a couple at all.
But everything is a CHOICE. No one I know is forced into marriage or even having children (unless of course you want to bring up those women who get pregnant on purpose, I will not deny they exist).
If men, or women, don't feel appreciated in the partnership, they should say so and work out a compromise. Simply stewing about it and moaning about all women or men is stupid.
americanwoman, I agree with much of what you said in that last post, but:
If men, or women, don't feel appreciated in the partnership, they should say so and work out a compromise. Simply stewing about it and moaning about all women or men is stupid.
Well, sure, if you're already in a relationship. However, how a man is treated by women in general before he even enters a relationship is certainly going to have an effect on how willing he is to enter one. I've encountered quite a few "winners" myself througout college, graduate school, and online dating, but I guess that happens in the psychology and eduation fields. I somehow managed to get in a good relationship recently, but by the end of my 20's I had all but given up.
Anyway, articles like those cited in the original post about the inconvenience of men living longer currently don't exactly endear women to many men.
AmericanWoman,
You wrote:
"The number of men not paying child support still dwarfs the number of women not paying."
Correct. Both the absolute numbers and the percentages aid in understanding the situation. Ecah gives a different perspective. For example, if all women required to pay child support were deadbeats, the number of deadbeat men would still dwarf them.
Rizzo,
You wrote, "Anyway, articles like those cited in the original post about the inconvenience of men living longer currently don't exactly endear women to many men."
Why should such an article have any effect on a man's outlook towards women? Chris has told us how analytically superior men are. Don't they analyze articles like this to determine if they are worth changing outlook, opinion and attitude? I'd say an analytically superior person might change his opinion of Kate Zernike or Bill Keller, but I don't see why it would effect anything else. Can you tell us?
And the article itself lists a number of ways in which women would be better off with men living longer. Helen selectively quited from the article and ignored perfectly reasonable observations of how women would benefit. She doesn't critique the entire article, just those portions that will feed the whiners. And the whiners are jumping for the bait. Superior analytical ability?
Well, you certainly negatively affect my outlook toward women.
Anyway, that article, in itself didn't effect my opinion of women at all. However, many women I've actually met in person have.
Rizzo,
You said, "Anyway, articles like those cited in the original post about the inconvenience of men living longer currently don't exactly endear women to many men."
So, what men are effected? If you are not, then who is? What men fall under the influence of that article? How about Chris?
Why do I negatively effect your outlook towards women?
You don't negatively affect my outlook toward women. I love you more with every post.
rizzo, we could probably share war stories. I didn't marry myself until I was in my mid 30s.
Articles such as this are written exactly to get the response they have had here. To drum up hype. Most of it is nonsense.
Rizzo,
Very disappointing. You make statements then run from defending them. Is this the superior analytical skill Chris mentioned?
I didn't think I needed to defend them since I believe I was perfectly clear. But since your apparent inferior analytical skills require that you need further elaboration, here goes:
There is a general anti-male attitude out there that manifests itself from fairly innocuous television commercials and sit-coms where men are portrayed as idiots to academic programs that hide anti-male bigotry as an academic and intellectual pursuit. On top of that, add laws that treat men in matter that varies from being expendable to being simply a form of income for women. Based on this, it’s not unlikely that many men feel less than positive toward women in general. Articles like the one cited above don’t help matters.
If you still don’t understand after that, it’s your problem, not mine.
And by the way, what is your obsession with Chris?
rizzo,
I hope you weren't shamed into returning to defend your statements.
You didn't tell us anything about the article or why it should cause men to feel less positive about women. You told us about commercials, sit-coms, academic bigotry, and the law; but you told us nothing about the article in question. Come on. Stand up like a man and do it.
I think Chris should get the recognition he deserves. Don't you?
i Chris Key Says: The frequency of non-custodial mothers who fail to pay support is far more problematic than the overall number of non-custodial fathers who also fail to meet their obligations, as it shows that the general pattern of awarding custodial access of the children to their mothers is not necessarily a good idea.'
But they are non-custodial as well, so your argument, like you, is completely impotent.
Chris,
You told us the vast majority of state spending goes to women.
Then you tell us women don’t fight wars, and the majority of defense spending is based on greed and desire for power. So how does that tell us the vast majority of defense spending goes to women? Superior analysis?
Regarding transportation, you tell us men pay higher insurance premiums. Well, insurance premiums are not paid by the state. Does that tell us the vast majority of state transportation spending goes to women? Superior analysis?
Social security does not pay for pregnant women. And it has nothing to do with unemployment benefits. Women may collect for a longer period of time, but they collect a lesser amount because they have paid less into the system. So, does the vast majority of social security spending go to women? Superior analysis?
Battered womens shelters do cater to women. Some get state funding. Is it your contention that this constitutes the vast majority of state spending? Superior analysis?
Glad you realize both men and women benefit equally from medicare. I guess that spending can’t be used to bolster the claim that the vast majority of state spending goes to women. Superior analysis?
Here’s a link to a Congressional Budget Office publication. Table 2 details “Total Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities” by the highest 1% of earners. It’s the last section of Table 2. It covers 2001 through 2005 and projects to 2014. The percentage of total tax paid by the highest 1% of earners varies from a low of 28.3% to a high of 34.4%.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf
So, 99% of men remain parasites feeding off the 1% or earners who are hosts.
The table also shows that the highest 20% of earners pay between 74.4% and 83% of total taxes. That makes about 80% of men parasites feeding off the top 20% who are hosts.
Sure are lots of parasitic men running around.
Chris,
I neglected to reply to your items about health care. I note you told us:
1. Men and women receove the same benefits fromm Medicare.
2. "Women's health is offered a far greater amount of funding than men's health."
Since Medicare is the largest component of state health care spending, we can dispense with that. So, what is the funding you refer to? Is it state money, or is it private spending on health care? If private spending on health care is greater for women then men, so what? That's not state spending. Superior analysis?
Maybe you can provide an official citation backing up your claim that the vast majority of state spending goes to women?
Chris,
Were you affected by the NYT article? How? Did it cause you to feel less positive about women as Rizzo suggests?
i First hes gay, now hes impotent. What a vile creature this woman is. Its pretty obvious to see she is well practiced at being cunning and manipulative, then when people see through the lack of logic in her claims she resorts to cheap insults.'
Yet you, nor anyone else really, has anything to say about Chris Keys incredibly sexist remarks, nor zeds. At least it appears some of the really bad comments were deleted.
And sorry - 2.9 million vs 289K is still 1 out of 9. Perfect logic.
It is difficult to see how 289,000 is a bigger problem than 2,900,000. Superior analysis?
If all these parents had only one child, then in one case 289,000 kids are being deprived. In the other 2,900,000 are being deprived. Maybe this needs more of that superior analysis.
Chris,
If one says an argument is impotent, what logical fallacy prevails. It seems a weak argument can easily be called impotent. What's the problem? What's the fallacy?
American woman gonna mess your mind
American woman gonna mess your mind
American woman gonna mess your mind
American woman, stay away from me
American woman, mama let me be
Don’t come hangin’ around my door
I don’t wanna see your face no more
I got more important things to do
Than spend my time growin’ old with you
Now woman, I said stay away,
American woman, listen what I say.
-The Guess Who
How prophetic.
chris key:
different anonymous.
you said:
"The argument that I utilised was based on the theory that women are benefiting from the situation, as the costs of car insurance are far higher for men than they are for women, yet women are still offered the same transportation benefits from the state. As the state has the jurisdiction to enforce the insurance companies to set their rates at an equal level for both sexes, then the state needs to take responsibility for allowing the companies to implement such sexist quotas. Regardless of whether the state or the companies are setting the premiums, it is still a situation in which women are benefiting at the expense of men."
dude, insurance rates are higher because men are a greater risk. that's how they set the rates. just as a smoker pays higher premiums. do you have a problem with that? that's just business, mate.
then you said:
"In other words you're ostracising both Zed and I because we spoke the truth about women? Are you one of the conformists of political correctness?"
so the truth (or at least your "version" of the truth") is a defense, eh? i feel ya.
so, you ought not complain about those impotent remarks.
Chris,
You said, “It would appear as if Anonymous is trying to divert attention away from my original complaint - that women receive the majority of state-funding. Whether the women's services are offered the vast majority of funding is irrelevant, as the lack of equivalent programs for men means that the female populace are receiving a greater amount of funding in total.”
You said the vast majority of state spending goes to women. That’s what I am disputing. You said it, so it is not diverting attention to discuss it. Are you backing off that claim?
Here’s where you said it:
“The problem with your argument is you have failed to state that the vast majority of money that is collected by the state is then redistributed to women, therefore men are not really receiving a great deal of support from the state, and that renders your claim as invalid.”
Do you still contend the vast majority of money collected by the state is then redistributed to women?
Chris,
You told us the vast majority of money collected by the state is redistributed to women. If true, then there must be large individual components of state spending where vast majorities of money are redistributed to women.
---------------------------------------------
Is the vast majority of state spending on defense redistributed to women? You tell us men and women earn the same in the military, yet women don’t fight on the front lines. You also tell us they get pregnant. So what? Does that tell us the vast majority of defense spending goes to women?
You also tell us the majority of money spent by the US military is due to greed and desire for power. So what? Does that tell us the vast majority of defense spending goes to women?
Regarding the front line soldier, in the US Army there are six support troops for every frontline troop. The male support troops are paid the same as the frontline troops. There are more male support troops than female. Do you object to that?
How about some superior analysis to show us the vast majority of defense spending is redistributed to women?
Is the vast majority of state spending on transportation redistributed to women? You tell us men pay higher insurance premiums. I agree that is not state spending. So what? Can you tell us how the vast majority of transportation spending is redistributed to women?
Is the vats majority of social security spending redistributed to women?
Apparently not even Australia considers payments to pregnant women social security. If both Australia and the US do not make such payments under social security, then that component of state spending does not pay pregnant women.
The US social Security system pays different amounts to different people. The amount paid to an individual is a function of the length of time he paid into the system and the amount he paid into the system. One person may receive $1,000/month while another receives $3,000/month.
Since the average women earned less during her working career, and since many worked for fewer years, they get a lower payment than the average man.
Therefore, the average woman can receive a lesser payment for more years than the average man and collect a smaller total payment.
Perhaps you can shed some superior analysis on the question.
Do battered women’s shelters cause the vast majority of money collected by the state to be redistributed to women? If not, then why mention them?
If men want a shelter, all they have to do is establish one and apply for state funding.
Any superior analysis that shows how this causes the vast majority of money collected by the state to be redistributed to women?
If ten kids are being deprived of support in one case, and one kid is being deprived in another case, I’d say the case with ten kids is a bigger problem.
So, if deadbeat men are depriving 2,900,000 kids, that’s a bigger problem than the deadbeat women who are depriving 289,000.
Perhaps some superior analysis can show us how 289,000 deprived kids is a bigger problem than 2,900,000 deprived kids?
State spending does support research into women’s diseases. So what? Does that show how the vast majority of money collected by the state goes to women?
The state also buys airplanes. Does that indicate the vast majority of money collected by the state goes to airplanes?
Earlier Chris told us that cancer kills 141 men per 1,000, while it kills 105 women per 100,000. If the state funds cancer research, does this mean it is favoring men?
He also gave similar stats for heath (sic) disease, injuries, stroke, lung disease, diabetes, flu, HIV, suicides, and homicide. Does this mean state spending to research and combat these killers favors men? Does it indicate the vast majority of state spending goes to men?
Maybe some superior analysis can clear things up?
Different anonymous,
Correct. All we are seeing with auto insurance rates is the capitalist system pricing according to risk. Rates are a function of age, sex, past driving record, education, and location. Rates within the same city will vary by neighborhood.
Each demographic earns the rates the pay by their aggregate past driving perfromance.
I'm surprised anyone with superior abilities at analysis couldn't figure that out.
' 2. AmericanWoman then excused the non-custodial women who failed to meet their child support obligations.'
How exactly have I excuse them? I merely disputed the notion that there is a significantly larger number of non-custodial women not paying child support than there were men. 9 to 1 I belive the ratio I gave, and the facts were there. I in no way excused their behavior. I just refuse to see them as more evil than their male counterparts simply because they are women.
You seem very angry towards women. I would like to see you go on the 'White Guilt' thread and insult blacks as you have chosen to do to the entire female sex on this one.
Chris,
You told us the vast majority of money collected by the state is redistributed to women. Now you tell us that regarding defense, it depends on how one defines state funding.
So, can you tell us what you meant by money collected by the state? Can you also tell us what you meant by redistribution it to women?
All you have offered is a complaint that women don't serve on the front lines. Well, neither do most men in the military. How does any of that demonstrate that the vast majority of defense spending is redistributed to women.
Maybe some superior analysis is vcalled for?
chris key:
different anonymous.
what possible reason would there be for a man to be earning only $6000 per annum? if he is disabled, then he would be relieved of child support, would be drawing a disability check and the children would also be drawing a check from social security.
if he's not disabled? then he's wilfully unemployed or underemployed. or getting paid under the table. we see that alot around here-- young, able-bodied men who oddly have no income. interesting, they don't seemt o be starving. yet, they think they shouldn't have to pay child support.
Snap out of it. Gender is a trait, not an entity. No one man or woman can be faulted for the actions of all the men or women in history. As we are all on the same side, there is no playing field to level.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home