Neo-neocon has some thoughts on my PJM column on marriage in a post subtitled, "what's in it for me?":
I see things differently; I think there are few places for men to go to talk with others about their feelings on relationships, love, marriage and kids. So when they have such a forum, a lot of pent up frustration may show through. The media, including daytime tv is mainly geared towards women who complain non-stop about men, their inability to communicate and how they are being kept down by these oafs, so there is always a place to vent. Experts are always telling men to open up about their feelings, then when they do, suddenly they are good-for-nothing selfish whiners. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Update: Neo-neocon has Part II up of "Getting Married: what's in it for me?"
But I have to say that the level of vitriol expressed in the comments section in response to this article by Dr. Helen at Pajamas Media surprised me and disheartened me, even though I’ve read similar discussions before online. The general flavor of comment after comment there—mostly from men—can be summarized as follows: “The bitch screwed me” with the corollary, “Women are all like that.” The formerly married say, “Never again,” and the never-married merely say, “Never.”
I see things differently; I think there are few places for men to go to talk with others about their feelings on relationships, love, marriage and kids. So when they have such a forum, a lot of pent up frustration may show through. The media, including daytime tv is mainly geared towards women who complain non-stop about men, their inability to communicate and how they are being kept down by these oafs, so there is always a place to vent. Experts are always telling men to open up about their feelings, then when they do, suddenly they are good-for-nothing selfish whiners. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Update: Neo-neocon has Part II up of "Getting Married: what's in it for me?"
posted by Helen at 11:53 AM
70 Comments:
"The media, including daytime tv is mainly geared towards women who complain non-stop about men.."
And it's far, far worse than that. As a man, you cannot state how you feel at all ever anywhere without being labelled a 'misogynist.'
Even the internet overall is shockingly PC in that if you try to Google anything like 'why women are so horrible in America today to deal with,' you'll get nothing- or any other zillions of variations.
Remember the fellow who wrote the Forbes article about career women? Women just simply character assasinated him. If you do manage to somehow to get your message out to a larger audience, they'll come after you personally and dig up some dirt on you or make something up, just so they can confuse everyone, thus negating the original statement.
The general thought pattern seems to be this: When a man complains about female behavior, it's because the man is defective. When a woman complains about male behavior, it's because men are defective.
Notice a pattern?
Reality, I feel that you were really hurt by women and it has soured you beyond objectivity.
Does that make me a misogynist?
No, you have said in the past that it makes me stupid!
Stupid or misogynist, either is an insult so what is the difference? Some people are too brittle in their beliefs and feelings to allow dissent. I do not think it matters if those people are from the left or right, male or female.
Insults?
Trey
Hi Trey,
Haven't heard from you in a while, glad to see you here.
This is typical of female responses like on iVillage for example, just another snow job that women throw up to try to confuse the issue, so let us examine the problem with the response:
"Reality, I feel that you were really hurt by women,"
and it has soured you beyond objectivity."
This is a direct contradiction in concepts, so therefore it doesn't even make any sense. Tmink 'feels' about my statement of the truth concerning the PC environment of the net that I have been hurt(refer to BIZARRE), as if this somehow changes (or has anything to do with) the fact that no one can find more information on the net (???????), then criticizes me for my lack of objectivity. But more than anything, the subject has nothing to do with me, but Tmink is instantly changing the subject to me, trying to put the spotlight on me, an instant sign that she has no intelligent argument at all. This is because women typically lack the ability of three dimensional or abstract thought. There is nothing that ISN'T subjective in what they write or say, which makes the statement so ironic. It's also an unspoken acknowlwdgment that she knows what I am saying is true. So why even bother, Tmink?
This is typical of female responses like on iVillage for example, just another snow job that women throw up to try to confuse the issue, so let us examine the problem with the response:
"Reality, I feel that you were really hurt by women,"
and it has soured you beyond objectivity."
This is a direct contradiction in concepts, so therefore it doesn't even make any sense. Tmink 'feels' about my statement of the truth concerning the PC environment of the net that I have been hurt(refer to BIZARRE), as if this somehow changes (or has anything to do with) the fact that no one can find more information on the net (???????), then criticizes me for my lack of objectivity. But more than anything, the subject has nothing to do with me, but Tmink is instantly changing the subject to me, trying to put the spotlight on me, an instant sign that she has no intelligent argument at all. This is because women typically lack the ability of three dimensional or abstract thought. There is nothing that ISN'T subjective in what they write or say, which makes the statement so ironic. It's also an unspoken acknowlwdgment that she knows what I am saying is true. So why even bother, Tmink?
No it ain't chum. Go back to logic 101. You are sour to the nth. Your posts are virtually nothing but vitriol.
Try "dealing with difficult women", or "misandry". Hits on both.
Something like "why women are so horrible in America today to deal with" was crafted by you to preclude any hits. Let's see: "why men are so horrible in America today to deal with"? Holy crap, zero hits. Also for "zillions of variations" thereto.
Learn to google effectively.
You are the one grabbing the spotlight by the hysterics you display. Just 'cause others point them out don't mean you didn't start it.
"No it ain't chum. Go back to logic 101. You are sour to the nth. Your posts are virtually nothing but vitriol.
Try "dealing with difficult women", or "misandry". Hits on both.
Something like "why women are so horrible in America today to deal with" was crafted by you to preclude any hits. Let's see: "why men are so horrible in America today to deal with"? Holy crap, zero hits. Also for "zillions of variations" thereto."
Learn to google effectively.
You are the one grabbing the spotlight by the hysterics you display. Just 'cause others point them
You're an idiot. Go back and read the post Helen made. Either comment on it or get the Hell off of here.
Ya' know, r2k, you really do sound like a pretty bitter guy. Your call, of course; you're welcome to your bile. I've found myslef that deciding NOT to be angry changed my outlook a lot. Didn't change my likes or my dislikes much. I still hate feminists and the PC crowd, and I let them know about it.
It was difficult, at first, to stop being angry. In many instances, I had to make a conscious choice to stop and let go of it. But it gets easier every day.
Gee, that's really FASCINATING TullimoreDu. Just one thing.. can you tell me what does any of that have to do with the subject?
When you're on a date (assuming you can make it through one with your scatter brain) when she asks you, "do you like seafood?" I guess your response is, "no I don't like scary movies."
Here is some 'self-expression' as Dr. Helen put it- better than any expression you dullards are capable of.
http://reality2007-endofcivilization.blogspot.com/
' Women Protest-- men Whine"-- eg women's complaints are prima facie legitimate, men's are not.
1.Same old crap "to keep us down"-- using "stereotypes " about masculinity to keep men from voicing complaints, concerns-- and addressing illegalites and horrific policy positions that negatively affect men.
2. Women/feminists -- whose avowed criterion for evaluating any and everything-- is the immoral monotone " Is it good for women"-- inconsistently attack men when they point out what is "bad for men" and seek to be heard.
Why ? Its irrational and immoral, isn't it ? Women's ox is gored-- all that rhetoric about "equality" and "fairness" etc -- is sheer piggery. Women scream for "equality" when its in their self-interest, then beg for special privileges , when thats in their self-interst. The only criterion of action-- is it in female self-interest ? The mind of the totalitarian, "identity politics" inevitable result.
Women want-- and will take-- whatever they can get and couldn't care less what harm it does to men. See the last forty years as women/feminism have/has goose-stepped through our society, with a boot-in-the -face for men.
3. Women's greatest fear is men united doing what they did-- momonmaniacally seeking the self-interest of men, the hell with everyone else-- namely, women.
That would be immoral, too. Its always wrong to evaluate public policy from the standpoint of self-interest, from an "identity" based stance-- eg-- us blacks, us vagino-americans, us Hispanics. MLK , JR really wanted equality (most of the time)-- not to exchange one injustice ( whites uber ALLES ) FOR ANOTHER ( BLACKS UBER alles).
Men have no collective sense of self interest-- no "identity politics" and it is doubtful it will ever develop. They can never pursue "men first" as it contradicts any sense of masculinity... women exploit our own identity as men-- to abuse and injure us-- socially, politically and econonomically. What a maginificent, evil strategy. Women enforce the old rules by which they can attack men mercilessly and he cannot fight back -- while demanding the rules affecting them --only -- be changed !e.g. women get the best of the old order AND the new one they want imposed, while men get the worst of both -- and women call it "equality"
4. Whenever a group unites to promote its self-interst-- consistent with fairness-- you can be sure those who benefit from the status quo will attack them. women love the sweetheart deal they have created-- why would they let men fool with it?
5. Whats truly hilarious is how women are revealed as totally self-serving -- they attack and criticize men for-- doing what they did !!
"5. Whats truly hilarious is how women are revealed as totally self-serving -- they attack and criticize men for-- doing what they did !!"
Just look at how the major media either skews perceptions of or dismisses completely the problems boys are having in education. Helping boys will somehow hurt girls. I suppose that's true, if men become 50% of college graduates some women's seats would have to be lost to achieve that equality, or more colleges would have to be built.
Thing is, society would be perfectly comfortable with men losing a few seats in college to bring equality to women, suggest the same thing for men and lots of people will kick, scream, and yell at you and call you an oppressor.
The female mind-- responses to reality2007
1. " I feel you were hurt.. and it has soured your objectivity"-
a. His emotional status and its cause is irrelevant to whether his statements are true and false-- the old ad hominem.
b. You state it has " soured his objectivity"-- then produce no evidence of that statement. What is the objective truth you know that he deviates from ?
Your response is little more than a personal attack.... it does tell us how you "feel'-- so what.
2. The next babette tells him to go back to logic 101-- then dispenses insults as a mode of argumentation that shows she never found her way to the Philosophy Department.
He IS "sour"..only "vitriol".. "hysterics".. "grabbing the spotlight".
This has to be a woman's post-- it is totally irrational and irrelevant. It makes several conclusory statements-- and adduces no evidence to support them. Women thing just announcing their feelings or views is providing evidence for them.
Its always fun when a woman tries to debate... its like a turkey-shoot for the men .. response from females will resemble someone waving the stump of an amputated limb.
Aside-- my hypothesis about my Rent-A-Vagina ( by Ronco @)-- was recently supported. A woman kills/maims a man-- use Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, mental illness (" brief reactive psychosis, etc), past childhood emotional abuse etc-- and get out of jail free.
But I said my patented "Rent-A -Vagina" would allow men to kill sleeping men and get way with it , just like women, BUT I stated it would never work if you killed a woman, because women value other womens lives.
Confirmation, to an extent-- a woman who killed another woman and cut her baby out used the classic female defense.... she was found guilty.. and sentenced to death..
Guilty of murder-- sentenced to death !!-- A woman ? How ? women kill/maim unconscious helpless men with impunity.The female defense didn't work here !! How can that be ?--- Women value other women's lives. It is unheard of for a woman to get the death penalty... She probably had a better defense than any male-maiming /murdering women, as she displayed the child as her own ( ct pseudocyesis)
You see-- this heinous murder of a female-- THATS serious to a woman. Chopping up a man's sex organs or mudering him-- thats funny to women or inherently excusable ( That he was a bad person is proved by the fact taht she killed him"-- a female gem ).
And so it goes-- sheer empiricism is all it takes..
Woman murders and mutiliates woman.. uses PTSD/mental illness defense-- gets death... woman maims /murders sleeping men.. probation and counseling, at best, with the male victim pilloried and the woman a heroine for all women.
Misandry--
And my "MaleParts.com"-- women apply expensive cosmetics that have foreskin as a major ingredient.. Oprah is a big consumer and proponent of such creams and such... Some only use "terminated fetuses'foreskins".. look it up
I think you're right Helen, a lot of guys just have no where to talk about it. At best, the average person or mainstream media will always look for equivocation— women are no better and no worse then men. I belive that to be true in a general sense. But with regards to children, marriage, and divorce, the deck is stacked against men, but many women and men treat it as part of many other sex issues. They bring up an issue like the glass ceiling to balance it, as if to say women, but it is not the same thing. As they told me in 5th grade, two wrongs don't make a right.
Rats. My driver's license expired yesterday.
I'm soured. Not as much as the big r, but soured. And more by the system then the ex. That's my problem with it all. My finances and reputation were raped. And i paid hard earned cash to have it happen.
I do not wish to travel through what is left of my life angry, sad, etc. I have three great kids and they are my life. If I did not have them, maybe things would be different.
I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. So maybe I'll just quit being sick and tired.
Yeah, the comments are pretty much why I stopped reading here regularly. I'm not a feminist (feminism ruined my life), I've never killed anyone, I've never taken anything a guy didn't give me voluntarily (my last boyfriend still owes me thousands of dollars), but according to you guys, being born with a uterus I don't even want makes me an evil money-grubbing soul-destroying harpy (and "incapable of logical thought" which is bullshit) whose sole motivation is to destroy everyone with a penis.
(As I am not yet 25, it is probably safe to discount everything I am about to say.)
The bias in the legal system against men is systemic and worrisome - I think focused political action is required. However, I'm not too worried about the attitudes of women towards marriage, because dating and marriage are competitive enterprises, and like any market system, it shies away from extreme behavior.
Like most college towns, Boston plays host to singles from all nations and cultures - making for some interesting cross-cultural studies. It's obvious that women with a sense of entitlement/victimhood are at a disadvantage to those without. Default hostility to men is hard to sustain when the men have other options. There are competitive pressures in both directions - men from highly paternalistic backgrounds must also adjust their behavior or be left in the cold. The result, I think, is a pleasant medium of realistic expectations.
It may seem chauvinistic to say so, but I always make a mental note of a woman's knife skills. From experience, I've found that skill in dicing onions and julienning bell peppers reveals more than just cooking experience.
To radish:
Are we supposed to feel that we've done something bad to cause you to not feel welcome here and to stop reading here regularly, something that we should stop doing? Sorry, but I've heard the "She's feeling hurt and his behavior should change" BS a few too many times. It's just a manipulative ploy that women use to control guys' behavior.
Sorry girl/lady/bitch, you have no credibility whatsoever!
To altoids1306:
You are assuming that you can accurately predict women's behavior and that behavior will be more or less benign. That strikes me as suicidally stupid and arrogant. If American women were as reasonable as you think they are, the paternity fraud laws would have been changed, oh, about a decade ago.
Dr. Helen,
You were the author of the much-quoted comment -- "Why don't men show up?"
Now, you choose to exploit the men who do show up.
What, precisely, is your shtick?
The scent of perfumed red pajamas is starting to smell like gender exploitation....
And, to clarify the metaphor --
YOU are the symbolic predator.
I don't think that it is a question of whether men or women are better. There are maybe 150 million of each sex in this country, with a somewhat smaller number of men and women, but still likely over 100 million of each.
But I would suggest that it was probably better to be male through maybe the middle of the 20th Century. Definitely up through the 19th Century.
But most of the advantages that men had through most of history have disappeared. Not so, the big ones that women still control, notably their ability to have kids, to mother them, and the male sex drive through much of our lives to breed with women. They have typically controlled sex and children, and been able to offset males' other advantages. And women also control much more of the social network than do men.
The pendulum has swung, and I would suggest much in the direction of women.
I was talking to a friend today about Dr. Helen's previous article, and he told me that he knew a lot of fairly recently divorced men, that in all cases, the women filed for divorce, and then got custody, child support, and often maintenance, even in cases where the woman was earning more. He is nearing 50, never married, and now is so gun shy that he is not about to get married.
Wow-- that woman over at Neo-Neo-con or whatever is an example of the problem.
1.She effectively denies there is any discrimnation against men in the divorce system at all. She is either a fraud or a fool-- no-- she just doesn't want all the work she and the SISTERHOOD have done to make the system totally pro-female to be hurt by men complaining about the bias.
There is none, she informs us, based on her extensive experience... That women are so immoral and obtuse that they can actually represent that nothing is wrong in the face of rampant, severe, and systematic discrimnation against men-- shows you the moral status of women... They don't care if men are harmed-- they cannot even see it.
2. why don't people see this about women-- there are a milliom instances of it all around-- and every day , women confirm they only care about women...over and over again
3. I just love the female DA who prosectuted Clara Harris ( much to women's shock and dismay)-- the woman who murdered her husband by running over him repeatdly with an SUV -
She didn't have to kill him-- just do
"LIKE EVERY OTHER WOMAN...GET HIS HOUSE,CAR, KIDS AND MAKE HIM WISH HE WERE DEAD"
Just a woman saying the obvious-- and telling you the typical moral universe women live in-- hurt men as much as possible, even drive them to suicide... Its common knowledge among women-- thats why she stated almost the same thing to the jury " take him to the cleaners"... the same thing women all advised each other to do when I was a kid in the 70s -- "TAKE HIM FOR ALL HES GOT "--
4. thus one major problem in divorce HAS to be the unbelievable VINDICTIVENESS of women, that few men ever approach.. ask women-- they remember the SICILIAN SISTERHOOD of adolescence.
5. Women use divorce law as an income transfer device... Most public policies favoring woman are just that-- women relying on their distictive "female nature" to extort money out of men
and women don't want men screwing up the deal they have set up.
7. This woman is a disgrace-- she refuses to admit there is even a problem. So her part 1 states that men have no real reason to be angry.. .Part 2 will hAVE HER ENGAGING IN FEMINIST PSYCHOTHERAPY AS SHE LOCATEs THE CAuse OF MEN'S ANGER IN MALE INFERIORITY OR PATRICAHIal CONDITIONING... ( hit caps, danmmit)
I posted this at Neo-neocon.
It’s simple economic behavior. Women have more rights than men in marriage.
For example, a woman can have an affair, get pregnant by another man, and force her HUSBAND to pay child support for twenty years. Women who do that kind of thing are scum. Roughly 1/4-1/3 of children born in marriages do not belong to the husband. As an objective fact, that means lots of women are scum.
When entering into any relationship, rational people evaluate the effects of relative legal and social standing.
A rational man will not marry because he will have no reproductive rights, no asset protection, no physical protection against female violence, and no social standing to mitigate against those risks.
The vitriol you read on Dr. Helen’s site is a consequence of the superior legal status of women — and the demonstrable fact that women often use that superior status against men.
The problem is with scummy women, not angry men.
'Just another angry (white) man.'
There's the problem. Since people will not listen to valid male complaints, anger grows and festers. Eventually ... something nasty will happen.
I've desperately needed access to female only programs. MANY times I've needed access to female only programs. My kids went HUNGRY because I could not access female only programs. There is ZERO, NO, possibility of access and no possibility of anyone within the power structure saying there is something wrong with this state of affairs.
I joke about getting the kids and a blender in my divorce. The really sad thing is that so very few women seem to care even a tiny bit about the dangerous level of discrimination which my kids and I faced. Men are as bad with their refusing to stand up and fight the women.
Frankly, the system we have and the political-social structure of demanding men do not deserve equality is leading us to a major social tragedy. That is without counting the number of innocent men who are destroyed by the current system.
The logical thing is not to marry. Perhaps that is why we humans have emotions. Biblically stated, by the Apostle Paul, a man does better alone. I do not believe he meant just the male of the species. No one who thinks clearly does. That statement could hold no more truth than it does today - if one is willing and able to stand up and take care of themselves.
In retrospect, alone, one has to only think of himself / herself. I am not trying to come from the selfish side of town. What I mean is, every decision one makes, in a family setting, affects everyone in the family. If I screw up financially, I am not the only one who is eating beans for a while, and cannot afford new shoes. And on the other hand, I can take greater chances, again because it will not affect anyone else. Greater chances often bring greater rewards.
Err, except with marriage.
I say, there is a lid for every pot. There is just more garbage that inter"FEAR"s with men and women relating. It's not any one genders fault more than the other.
I agree with Neo-neocon. I guess I'll leave it at that.
There is a pretty substantial list of places in society where men get shafted. I can think of a few:
1. Prosecution under the law, men receive three times the sentence as a woman for committing the same crime. This is especially true in cases of statutory rape where women might not receive any punishment at all if she can prove it was a real relationship. I can only imagine the guys on "To Catch A Predator" saying, "But I was only doing it because I wanted a serious relationship."
2. Education, women receive %57 of bachelor's degrees and %60 of master's degrees nationwide. When things were tipped that much in favor of men in education society still expected women to become housewives.
3. Family Court, come on, I shouldn't have to to say anything with this one, other than, if you are male you get shafted.
4. Health Care, breast cancer receives six times the funding as prostate cancer, September was prostate cancer awareness month and I didn't see any products colored blue to support it nor any news specials. October was awfully pink though, I counted at least 4 different articles pertaining to breast cancer on Google News every day of October, sometimes in other months too. Oh, and women everywhere in the western world live longer than men.
5. Male circumcision, the equivalent of a cosmetic amputation done without any anesthetics, but forced upon a non consenting minor shortly after birth in order to satisfy one or both parents' preconceived notion of how a penis should look. Female Circumcision, even though many forms are homologous to a male circumcision (a clitoridectomy for example), is completely illegal. Women's bodies are sacred, a woman can abort and kill a baby if it imposes itself on them when they don't want it, their bodies are that sacred, it's her "right to choose". But men, someone else can cut the tip of your penis off for you, and you don't have any right to choose either way, it's not your body to choose!
6. Reproductive Rights, women's reproductive rights are men's reproductive responsibilities. I recently read an article of a woman who impregnated herself with the semen from a used condom, then a judge forced the man to pay child support, even though the woman essentially stole his semen, which came from his body. Isn't that one step away from calling a man's body women's property? Anyone with a uterus can steal my semen and voile, I owe you money.
7. Representation in the media, OK, it's not very good for either sex, but at least it is acknowledged by society as a whole when women are exploited or denigrated in the media. Even today, with most people, you really have to work hard to convince them that men are denigrated regularly in the media. Which just goes to show, with most people, it's not who's being denigrated or how often such portrayals occur that leads them to cry discrimination, it's which specific forms of discrimination they have been trained to be sensitive to.
Unfortunately, I honestly don't believe any of these things are going to get any better. The multi-billion dollar circumcision industry is spreading its influence to the third world under the pretext that it will prevent aids (according to isolated studies in Africa, but contrary to every much larger study conducted over the last 10 years, see cirp.org for information). VAWA passed. The media coverage of boys' status in education was purposefully misleading (Time "The Myth About Boys", US New&World Report "Are boys the weaker sex?" and "The Boy Crisis", The New York Times "In College, Women are Leaving Men in the Dust" and "What boy crisis?", etc) the real purpose of the media coverage was to ensure that boys' problems don't compromise girls' progress and men's issues don't come to the forefront ahead of women's issues.
One major reason things won't change, I believe, is that most women are not concerned in the least with men's issues. I believe, and there is considerable evidence to back me up, that the women's movement wouldn't have been nearly as successful if there weren't a lot of men supporting it. If there's going to be anything close to a men's movement, women will have to be there to add their support, which I don't see happening.
"His emotional status and its cause is irrelevant to whether his statements are true and false-- the old ad hominem."
Well, we agree in part, the part about someone's emotional state being irrelevant to the accuracy of their position.
But see, Reality2007 has posted like this before, and I already know that his positions are over stated, prejudicial, and inflated. Given that, I was speaking to the cause of the gross cognitive distortions he was presenting. In that context, how he feels is germain.
And I do not think my statement qualifies as an ad hominum attack at all. Practically any statement addressing women as a single entity will be false. So that is really not worth our time discussing. For a good exmaple of ad hominum attacks, read his reasoned response to me!
The point of my post was to show how prejudicial attitudes lead to a closed mind that rejects other opinions. And that is not a good thing.
Trey
*Eyes Roll*
Everybody say, 'Mental Masturbation.' (Let's all tell this Tmink freak to go play on a Star Trek Site where he/she/it belongs.)
tmink wrote, "Practically any statement addressing women as a single entity will be false."
This is the fallacy of the smuggled premise. Tmink rejects generalizations by resort to a generalization. For example, I could refute tmink with his own reasons thusly: "Practically any statement addressing all statements as a group will be false." The contradiction in his argument is now easy to see.
Tmink confuses generalizations with universalizations. It is an elementary error and a rather cheap rhetorical trick.
I think you are wrong Jeff. In terms of logic, I see and accept your point. Well put.
In terms of reality, I think you miss the point. Women or men are slandered when they are spoken of as homogeneous entities. The social science research is clear on this point, and the finding that between group differences are less than within group differences is established and accepted among the folks who do that type of research.
Now, I have been involved in the men's movement and am sympathetic to most of the individual statements made about SOME men or SOME women. I am even more sympathetic to the valid complaints made about the legal system and how it damages children by undervaluing their fathers.
There, we agree. But being married to a wonderful woman, and having many wonderful male and female friends whom I have known for years, I cannot support gender bashing silliness. And you, as a thoughtful person, should not either.
Trey
Billy, I think you make an interesting point about education and gender bias. I wonder if our educational approach is more compatible with most females than with most males.
In general, males are more active learners who are more likely to need hands on activities and applications to engage their learning style. Current educational approaches more often fall into the "little pitcher" approach in which the children are verbally taught. Of course, individual differences abound (thank God) but I think there are goodness of fit problems for typical male approaches to learning and the current system.
God knows that few schools or classrooms are set up to assist those of us with ADD (most of us are guys too.)
Trey
The second part to Neo-neocon's essay is up and worth a look. I fail to see anything hypocritical in it.
And thanks for the "hello" Helen. It is always nice to pull up a keyboard on your excellent blog.
Trey
Along with many many others whining in this thread, I have to say that etahasgard1986 is currently my nominee for mentally blunt and blithering sissy of 2007. You guys all need to man up and move on.
As for you etahasgard1986, you might want to tape over the CAPSLOCK key since your passion for blather keeps forcing you to hit it here and at neo's.
I'd also remind you that spellcheck is your friend if I did not think basic reading skills lacking in the first place.
Gerard,
While I do not defend some of the anger of etahasgard1986 here on this site, I disagree with your statement:
"You guys all need to man up and move on."
That's just another buzzword for keep your mouth shut and don't cause any trouble. It is not unmanly to stand up for one's constitutional and civil rights. In fact it is unmanly and just plain cowardly not to.
And equally so - unwomanly.
The internet makes it easier for Gerard to hide the fact that he is either a she who hates men, an adolescent, or just some guy who's suffering adjustment reactions to adult life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The raw anger here does make me uncomfortable. I was going to write about how to solve some of these problems then I stared to read neo-neo con and I got a little angry.
Something that has not been brought up is about asset distribution. When my neighbors divorced, she left him and the kids for another women, she got half his tools. Not much of a choice. My neighbor did have to choose between the tools he needed for work and his hobby tools. He was able to scrap together enough to buy her share of the house.
My husband has some expensive hobbies, so do I. However, his “toys” tend to keep their value. My cameras I bought a few years ago are mostly worthless, his recording equipment and radios are worth almost, if not more what he paid for them. In the event of a divorce his “toys” become part of the assets while mine don’t.
I’ve seen too many divorces lately and I’ve yet to see one where the guy does not get the short end of the stick. Yes, even when he does get the kids.
heather and Dr. Helen: To my way of seeing things it is the fact that women are uncomfortable with men who are --for very good reasons-- angry is one of the most telling problems we have in our society.
When our womenfolk hear anger from men and hear the pain behind the anger, then we will make another step towards equality.
I must also say that in many of the areas of social and legal thought which most anger the men, it is women who have the majority of power. It is thus women who have the duty towards men. Duty to the weaker is a part of equality.
As for NeoNeocon.... I do not believe that she sees the problems. She's blind to some very real and crucial problems we have in our first world culture.
Heather,
Sorry that the raw anger makes you uncomfortable but despite that, you seem to try to engage and understand what is happening here. I think that if people could stop being so afraid of men's anger and look behind it at what is really going on in terms of frustration and real legal inequalities, then we may be on the road to fixing some of the problems and hopefully, the anger will subside as the injustices do.
HMM, I'm not a 'feminist' but I am disturbed by some of the comments here. I'm sure there are many nasty women (just as there are men).
I recently went on vacation with a group of women. There was a definite divide between the 'women who work' and those who were stay at home moms or had part time jobs with their husband being the main breadwinner.
Still, I wouldn't judge all women based on that group, just as I would not judge all men based on the ones commenting here.
Some of you do need serious therapy, that's for sure.
AmericanWoman wrote, "I wouldn't judge all women based on that group, just as I would not judge all men based on the ones commenting here."
It seems that some people are intellectually incapable of grasping the difference between a universalization and a generalization. They cannot see that generalizations are necessary for us know things. They do no understand that generalizations are defensible on extremely reliable mathematical grounds. They fail to see that all practical solutions must deal with generalizations. They erroneously believe that true and valid generalizations are "women bashing."
It is wearisome for me to repeat this over and over and over. Please, please, please, take a class in elementary logic before you throw out the generalization as a thinking tool.
Jeeesh.
Perhaps some generalizations. Not the ones here.
And, Jeff, you are one of the reasons I stopped reading the comments here.
American Woman;
Glad you've stopped dropping by. If you hadn't stopped dropping by and reading comments, you could never have left your own comments just recently.
You and your husband have a great relationship, you say (neo neocon). While I believe you are blessed and feel you should be thankful, perhaps it is because he gives in to your wants and needs more often than you do for him? The average individual in this life thinks of self roughly 95% of the time. So in almost any working relationship one would believe (s)he is giving more than the other.
Knowledge is based on perception.
Of course, since I'm a woman, I must be a selfish bitch and my husband must be a hen-pecked 'yes dear' downtrodden male.
And it was exactly neo's blog entry that made me once again venture into the 'He-Man woman haters club' that is the comment section here.
It hasn't changed much.
AW:
I should have written "you both should be thankful", for that is what I meant.
It is difficult to get one's exact meaning across in print. Wait....it is difficult for ME to get MY exact meaning across in print. I feel you read more there than I put in, and missed what I meant.
I do wish you and your husband the best, however.
AmericanWoman wrote, "Not the ones [the generalizations] here."
I don't defend what everyone's written here, only what I've written.
You disagree with my generalizations. Specifically, which ones. Please quote them.
To AmericanWoman:
Please explain why we men shouldn't think that American women in general, and you in particular, don't like the benefits that come from living in a feminazi police state and aren't just trying to deflect the some of the costs, namely the resentment of oppressed men. The term "reputation management" is from marketing and public relations. It refers to attempting to establish a reputation for being pro-social while actually engaging in highly anti-social behavior. I'll leave it to your imagination how it applies to female behavior.
"If you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem."
Jeff, Please see bobh's post for some ridiculous generalizations.
br, sorry, now you see why I stay off this comment board. You are right we are lucky. But it's also hard work and sacrifice of personal wants and needs, I think that is missing in a lot of relationships.
Don't give up, but also don't have illusions of what a perfect relationship should be.
AmericanWoman wrote, "Please see bobh's post for some ridiculous generalizations."
You commit two errors. First, you fail to cite faulty generalizations made by me. Second, you fail to quote BobH's faulty generalizations.
It's sophomoric to claim a fault, when you can't even point to an instance of it.
Once again, please cite by quotation a generalization I've made that you believe is invalid.
It's pretty clear you are evading your own claims.
Jeff, get over yourself. My first posts cites generalizations on this comment board, not just ones by you.
It's not all about you, you do realize that.
And now you see why you are incapable of having a real relationship. You must be a joy to spend time with.
AmericanWoman wrote, "My first posts cites generalizations on this comment board, not just ones by you. It's not all about you, you do realize that. And now you see why you are incapable of having a real relationship. You must be a joy to spend time with."
Actually, I just re-examined your first post, and you've misrepresented it. Here it is in it's entirety.
HMM, I'm not a 'feminist' but I am disturbed by some of the comments here. I'm sure there are many nasty women (just as there are men). I recently went on vacation with a group of women. There was a definite divide between the 'women who work' and those who were stay at home moms or had part time jobs with their husband being the main breadwinner. Still, I wouldn't judge all women based on that group, just as I would not judge all men based on the ones commenting here. Some of you do need serious therapy, that's for sure.
You cite no specific fault in anyone's reasoning. You do go over the top by suggesting "some of you do need serious therapy."
You do the same in your last reply when you wrote, "And now you see why you are incapable of having a real relationship. You must be a joy to spend time with."
It is now clear that you are unable to substantiate your claims, as I knew from the very start.
You are wrong. Your insinuations and name-calling are no substitute for reasons. You are wrong.
Ok, I'm wrong and you are incredibly well adjusted. Let's leave it at that.
I'm sure you will make some woman, sorry, femnazi, very happy.
For those still following the bout, here's two posts I left at Neo-neocon.
---
AmericanWoman wrote, “Are American men so incapable of accepting women who aren’t subservient to them? Or are they simply choosing the wrong women”
You have offered us a false dilemma. Logic seems to be a weak point for you.
Perhaps the problem is with American women. I’ve lived in three countries outside the US: the UK, France, and Hong Kong. American women stand out as markedly inferior for marriage potential.
Most American women have lost all sense of decorum. They turn every conversation into a competition, to show men they are “equal.” Most European and Asian women possess an exquisite sense of decorum. Foreign women can often make a man’s say with a few well chosen words. American women are often too concerned with busting a man’s balls. yo many men, it appears that most American women don’t like men as a class.
Most American women are conflicted over their sexuality. They will dress provocatively, yet raise offense at the slightest notice of their bodies — in the name of “sexual objectification.” Foreign women are not conflicted. If the dress provocatively, they EXPECT attention. Again, American women often lack decorum.
Most American women have forgotten that men have social needs. Ask an American woman what men should do for women to be polite, romantic and desirable. you will get hours of advice. Then ask what women should do for men. you will get silence. Silence. And even indignant that a woman might have any social duties towards a man. Foreign women still possess grace and charm — they know what to do to make a man feel special. American women lack this ability utterly.
It’s true what you write, “women do have more choices today,” but you are very wring when you write, “it seems that men haven’t done that well coping with it.” Men are coping with it — by availing themselves of THEIR choices — specifically, the choice to choose foreign women.
Many men prefer foreign women, and for good reasons.
---
Mark in Texas wrote, “Certainly a Sharia court is unlikely to disregard a wife’s infidelity, no matter how good a mother she is…”
First, I’m opposed to Sharia unequivocally.
You use of this figure, the disloyal wife as a good mother, is rather striking. Why? Because a woman cannot be disloyal to her husband and simultaneously be a good mother.
A woman is a BAD mother, who puts an orgasm above her child’s continuity of parentage. (This is also true of men.)
This is obvious, so why does this cliche — the “good” mother screwing around on her child’s father — why does it endure?
Maybe because it benefits women? Just a thought.
What is it going to take for women and men to understand one another? It seems they never have and never will.
Had I not bitten my "first reaction" tongue, and tried again, perhaps AW and I could have also gone a couple rounds. Adversarial situations are easy to come by.
There is no bout Jeff, except in your head.
I'm thrilled that you've discovered foreign women. I suggest Saudi Arabia. Then you can take lessons from them on how to beat your wife if she doesn't behave properly.
AmericanWoman wrote, "I suggest Saudi Arabia. Then you can take lessons from them on how to beat your wife if she doesn't behave properly."
ROFLMAO
You have a gift for insult, my dear. That was hilarious.
This comment has been removed by the author.
AmericanWoman, if you can't see the difference between a man looking at a woman’s butt who’s wearing sweats that say sweet on the butt and forcing women to wear a burka then you’ve proven the men’s points here better than they could.
If only we were all as capable of looking at, and poking holes in, our own positions and beliefs as we are in doing so to others'.
I beat myself up some, still, wondering if, and, or where I went wrong or go wrong. But only where my decisions or advice will affect how my kids see and participate in this world. I am also a very opinionated individual.
Luckily, I have decided to go it alone the rest of my life. So I do not care what others think of me and my opinions to a great degree. Only if and when it affects bringing home the bacon. I do what I feel is right for me. The more people I deal with on a daily basis, the more every moment is a crossroads. It is very tiring.
It's a freedom of sorts, to let it go. My rights end where another's begin. The opposite is also true. So I do not tread in the physical world, and arrange my life as best as possible so others do not tread on me.
After one hell of a one sided divorce, and many years of dealing with "the six phases of a project", I, me , mine is looking pretty good.
In all these comments at PM, Dr. Helen and Neoneocon's sites, I see sort of a common thread among the men who have gone through a divorce. These guys got married with the assumption their life was going to go a certain way and their wives were going to act in a certain manner. Instead, things went right when they expected a left.
Does the legal system need a bit of tweaking? I'm not so sure, I've witnessed a few divorces and even though both sides in all situations have felt they weren't treated fairly, I've felt the courts were more than fair, although I am only privy to what happens in one particular state. I think when it comes to divorce everyone feels they are worth more than they actually get, both male and female.
But the point I really want to make is that there seems to be a lot of "women need to change" in these comments. A person learns to act in a particular way because that method of behavior works for them. If you feel that women are too aggressive, too self-serving or whatever, chances are women aren't going to change because that is what is working for them at this particular moment. You can't expect 150 million people to change their ways in order to make you happy with your life.
If you think that the laws need changing, well, do something about it. If you wish to be single for the rest of your life, go for it. If you think women are nicer on Mars, then go there. But if you are bitter, angry and unhappy, trust me, you are wearing those feelings on your sleeve for the world to see, regardless of how good a job you think you are doing in hiding the way you feel. This will take the joy right out of your life, negatively affect your relationship with your loved ones and will do a number on your physical health.
Cham wrote, "But the point I really want to make is that there seems to be a lot of "women need to change" in these comments...You can't expect 150 million people to change their ways in order to make you happy with your life...If you think that the laws need changing, well, do something about it."
You are wholly inconsistent. We live in a Democracy. Laws are changed by persuasion not by force.
Women are 51% of the electorate. Therefore, men who want to change the divorce laws must "change women" by persuading them that men deserve equality under the law.
You err by eliminating an intermediary cause. Merely changing the views of women will not improve men's lives. Men want to change women's views to change the laws to improve the lives of men. This is the best use of civic institutions.
You also err by assuming without evidence that men are motivated purely by personal injury. They are also motivated by a sense of justice. It is no vice to seek justice and equality under the law.
It is funny at first, then it is disturbing. Women use the same arguments against men that were used against the Suffragettes. Many men said the women's rights pioneers were motivated by an uncontrollable anger, typical of the "emotional" woman. these men downplayed any of the rational arguments made by those heroic women. It's astonishing to read women deploying the same kind of arguments against men who advocate for equality under the law. One might say, it's hypocritical.
Most women don't see it that way. Review the comments by AmericanWoman and read Neo-neocon's two articles. AmericanWoman, like most women who encounter men's rights advocates, posits a psychological explanation for the reasoned arguments of men. She ignores facts, logical demonstrations, and examples; instead, she assumes some deep psychological distress. She pretends this completely unwarranted theory of origins can wipe out many reasoned demonstrations. That simply stupid.
Neo-neocon ignores contrary evidence, inaccurately reports facts, cherry picks examples, fails to make adequate qualifications, and makes improper use of anecdote. She's not stupid, though.
Cham, it doesn't the dialog no good to invent straw men. Psychologizing men's motives is inventing straw men. Kindly cease.
Jeff, I haven't commented on the laws at all. Just the comments by EVERYONE - not just you.
But keep writing, it's very entertaining.
AW, you've run out of gas, and now resort to mocking. I'm disappointed.
br, that is all Jeff's comments are worth.
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..........................
維納斯成人用品辣妹貼圖a片天堂月光論壇sexy girls get fuckedkk777視訊俱樂部中國性愛城交友網sex520-卡通影片383movie成人影城ut正妹 聊天室倉井空免費a影片伊莉論壇tw 18 net18禁成人網免費性愛影片aa 片俱樂部 免費avsexy girl video moviea片18禁地少女遊戲嘟嘟成人網洪爺後官電影院辣妺視訊
Post a Comment
<< Home