Dating Advice for Men
John Hawkins at Right Wing News interviews three dating professionals on dating advice for men. "Doc Love," author of The System: The Dating Dictionary
and The System has some advice on why nice guys finish last:
Perhaps this explains why women like mysteries so much, that detective in their mind. Anyway, if you want to read more, take a look at the interviews.
and The System has some advice on why nice guys finish last:Because nice guys are weak guys. They wear their heart on their sleeve and they don't make the girl work for it. ...What happens is that the guy says, "I had a good time, did you? Can I see you again? You're really a nice girl! You're sure good looking." This girl is 28, she's good looking, and ever since she was 12, guys have been telling her she's beautiful. So, what effect does that compliment have? It's a negative.
...The nice guy is too happy to be there and when she walks away from the first date she says, "Here's another one I own" versus "I don't know where I stand with this guy." When you start tweaking that detective in her mind, she goes bonkers and her interest level goes through the roof.
Perhaps this explains why women like mysteries so much, that detective in their mind. Anyway, if you want to read more, take a look at the interviews.
posted by Helen at 7:09 AM
185 Comments:
Good advice.
Let's also keep in mind what we teach girls, starting when they are in the crib, about dating.
When they are still in diapers, someone may read "the frog prince" to them, about how princes are hidden among the toads and just need a special girl to kiss them.
Then they'll watch "Lady and the Tramp," learning that a self-confessed "chicken thief" and scoundrel is a good match for good girls.
Then they'll see "Beauty and the Beast" and "Alladin," learning that jerks and thiefs are really loving souls, diamonds in the rough, and will show you the world, if only a special woman would give them a chance.
Then we'll move on to soap operas, where the best men always ride in on a motorcycle and fight their way to them. They have good hearts, and make the best, most loving men, criminal history and gang-affliations will fade, and only a special woman can bring it out.
Then we'll see the same stories repeated through chick flicks and romantic comedies. The person will be disconnected, criminal, rude, already married, engaged (how many movies had romantic climax of someone being left at the alter?), or even living in a different dimension.
Of course, I'm not saying men have better judgment. I know more than enough men who seem to prefer the stuck up witch as much as women seem to prefer the arrogant jerk. What it boils down to is their views of masculinity and femininity. If the witch acts more feminine than the nice girl, she'll be more appealing to men and if the jerk acts more masculine than the nice guy (as they normally do), he'll be more appealing.
Fun topic.
Well, it's either that, or the detective thing is true, or Freud was right.
Women really don't like Mystery Men for long. Soon, it changes from "He's so mysterious" to "He never talks about what he's thinking." It may be great for casual dating. Not so good for long-term, healthy relationships - married or not.
"Doc Love" gets it wrong about "wimpus americanus." Those aren't nice guys. Those are needy guys. There's a difference.
Well if I'm nice, I'm seen as a weenie. If I exude confidence, I'm seen as a jerk. Dude I can't win.
My solution is to simply write off women as being satanic entities designed to bring about the fall of the human race and move on with my life.
Really, the whole dating thing is so much more trouble than its worth. It's all about how I have to make the girl happy, which in itself is not a bad thing, except that there's no expectation for them to give anything in return. I see a coldness in single women my age that disturbs me, and I really don't see the point in investing so much time and effort to win their hearts only to be treated like monkey turd in the end. 99 percent of guys put up with it because they want booty, and they will endure the most raucous of abuse to get it. I'm one of the few guys though who used to believe in romance and true love though, and it's becoming clear that while women are willing to give their bodies, they are not willing to give their hearts.
It's sad, because I've always been a hopeless romantic, and I grew up thinking women were the same way too. Nope.
Ah well, this here whiskey is all the women I'll ever need. =D
Lincoln,
Monkey turd? That's awful. I do think part of the problem is the massive movement by the media to shower girls and women with a sense of entitlement and that they "deserve the best" whatever that is, who knows? Mainly, it's just a way to get an audience or sell a product or magazine but some women seem to buy it, hook, line and sinker. The entitlement message gives a sense that no man is good enough and those who may be good enough must be changed in some way to become a housecleaning, babysitting and at the same time good provider who doesn't get angry about anything lest they be tagged an abuser and sexist. Seems like a viscious cycle. Luckily, there are many women who do not buy into the indoctrination. Try to find them.
So in order to succeed, we have to be prepared to play headgames right back?
Or am I reading this wrong.
Question: If a woman doesn't want a guy who wears his heart on his sleeve, is thoughtful, is kind, is generous... then why would kind, generous, thoughtful guys who wear their hearts on their sleeve want to pretend to be something different? Is bait and switch a good tactic in finding a partner to marry?
When you're dealing with pretenders, does the pretending stop at some point? How do you know when? I'm divorced now, because I married somebody who pretended not to be too interested and played hard to get, then she changed and wanted commitment, and we married, and had kids, but it turns out that she was still playing lots of games to get me to do what she wanted. When I didn't and she realized that I am who I want to be, not what she wants me to be, she got tired of pretending to be in love with me and now we're divorced.
I really don't like the idea of getting into another relationship that is going to start off based on pretending and headgames.
Divorced this past Spring, and I'm enjoying not dating for the time being, and enjoying my kids and my freedom, but I think about sharing my life with somebody and certainly want to... at some point... but I hope I have the senses to run like hell away from people who play games.
Helen: "Luckily, there are many women who do not buy into the indoctrination. Try to find them."
I know some divorced guys as well. Here is where I find that there is hope... While there are plenty of ***hole women out there who will make a mess of some men's lives, there are also a lot of ***hole guys out there too. So I am sure that the nice, generous, honest divorced women out there aren't necessarily having a great time either.
So there is hope that the two of us will meet at some point.
I don't know if anyone else noticed but both Doc Love and Wayne Elise, 2 of the so-called dating experts, both addressed women as "girls" even though the interviewer was using the term "women". The only dating expert out of the 3 to address women as women was Savoy. If you want to date a girl, I guess the first 2 are the guys to ask. If you are thinking about dating a woman, you probably need to talk to Mr. Savoy.
Sparks,
"So there is hope that the two of us will meet at some point."
I sure hope so. People who play games of any sort seem to be the ones who, after marriage, are still either playing games or are fake to begin with--neither is ideal in a marriage. I do see many couples who seem to just like each other and enjoy each others company. Surely there are more than a few out there.
At age 59 I am not going to meet someone I will be attracted to who is in my age range; and, as an artist, with the attendant low income, I am not going to attract any one much younger. I am not interested in marrying only for cuddling and companionship: I can get a damn cat if I want companionship.
The last woman I dated said she was married to her business. I walked away: I didn't stay single all this time just to marry a cold fish.
Coincidentally enough, I was just having a conversation about a similar subject with my 30-year-old brother over lunch. He's getting a bit bitter about how he doesn't have a girl and wanted to know what he's doing wrong. I told him that he's going after the wrong kind of girls. He always fixates on the prettiest, best-dressed, most outgoing and flirtatious girls; the problem is that, while he's a good-looking guy, he's very introverted, very intense, and a bit socially awkward (we're all pretty sure he has a mild case of Asperger's Syndrome); he's a very bright guy, working on a Ph.D. in nuclear physics (!), but he just doesn't pick up on social cues at all. He's a very kind person and would give anyone in trouble the shirt off his back; he's very responsible, very good with money, etc. He'd make a great dad and wants to have kids.
I've tried repeatedly to tell him that the shallow, vapid cheerleader or supermodel types are not going to be interested in him -- that those girls are into the handsome, vapid jerks -- and that he should stop obsessing about girls that either lead him on or are very rude to him, and start asking out a wide range of girls so that he can find one who's compatible with him not only physically, but in personality as well. Since he's a scientific type, I gave him statistics about how many romantic partners people have before they get married (he's never had a steady relationship), and how he needs to increase his interactions with a great number of girls in order to find one he actually likes. Not from a distance, but in person. I told him the story of a Ph.D. student who did a project related to romance for a class, and whose calculations led him to conclude that for every 20 girls he asked out, 1 would accept him. From that point on, he made it his goal to ask out 20 girls per week; within a year, he was married.
My brother's rather angry response was that he doesn't want to play a "numbers" game, that he likes to focus on a particular woman, and that he "knows his type." I'm sympathetic to high standards -- it's kind of silly, but I know I couldn't marry anyone who didn't have a keen interest in classical history, or who at least didn't mind hearing me babble about Greece and Rome all the time :)-- but I think if you're going to hold out for someone who meets your high standards, you have an obligation not to get bitter when it takes you longer to find a partner (or when you don't find one at all).
Frankly (and this might be because I'm a girl, so take it with a grain of salt), I think guys have it a bit easier holding out, because they're not running against a biological clock. But that's kind of beside the point. My point is that I think both men and women have trouble in the romantic sphere because so many have bought into a notion -- "don't settle" -- that's just silly. We're never going to meet an Ideal Mate. There's no such thing as an Ideal Mate, because no person is ideal.
So, that being said -- I think a lot of the reason that nice guys (and nice girls) "finish last" is because the nice guys are aiming for girls who won't have them, and the nice girls are aiming for guys who won't have them. I'm not so simple as to say that "true beauty lies within"; physical attraction is important, part of what separates romantic love from friendship. But I do think a lot of people are being unrealistic when they fixate on someone who is very physically appealing without considering, at all, what that person's character is like and whether their characters are compatible.
On a personal note, speaking as a 27-year-old single girl who's been asked out by a lot of self-described "nice guys" whom I've uniformly rejected -- I don't have a problem with anyone, man or woman, who wears their heart on their sleeve. I'd be a disgusting hypocrite if I did, because I wear my heart on my sleeve. (I'm the girl who starts crying if anyone around me is upset, even if I don't know that person well. That's just who I am.) I like people who get excited about things, and I'm quite vain, so I'll never object to being complimented. Tell me I'm pretty all you want! :) I don't like girls who make guys "work for it," just like I don't like guys who treat me like some insignificant hanger-on. The thing is, the "nice guys" who asked me out weren't really nice guys at all. In fact, when I wasn't willing to give them what they wanted, they became quite nasty about it; a few even started stalking me, I caught one keying my car, and I overheard another saying I needed to get raped so "a man" could show me "who's in charge." There's a huge difference between being a gentleman and being a creep, and too often creepy guys describe themselves as nice because they're willing to put on a nice act to try to get a girl. Amazing how fast the mask comes off when they don't get what they want.
Um...I do have a point somewhere in all this. (Did I mention I babble?) I suppose these are my points:
(1) "Nice" guys aren't always the same as nice guys, and most girls I know (though not vapid supermodel types) like guys who are friendly and excited about things.
(2) Lots of girls and lots of guys have completely unrealistic expectations, many of them fueled by a crass and shallow popular culture.
(3) Lots of people would be a lot happier if they paid more attention to reality than their fantasies.
Uh...yeah. I think that's it. Interesting post.
Elizabeth:
I've long believed that there is no such thing as the perfect mate, but that there is such a thing as someone who might be perfect for YOU. Of course, I no longer believe that to be true for myself, but I do believe it to be true for others. =)
I agree that the label nice guys has gotten to be something of a misnomer though. Men are pigs, utterly, filthy, disgusting piggish pig-like pig borking pigs, and my distaste for them is overridden only by my disgust of all things female (...most things female)
In fact, I think it's fair to say that I pretty much hate the whole human race. =D
But back to the dating thing, I do think your brother has a point about casting a wide net. In one sense it might be more productive, but you could get so discouraged by the time you go through 19 girls that you might not even bother trying for the 20th.
Dating itself should rank up there with terrorism and kicking little kittens. The games you have to play, the act you have to put on "Do this and don't do that and be yourself but don't be yourself and call the third day but not the second or you might seem desperate and blah blah blah blah blabby blah bladda blaaaaahhhhh..."
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I like things simple. I'm a simple guy who values honesty, and it seriously frosts my chocolate chip cookies to hear women say they want HONESTY, and yet the only way I can get anywhere with them is to BS all day long till the cows come home.
No thanks. There's a phrase that is becoming more endearing to me by the day, "If you can't handle me at my worst, then you don't deserve me at my best." I believe the wisdom in that speaks volumes.
"I really don't like the idea of getting into another relationship that is going to start off based on pretending and headgames."
That is right on target, your instincts are right on here. Instead of playing games, be yourself in spades. Risk being exactly who you are in a kind way.
I think that would attract some women you could deal with!
Trey
The esteemed Judith Martin, better known as Miss Manners, once wrote that the key to victory in the "Game of Romance" is to "play just a little more slowly than your 'opponent.'" The dating gurus quoted above seem to have confirmed that bit of traditional wisdom.
Lincoln:
I also agree that there are people who can be perfect for each other, but I don't think the (very destructive) advice of "don't settle" refers to that. Too often, people who are told "don't settle" hear "don't settle for anything less than the fantasy mate I have in my head," which is often a completely unrealistic standard. I know a lot of people who have mental lists of traits that they consider absolutely essential in a mate. And for too many people, those traits are pretty shallow (and usually physical).
Regarding the wide net -- it's fine for some people to focus on one person, to not date around. The problem is that focusing on one person at a time hasn't worked for my brother. Now, a lot of that has to do with the kind of women he's been focusing on, who have, by and large, been utterly worthless creatures, and ignoring the ones who are actually interested in him. I had a friend -- pretty, friendly, outgoing, and very sharp (she's cracking codes for an intelligence agency) -- who was quite interested in him; he ignored her for the Mega Bitch he was obsessing over at the time. My brother does this thing where he will find a girl who's pretty much exactly what he wants physically and admire her from afar while, in his head, he's assigning her the personality of a fairy tale princess. Then, when he gets up the nerve to ask her out, he'll be devastated when he learns that her personality doesn't match her appearance. I think it would be for his own good if he spent more time with real girls and less time with his fantasies. Now, that's not an opinion I would've offered him if he hadn't asked for it, because I don't really like nosing around in people's personal lives. I will say that I think it's a bit irritating for him to act like all girls in the world are cruel, false-hearted bitches because those are the ones he's chosen to fixate on. He's had plenty of nice, pretty girls show interest in him over the years (including the Homecoming Queen of his high school class), but he has a perverse attraction to the ones who are unobtainable. It's a bit like the chunky girls in high school who are shocked, shocked when Mr. Star Athlete has no interest in them.
I get that no one likes rejection, and that rejection after rejection can be especially disheartening -- but I also think if you want something, really want something, you should do what it takes to get there, and if you're not willing to do that, it's not fair to blame other people for not giving you what you want. I have a friend who's a writer, and she had to write several books before a publisher accepted one. I don't know how many agents she queried before she found one to represent her, but I know it was substantially more than twenty. Most people aren't going to be handed what they want. It's a little strange to me that people expect romantic success to be effortless.
I'm with you on dating games and mind games, and I do think there are a lot of girls who get off on playing games (which I think are disgusting). I really detest playing games, especially when you're dealing with someone who's sincere. Frankly, I think the question of what people want in a romantic partner is a little ridiculous, because we can never really be sure what we want. I used to think I liked charming guys, only to learn through a few years of hard experience that "charming" is often partnered with "unreliable." :) Also, I don't think people can really be broken down into categories like "honest." What does honest really mean? Someone who will tell you the truth about important stuff? Yeah, I'm guessing most people will want that. But someone who says that a new dress makes a girl look like a salami when she asks him how she looks? I doubt many people are in line for that kind of honesty. Most of us tell little white lies by the day. Needless to say, I find the "honesty" standard a bit suspect. Though my little brother would tell you that that's only because I'm a lawyer, since we're casual with the truth. :)
(By the way -- does anyone have time to remember all those stupid rules, like what exactly you're supposed to do by the third date? I sure don't...)
I like simplicity, too. My stardard is: "Do I like someone or not?" There's certainly a lot of stuff that goes into that judgment, but it has nothing to do with what or what doesn't happen on a third date. I don't know anyone who really works like that, and I think those people who say, "Well, I would've liked him, but he did this and that on Date X" are fishing for excuses for why they dumped a person they never had a genuine interest in.
You can be a nice guy and still maintain the mystery. It is just a question of balance.
Now, a lot of that has to do with the kind of women he's been focusing on, who have, by and large, been utterly worthless creatures, and ignoring the ones who are actually interested in him.
I say this with all due respect to your brother, but he's being a weenie. Look, I'm a shallow guy, I admit it, and I like my women to be pretty and look like, well, women, but even I know you kinda have to look at the whole package here. This is part of the reason why the Internet sucks it up like a black hole from space for dating, because you don't have that person to person contact that could add to your attraction to someone, and reality being what it is, some people just aren't photogenic, even though they are in fact quite beautiful in real life.
As for honesty, I should qualify what I mean by saying I value honesty "with tact." Part of dating is that you have to sell yourself, and that usually means embellishing your accomplishments, talents and background, something I am not comfortable doing at all. That's why players have immense advantage over me. They will say absolutely whatever it is women want to hear, without a hint of guilt in doing so. It seems like people would rather get scammed than have someone who is not perfect but who at least doesn't put on a ridiculously fake front.
I'm with you on dating games and mind games, and I do think there are a lot of girls who get off on playing games (which I think are disgusting).
My respect for you just went up a few notches. =D
Though my little brother would tell you that that's only because I'm a lawyer...
My respect for you just plummeted down to the bottomless pits of hell.
I keed, I keed... Actually I almost went to law school myself, but then God decided to have mercy on me. =D
But wow, nice crowd you run with. Girl who cracks codes, homecoming queen, and bro still can't find anybody? God I hate him now.
I say this with all due respect to your brother, but he's being a weenie.
My other brothers and I have tried to tell him this with all love and respect, but...I don't know. I think there's something that's missing in his brain, the part that would teach him to read social cues. He's completely oblivious when nice girls are flirting with him; I could probably be holding up a poster that says "SHE. LIKES. YOU" and he still wouldn't get it. :) But then he'll read things that just aren't there with the girls he does like. He has some traits of love shyness (especially the emphasis on the "perfect girl"), though not all the traits. I don't know. It's a frustrating situation, and maybe it's something that runs in the family. My mom has a brother who was the same way, and he's still a bachelor in his sixties. He had plenty of girls who liked him, but he would always fixate on the most gorgeous one.
My respect for you just plummeted down to the bottomless pits of hell.
Sigh. I know, I know. I've been trying to convince Satan to return my soul. Alas, he's still insisting on a lifetime of service, followed by eternal damnation.
cham, you made me chuckle enough to probably make my coworkers worry. I think you hit on the heart of it, right there. Excellent eye.
elizabeth expanded on it nicely, esp. in her 1st post, so I'll leave it at that: a vigorous head nod in agreement of all it implies.
NJArtist,
"At age 59 I am not going to meet someone I will be attracted to who is in my age range; and, as an artist, with the attendant low income, I am not going to attract any one much younger."
Then you have a real problem. If you are not attracted to women your own age, that rules out a lot of good women and if you can't attract women due to lack of funds, sounds like there are not many options. While I understand that you perhaps cannot help who you are attracted to (and of course, the same leeway goes for women who just want men for money), wouldn't opening up your horizons be helpful in the dating game? I am not trying to be a smartass--just curious.
Elizabeth: I might have that same lack of social intellect too. I can't seem to tell when a girl is being nice or when she's really flirting with me, unles sit's really overt. One time I thought a girl was really interested but she turned out to be married. Um, oops? Who knows, maybe I have Asperger's too (especially if it qualifies me for disability benefits...)
Sigh. I know, I know. I've been trying to convince Satan to return my soul. Alas, he's still insisting on a lifetime of service, followed by eternal damnation.
HA! Sucks to be you! He almost had me too but I escaped! w00t! =)
So I suppose that introducing yourself, shaking hands and then immediately asking "How do you like me so far?" isn't the best way.
It is just too cumbersome to bring an attache everywhere I go, with portfolio, up to date resume, and full medical records. It's like work.
When I was a boy, I wanted a girl.
As a man, I would want a woman who is as beyond all that stuff, as I (think) I am. Admittedly, I've been out of the "game" a very long time. Raising kids and repairing finances. I am beginning to miss companionship, laughing and talking with someone my own age, and when I say goodnight, I can just roll over and turn out the light.
Oh, and sex. I miss sex.
I don't know whether this has anything to do with anything but I attended a book festival 2 years ago. At the festival there was a panel set up by Cosmopolitan Magazine on dating in the main tent. I decided to attend and was absolutely amazed at what I saw. There were about 1000 attendees, mainly women. The average age must have been somewhere between 40-50. I have never seen so many thin, beautiful well-dressed older women in one spot in my life. I learned that when a woman is on the prowl for a new relationship the weight falls off, the wardrobe gets updated and an exercise programs is enacted. And also, books on dating are purchased.
As far as that panel is concerned, the advice was the same as the 3 male dating advisers: Do this, don't do that, be yourself, don't be yourself, be confident but not too confident, be sexy but not too sexy. It's all way too complicated for me.
An interesting subject, to be sure.
In my opinion, and it may not be popular everywhere, the main problem is the obsession of our culture with having sex before marriage. It seems to color every form of media, and since the "Sexual Revolution" our youth (and above) have been constantly bombarded with sexual images and themes. We are promised pleasure without consequences. We are told that we can have "safe" sex.
What we are not told about are the consequences of this obsession, even if you leave out pregnancy and STD's. I am no scientist, and maybe Dr. Helen can back me up, but I have heard that when we have sex hormones are released in both men and women, which, in biological terms, serve to cement the relational bonds between the two on levels we don't even understand. It's what creates affection from the woman and a kind of jealousy in the man. When sex is practiced outside of marriage, the subconscious mind is impacted heavily by these hormones, and a dissonance exists because of a lack of permanance in the relationship with the lack of an explicit commitment to a lifetime relationship that exists only in marriage.
Back to dating. Our popular culture now not only overtly encourages sexual activity outside of marriage, but also attempts to marginalize those who wait until marriage, especially if they do so out of choice, not just lack of any real opportunity.
In conclusion (at least for now), I can't see things getting much better soon, although I do hold out hope. I was blessed with a woman who was attracted to me when I wasn't even paying attention. I was smart enough to ask her out (as a friend!) and found that we were "perfect" for each other. We both had saved ourselves until marriage, and so carried little sexual baggage. I hope there are many others out there doing the same, even if they don't get covered on TMZ or Access Hollywood.
Yup. Way too complicated for my simple DBA techie mind. I'm going for normal.
It's complicated because the "experts" purposely make it complicated, otherwise we wouldn't need experts.
Well, I thought I was pretty happy being a divorced dad living alone and eschewing dating (whatever that is, don't recall ever doing it).
But upon reading this thread, I'm changing my "pretty happy" persona to "ecstatically happy" :-)
Elizabeth -- I say this not to be cruel, just frank. It is quite possible that your brother will never really have a serious relationship. What's wrong with him? First, he's smart and women mostly DO NOT LIKE smart men, because they associate it with low testosterone. Second, he lacks high status and activities that indicate high levels of testosterone, such as base jumping, motorcycle racing, etc. Last, he lacks high status and social dominance over other men around him. [Ask yourself why women "detest" nerds and any sign of intelligence. It's the testosterone!]
Most men cannot meet these requirements. Only a very few can, which is why most women end up sharing a few men. Note that relations between men and women were quite recently radically different -- women have always had these preferences, but had to trade off against them due to outside influences, among them social disapproval for single motherhood. Somehow, before the Sexual Revolution and increasing financial independence for women, "smart" guys managed to get married. Now? It's simply impossible for most of them.
Your brother is right to reject more than likely 50 tries of failure for the small chance of success. Only men who matured physically early, had high social status, and high testosterone in early adolescence have "confidence" and know instinctively that women will be receptive to their advances. Your brother knows he'll just get more humiliation and wisely gives that a pass.
Your friend, if you were honest, is not "pretty" ... since men really only care about looks when dating. More likely, forty to fifty pounds overweight, at a minimum, with little effort at appearance. Or, perhaps 10 years older than your brother.
The reality is that most men just can't meet the requirements women have: only a few men are going to be socially dominant and a recipe for movie stars only (basically) is one for social disaster -- a large group of men whose only experience of women is rejection are free to express misogyny. I can well believe all those reports of misogyny, and if anything they are under-reported.
What, women will continue not to sleep with these men?
Men with girlfriends and wives, and of course daughters or the prospect of daughters, cannot and will not allow misogyny to be expressed. Men with no real attachment to women, not so much.
Everything has it's cost.
All I can say to this is: who cares?
Even if you succeed in "playing the game", the prize you'll "win" sure as hell isn't worth it.
Yeah, I want to come home to some heavyweight Oprahized spiteful spendthrift battleaxe every night. It would do wonders for my libido - as in, I would wonder why I had any libido left.
I come home to a quiet apartment. Much better for my nerves.
I see dating as a necessary evil. It's expensive. It's exploitative of guys in many ways. And so very many women will accept dates and give false romantic overtures to you, just to get you to pay for their entertainment. The "professional daters" can make dating quite helllish.
That being said, I've seen only two successful strategies for attracting women: money and looks.
I'm lucky to have a decent face, I'm pretty athletic, 6'04'', 225 lbs., Rugby player and Wrestler. I get to play the looks angle.
If these guys can give me another angle, I'm listening for sure. Looks won't last forever, and for me, single life kinda' sucks.
male samizdat sez:
All I can say to this is: who cares?
Even if you succeed in "playing the game", the prize you'll "win" sure as hell isn't worth it.
Yeah, I want to come home to some heavyweight Oprahized spiteful spendthrift battleaxe every night. It would do wonders for my libido - as in, I would wonder why I had any libido left.
I come home to a quiet apartment. Much better for my nerves.
----------------------
That's pretty much what I wanted to write.
As a thought experiment, subtract out a sex drive and sexual attraction and then look at male-female relationships. Women usually want to "marry up" (although some miscalculate) and you therefore have a situation in which a more highly accomplished man is chasing after a woman who is many times simply lazy, dumb, impatient, childish etc.
That's the sex drive. That's the reason men chase, that's the reason why men who are objectively 10 times better than the woman get obsessed with chasing her.
Newsflash for men: You are putting a woman up on a pedestal, making her into a goddess, and she doesn't belong there. She is simply a human being like you, and you are reacting based on your sex drive.
That's why you see men working towards a heart attack - while women sit and watch Oprah and get the same lifestyle as the chump. No, brainwashed men, there isn't a "soul mate".
I would like sex and some female companionship, but I don't want to pay a (formal) prostitute. The result for me has been to have a girlfriend for a few years and then move on when the ultimatum comes. That may not work for everyone, but even men who want to get married should wake up a bit and realize they don't have to pay as much as they are paying.
Woody Allen: Paid sex is so much cheaper than unpaid sex.
Try to block out all forms of a sex drive and the ancillary drives that nature (or God) has built into men such as chivalry towards women etc.
Then, with this newly-found objective stance, take a look at the women around you.
What are they really worth?
Best dating advice I ever received: "Go overseas."
What are they really worth?
Depends on the woman. A virtuous woman is esteemed as more precious than rubies, and if a guy can find someone like that, then he found a good thing, something worth fighting and dying for.
Best dating advice I ever received: "Go overseas."
LOL
Elizabeth - Having been a Physics major in college, perhaps your brother would be a little more likely to listen to me, at the ripe old age of 43.
Tell him I said to get his head out of his a$$ and think about the long-term implications of getting married to one of these pieces of fluff you say he's obsessed with. I know from experience that the conversational opportunities are severely lacking there, and unless he expects the majority of his conversation with her (for the next 40 years) to primarily consist of, "When are we going to have sex again?", then he better try meeting someone a little more suitable in the mental department, and not worry so much about the physical department.
Oh, I'm sure it would be fun to get a little from one of them, but after they're done shaking the bed, what are they going to talk about?
He needs to join some kind of group where there are some women who share interests that at least have a little overlap. Sadly, the beautiful members of this group are likely to be less numerous, but he will be able to find someone to talk to, which is something I did not do, and that has made the last several years mind-numbingly dull.
Wayne is right, Elizabeth. If your brother is far above average intellectually, then he needs to find an above average woman. In the long haul, he'll be miserable with someone who isn't smart enough to communicate at least approximately on his level. A good rule of thumb is to stay within two standard deviations on the iq scale. If his iq is 150, then he shouldn't consider women who are under 120.
I think women tend to picture themselves as heroines of novels or movies...I guess everybody does to some extent, but especially women...and they tend to pick potential boyfriends according to who would make an interesting character in their story.
I might have that same lack of social intellect too.
Lincoln -- Hee. Another one who needs to be beaten over the head with the Obvious Club, I see. :) Actually, I don't know if the problem is that flirting was a bad signal to begin with, or if the Scarlett O'Haras of the world have ruined it by using it on everyone, including guys they're not interested in....I can't flirt worth a damn, so I tend to be straightforward.
HA! Sucks to be you! He almost had me too but I escaped! w00t! =)
Lucky. He's a tricky one. But I keep hoping to outwit him. I learned all his tricks in law school, after all. :)
Our popular culture now not only overtly encourages sexual activity outside of marriage, but also attempts to marginalize those who wait until marriage, especially if they do so out of choice, not just lack of any real opportunity.
John F Not Kerry -- I think a lot of people like my brother would be less bitter if it weren't for precisely this. Popular culture seems to exist to make everyone dissatisfied with themselves, and if the message young men are getting is that they're total losers if they're not scoring with at least eight women a week (one for every night, plus two on Sunday to offend the Christians!)...well, it's no surprise a lot of people are unhappy.
Elizabeth -- I say this not to be cruel, just frank. It is quite possible that your brother will never really have a serious relationship.
Ah, Whiskey, you're breaking my heart....
First, he's smart and women mostly DO NOT LIKE smart men, because they associate it with low testosterone.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. If women didn't like smart men, I never would've been born. :) My dad is a Harvard Ph.D. and spent forty years as a university president before he retired. My mom, fifteen years his junior, was, in her youth, a cheerleader, an accomplished dancer, and a beauty queen. She also had a master's degree in mass communications and was director of public broadcasting for the state we used to live in. She can't abide stupid men, and as a young and very beautiful girl, she chose to marry a man fifteen years older than her, who was a divorced father of three, rather than any of the young, handsome, wealthy, strapping fellows she had running in her wake. My mom had her pick of men, and she would be the first to tell you that one of the things that attracted her most to my father was that he was smart.
Of my five brothers, two -- the two oldest -- are married. One is the president of a consulting firm, the other (an Evil Reptile, i.e. lawyer, like me -- at least I'll have company in hell) is general counsel for General Electric. Both of them are very bright. Neither ever had problems attracting girls.
I had a friend in high school, really smart guy, also really geeky, and in those days he didn't have much success with girls. Now he's a software engineer with Google and has quite a pretty girlfriend.
The moral of the story? Women can be just as shallow as men, but while men are more likely to be shallow about looks, women are a lot more likely to be shallow about money or status. Short, skinny, bespectacled, milky-skinned nerds might have trouble getting the girls in high school, but if they put their brains to use in making a fortune, I don't think they'll be lonely for long. :)
Second, he lacks high status and activities that indicate high levels of testosterone, such as base jumping, motorcycle racing, etc.
High status I'll grant you, but I think men are a lot more likely than women to be impressed by base jumping and motorcycle racing. :) Every time I see someone riding a motorcycle, I cringe....
Last, he lacks high status and social dominance over other men around him.
I'll give you both on this. But I do want to point out that my brother doesn't look like the stereotypical science geek. He's tall, muscular, blond, and handsome. And he's never had trouble attracting quality women. The homecoming queen who liked him didn't become homecoming queen from a sympathy vote. She was a beautiful blue-eyed blonde. She was also friendly, warm, down-to-earth, and smart as a whip. She just wasn't the girl my brother was obsessing about at the time. He's very stubborn and a hopeless romantic and...yeah. Helen of Troy could lay herself at his feet, but he'd still only have eyes for the distant, unobtainable Aphrodite. It's a mindset I don't really understand, but then, I'm an Evil Lawyer Beast, not a shrink. :)
Your brother is right to reject more than likely 50 tries of failure for the small chance of success.
I don't think it would take him that many. I was giving him an extreme example of a stereotypical science geek who still managed to find happiness by stiffening his resolve and refusing to let rejection get to him. As I said, my brother has never had trouble attracting quality women. Where he's had trouble is attracting the specific women that he wants, who tend to be absolutely wrong for him, though he refuses to recognize it.
Your friend, if you were honest, is not "pretty" ... since men really only care about looks when dating. More likely, forty to fifty pounds overweight, at a minimum, with little effort at appearance. Or, perhaps 10 years older than your brother.
Actually, she barely turned 28 -- almost three years younger than him -- and she's 5'8, 117 pounds. Very slender, though not nasty anorexic skinny. She works out daily and keeps herself in good shape. She has long, ash-blonde hair, blue eyes, and clear skin. She wears nice clothes and always looks put-together. Her features are fine, not plain, more than attractive, but not classically beautiful. Hence, "pretty" -- someone who's more than plain, more than attractive, but less than beautiful. And she's friendly, outgoing, and razor-sharp -- someone who actually shares my brother's scientific interests. She was my sorority sister in college, and let me tell you, sororities do not let in fat, ugly, socially awkward girls on charity. She first met my brother when, during our spring break, we went to see him and his fellow officers (he was in the Navy at the time) at their base. She had no trouble getting the other officers to pay attention to her.
Incidentally, my brother doesn't have an objection to women who are older than him. He's actually attracted to older women, which is why I keep hoping that some good-hearted cougar will come along and sweep him off his feet. I've tried to get him to look at younger girls, and our youngest brother (23) has made an effort to introduce him to pretty female friends, but to no avail. My brother insists that only losers go after younger girls, despite the fact that our mother is fifteen years younger than our father. The woman he's currently fixated on is six years older than he is.
The reality is that most men just can't meet the requirements women have // since men really only care about looks when dating...
Er...I would ask if most women can meet the requirements that most men have, since most women are not pretty, charming, or, these days, even thin. :) If you go by the so-called "biological imperatives" that the evolutionary psychologists try to abscribe to us all, men are after young, fertile women, while women are after powerful men who can protect them. Men associate beauty with fertility, women associate money or status with strength. Blah blah blah.
I'm not going to pretend to understand science -- that, along with math, was the subject in school that made me wonder how long it was until recess -- but I will say that in my personal experience (I know, I know, the dangers of anecdotal evidence), I've found that people, both men and women, want something different and something more. I grew up with five brothers, and, as a prosecutor, I'm exempt from my state's concealed weapons law, so I'm pretty good at protecting myself. :) I have an Ivy League degree and a law license, so I don't need someone to provide for me financially. I've met too many dull handsome men for looks to matter to me all that much (though of course, I want to be attracted to my mate). I think the only ironclad requirement I have for a mate is that we have to be able to have interesting conversations. I'm a lawyer, after all. I like to talk. :)
As for men, well, I'm going to indulge in a little bit of shameless boasting here (all for the purpose of advancing an argument, of course!): I've had complete strangers walk up to me to tell me I'm beautiful. I've done a little modeling. (Purely amateur -- local fashion shows for charity events, for my college's application booklet, etc.) I've been asked out on a lot of dates, and unless I have good reason to turn a guy down (like when I got propositioned by a married TA), I'll go. I have no interest in being old, lonely, bitter, and childless, and I don't have a list of "requirements" guiding me, and generally, I'm flattered when guys ask me out. So I'll go. I'll go on a lot of second dates, sometimes a third. But while I've dated a lot more than my brother, I've had no more luck than him in the serious relationship department. I don't think those guys would've asked me out in the first place if they thought I was physically repellant, and I don't smell or have bad breath, so I can only assume that they have some objection to me personally -- which would suggest that men do care about something more than looks. I always offer to pay, so I haven't been a cheapskate, and I know the reason isn't because I'm "bad" in bed, because I've never slept with anyone. I'm extremely shy about physical contact with people I don't know well -- I wouldn't kiss on a third date, let alone sleep with someone (there's me, violating "the rules") -- so I suppose at least some guys are turned off by my "frigidity." But I don't make a big production of it -- I don't begin dates by announcing that I won't even consider kissing them until such-and-such time -- so unless we get to a point where they try to make a move, they won't know that. I have frozen up a few times when a guy's tried to kiss me (and I can understand why that would be off-putting, though it wasn't intentional). Generally, though, it doesn't even get that far, and it's happened enough that the common denominator is obviously me -- there's something wrong with me. I think it might have something to do with the fact that my idea of "interesting conversation" revolves around men who have been dead for more than two thousand years; the poor fellows are probably eager to escape me by the time the check comes. I think I need to marry a classics professor. :) Also, I'm not very feminine. I look feminine, because I'm vain, but I don't really act like a girl. I have five brothers, after all. I know how to throw a punch. :)
Anyway -- for all we like to say that guys only want such and such, and girls only want such and such, I think most of us are always on the lookout for compatible personalities. A guy might think, "Wow, she's pretty," and go up and talk to a girl, but I doubt he'll stick around long if she starts speaking in tongues. :) I think most people would be a lot happier, and a lot more apt to find mates, if they would relax some of their "requirements" and broaden the search. Looks fade, after all, and while physical attraction is important, only a very slim portion of the population qualifies as "very handsome" or "very beautiful." The problem I have with my brother isn't that he won't date my "lovely friend" who has a hunchback and one eye -- it's that he's ignoring pretty girls with nice personalities in favor of gorgeous ones who are basically demons in human form. It's like he's the male equivalent of those girls who are only attracted to assholes, and it's kind of depressing to watch.
large group of men whose only experience of women is rejection are free to express misogyny.
Sure, they're free to express it, and if they prefer to spend their lives alone and hateful, or have convinced themselves that they're condemned to spend their lives alone and hateful, they're free to do that, too. But because they're bitter doesn't mean they're correct, and because they've experienced something doesn't mean that's the experience of everyone else. Somehow the human race has survived and continues to survive, even with misogyny and misandry, and I think it's because most people don't hate the other sex. My father's first wife was quite a piece of work, but she didn't turn him off women. He and my mom have been married for more than thirty years. It took him more than one try to get it right, but obviously, I'm glad he didn't give up, or I wouldn't have been born. :)
But just as rejected men are free to express misogyny, so are rejected women -- and plenty of them exist; ask any ugly girl or fat girl -- free to express misandry (otherwise known, these days, as "feminism"), and the rest of us are allowed to express our disagreement. Blissful couples are free to revel in their contentment. Old married couples are free to squabble. It's the glory of free speech.
In my brother's case, I know him, and I know he doesn't want to be bitter. He asks for my advice, and I offer it. He's free to reject it if he wishes -- although, given that he's been asking me my advice for years and uniformly rejects it, I wonder that he still asks for it. He has the right to be bitter, and he has the right to express bitterness if he wants. What he doesn't have the right to is the love of a woman. Nobody has the right to demand love. So if he wants love, and he hasn't been able to find it, he needs to take a hard look at himself (as does anybody). Has he been trying? Has he been making a sincere effort? Has he been making a realistic effort? In his case, the answer to all three questions is no. People who want love and are willing to do what it takes to find it do not ignore possibilities for the sake of the impossible.
What, women will continue not to sleep with these men?
Probably. Just as the alpha males will continue not to love 99.9% of females (if any of them at all). Men are not the only ones who are rejected. If we all stopped looking at the top and started looking at each other, I think a lot of people would be a lot happier. :) Not everybody, but a lot of people.
Best dating advice I ever received: "Go overseas."
Kevin m -- foreign guys don't really do it for me. ;) I can never understand what they're saying!
Tell him I said to get his head out of his a$$ and think about the long-term implications of getting married to one of these pieces of fluff you say he's obsessed with.
Wayne -- you are awesome. :) I think too many people (men and women) never think that much about the long-term and stumble through life chasing what they think they want, when what they really want has often been around all along.
Oh, I'm sure it would be fun to get a little from one of them, but after they're done shaking the bed, what are they going to talk about?
And this, I think, is where the hopeless romanticism is killing him. He's still young enough to go through a wild phase and get the floozies out of his system, and since he's good-looking, I think there are plenty of floozies who would be willing to sleep with him, if he didn't approach them with his earnest "you are my princess" sort of devotion. But he insists that he wants to be in love with any woman he sleeps with. And he's bitter that he's not getting sex. I don't have much of a moral objection to premarital sex (though I wish people would be subtler about it, because it's made our society incredibly crass), and a few times, I've gotten all of my prettiest available friends together and gone out with him to a bar, then pointed out all the girls who would be willing to hook up with him just because he's surrounded by a group of pretty girls. He would refuse to even talk to them.
He needs to join some kind of group where there are some women who share interests that at least have a little overlap. Sadly, the beautiful members of this group are likely to be less numerous, but he will be able to find someone to talk to, which is something I did not do, and that has made the last several years mind-numbingly dull.
You know, his best friend (an engineer) is even more socially timid than my brother, but he turned to online dating services, and is now married to a bright, nice girl (she's a teacher). She's not pretty, and she's a little overweight (not a lot, because she's actually quite active; she coaches soccer), but she's a lot of fun to be around. My brother's had family and friends volunteer to get him a dating profile at one of the dating websites so that he can find girls that way -- at the very least, he might make some new friends who could introduce him to new people -- but he insists that he wants to do it the "traditional way."
Wayne is right, Elizabeth. If your brother is far above average intellectually, then he needs to find an above average woman.
Jay C -- I agree. I don't think he'll be happy in the long-term with anyone who doesn't share his passion for the sciences. But even though he's 30, I would say he's a bit...underdeveloped in the area of romance. Again, he's kind of like a girl who never outgrew her asshole phase because she hasn't dated enough assholes.
Actually, she barely turned 28 -- almost three years younger than him -- and she's 5'8, 117 pounds. Very slender, though not nasty anorexic skinny. She works out daily and keeps herself in good shape. She has long, ash-blonde hair, blue eyes, and clear skin.
Can I have her email address please? =D
Actually, I probably shouldn't even bother, since there is sadly truth to that social status thingie. I'm just a blue collar government employee, though I tend to express the kind of lucidity and intelligence that would leave most of my peers scratching their heads. It makes for a very lonely existence, but I simply had neither the background nor the prestige to get in with a more educated and refined crowd. Besides, would a brilliant woman who cracks codes for a three letter agency or an accomplished attorney be interested in a blue collared weenie who is only one step above a garbage man? I doubt it. That sort of thing only happens in Billy Joel songs.
God I'm depressed now. I'm gonna go drink some whiskey.
"Oh whiskey, you're no devil!
To me you're more a saint.
You make me feel like heaven
And the angel that I ain't..."
- Token Whiskey Song, The Fenians
You people are giving me the willies. All this picking and choosing and prequalifying. Sheesh! Then after all the musing you decide there is no hope for yourselves and throw in the towel.
There are 6 billion people in the world and there is someone for everyone. All this talk about social status, money, alpha males, education, careers and looks. I'm not sure any of it plays into any potential relationships.
Frankly, I don't really know what blue collar is, you either earn money or you don't, you either can hold a conversation or you can't. If one thinks they don't earn enough to have a relationship then they will never have a relationship because they are talking themselves out of it. If one is looking for the holy grail of the opposite sex, they probably won't ever find that either.
As far as foreign men are concerned, send me to a southward country and give me a dark fit man who doesn't speak English add a nice hotel room and that's what I would call a vacation. ;)
Some good news! I just received my Sept "Popular Mechanics" Mag and a girl from NYC wrote in ecstatic about the mag saying if she saw man reading PM on the subway she'd follow him home!
So you're right Cham, there's someone for everyone somewhere.
There are 6 billion people in the world and there is someone for everyone.
Tell the men in China that. They outnumber the women 4 to 1 because of China's attempts to control the population. It's tragic.
Someone for everyone my ass.
As for blue collar, it's not about money but about status. We live in a virtual caste system. With rare exception, it's hard to see how a car mechanic for example could attract someone who attended an Ivy league school. Social status matters, even if it shouldn't.
Lois always went for Superman, and left Clark in the dust. But Superman didn't have a paying job.
And sleeping next to the guy can only be dangerous. I mean, supposing he farts in his sleep one night? Christ, he'd blow Lois through the back wall of the house.
Frankly Elizabeth, your brother seems a little creepy.
My sister is a very pretty woman and was especially so in her 20s. She'd supported herself as a model for print and television. The men she'd dated who resembled your description of your brother inevitably proved to be controlling and abusive. Men who idolize attractive women in the way you describe tend to be narcissistic. That's not to say that they're vain, but that they seek to be with attractive women in order benefit from the status they confer. The woman is simply an object that they imbue with their own selfish aspirations.
I'd suggest that you leave him alone. If he does happen to get involved with someone he's probably going to make her miserable. Not everyone is suited to being in a relationships.
BTW if you're really so uncomforable being touched, try taking a dance class. It's a good way to inure yourself to physical contact of this sort.
"And sleeping next to the guy can only be dangerous. I mean, supposing he farts in his sleep one night? Christ, he'd blow Lois through the back wall of the house."
br549 - do you read Larry Niven/Jerry Pournell? I can't remember which one, but one of them analyzed the potential sex life of Superman, and it didn't turn out well for the human race.
A young lad loves a maiden
She likes another one
That other marries another
Whose heart and hand he won
The maiden weds in anger
The first man she can snare
Who comes across her pathway
The lad is in despair
It is an old, old story
Yet new with every start
And every time it happens
It breaks a loving heart
--Heine (1823)
Sci-ty:
He is (much to his credit) not controlling or possessive at all. He's the most unselfish person I know. He's not anything resembling a narcissist. I know what you're talking about -- I've had my share of stalker cases and domestic abuse cases (ugh) -- and I've gotten to the point where I can recognize the type from a mile away. My brother's earnest, he can be intense, but he's not creepy. He's a lovey-dovey type. And there's no one alive less concerned about status. Which might be part of his problem. :)
As for dancing -- it's good advice, but I'm a world-class klutz and would have to overcome my mortal peril of breaking my partner's toe before I could do that. :)
Folks,
Male Samizdat wrote my sentiments before I could. Yes, there are good women out there, but-and this is key-they are so rare that they make gold look as plentiful as sand on a beach! Why date, indeed? The 'prize' you win in return for your effort is NOT worth it. Coming home to a quiet apartment with only my cats to love & greet me (not nag me senseless) DOES have its advantages... :)
MarkyMark
He is (much to his credit) not controlling or possessive at all.
Well then I'm sorry that I'd insulted him.
It's too bad that he's against dating services. One thing that they do tend to be good for is meeting unusually bright women. I've used eHarmony and have come across more than a few women who could certainly hold their own with a physicist - though they're often not very attractive physically. Eugene Volokh had apparently met his wife this way.
But dating sites are a mixed bag. You need to be able to handle rejection and people are often rather cruel.
The unfortunate truth of dating is that nearly everyone is pursuing the same 3% of the population, this 3% know it and are also pursuing each other.
"Luckily, there are many women who do not buy into the indoctrination. Try to find them."
Dr Helen, I like your blog, but I find statements like this to be offensive.
Women have been attacking men for 40 years, unrestrained in any way.
The last thing that a man who has had his life ripped to bits by a shrewish female needs to hear is that he chose wrong and needs to KEEP TRYING (to what, make the Nazis like us Jews in time to stop our destruction?)
Sorry, Dr H., I like your commentary, but that is horrible advice.
I would advise men to do a cost anaylysis on any relationship with a woman, before taking it past beers at the pub with a few humpings afterwards.
What is in it for you?
What do you have to gain, compared to how much you have to lose? This is pretty simple. You might risk $1,000,000 to make $1,200,000, but if you fail and end up with $100,000 then you have to make a proper risk analysis. Watch Out!
Some risks are worthwhile, and some are just stupid.
Marriage is just stupid.
Don't let women tell you to "keep trying."
That is horseshit.
It is the men that are the prize! Why are you trying at all?
Seriously!
You are offering her cars, houses, vacations, and various other niceties that occur from the sweat of YOUR brow... not hers!
She is offering you semi-usage of her pussy when she chooses, to procure children who she can rob from you at any moment, while you are FULLY financially responsible with NO RIGHTS to your own fricken children.
She will likely have another man waiting in the wings, and no, this is not "NEW" because of second wave feminism... it is very old, biblically old, actually, in that, women have been passively aggressively betraying their men since Adam and Eve, or Sampson and Delilah.
This is not NEW NEWS!
This has been going on since the beginning of time! 2nd Wave feminism is a smoke screen. Men and women have INNATE sexual natures that they are slaves to, and certain religious sects have tried to prevent us from humping like Gorilla's in the the field.
Feminism wants us to be gorilla's again. Yippee! How's that for progressive, eh?
Sorry, Dr. Helen, I rambled. But, I don't swallow this argument given to men to "keep trying."
Why should men "keep trying?"
Seriously!
We are the lifetime prize. The cash cow. The winning lottery ticket! The dumbass slave who serves.
It is WE MEN that are the real prize. Not the women who only sport the children they would have had with any thug on the block.
Why should men "keep trying" for women that are obviously hostile to them, and in 50% if the cases, screw men legally into the poor (and insane/suicide) house, while it is obvious that the other 50% who don't divorce are at least half of them MISERABLE with their lives because of their harpy, feminist wife!
At 25% success rate (half of successful marriage are unhappy), I would rather blow the $180,000 it would cost me for child support, on black jack in Vegas. At least then I have a 17% of WINNING - And I mean, winning outright, and then I could move to another country that doesn't hate men so much, and start a real life, which, would likely include a woman... though, not an American one, thank you very much.
Please, no advice on my odds in Vegas if one is unwilling to acknowledge the similary dim odds in being a true father in our feministly sickened society.
Rob Fedders,
So quit offering the cars and the work and see what else is available. I never said to marry the woman you find nor did I say to hand over any cash, cars or goodies. It is hard to believe that there is not one female in the world who enjoys companionship with a man and vice versa. I have actually met couples who enjoy each others company and who do not exploit each other, believe it or not. If you are afraid of being taken advantage of, don't get married but is the answer to live alone and avoid all sexual contact and relationships with all women? Because if so, the radical feminists have already won.
@rob fedders
I undertand a lot of your point, but I don't think you give Dr. H. enough credit.
That said, her advice to find a good one should not offend anyone. I do think, however, that many women find a man they want to marry and put forth a very good front to "win the prize," which is why they seem to change so much after the wedding. Then this falls in the category of "sacrificed so much for him."
I compare this to men who mislead women to get sex even though they have no interest in a commitment. These types of women (certainly not all) woo men into marriage even though they really aren't interested in being wives. They may not even know this, they just give little thought to what comes after the ceremony.
Of course, we know there are many lousy husbands. No rational person would deny this. But, and this is a big but, our society (and specifically, the family courts, and now the criminal courts, evidence Mary Winkler) doesn't reward lousy husbands the way it rewards lousy wives.
@rob
Point made, but a tad overwrought. Desirable women or men are no different than desirable jobs: there are precious few of them, they are often in hiding and there is gobs of competition for them. Yes, feminism has ruined much of American female society, but not hardly all of it. And just because many women don't come out in public or on the net or TV to decry the detrimental effects of feminism, it doesn't mean they don't exist...they simply refuse to tolerate the opprobrium of the feminist minority.
The anti-male crowd is dying. That's why they screech so loud. And when the fruitcake liberals of the 60s are dead and gone, they (the judges and legislators) will be replaced by something far more rational.
Buck up.
Seriously!
Do you think somebody like Dr. H would have even existed in the 70s? That a book like "Save the Males" would have even been published in the 80s amidst all those "Why Men Suck and YOU Are the Victim" books?
The tide is turning.
Trust sez:
"That said, her advice to find a good one should not offend anyone."
-----------------
That advice kind of jumped out at me as well, and in the same way as Rob Fedders described, but I think Helen means well overall, so I have no interest in a debate as to whether that "should" offend anyone.
I was sitting with a number of near and not-so-near relatives over the holidays. A divorced woman - who had married a rich guy, cleaned up financially, divorced him, never worked a day in her life - asked me in front of everyone else, with a big grin on her face, when I was going to finally get married (I'm in my 40s). Her view of life and marriage is that men are THERE for the fleecing, she is sincerely baffled with men who just don't submit to their fate.
I almost - almost - told her what I thought of her, sitting on her ever-widening butt and living a life of luxury with no work because society is set up this way for women. I'm glad I held my tongue, though, because it would have just made me look bad.
I used to be against pre-nupts because I thought they set a tone of expectation that the marriage may fail or that a spouse couldn't be trusted. I've now changed my mind and am for them. Not because I think they strengthen the marriage (obviously they don't), but because I want the (so called) family courts to have less power to destroy lives.
I've known people who I regarded highly go through divorce, and I was shocked at how vindictive otherwise fine people can be in the situation. We can't count on even generally good people to behave rationally in a divorce. As (I forget who) famously said "Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
Here's a conclusion that I'm slowly coming to after 3 decades or so of going out with women, chasing after women and living with women:
Women are just women.
They're not goddesses, soul mates, magical beings worthy of being up on a pedestal.
That's a point that a WHOLE lot of men - mostly young men - just don't get and that creates a lot of misery on the part of men when the bubble bursts and they wind up paying. And paying. And paying for their mistake.
Here's another point:
The rule of divorce can be changed at any time. If you think pre-nuptial agreements are safe, they can be ruled invalid at any time by the legislature. If you think that there will be a fair distribution of assets under the laws of your state, that can be changed at any time.
A major example of what I'm talking about: Many men got married in the 1960s thinking that they didn't have to worry about divorce and getting fleeced if they kept their nose clean, i.e. they didn't beat their wives, they weren't alcoholics, they didn't abandon her etc.
Then along came no-fault divorce. Surprise. Pull the carpet out from under you. All the rules have changed. You got married under one set of rules and divorced under another.
My point is that this can happen with any other aspect of marriage and divorce and the TREND HAS BEEN TOWARDS EVER-INCREASING BENEFITS FOR WOMEN.
Helen sez:
"So quit offering the cars and the work and see what else is available."
------------
I don't mean for this to come off as snotty, and I think you mostly have some good insight into the way men think. But on this issue: You have never dated women (as a man). You are on the outside looking in, thinking you see all that goes on. You have never had to attract women as a man, and you have no experience with that.
Once again, I'm not always good at phrasing things, so it is not meant to be sarcastic or snotty. It's just what I think.
JG,
You do not seem sarcastic or snotty, so no worries. I do not, however, have the false sense that I see all that goes on. I realize that I am a woman who is "on the outside." I am interested in understanding what men feel, not what I wish to project onto them. That said, I do agree that there are women looking for money etc., but I do think there are women who feel other ways and are looking for different things. It doesn't appear that way on this blog because most people here have had bad experiences with women, and for good reason, may be wary. I am sure that as a man, I would attract few, if any women. As a woman, men never found me terribly attractive because of my personality. I always said what I thought (within reason, of course) and have always leaned libertarian, if not veering towards being an anarchist. My point here is that if you act as yourself, and put your values and thoughts out there, a few people will be attracted or maybe just one, like in my situation. I understand that the state gives privileges to women in a way that it does not to men and men have to be more cautious. But what is the alternative--never to trust or have a relationship with women again? Is this worth it? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. I suppose it is up to each individual to figure that out.
I am intrigued by the last several posts from jg and Dr H.
Whenever I am berated by a woman for my sometimes caustic observations about the tribulations of dating women, and a woman tries to tell me "Most women aren't like that at all!" I look them in the eye and ask them how many women they've dated. They usually fold up like a lawn chair.
The truth is we all only know the dating behaviors of one person: ourselves. Apart from that...only the people we've dated.
I've no doubt numerous men are quite troublesome on the dating circuit, but since I've never dated a man, I wouldn't know for sure.
This certainly is a topic that leaves much room for variety of experience.
Bitter, much, people? LOL
As much as women today have pretty much killed off my libido, I guess I will still ultimately die a romantic. I am willing to traverse the fiery pits of hellish feminism and man eating beasts in the hopes that there is a jewel of a woman waiting for me on the other end. It might be a vain dream, but it's a nice one to have.
Helen is right. I could write a book about the shortcomings of the men I've dated in the past. But I know there are many wonderful men out there that don't share those particular traits. The key is to learn from one's experiences and avoid making the same mistakes twice, or a hundred times over. It is perfectly okay to live a single life, and it is perfectly okay to be coupled up, the decision best left to what is best for each individual. Being single doesn't turn anyone into old, lonely and bitter; nor does coupling up turn people into the second coming of Jesus.
Elizabeth...given your desire to go slow on the physical side, you might be better off with a somewhat-older guy whose sex drive is a little less urgent. A 38-year-old might be willing to wait until date #5 for a kiss, date #10 for making out, and date #20 for intercourse; a 28-year-old probably will not. Because it's almost physically painful for him to do so.
Just a thought.
Helen said...
It is hard to believe that there is not one female in the world who enjoys companionship with a man and vice versa. I have actually met couples who enjoy each others company and who do not exploit each other, believe it or not. If you are afraid of being taken advantage of, don't get married but is the answer to live alone and avoid all sexual contact and relationships with all women? Because if so, the radical feminists have already won.
Helen,
In fact, the radical feminists really have already won WRT 2-3 generations. Which inevitably leads to the question - if they have "won", then who "lost", and what did they "lose"?
Men have been trying for years to make the same points as Rob is making, and have met such an absolute stone wall of denial of our perspectives that the presentation has become more and more forceful. Then, of course the message is still dismissed simply because it is so forceful. I'm quite a bit older than Rob and have seen more of the movie than he has, but I certainly understand the position he is in. The need/desire to find a mate is one of the most powerful drives of any living thing and when it is consistently thwarted there is going to be a lot of frustration which will appear to be anger.
What seems almost impossible for men to be able to get women to understand is the asymmetry of the mating dance. In general, if men don't do the work then relationships don't happen. This puts men at a disadvantage and sets the stage for a lot of exploitation by women. The cultural acceptance of this and denial that it is obnoxious for men to have to put up with will eventually produce alienation.
The flip side of process is that men are adapting strategies which maximize their sexual opportunities without any regard to how it affects women. The buzzwords now are the PUA (Pick Up Artist) or "having game." Approaching relationships as a "game" is destructive to both sides, but it is inevitable in the current environment where men feel like the deck is stacked against them. If men have to do all the initiating and approaching, then they are going to do what they can to stack the deck in their favor.
I don't know whether it is true that men want relationships more than women do, but that assumption is what underlies the constant advice that "there are still good women out there, you just have to go out and find them." If there are good women who want relationships with men, then why aren't they looking just as hard as they keep telling men that they have to?
Among the MRA community you will hear it expressed as "how long should I dig through a pile of turds in hopes of finding the tootsie roll?" When women seem to take the position that they are "worth it" for men to sort through as many turds as it takes to find them, it comes across as a bloated sense of self-worth and a negation of the worth of the man as well as how unpleasant, risky, and often tremendously destructive it can be for men.
You have seen couples who enjoy each other's company and I have seen people go into casinos and come out big winners, but the question is what is the proportion of people with that experience versus those who have the opposite experience? Once a man gets sick of the games and decides to quit, his life improves dramatically and it shouldn't be as hard as it seems to be for women to understand that.
Given your profession, I'm sure you are familiar with the process of Aversive Conditioning and that it does sometimes work. The personalities of a great many post-feminist women serve exactly the same function as Antabuse serves in the treatment of alcoholism. Even though the alcoholic is drawn to drink and men are drawn to try to develop relationships with women, the consequences are so devastatingly unpleasant that over time the dread of the negative result begins to overpower the anticipation of a possibly positive result, particularly when experience leads the man to believe that the negative result is far more likely.
Lincoln may think that romanticism is incurable, but I can testify that is not true in all cases.
wayne:
No, never heard of either of them. But I'll look them up. There is all kinds of humor that can be made concerning sex with one who has super strength and super speed. Seems a whole chapter could be devoted to the unexpected consequences of climax, for instance. The "crack of a rifle shot" is...well, never mind.
If men have to do all the initiating and approaching, then they are going to do what they can to stack the deck in their favor.
Of course, when women do the "initiating and approaching," they're called ball-busters and bulldykes...I don't know if you guys ever look at the "expert" advice for females, but, from both the male and female "experts," the advice is inevitably, "Act feminine, let him be the man, let him make the approach, let him make the decisions," etc. "Guys like the chase and they don't want the prey to be too easy," "Guys don't like assertive women," "Don't show off how smart you are," blah blah blah. That could be dismissed as females trying to put all the onus on men, but the male "experts" say the same things.
Frankly, I think the experts are best left ignored, but it's not like I have any failproof alternatives to recommend... :)
Iconoclast:
I have no aversion at all to dating/marrying an older man; in fact, I've always gotten along a lot better with people who are older than me, or younger than me, than I have with people around my own age. And most of the guys I meet around my age seem incapable of anything resembling serious thought, so I'd actually say I have a preference for older men. The problem, of course, is in meeting ones who aren't already married. :)
Elizabeth said...
I don't know if you guys ever look at the "expert" advice for females, but, from both the male and female "experts," the advice is inevitably, "Act feminine, let him be the man, let him make the approach, let him make the decisions," etc. "Guys like the chase and they don't want the prey to be too easy," "Guys don't like assertive women," "Don't show off how smart you are," blah blah blah. That could be dismissed as females trying to put all the onus on men, but the male "experts" say the same things.
Frankly, I think the experts are best left ignored, but it's not like I have any failproof alternatives to recommend... :)
From my non-PC childhood the definition of "expert" was "an 'ex' is a has-been, and a 'spurt' is a drip."
I think a great yardstick by which to measure how full of feces that most "relationship ex-spurts" really are is the example of Barbara DeAngelis - who has been married and divorced 4 times. I personally wouldn't go to a doctor whose patients had all died, but as someone said above - we all have to make our own decisions and live with the consequences.
In fact, I never do pay much attention to advice from has-been drips. It seems to be appropriate to pull a Dr. Phil here and ask "And, how is that working for you?"
Elizabeth:
If you allow the men to do all the initiating and approaching then you will meet loads of men that are excellent at initiating and approaching, but maybe not the guy you want. If you are a successful lawyer I certainly hope somebody somewhere on the losing end of the lawyer game has called you a ballbuster, I would take that as a compliment. If you are very concerned about what other people think of you during the dating process then you aren't going to get very far.
Sure, I'm sure some guys might be taken aback to a woman approaching them, but I haven't met any. (okay, maybe there was that one Asian guy in college 25 years ago). I approach men all the time, I would say they are almost always appreciative and receptive. Ask and ye shall receive.
Cham,
Thanks for the advice, but I actually don't have a problem approaching guys. I was just pointing out that a lot of girls might have a problem because of what the "experts" told them. Hence, we'd probably all be a lot better off if we just ignored the experts and found what works for us. :)
Elizabeth:
The "experts" are out to sell books, therefore, the experts recommend the advice that people who buy books want to hear. Cosmo recommends that women provide their men superduper oral sex and mind-splitting orgasms in order to keep their man around. Askmen comes up with some pretty crazy stuff as well. Some people choose to hear what they want to hear. Reality is a whole different arena.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If some ladies are unimpressed by fellas telling them they looks nice then perhaps one should find ladies a bit less jaded. There are many great woman who are not what one might call classic beauties. They might appreciate a kind compliment.
Love can make almost anyone appear as the most beautiful person in the world.
Elizabeth...given your desire to go slow on the physical side, you might be better off with a somewhat-older guy whose sex drive is a little less urgent.
Or maybe someone who is willing to wait until marriage for sex, thereby taking sex out of the equation altogether in a courtship.
Yes we do exist, and we are masters of our own domains. B-)
Lol, yes, I suppose I come across somewhat forceful and jerkish. My apologies. It is the result of years of trying to explain things to a gender that appears to be apathetic to the grave perils that men face in the mating dance.
It never ceases to amaze me, however, that women don't seem to understand that they are WAY pricing themselves out of the market. When Chevy Cavaliers start costing $250,000, I will very likely find myself strolling around the showroom of a Ferrari dealership instead.
There are innate ways that the mating dance works between the sexes. The man must be aggressive, while the woman is coy and uses forms of dissimulation akin to that of a pool hustler. Another thing that happens in 95% of the cases is that the man is not the only male vying for the female's attention. This happens both at the beginning and end of relationships, because of how women present themselves sexually with covert signals as opposed to the overtness of male sexuality. Thus, a woman usually has a few potential suitors lined up to choose from, while the man only has his eyes on one woman. This leads to a lot of "cheating" too, btw. Because a woman can garner sexual attraction from the opposite sex while hiding behind plausible deniability. Another man will hit on your girlfriend/wife and if you try to say anything about it, the girlfriend/wife will simply say "she didn't do anything." (Only young inexperienced men believe this nonsense). When a man tries to cheat however, he must be aggressive and make the moves on the extra woman - there is absolutely no denying what he is doing.
In fact, that is male and female sexuality in a nutshell - the male is overt while the female is covert - and this is the base essense of the problem that is rotting our society from the inside out. The laws society passes are all directed at male overtness, but society completely ignores the covertness of the female - which is just as, if not more, effective. This is why we blame men for everything while excusing women and giving them a complete pass. Women seem awfully reluctant to give up that plausible deniability.
But the price goes up and up for men, and women don't seem too concerned about it. It appears that the vast majority of females would rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.
Some examples? I broke up with a woman a few years back who had a young son because of the laws passed against MEN which dictate that if I cohabitated with her for a year and a half, that I would be on the hook for childsupport just as if I were the biological father - but with less rights. (It wasn't the only reason we split up - when she flew off the handle about my concerns and told me I was stupid for thinking it was a 2 year time frame, so she matter of factly informed me it was only a year and a half... THAT caused the relationship to end - abruptly).
Result? Cost of relationship went up dramatically for the man... man went elsewhere.
I live in Canada, and in the past decade, two provinces (Manitoba and Ontario), have attempted to pass legislation against men for even DATING. The gist of the legislation they are trying to pass is that even a girlfriend who you are NOT living with, can file a TRO against her boyfriend, and the government will sieze the boyfriend's assets and give them to the woman so she can escape from the abusive bastard. Seriously! (I know this got struck down in Ontario, not sure about Manitoba... but, they will manage to get it in, eventually - they always do).
The result of such legislation? Cost-risk of dating becomes enormous for men... men start going bowling on Saturday night rather than risk his life's work trying to chase tail.
Are you a business owner? Well, if you are and you get divorced, in order to ensure that you aren't hiding your true income, the court can now appoint someone to run YOUR company on behalf of the court, with you demoted to an employee. Only the government could come up with such a stupid idea. Anyone who has ever been in business knows that if the company makes $100,000/yr, that is not what you take home for your wages. You take $40,000 for wages and reinvest the other $60,000 into your business to grow it, so hopefully next year your company can make $120,000/yr. Not so anymore, however. The court wants to know that your company is making $100,000/yr so they can use that figure to establish child support and alimony. The government can operate your business on your behalf until such time as you are no longer obliged to pay child support... of course, if the company can last 20 years with such foolish allocation of resources.
Businessmen should not get married, the cost-risk is too high.
Even moreso, try to be a young guy with childsupport wrapped around your neck, who has a dream of starting his own business, but cannot quit his crappy, but somewhat decent paying factory job, in order to take the big risk (and less wages for 5 years). Nope - can't do it! You would wind up in jail for being a deadbeat dad, due to imputed income. If you make $50,000/yr now, you had better make it for the rest of your life. If your income drops to $30,000/yr and you fall behind on your $750/month childsupport, off to jail you go.
Cost-risk? Extremely high for men. (Virtually zero for women).
When I was a young man, my fairly wealthy, business owning father, refused to pay for my college education. (He would lend me money, but I had to pay it back, and he helped in other ways.) He did not believe in giving me a free ride, and thought it was better for his children to have work for it, than to coast on his coat-tails/bank account. I didn't like it at the time, but I definitely see the wisdom in it today. BUT, are you married/divorced? Can't do it. You are on the hook for support (paid to the mother, even if the children aren't living at home)until your children leave university.
Wow, cost of being with a woman just went up again. Cost-risk for her? Virtually zero.
And then, let's just simply look at dating. In order to actually get together with a woman, the man must be aggressive and "make the moves." However, due to the legal climate of western civilization, every "move" that a man is FORCED to make to be with a woman, can land him in PRISON! Seriously! Reach over while making out and touch her boob, and you could wind up on the wrong end of a sexual assault charge if you don't pull it off right. Don't do it and the relationship will never progress.
Cost-risk goes WAY up for men. Women's cost risk, virtually zero. (And I have had women that I said no to sexually, and they refused to believe that no means no, and merrily went about sexually assaulting me. When men say no, they mean it - when women say no... um, maybe).
It just goes on and on, the enormous, life altering risks a man entangles himself with when he gets involved with a woman.
Not to mention, that the vast amount of women that break up with a man, try to claim some sort of abuse as the reason to justify her often trollish behaviour. Of course, she is insinuating that he committed a crime... cost risk goes even higher and higher. It is such a rarity today for me to meet a woman in a dating context that doesn't regale me with some tale of abuse, or rape, or whatever victim tale (usually within the first few dates - and it happens with over 90% of the women I've dated). What do you think she is going to say about you when she angry at you after breaking up? Cost risk. You could go to prison. Your reputation will be tarnished at the very least. Risk for her? Virtually zero.
It matters not whether you are going for 9's and 10's or the 5's and 6's (after hearing the other time worn excuse that you are going after "the wrong girls"). This behaviour is so consistent in society, only a foolish man would ignore it. Society encourages it.
Cost-risk for men is ENORMOUS! 10,000 times higher than it is for women. Women do not risk losing their money, their livelihood, their home, a criminal record, and on and on in dating/marriage. Men do it everytime they get involved with a woman.
Given the relatively low risk for women vs. the enormously high risk for men... one would think that women would be the ones making all the moves, but yet, they are not. Instead, they tell men that "not all women are like that," and of course, logically then, he should "keep trying."
Yikes!
Everyone would think I was a nutter if I advised my nephew to work for 5 years, save his money, and go blow it in Vegas, leaving him so broke he must hitchike home... and after 2 decades of him doing this, he tells me he is fed up with it, but I tell him, "Keep trying. There are good casinos out there."
I don't mean this as a direct attack on anyone, except to say that this is such a common response in society to men's concerns, that something deeper in women's psychology must be at work with this type of advice, because it truly defies all logic.
Either women start rallying to have these horrifically abusive laws directed at men removed so that men's cost-risk becomes more acceptable, or men ought to stop trying period, and pass the batton to the women, and tell them to START trying - after all, they don't even really have to risk anything.
I can easily see that we are shifting into a new form of sexual relations. It will be the men who are the gatekeepers of sex, and women will be forced to be the aggressors.
And, if it doesn't end up that way? Too bad. I and other men will stay single while women will wind up dating worse and worse men, because only the most sociopathic of men will risk all of the above to be with a woman - the kind of men who don't care about laws and such. Not a nice dating pool for women to choose from really.
Rob Fedders,
Okay, seems like the only answer that is acceptable to you would be to have this blog (or all reasonable people) to declare that ALL MEN SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM WOMEN or alternately, that all women should fight to change unjust laws against men. Is this correct?
I do think that men are passing the batton to women and others and having them pick up the slack. If women earn more than men, have the job and take care of the bills and the man is unemployed or makes very little or stays home with the kids, there is a better chance that he will come out ahead if there is a divorce. However, this hurts society, but Atlas is Shrugging and perhaps men no longer care.
Rob Fedders:
I took the time to read your entire post, and I think you really hit the nail on the head with regard to reality.
Side note on plausible deniability: Just a couple of days ago, I was standing in a public place waiting on something. I noticed a woman standing by herself and she quickly glanced at me, smiled, and quickly looked away. Then again. Then the hair flip.
If I was 20, I would think OH BOY OH BOY my big chance to talk to a pretty girl.
Instead, I did nothing and mentally guessed that some type of boyfriend or husband would be along soon - because it would make him jealous, and thus give her more control in the relationship - if some "creep" just started talking to her for no reason. That would show him how attractive she is. So he better pay out more money to keep her.
Anyway ... yup ... two minutes later the chump comes out of the bathroom.
Another side note:
When I was 20 and saw a good-looking woman, I would have thought it was absolutely worth it to chase her, pursue her, try to "win her over". It was all positive.
Now, I look at women out in public and pretty much all I can see in my mind is how much they would cost. Not only in terms of money ("high maintenance"), but also in terms of time (fixing things for her, helping her with her car and her computer, being shamed into place to follow her social schedule). Pretty much all negative.
Helen,
I know you must think I am being an unreasonable snot, but these things did not just "happen" out of the blue. It was designed this way to do exactly what you imply I am suggesting - to divide men and women from eachother.
There is very little doubt that this is the feminist agenda, and thus, it should be no surprise that the laws they lobby to pass will be of the theme of making it undesireable for men and women to be involved with eachother.
However, since the vast majority of these laws have been passed against MEN, and not women, it boggles the mind why when men start to try to explain to women how this cannot go on, that men cannot get something different than the SAME answer from all women in regard to the legal persecution men must risk, which, "not all women are like that, so keep trying."
Wow, not all of the cylinders are loaded in Russian Roulette either.
Btw, for the most part I do try to avoid women. Women quite scare the bejeesus out of me because they are so indoctrinated to believe in the abuse hype, that I am scared silly of allegations being made over even the most simple of things. It is all fine and good as long as things are friendly, but, as the saying goes... hell hath no fury like a woman scorned... and women you work with, or the neighbour lady, or your friend's wife, or even your own sister, can, and often will, embellish things out of anger/spite into a situation where she is implying that she was abused, putting the man at risk of prison and a criminal record among many other things.
Of course, when appealing to other women to help the man out in such situations, well, we all know the standard response, don't we? Not all women are like that, you are just meeting the wrong women, and you should keep trying.
There is absolutely NOTHING I can do to defend myself against any malicious actions by a woman. NOTHING!
That makes women highly dangerous for men to be around.
But, like I said. It was designed to be this way. The whole lefty-socialist movement is about socially re-engineering the family out of existence. A pretty effective way to do that is to make it so incredibly risky for a man to involve himself with a woman that he is scared to be around them.
Hey, men have been trying to say these things to women for decades already, but women never give us anything but the "standard responses."
What would you suggest men do?
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 219.
"The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the genesis of women's rebellion throughout history." -- Marlene Dixon, "Why Women's Liberation? Racism and Male Supremacy"
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)
"Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women." -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone - Feminism: An Agenda (1983), (Dutton Publishing, 1989) p. 146
"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Frederick Engels, p.67]
"The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254.
"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey." -- Marilyn French
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall 1969
"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry." -- Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 317
"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." -- Germaine Greer
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
"[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." -- Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature
"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it." -- Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catharine MacKinnon
"Feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men." -- Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified, 1987
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan
"Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself... The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their home." -- Gloria Steinem
"Not all men are like that." -- Rob Fedders
I don't buy all this pick-up nonsense. Some of the advice in there is universal, but mostly it's game playing. I don't believe in "true love" at all, only that some people have good chemistry. If you meet enough people, eventually you will find one who's a good fit.
And I think being yourself is a good idea. I usually crack a risky joke early whether I like a woman or not. Not too bad that I piss someone off, but enough that I can get a good sense of their personality.
It doesn't matter you are with the "right" person if you don't treat that person right.
My wife and I know some friends, most often women, who have bad or failed marriages because of how they treat someone who is a good spouse.
Helen said...
Rob Fedders,
Okay, seems like the only answer that is acceptable to you would be to have this blog (or all reasonable people) to declare that ALL MEN SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM WOMEN or alternately, that all women should fight to change unjust laws against men. Is this correct?
Helen,
You are a very reasonable person, you have demonstrated that time and again. But, something about the way you expressed the above seems polarizing - distorting the message by pushing it to its extremes.
Now, I can't speak for Rob, but I get a very different message from what he wrote. This is your blog, you can say whatever you want to here. But, as long as you allow comments there will be people who use that feature to also say some of the things which they want to say.
Let me change the summary of the message slightly - a lot of decent men are already staying away from women. Women don't seem to notice this because there are still plenty of "jerks" competing for their attention. But, hardly a week goes by these days without having to hear about some "Man Child in the Promised Land" article which sounds like nothing more than a continuation of the same old man-bashing most of us have had to listen to all of our adult lives. Single women outnumber women with husbands in all of the countries where feminism has gained a major stronghold, and the marriage rates just keep declining. Unless something is done to slow and reverse the trend, it is inevitable that marriage will become more and more rare.
You can talk about men "passing the baton" to women and them having to pick up the slack, but surely you cannot be totally unware of all the "men are obsolete" types of articles we see where women are absolutely cackling at the prospect of a world entirely without men. Or how many times we have heard the term "glass ceiling" or the effects of Title IX, or Affirmative Action, or the thousands of discrimination lawsuits resulting in payouts of millions of $$$$.
It isn't so much that men have "passed the baton" as having had it knocked out of our hands, and being arrested and fined every time we go to pick it up again. If women really want the breadwinner role, if they really don't want us in their lives - as they are so fond of telling us - don't you think it is time that men started listening and giving women what they say they want? If a woman can be president of the US, doesn't it seem reasonable that she might also be able to find the hair to ask a man she finds attractive out on a date?
It's these types of double standards which have created a cultural double-bind which is untenable.
The core issue which irritates men so much is that women still expect men to take the risks to make relationships happen for both sexes, no matter how unfair the laws get. As Rob said many times, it has reached the point where the risk-to-reward ratio is too punative toward men to make taking the risk at all worthwhile.
The bottom line is that women have never seemed to have a problem working to change laws they felt were unfair against women or prevented them from getting what they wanted. And if men are avoiding having relationships with them because of the laws, then it seems reasonable that if women want to have relationships with men that they would be motivated to work to change the laws which are holding men back from doing so.
And, if women don't, then men just need to accept that and figure out what else to do with their lives. I really don't think that most men have any real desire to "dominate" or "oppress" women - I think most would just like to have someone in his life who likes him. But, if such women don't exist then men need to realize that and stop attempting to get what they want at women's expense. There are certainly many other extremely satisfying pursuits for men, but a lot of us were brought up under the value system that the culture both needed and wanted us to fulfill certain roles and that if we did we could expect, at the very least, social approval.
But, now, we have a situation where I know men who have paid far more in fines, done more jail time, and spent far more time in court for the crimes of dating, marriage, and fatherhood, than a guy I knew in college did for getting caught with 80 kilos of hashish. They made laws against having that much hashish because they wanted to stamp it out. The laws against marriage, fatherhood, and courtship appear much the same to someone who hasn't violated them yet.
but Atlas is Shrugging and perhaps men no longer care.
Well, since you seem to have read the book, you know that you cannot demand that a man submit himself to self-immolation. As long as the culture continues to punish the very behaviors that are good for it and do sustain it, then those behaviors are going to become more and more rare.
No, I really don't care about a culture, or group of people, who seem out to destroy, enslave, or loot me for everything they can. As Kathleen Parker said - we are in the middle of cultural suicide. Interestingly, a woman pointed this out about 51 years ago.
"Who is John Galt?"
A lot of us are.
@zed: Brilliantly put!
I could barely finish reading (although I managed to) "Save the Males" and found it not even slightly "hilarious" as so many people have claimed. It's one of the most depressing books I have read. The modern Western man is portrayed and legislated as being stupid, unworthy and unwanted. I fully realize that nowhere near all women feel this way, but that's what the media, TV, advertising and the court systems have to say about men.
So re your statement: "it has reached the point where the risk-to-reward ratio is too punative toward men to make taking the risk at all worthwhile..." all I can add is, "YOU SAID IT, PAL!"
Zed,
I am sorry if I am coming across as polarizing here, that is not my intent. I am frustrated because I understand that the society and culture is unfair to men in relationships and women in many ways do not give a flying flip. I do, but I am not sure what to do about that.
You state that"if such women don't exist then men need to realize that and stop attempting to get what they want at women's expense."
There are women in this country who do care about men and want to be with them just because they like them. I hope I am one of them. To hear that we are all basically deadbeats is, disheartening to say the least, but I do understand where you are coming from. I agree that our society punishes the behaviors that are good for it--and rewards those that are not. How will this play out in the future? I don't know, but in the meantime, all we can do is try our best to fight bad laws and advocate for justice as best we can. Or give up and care only about our own welfare and let society go to hell. Maybe that is the answer.
Helen said...
Rob Fedders,
Okay, seems like the only answer that is acceptable to you would be to have this blog (or all reasonable people) to declare that ALL MEN SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM WOMEN or alternately, that all women should fight to change unjust laws against men. Is this correct?
Dr. Helen:
While I can't speak for Rob Fedders, I say: that is precisely correct.
Hmm...Atlas Shrugged. Never much liked that book. I liked The Fountainhead a lot better. There was a certain philosophy that drove the admirable characters in that, but the philosophy didn't overpower the plot, like it did in Atlas Shrugged...um, yeah. Back to your regularly scheduled conversation... :)
Actually, I think what people are talking about here is more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself. The problem isn't that women hate men any more than it is that men hate women; it's that there's a responsibility rebellion everywhere. People are taking, taking, taking without giving anything back, and abdicating any responsibility whatsoever. It's the surest sign of a decadent society. People don't want to take responsibility for anything anymore, and it's hard to blame them, because where's the reward? If you can get your bread and circuses for doing nothing, while working hard and being responsible only means that you have to put up with a bunch of crap, why bother? It's not rational.
But, being a kooky humanities person, and not a rational economist or math-and-science person, I think I'll keep on jousting with windmills, and let Atlas shrug all he bloody well wants to. Shrugging isn't very interesting. Jousting is. :) And I don't much care for fiddling while Rome burns. It's my house burning too, after all.
Helen said...
Zed,
I am sorry if I am coming across as polarizing here, that is not my intent. I am frustrated because I understand that the society and culture is unfair to men in relationships and women in many ways do not give a flying flip. I do, but I am not sure what to do about that.
You state that"if such women don't exist then men need to realize that and stop attempting to get what they want at women's expense."
There are women in this country who do care about men and want to be with them just because they like them. I hope I am one of them. To hear that we are all basically deadbeats is, disheartening to say the least, but I do understand where you are coming from.
Helen,
You are doing what you can, which is more than 99.9999% of women are doing. However, a suggestion for the future if you don't want to be the target of a rain of beer bottles and a chorus of raspberries - drop the "but not all women are like that, YOU just have to go find them."
Let me try one more time to get at the core of my message - it is not that "you are all deadbeats", but that the ones who are deadbeats have been allowed to become so destructive that no woman on the face of the earth is worth facing the risks that men have to face in order to make relationships happen, day after day.
Yes, women are certainly going to take a lot of heat for allowing feminism to go as far as they have allowed it to go. Remember this -
SILENCE IS ASSENT!!!
By their historic silence, women have given men the impression that even if they didn't go along with feminism wholeheartedly, they were at least sympathetic enough toward it to not oppose it.
Let me give you a an analogy which makes sense to men - let's say a fire started in your kitchen. It isn't enough to later say "Well, I didn't start it." The real question is - did you do anything to put it out?
The fundamental problem is that "feminism" really is FEMININE-ism. It is the ideology that the female way of dealing with things is "right" and the male way is "wrong." "Women good, men bad." It is a story which is as old as Genesis - women, in their "speshul wimmins's way of knowing" truly do seem to believe that they have "eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (and that women are good and men are evil) and a whole lot of stupid "Adams" have swallowed it. Thus, it is damn near impossible for a man, ANY man, to bring up an issue and not have a chorus of women arguing against him and using a variety of shaming tactics and personal attacks to try to silence him.
Thus, it has become impossible for a lot of men to continue to believe that the vast majority of women are not in silent complicity with the radical feminists.
It has to be difficult for women because feminism does present and advocate for women's concerns, mostly by women, and in ways that women can understand. But, it is the mindless defense of these excesses which has alienated a great many men - mostly the more intelligent and caring ones - from women.
I have been saying for years that women have been burning down the house of goodwill that men used to have for them. We are all in a terrible trap now because the hatred which women have been pouring on men for the past 5 decades is beginning to bounce - misogynists are not born, they are made.
Ok, so maybe women in general didn't start the fire, but they also sure as hell didn't do anything to put it out, and you are certainly aware of many women pouring accelerant on the flames. As you said "...the society and culture is unfair to men in relationships and women in many ways do not give a flying flip." No, they very clearly and obviousl don't.
So, the house of men's goodwill toward women has been burned to the ground. And most of the married women on these blogs come across as doing little more than bragging about how good their husbands have it - seemingly in hopes that men will build one of their sisters another house to replace the one they destroyed through negligence. Well, what guys like Rob (and I) are saying is - "ain't gonna happen." The "sistahs" are going to have to do it for themselves.
Some guys are going to read stupid advice books from people who can't maintain relationships with head lice, and learn to manipulate each other into bed - and leave the next morning trying to figure out why the experience feels so icky when it is supposed to have been so good.
And some of us are just going to tell the society which has been out to loot us of everything we value to bugger off and go about surviving the best way we can in an environment which is clearly and consistently hostile toward us. And, if that environment goes to hell, none of us will so much as shed a tear.
Elizabeth..."Shrugging isn't very interesting. Jousting is. :) And I don't much care for fiddling while Rome burns. It's my house burning too, after all."
From Male Samizdat: "While I can't speak for Rob Fedders, I say: that is precisely correct."
Quote. Of. The. Year.
If the feminist leaders were Saddam Hussein, and the rest of the women were the Iraqi people, then perhaps it is more easily understood that it may be up to women to straighten this thing out. The MSM, women's magazines, and many authors, are not visibly different from Al Queda.
If an idiot is mistreating a woman in a bar, who whips his ass? Other women? No, men are climbing over each other trying to get as many punches in on the idiot as possible. And usually well beyond necessary.
I'm lining up right behind Rob and Zed here. I am no stranger to success with women (hopefully that evades the typical "whining 'cause you can't get laid" response), but I can tell you that I haven't met many women I even like, let alone want to "settle down" with.
Helen, it really IS that bad, we really have been telling you (figuratively...you get to stand in for "women" here) for years, and we really HAVE noticed women shrug and stare in a figurative mirror some more.
And it definitely means they not only don't think the laws are unjust, but that they likely want to have that arsenal available to THEM too, should need arise.
And that's the really scary part.
br549, while that line of thought might be a compelling misdirection, the point isn't that men need to justify their fears....the law is verifiable, the effects are readily apparent, and it doesn't matter ONE BIT who's "really responsible", the fact remains that women will collectively pay the price.
And most men are all out of compassion for women....have been for a long time.
Scared?
Good.
Here's a different point of view for men:
Women will most likely not change, it's not my job to change them, and I am caring less and less anyway.
The trick is to fully realize what women ARE or ARE NOT (they are not goddesses in a white flowing dress up on a pedestal) and give them the appropriate respect (which in my case is very little for 80% of women I meet).
You want to have sex with them, so tell them what they want to hear. DON'T friggin' given them any basis for a claim against you; there are far more ways to do this than marrying them. And as far as companionship goes, give the inane blathering of some of them the amount of respect its due. Which isn't much.
In other words: They simply are what they are. Yes, they are manipulative, but they always will be, and complaining is probably not going to change that. Learn to play the game better than them.
factory, not quite sure what you mean.
However, all I mean is men police other men in an instance where a man is mistreating a woman. I don't see it happening the other way round too much.
My statement was an analogy, not a misdirection. Something akin to physicians healing themselves.
I deal with women when conducting business, or when making purchases at a retail level. Nothing else of any consequence. Outside of my daughters, my sister, and a couple others who know who they are, I don't speak with any females on a regular basis, much less develop a friendship. What for?
I don't understand what you mean by me being scared. Of what? Never getting laid again? That's a choice I made a long time ago. The percentage isn't there.
I wish no one any harm, or for bad things to happen to them. As long as I have heels to turn on, and am allowed the freedom to walk away, there is not much that can be done to a man by a woman, provided he simply does not get involved. Much like avoiding a drug culture, a criminal life style, a gang, etc.
I don't see women hating men, and men hating women ever solving anything. But one of the most beautiful things, and one of the ugliest things I have ever seen, was a woman.
Factory said...
Helen, it really IS that bad, we really have been telling you (figuratively...you get to stand in for "women" here) for years, and we really HAVE noticed women shrug and stare in a figurative mirror some more.
And it definitely means they not only don't think the laws are unjust, but that they likely want to have that arsenal available to THEM too, should need arise.
JG said...
Here's a different point of view for men:
Women will most likely not change, it's not my job to change them, and I am caring less and less anyway.
The trick is to fully realize what women ARE or ARE NOT (they are not goddesses in a white flowing dress up on a pedestal) and give them the appropriate respect (which in my case is very little for 80% of women I meet).
You want to have sex with them, so tell them what they want to hear. DON'T friggin' given them any basis for a claim against you; there are far more ways to do this than marrying them. And as far as companionship goes, give the inane blathering of some of them the amount of respect its due. Which isn't much.
In other words: They simply are what they are. Yes, they are manipulative, but they always will be, and complaining is probably not going to change that. Learn to play the game better than them.
-----------------------------------
Tying this back to Helen's OP, and to explain why she sometimes turns into a lightning rod for the anger of men who have been repeatedly screwed over - what is the lesson men have to take from the fact that nice guys finish last?
Don't want to finish last? Then don't be a nice guy.
Simple.
It's a fundamental aspect of social interaction that we tend to like people who like us, and we tend to dislike people who don't like us.
The current mode of social interaction has everyone locked into a downward spiral. Women like "mysteries", they like "bad boys" who are "challenges." Yet, they claim to like men and want nice guys. Their words and their actions completely contradict each other. So, which are men going to believe? Their actions of course.
So, women turn up their noses at truly nice men, actual "gentle" men, and reward the jerks for being jerks by sleeping with them. But, believing that they are all powerful, the same women believe that they will be able to magically change the "mysterious", "challenging", bad-boy jerk into a boring nice guy, at which time they will get bored with him and start looking for some new jerk to spread her legs for.
In the meantime, they will emotionally abuse their nice guy friends by endless bitching about all the jerks they chose to sleep with, using them as Captain Freetherapists (da ta da da). Then, when they are used up and haggard in their 30s, often with one or more STDs and a couple of bad-boy spawn in tow, they suddenly decide that they really do like boring nice guys, and want to find one so they can attach themselves to his wallet.
And, when they find that the chumps have wised up and moved on, they will whine endlessly about "where have all the nice guys gone" and angrily agitate for even more anti-male laws which they believe they can use to punish the jerks. But, since they are being dishonest and still prefer jerks, those laws only get used to punish nice guys even more.
So, every day women are teaching genuinely nice (but boring) men to care less about women and what happens to them.
Sooner or later men are forced to make a choice - "be themselves" and continue offering their hearts up to heartless bitches (http://www.heartless-bitches.com/) to break; read some PUA books and start using women like women use them and eventually come to regard women with utter contempt - like jg and Factory demonstrate; or turn their backs, walk away, and Go Their Own Way.
Paradoxically, it is the most decent men who today are most likely to decide to have the least to do with women.
And, that is why women need to work to change the laws - for their own benefit, not for men's.
Decent, intelligent, men are not going to keep pursuing women regardless of how risky women make it for them to do so. They aren't going to keep sorting through the pile of turds, and eating feces, just because some women keep claiming that there is a tootsie roll in there SOMEWHERE.
I don't need to work to change unfair laws which punish me for interacting with women for whom I have lost all respect - all I have to do is obey them. And, until I see women actually working to change those laws, I am completely deaf to their whining.
They asked for it, demanded it, and now they are getting what they demanded.
Boo hoo.
"... just because some women keep claiming that there is a tootsie roll in there SOMEWHERE."
------------
The point I'm trying to get across, though, is that EVEN IF there is a tootsie roll in there, what is the value of a tootsie roll? Is it really THAT GREAT? Is it worth giving up a claim to your assets, your wages, your time, your whole life - with nothing else in return except for the presence of the tootsie roll?
Dating seems to be a process in which a number of men compete for a woman - by buying her dinner, drinks etc. - and the "winner" gets to pay for her for the rest of his life, in addition to helping her with other aspects of life. In return, I guess, for sex in the first few years and then Who Knows after that (i.e. she's got a headache again, but he doesn't care because her butt is getting so fat anyway).
What idiocy on the part of most men - they seem to be brainwashed and are unable to see reality.
JG said...
What idiocy on the part of most men - they seem to be brainwashed and are unable to see reality.
Well, life can be pretty good for those of us who are able to, don't you think? Let the fools waste their money on stupid books and beat their heads against stone walls. We can tell them how good it feels when they stop, but in the end they have to figure it out for themselves.
Zed,
"Tying this back to Helen's OP, and to explain why she sometimes turns into a lightning rod for the anger of men who have been repeatedly screwed over - what is the lesson men have to take from the fact that nice guys finish last?
Don't want to finish last? Then don't be a nice guy.
Simple.
It's a fundamental aspect of social interaction that we tend to like people who like us, and we tend to dislike people who don't like us."
I like you all but that doesn't seem good enough, instead as you point out, I am being used as a "lightening rod" for men's anger. So, if liking men is the anecdote for their anger, what is happening here?
I like you all but that doesn't seem good enough, instead as you point out, I am being used as a "lightening rod" for men's anger. So, if liking men is the anecdote for their anger, what is happening here?
I think you mean antidote, not anecdote, Helen. (it would be absolutely super if the comment feature had an edit function.)
I need to point out that you are not a lighting rod for MY anger. I've run interference for you several times be under the radar, because I do believe that you are one of the few good ones. I don't believe that I have ever attacked you, personally, in one of my posts - and if I have I want to apologize for that right here and now.
"What is happening here" is simply a mirror image of the subject of this post - "nice gals" are starting to finish last now, too. Actually liking women has never been an antidote for being called "misogynist" or "abuser" or "harasser" or even "rapist" and being the target of women's generalized anger toward men. Just as innocence was not an antidote from being persecuted for a woman's lies in the Duke rape case. And, claiming to like men isn't working any better as a shield against men's generalized anger toward the opposite sex.
By attempting to address the topics you do, you are sticking your head into a war zone - taking a stroll through a mine field. I think you deserve kudos for that, rather than abuse - but you have no idea how badly some men are hurting, have been hurt, and how deep, seething, and bitter the anger which men have been developing toward women really is.
Think of all the man-bashing which has gone on for the past 5 decades as a sort of emotional DDT. It doesn't go away. It doesn't break down. It just keeps accumulating and building up in the environment until it begins to reach toxic levels.
That's where we are today. There really is a bloody gender war raging, declared by women on men, and women like you are the unfortunate residents of a sort of gender Hiroshima.
This is why I keep saying over and over - MAN BASHING HARMS WOMEN!!!!
I wouldn't blame you if you quit. No one can expect someone to self-abdicate in order to help someone else.
I don't think Rob Fedders was suggesting that you have to start telling men to stay away from women - he seems quite capable of articulately expressing that message himself. But, as long as you allow open comments here there are going to be men who use that opportunity to say "A lot of us ARE avoiding women, and this is why."
Some men aren't going to wait around for women to figure out how badly feminism has burned women and start doing something about the anti-male laws. They are going to do like men have always done and adapt and take whatever measures they regard as necessary to protect themselves.
If those measures include avoiding women, then what group of people is going to be hurt most by that?
Remember my question - if the rad-fems have "won", then who has "lost" and what have they lost?
Your original post seemed mildly approving of men becoming more mysterious so women will find them more interesting.
Are the kind of men who would do that REALLY the kind of men that women want in their lives? If not, then women really need to think about the role of their own actions and choices in the results they are getting.
You are a psychologist - of all people you should understand that someone can change themselves and their own behavior and start getting different results in their own lives, but they cannot change the entire rest of the world.
Not to change the subject, but anecdote is the proper word. Not antidote.
An anecdote is a short account of an incident, especially a biographical one.
We mainly consider them humorous, as that is the situation most portrayed where the word is used.
Just sayin.
Not to change the subject, but anecdote is the proper word. Not antidote.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary -
Main Entry:
an·ti·dote
Pronunciation:
\ˈan-ti-ˌdōt\
Function:
noun
1 : a remedy to counteract the effects of poison
2 : something that relieves, prevents, or counteracts
Ok, let's substitute definitions into the original statement and see which one makes sense -
"So, if liking men is the 'short account of an incident, especially a biographical one' for their anger, what is happening here?"
or
"So, if liking men is 'something that relieves, prevents, or counteracts' their anger, what is happening here?"
Gotta go with zed. Anecdote doesn't play here.
The biggest problem to acceptance among women in general seems to be the near-universal tendency to internalize what a man is saying, then defend oneself as if it were a personal accustion. Conversely, many women see and decry certain behaviour in women in general, but "they're not like those other women"....even though they really are.
There has been a decided lack of accountability for women of late. It's led to a lot of women complaining to men that "men don't like women anymore", usually accompanied by requests to "do something" or for advice.
The short answer really is that women in general have been crapping on men for so long, there are entire generations of men that have no idea what it's like to be respected and loved by women...period.
Is this a problem men have to deal with? Frankly, no.
I want a lasting, deep relationship as much as anyone else (male or female), but I WILL NOT subject myself to the "system" to do so...not again.
Helen, if you are looking for a course of action to have a direct effect on the "war of the sexes", may I suggest you work to change the laws to make things more equitable, and never ever under ANY circumstances allow a man-bashing attitude to go "unpunished"....WHATEVER context you encounter it in.
Since this is unrealistic, and therefore unlikely, do what you do and hope other women take up the baton.
They won't(as evidenced by 5 decades of precedent)....but one can hope.
Until such time it might help to internalize one very salient point.
Women have gotten to EXACTLY where they have been aiming....whether they know it or not.
Women did this, women are primarily suffering for it, and outside of me protecting MY rights and freedoms, I couldn't give a flying fig what happens to "women".
Misogynist? Whatever...I don't care.
Women made this bed, they can lie in it. Myself, I'll grab a blanket out of the hall closet and sleep on the couch (occasionally nipping in for a little "fun" at random)....wake me up if women ever clue in.
I'll look forward to a long sleep.
Anecdote works for me. Don't need an antidote for females. But all of us have an anecdote about one.
Just sayin.
Helen,
I hope you don't think that I "hate" you or even think that I am angry with you, because I am not. If I come across that way, my apologies.
What I do dislike, however, is that kind of advice, and as wierd as this may sound, if I didn't like what you write here and what you represent, I wouldn't bother to say anything at all. For the most part I have completely quit talking to women about issues such as these and only speak to men, because of the tiresome predictability of responses one generally receives.
The problem is, usually when a woman says something like that, all of the men sit around, nod and agree - because a woman has said it - and no-one dares to speak up and say something about it - because a woman has said it. Women have enormous power within groups of men, as even men who have been screwed over really badly seem to need to listen to a woman's view on things, giving a woman like you quite a bit more power than you might realize with regard to these kinds of issues - more power than most men who speak on these issues.
Now, I am quite sure that you did not have any malicious intent. I am positive, actually. But, something still has to be said about these kinds of things, just like we are never going to solve the problem of jackasses like Barack Obama chastising fathers on Father's Day unless we buck up and demand that the real issue of fatherlessness gets adressed - and that means directly and honestly criticizing single/divorced mothers (and the sexual habits of women in general), no matter how loud the screeching of "misogynist" gets from the sisters of sillyness. As long as we stay silent out of fear of offending women, absolutely NOTHING will be solved.
The ladies are going to have to buck up and get used to being offended. They are coming off of that pedastal one way or another. They can either deal with a known and reasonable entity, like the men currently around them, or we can wait until our civilization becomes such a violent, corrupt cesspool that women don't dare step out of their houses. Quite frankly, I am tired of talking to women who demonstrate time and time again that they have zero intention of even attempting to empathize with men - even if it is for the good of us ALL. Bring on the destruction then, and quickly please! But, I do think you, Helen, want to understand, and even moreso, I think you have the capability to understand - which definitely makes trying to explain my viewpoint to you worth my while.
There is a fellow I know from a discussion forum who used to operate a divorce support group back in the 1980's. He tells a story that they used to have enormous trouble with men committing suicide when they had mixed men/women support groups. One every month or two, apparently. Finally, he says, they separated the men from the women, and the suicides among men dropped to around one per year. He attributed it to the way that women used to silence men's concerns with... you guessed it, "not all women are like that... you are going for the wrong girls... you should keep trying..." Of course, this is purely a third party story, and I wouldn't know if there is any valid research on the subject. (I doubt it. We can't even get funding to find out why our teenage boys are blowing their brains out at 4 times the rate of girls... and boys are higher up the ladder than us scumbag adult men - but not by much).
But, it makes sense to me.
I am 38 years old, and in looking back over my life so far, I can quite confidently say that the most destructive, damaging thing I have EVER done to myself was getting involved in relationships with women in the midst of the gender war.
And I am not kidding. The most destructive thing in my life has been relationships.
And I am one of the lucky ones. I never got married, never had kids, and never wound up in trouble with the law. But that doesn't mean there isn't a trail of smoking embers behind me from the bombs that have barely missed landing directly on my head. I still have some shrapnel in my leg.
When I compare how much damage my relationships have caused in my life emotionally, mentally, financially, socially and, well, even in basic direction in my life (I should have been spending my energies on more positive things that benefited ME), I can quite easily make a destruction comparison that is not too far off from the mess that alcoholics and drug addicts make with their lives.
There is a pretty smart fellow out there who speaks of men's issues, and he has a really good saying:
"You can't change a pickle back into a cucumber."
That is so true!
And each time I re-enter the dating scene, I become more pickle and less cucumber. I have too much experience now. My innocence is lost, and that 21 year old man who adored his girlfriend, would have moved heaven and earth for her, and would have even laid his life down for her... well, he no longer exists, and he's not coming back.
When I am dating a woman now, and she does the old push the man away routine, followed by the phrase "I decide when we have sex," while I am sure I am being reasonable in giving affection, I no longer even try anymore to "make things better." Nope. What I do now is keep my mouth shut, and walk around whistling as if nothing is wrong. Mainly what I am doing is scouting out how much of my stuff is around her place that I will have to get out of the house before breaking up with her. You see, I have dated quite a few women now, and have been cheated on by a good number of them, and in retrospect, it was always right around the time that she said, "I decide when we have sex," that I discovered she had a new love interest. Usually you find this out after months of an awful relationship ending, where she will make you as miserable as possible. Now I don't try. I just dump her in the next few days when it is most convenient for me. Have done it a few times now, and you know what? I haven't been wrong yet. They always had a new boyfriend VERY soon after.
I know that if I catch her cheating, I can be GUARANTEED to hear the phrase, "It's MY body!" Certainly, sweetheart. And the STD's you are bringing home affect MY body! But, I know what she will say. "It's MY body!" Not one woman who has cheated on me has let me down yet and forgotten to say this phrase.
Seriously. It is like women all have the same issue of Cosmo under their mattress. The "phrases" issue from May 1988. It is such a reliable indicator that it is uncanny.
I know now that there is very little window of opportunity to date a woman after she breaks up with a boyfriend. Usually she moves on to another guy fairly quickly, and usually there was something going on before her last relationship ended.
I despise cheating and I despise cheaters. They are pure scum, in my opinion, for how much pain they are willing to inflict on others out of their own selfishness. A person of character could at least end their relationship before they go out shopping for a new person. Even if they are no longer in love, they once were and that OUGHT to mean that person deserves a few small measures of respect, and a little concern for their emotional well-being. I hold myself to this standard, and so do my male-friends - I don't hang out with scum. The women I know though? No, not so much. I have discovered that women are not really satisfied with breaking up unless they have inflicted an enormous amount of emotional abuse on the man. They absolutely seem to NEED to know that you are hurt by what she did - deeply hurt. And if you try to make it seem that you were not hurt, she will continue to escalate things until you blow your stack... cause then she can walk away satisfied that you still like her enough to be horribly hurt by losing her. This happens so consistently between men and women, it is getting as predictable as snow in January. It is best to fool her right away and let her think you are devastated. Then she will leave you alone with only inflicting minimum damage.
I mean, let's not get into how easily a woman who is cheating will twist a story of a man saying a few cuss words when he finds out how badly he was betrayed into "verbal abuse," and then she will often go off from there to claiming that she was an "abused woman," implying that she was beaten black and blue on a regular basis - when no-one has ever touched her. This has happened to me twice now. I've seen it happen to many other men too.
A third girl I dated pulled a similar stunt, I am sure. I bumped into one of her friends at a social gathering and this little snippet kept walking around trying to berate me in front of several people "for the bad thing I did to X." When I asked her what I supposedly did, I got the response, "Do you really want me to say it here? It's really, really bad!" Hmmm, yes indeed, I am sure I was really, really bad. You see, I broke up with that girl in March, and bumped into her mother in June and asked how the ex was doing... and was told she was doing great - with her boyfriend she apparently had had since January! Lol! But apparently, I did something really, really bad - too bad to talk about in public at a social gathering.
I know other women must suspect a lot of these women claiming some form of abuse know that many of these "abuses" are completely bogus. How come women aren't calling these girls liars?
I seriously have dated less women than I can count on one hand who have NOT regaled me with a battering boyfriend/husband story, or an "I lost my virginity to date rape when I was 16" story. I don't believe ANY women anymore when I hear those stories. Women did that to themselves. My "misogyny" did not cause it. It was the result of it.
I decided back when I was 27 years old that I would not ever again even date a woman who had not been single for 3 months after leaving a longterm relationship - 6 months to a year would be even better, but three months was my minimum. You have no bloody idea how much that lowered the pool to choose from. It became painfully obvious to me that most women only spend a matter of weeks - at most - before they are already in another full blown longterm relationship.
I have also learned that even those that are "single" usually have something going on that you are not aware of. There is some other guy there, somewhere. While she is dissimulating with you about how she is such a pure and innocent girl who doesn't want a scummy man like YOU to chase after her only for sex... well... more often than not, the next night she will be secretly banging Bubba the Biker. Hey, I lived in a 5,000 person town for 20 years. If you keep your eyes and ears open, EVERYTHING comes out in time. You just have to have a decent memory and put two and two together. If you ever bump into her again and try to mention it (don't bother), you know what you will hear? "IT'S MY BODY!" Lol! Yes dear, and you can keep it.
I have been slapped in the face, punched in the face, had 8 big nail-scratch marks on my face, kneed in the groin, things thrown at me, had my sexuality degraded/humiliated, my clothing criticized, my looks criticized, my friends isolated from me, possessions broken (or stolen) and so on. Virtually every one of the "abuses" that the DV Industry lists that only awful men could do to women, I have endured at the hands of ex-girlfriends... not to mention the violence that some ex-girlfriends have brought to me by convincing a new boyfriend to pick a fight with me. It has become painfully obvious to me that much of what the DV Industry parrots about men is nothing more than projection of FEMALE behaviours. Btw, I would never dare to call myself "abused," because I wasn't. Neither are the vast majority of women who claim they are. But I have concluded that the DV Industry includes much projection of FEMALE behaviours onto men.
We always hear that "It is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all."
What nonsense.
If I could go back in time and talk to myself as a teenager, I would beat it into my head how much danger, damage and complete destruction would be handed to me by the women I would date. Don't do it, Rob!
I used to believe this "better to have loved and lost" nonsense, often thinking back to the "good times we had." However, given small town syndrome, it made me ill to my stomach to discover several years later that during the "good times," Princess was fooling around on me. EVERYTHING comes out in time in a small town.
Now, is this just me? I mean, I am the common denominator, right?
Well, I thought so too, and for a while scurried around trying to change my personality, my style, and whatnot else.
But, also during this time, I decided to start watching (small town - I knew everyone - a good study sample). I just simply started paying attention to other people's relationships. How they started, how they progressed, how they ended, how they treated eachother after it ended. I found patterns so predictable (both male and female - men let this shit happen to them) that by the time I had hit 32 years old, I had pretty much sworn off women for good. I still quietly observe, btw. I'm getting really good at predicting what is going on, although, I keep pretty quiet about it.
I know many men who have had their lives destroyed by the women they let in. Many, many men.
Now, when I hear the phrase, "not all women are like that, you should keep trying," what I hear is: I know you are an alcoholic, but you should just switch from whiskey to beer and keep trying.
I could not imagine going back out there again, to be one of 10 guys vying for one woman who is manipulating them all to give her attention. I could not imagine going through the humilation again of being told "No" to asking a girl out on a date, but also being told that if I start making over $100,000/yr, that then she will date me. (Seriously!).
I could not be bothered to "play the numbers game" to find a woman. What amount of affection do you think a man has for women after he asks out/tries to make things happen with 10 women, to get shut down 9 times, 5 of them involving a woman outright trying to humiliate you for even trying... by the time the 10th one says yes, you are not really in the mood anymore.
I could not stand to hear one more woman tell me about how much she deserves to be treated like a princess.
I hate having to play PUA games. I know they work, but giving out negs and treating women like slabs of meat to have sport sex with them is not sexually appealing to me at all. But, if I don't play PUA games, I will never get anywhere. Women demand it be so by the very nature of their dissimulation in the beginning of relationships.
I cannot go over to one more woman's house for a dinner-date, only to have her stand up at the end of dinner and DEMAND that you wash the dishes because she cooked and she believes in sharing the housework. Um, sweetums, it would probably be more socially acceptable to just start washing the dishes and see if the man comes up and offers to help, or do them himself - that way you could analyze my character in the same way I am now analyzing yours. I have been over to male friends for dinner often, and they never have to do the dishes alone, nor even open their mouth... and I am sure when girls have other girls over, they don't DEMAND that their friend does the dishes, alone, when invited as a dinner guest. The amount of contempt a female must have for men to behave like this must be positively enormous, yet, I have had quite a few women pull this crazy stunt on me - usually on our last date.
And, at the end of it all, if a man is lucky, he gets to have one of these creatures as his girlfriend/wife, so that she can torment him even more, but now nearly 24 hours a day! Until, that is, it is time for her to move on and bring about enough destruction and pain into his life on purpose, so that she can be assured that she mattered to him, even though he no longer matters to her.
No thanks.
The first half of my life has been MISERABLE because of the relationships I have had. Miserable and destructive.
We are not supposed to waste so much of our life's energy monkeying around with this stuff. We are not supposed to have our hearts broken time and time again. We are supposed to do it once or twice when we are young, get saddled down with the ball and chain, and then put aside this nonsense and concentrate on living.
I, and most other men out there, have pissed away more of our adult lives running around after women who openly despise us than any other generation Western Civilization has ever had.
I already am quite displeased with women's behaviours. Getting me back into the dating game to "try again" would only make me into a 180 proof pickle.
The next half of my life belongs to me, and me alone.
Rob & Zed,
Zed, it's nice to see that you're still alive & kickin'! Your writing is as powerful, persuasive, and profound as it always was; not only am I going to borrow a couple of your analogies (I especially like the part about putting the fire out-good stuff!), I may use one or more of your comments here on my blog. This is POWERFUL stuff; this is good stuff; and men need to read what you have to say. You're still on top of your game, Sir!
What can I possibly say, other than wow, you all just BLEW me away! You all wrote some powerful stuff. Unfortunately, I can identify with it. Even though I've had positive experiences with women, I'm beginning to think that this was an ABERRATION. I found true love once; it isn't a fairy tale. Unfortunately, the guy who found that at 20-21 no longer exists...
Though a girl I dated falsely accused me of stalking her, I haven't had all the other stuff happen to me; I haven't been scratched, kneed in the groin, or had that other stuff happen to me. I guess I've been lucky in some respects. That said, I've known too many guys to whom they HAVE happened; not only that, I've read far too many stories for this to be legend or myth. If one keeps hearing the same, anecdotal evidence repeatedly, then there MUST be something to all the stories we hear.
To Dr. Helen, thanks for being a voice in the wilderness. I like you, and I appreciate what you do. Thanks for doing your part to make a sad situation less so. What's sad is that, at 46, I've actually LIVED through this societal transition where men & women went from being companions to competitors; I've seen men & women go from being natural allies (and I believe that we are) to being bitter enemies. I feel like that American Indian in that environmental commercial from long ago, who upon seeing how his former native lands had been paved over & polluted, shed a tear. So much was communicated in that gesture: sadness, a tinge of anger, and befuddlement to name a few. I feel like that Indian, and I'm shedding my tears over a sad, tragic, but above all, PREVENTABLE situation. Those are my thoughts, and good night...
MarkyMark
A simple observation: women are beginning to look and act like men.--and Men are beginning to look and act like women. --
Rob Fedders,
Thank you very much for explaining to me what is going on. The context makes it understandable. My comment to "keep trying" sounded flippant and made it seem like I overlooked the wounds that many of you feel. It was not clear to me before, now it is. I appreciate the effort not to shut me out.
When my wife divorced her first husband after 2 years of marriage after 5 affairs she found out about, 2 of which resulted in pregnacy, co-workers, lawyers, and even some friends, were pressuring her to gut him (not the words they used).
It's amazing the things they told her she could claim abuse on, and amazing the logical they used ("but you can get money"). She wisely said she just wanted him completely out of her life, and did not want to take money that he would need to pay for the two children he had on the way.
I do find it amazing that so many women (certainly not all, seems that always must be said) are very quick to assert they are not slaves and don't want to be used, etc., are often quite big fans making men (through legal force) slaves to their wants. Yet, these same women (again, not all) will confidently proclaim themslves to being the more kind and compassionate gender.
Trust said...
When my wife divorced her first husband after 2 years of marriage after 5 affairs she found out about, 2 of which resulted in pregnacy...
But, I'll bet he was plenty "mysterious", and that he certainly wasn't one of those guys who was "too happy to be with her." In short, he sounds a lot like the kind of guy that these supposed "dating professionals" are advising men to be in order to get more and better dates.
I'm not picking at your wife, trust, I'm sure she is a fine woman. I'm trying to point out why this OP has drawn such a rain of intense commentary. The values expressed in the short excerpts Helen posted are absolutely abyssmal and socially destructive, and it was not clear from Helen's commentary whether she was criticizing or endorsing them.
It's almost like a little mini-Rorschach. Depending on one's experience, it is easy to imagine a little giggle at the end "oh, we women do love our mysteries (tee hee)"
It sounds like your wife's ex was a pretty good practitioner of Doc Love's "System." Five affairs and 2 out-of-wedlock births in 2 years sounds like whole lot more "action" than guys like Lincoln may ever get. I do have to wonder whether it was necessary for her to get burned by a guy like him in order to learn to appreciate a nice guy like you. Go back to a year before their marriage, and put yourself in the situation of competing for her attention with him - do you think she would have chose you over him, or would she have chosen him over you for the very same reasons and characteristics which came back to hurt her later?
I'm not sure that gutting him wouldn't have been a more socially constructive action in the long run. Your wife sounds noble, but as long as we culturally reward scumbag behavior and punish nice guys by banishing them to social and sexual Siberia, we are going to keep seeing more scumbags and fewer nice guys.
GE (commercial / industrial) did a survey years ago, about service. In my view, maybe it's more about human nature.
The results of their survey were basically this:
A company can twist itself into a pretzel, bend over backwards until it almost snaps in its efforts to please and / or otherwise produce the desired effect - have satisfied customers. A satisfied customer will tell an average "maximum" of 3 people how well they were treated by the company.
However.....should the company screw up, no matter what the reason, a customer will tell an average "minimum" of 11 people how they got screwed over.
As one whose eyes flash and forehead steams when unjustly treated myself, I still thought I'd mention that.
Re br549's last post, this is from "The Art of Worldly Wisdom," by Baltasar Gracian, a Spanish Jesuit priest who served in the Spanish court over 400 years ago.
"Be more careful not to miss once than to hit a hundred times. No one looks at the blazing sun, but all gaze when it is eclipsed. The common talk does not reckon what goes right but what goes wrong. Evil news carries farther than any applause. Many people are not known to the world till they have left it. All the exploits of a person taken together are not enough to wipe our a single small blemish. Avoid therefore falling into error, knowing that ill will notices every error and no success."
Maybe this is why no news is good news (or perhaps that all news is bad news). People are far more fascinated and vocal about the single transgression from the ideal, rather than the thousand observances of it.
To Kevin M -- well said, sir.
On the one hand, what Rob Fedders said strikes a deep and fundamental chord -- but on the other, it makes me appreciate the woman I found even more. She's truly a Proverbs 31 woman, and I count myself blessed beyond words to have the opportunity to share a life with her.
I've often said that "the wise man marries above himself" -- but that only works with a worthy woman. Fortunately, I was lucky enough to find one.
I have often wondered if depression is anger turned inward - especially when there is nothing else to do with ones anger, if knowing full well it is bad form to dump it on someone else.
Ill will. Damn. The world sure is full of that.
kevin m, is that then, a book? Do you know if it is still in print?
The statement you wrote out sounds straight out of Ecclesiastes. Or Paul Simon. Not comparing Paul Simon to the Old Testament, mind you. But Paul says in a song: "Spare your heart; everything put together, sooner or later falls apart".
"The Art of Worldly Wisdom" is still in print, and in several editions (much like Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," and some editions are much better than others).
My favorite, from which the above quote is taken, is from the Shambhala Classics edition, translated by Joseph Jacobs. If I had children, this is the ONE book I would insist they read and memorize by the time they were 18.
Gracian has been called "Machiavelli with a soul." Whereas Machiavelli described the techniques of surviving in group environments where self-interest was key ("The Prince"), Gracian wrote 300 aphorisms on how a person thrives by recognizing wisdom for both its self-directed influence as well as its moral implications. The above aphorism is #169. They are small, pithy and concise paragraphs that are easy to read and digest, encapsulating profound truths in a manner that make retention easy and straightforward. His admirers included Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietsche and many others.
It is, alongside the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, mandatory reading for any person who wishes to elevate themselves to the highest level of civility and personal growth, in my humble opinion.
@br549: As re depression, from which I have suffered for many years until recently, I am not convinced that it is anger turned inward so much as an onionskin-thin layer of falsity that prevents us from seeing ourselves and the world around us appropriately. Because the onset of depression is insidious and its effects subtle, we rarely suspect we suffer from it.
Taking into account both the quote from Gracian and the previous posts re how so many men are downcast in their perception of themselves as defined by the shrieking multitude of women on TV and society who view us as drooling perverts, it comes as no surprise to me that many men are depressed (as are, indeed, a profound number of women) in our respective beliefs that we will ever find true love and happiness with another.
My advice: Don't let the bastards (or bitches) get you down! The men and women who lend credibility to the gender wars are the minority. These malicious souls are the "single misses" rather than the "hundred hits" of which Gracian wrote. And the one wonderful thing about the war between the sexes is that YOU CAN'T BE DRAFTED! You have to be stupid enough to enlist and fight a losing battle.
@zed: "I'm not sure that gutting him wouldn't have been a more socially constructive action in the long run. Your wife sounds noble, but as long as we culturally reward scumbag behavior and punish nice guys by banishing them to social and sexual Siberia, we are going to keep seeing more scumbags and fewer nice guys."
That's where my wife was different. She didn't reward him, she kicked him out and divorced him. What she didn't do was take what was his just because she was the woman and the courts would do it for her. Most, and she said just this, she didn't want any part of him in her life anymore.
It's ironic how he got so many women in such a short time, because he's really very un-masculine, if that's even a word. When I met him, it floored me. He's definitely not the mysterious type.
In any case, my main point was how people were pushing her to do more.
@zed: "Go back to a year before their marriage, and put yourself in the situation of competing for her attention with him - do you think she would have chose you over him, or would she have chosen him over you for the very same reasons and characteristics which came back to hurt her later?"
I didn't know her before they were divorced. She was never into players. In fact, she never had sex with him before marriage. What's more, I'm only her second, and we waited until marriage as well. Both her partners had to marry her first.
He seems like a nice guy. Tiny, kind of dorky, terrified of me because of my 6 inch and 80 pound size difference. He looks like the kind of guy I would have wanted my sister to date, to be honest. It's an anomoly. Then again, I've seen both the women he knocked up, and they are quite sleezy looking.
I don't know which behavior my wife would have been more attracted to back then, and I'm probably better off not knowing. It's just one of those cruel facts of life that for whatever reason, women are more sexually attracted to bad men than good ones.
Every few years I wander out from my cave to see if any women are "getting it" and to view the current discussions.
Put me in the same camp as Zed, Rob, and Factory.
Let me reiterate the main points that the guys are making. To start with, it's the laws, it's the laws, it's the laws, and oh by the way, it's the laws.
Did I mention that it was the laws?
I can appreciate the efforts that you are making, but, at best you are preaching to the choir, at worst, you run the risk of raising the frustration/anger level of some of the guys. We have a pussy whipped legislature, on all levels.
Here is what you can do if you want to impact the bottom line. Start rounding up like minded women who are questioning the current landscape and then, as a group, start hammering on the sorry assed lawmakers to fix this shit.
Next point. "Not all women are like that". Please. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard that I could have retired when I was three. Throw an additional greenback on top of that bad boy for every time a woman proved that in fact, she WAS "like that" and my retirement could have started before my conception.
No Sale.
Not to me, nor to most of the guys here. This defence, along with the usual shaming language, worked pre internet. Deflecting, isolating, and shaming no longer works. We have the internet.
The magnifying glass has been aimed at men for the last 40 plus years, inspecting our every little fault or shortcomings.
We are done.
Time to take the magnifying glass and aim at the sistahood and the idiot lawmakers.
We will NOT return to the negotiating table until this shit is fixed.
Arthur,
"Start rounding up like minded women who are questioning the current landscape and then, as a group, start hammering on the sorry assed lawmakers to fix this shit."
Women are not going to fix this problem--it is not going to happen. It is not my job to "round them up" to fix things. Most of them do not think or know there is a problem to begin with. We can all make fun of the sisterhood but that only goes so far. A group of 20-50 diligent men can make a difference in which laws are passed or not. It is amazing how few people it takes to stop bad laws from getting passed. I am not sure why you think that passing the buck to women to change things is the answer. The answer is for men to organize and use their anger constructively to change laws and demand that legislators listen to them. One person alone might have a hard time, a group of people has a better chance. Including women in this would be great, but if none rise to the occassion, do it without them.
BTW, women aimed the magnifying glass at men, now men should aim it back, but expecting women to do so is probably fruitless.
Well...I think the 'nice guy' term doesn't really mean much. It means to me someone who is at least superficially caring and sensitive. I've been married to my wife for 3 years, we're both PhD scientists. We met at school. So far so good, it's working out pretty well.
I dated for...at least 10 years I think before i got married. At that point when I started seeing my wife, I didn't expect her to fill any holes in my life. I think that's really key, its that you have a good life anyway, and this relationship is icing on the cake. If you go into it thinking that you need someone to plug holes in your life, that's a problem.
That and being sexually mature helped, my wife didn't believe in sex before marriage, and honestly at this stage I don't really care about sex (I'm 33). I got all of that out of my system in early 20s, and it ain't coming back. So once you remove the element of 'i need you to fulfill my sexual needs' and 'i need you to fill my lonely life', then you have a lot more power in the relationship, and women will stop treating you like garbage. My advice anyway.
@helen
So, women and manginas fucked everything up and it's the men's job to fix it, because, according to you it's "fruitless" to expect women to do anything, and, most women don't see a problem.
Got it.
Most women didn't see a problem with no fault divorce laws passed in the late '60's.
Most women didn't see a problem with Roe v Wade.
Most women didn't see a problem with the rampant sexual harrasment laws passed in the '80's.
Most women didn't see a problem with the increasingly unfair family court system in the '90's.
So, exactly at what point will women see that there is a problem?
Why are you blogging on men's issues, then? For brownie points?
You are seriously delusional if you think that 20-50 men are going to roll up on a legislative body and get jack shit done. To start with, we didn't fuck this up. Next, women make up the voting majority in this country, so even if everybody voted on sex/party lines we still lose. And, like you said, if women don't think that there is a problem they won't have any reason to vote for change.
Moving on, tell me where you would find these 20-50 men who would be willing to risk their own freedom/livelihood to save women from themselves. Today's youth? You can't be serious, they are too emasculated. Guys like me who are over 40? Why? We are closing in on retirement and we have a decreasing sex drive. Our "orgasm" and fulfillment will come from watching the demise of the current and future generations of the female sex. My kids? Ooops, sorry!! I don't have any!! As a matter of fact, more and more guys a growing up without a horse in the race (offspring).
Like it or not, it will be women who fix this mess, not men. This will only happen when they start to feel pain. Now, if you are too afraid to confront women, even though they would listen to you WAY before they listened to one of us evil men, then knock yourself out blogging.
I sure hope you don't have or plan on having kids. If you do you are leaving them one hell of a mess.
Care to try again?
I'm with Helen to some degree here. All I can add though, is that if Men alone "fix" this problem (with no effective help from women), don't expect women to factor into the "desired outcome" at all.
In other words...if you don't help make the pie, you don't get to say what's in it, or eat any of it.
Does THAt sound like a recipe for success? Do you REALLY want to be a woman in a world where a bunch of men pissed off enough at women to "fight the power" get their way 100%?
I know the tendency is to believe men will be fair. Problem is, women haven't been, and show no desire to be, and in fact think it's OK to screw men over.
Men will remember this.
@Helen
I'm not sure if 20-50 men alone can fix this problem, but stranger things have happened so I suppose its possible. However, wether its 50, 500, 5000, or 5000000 men solving this, its clear that in the end that if women aren't at least a part of the solution, then why should women be trusted with ANYTHING?
Why should women be trusted with voting?
Why should women be trusted with raising kids (particularly boys)?
Why should women be trusted at work?
Why should women be trusted in relationships?
etc.
Dr. Helen, I know you will say try to find the few that can, and we know with you that you can be trusted. However, even women who may be trustworthy have been silent about this and silence equals consent effectively (as it has already been pointed out).
Let's look at the future after the laws have been changed. As a man I no longer have to worry about false rape charges, false sexual harrassment charges, getting reamed in a divorce, etc.? No, since most women don't see a problem now, they will view this change as a loss of their "rights". While women will be denied weapons to attack and damage men, the desire to do so will still be there. If anything the desire will be stronger amongst most women.
Since this is the future we are talking about, why should anyone hire women for a job even if the laws have been changed (particularly with more and more robots coming online to do work)?
Why should men trust women to be honest about anything in the future even if the laws have been changed?
Why should men date and marry women particularly with sexbots becoming available even if the laws have been changed?
Why should men have kids with women instead of just going in for some type of cloning even if the laws have been changed?
If women aren't part of the solution, then even when the laws have changed, why should men trust women for anything? Why should men have anything to do with women even if women can no longer use the government as a weapon against men?
According to feminists, men want to put women back into the kitchen. Feminists don't understand that the real question is why should men even trust women with the kitchen?
Arthur,
What I write here is for women, that is, those who care about equality and justice. Those who do not will not listen anyway, what's the point of trying to convert those to a cause that they do not believe in? I am not afraid to talk to any women, they are welcome here just as men are. My point is that if you wait for women and the "manginas" as you put it, to do something and fix the laws, the wait will be long and in all likelihood, nothing will be done. It is wishful thinking to believe that women are going to change laws that benefit them and put them in a privileged position. Kathleen Parker, in her book "Save the Males" does reach out to women to let them know about the damage that is being done, to men and to themselves. I understand that women should be part of the solution. I think they should be. But the reality is that men may have to do much of the work alone. You seem to think that I don't agree that women should help, that is wrong. I think they should be part of the solution but the reality is, that many women feel that women's needs come first, they are apathetic to politics in general or they have other causes they are involved in--many men feel the same way.
Finally, there is no need to get snarky here. We are on the same side. We both agree (I think) that some unjust laws on the books for men should be changed, we only disagree on the reality of who is going to change them.
@Arthur - are you the famous NG's Arthur? You sound like him. If so, hello again, if not, never mind.
I'm probably less in your "camp" than you might think, but I'm certainly not from the enemy camp - and in any case I'm just passing through anyway.
I'm in total agreement that it has to be women who make the changes in laws - for the simple reason that it will be women who benefit from it far more than it will be men. Marriage looks like a very good deal for women and a very raw deal for men, so if men choose to avoid getting burned, then I don't see that they are losing out on anything other than the chance to get burned.
There is some interesting research that has come out recently which shows that since the 60s men's happiness in general has been rising while women's in general has been falling. There is some other reasearch which indicates that women are happiest when they marry their "first true love", while the currently prevailing pattern of serial relationships lasting a handfull of years suits men better.
Where you and I do disagree is on the issue of laws. I came of marrying age before any of the legal situation we have today came about, and even with laws which were supposedly so advantageous to me I didn't see men as being all that happy about being married. It was more something they did out of duty and social pressure - you were just expected to get married, and that was the norm. It isn't any longer.
For me, the laws only account for about 20% of it, and the other 80% is due to the "attitudes." I've spent my entire adult life riding the curl of the 2nd wave of feminism. A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle - I have that on the authority of hundreds of women. Cool!!! That means no slime on my seat or rust on my gears!!!
Oh yeah, I know there is going to be a chorus of men chime in here bragging about what wonderful wives they have, and a chorus of married women bragging about what wonderful wives their husbands have. I'll take their words for it. But, I'll also do that commandment thing about "not coveting thy neighbors wife" and go with the evidence of my own eyes - which is that damn few married men are anything other than miserable.
And, I know that none of these men who claim to have such great wives and be so happy are named Matthew Winkler, and none of their wives are named Leslie Bennetts. (an old post of Dr. Helen's linking to Rachel's blog) (I have watched too much of the equivalent of HGTV, (another Rachel post) even though I don't own a TV. Real life has more than enough examples.)
I was at a party last weekend with about a dozen couples (most of them married, but a few were cohabiting) and a half dozen singles. About half the married people just seemed like married people - as Chris Rock talks about "married and bored." Most of the rest engaged in low-level bickering throughout the evening. One of the women who was living with her boyfriend has never gone through one of our regular parties without making the point several times how she regularly denies sex to her boyfriend, and chuckles about it as though she were winning some sort of stupid power game. There was exactly one out of all the couples who looked like they had a nice relationship.
Oh, I know that Dr. Helen and the other women here would just absolutely love for men to "keep looking" - standing at the base of Rapunzel's tower begging for the tiniest crumb of affection or attention, while she shows him a great view of her nose hair. And, while the "be fruitful and multiply" biological imperative is still driving men nuts they will put up with a lot of that. But, unless a woman has a man snagged by early 40s at the latest, she is most likely going to have to end up taking the "your daddy is a turkey baster" route.
So, it really boils down to the only two legal issues I have any interest or motivation to change are paternity fraud and false accusations. Modern women's personalities are the most effective form of birth control ever invented, as far as I am concerned, and having not committed the crime of fatherhood all I have to do is continue to keep my nose clean and the custody issues and divorce laws really don't affect me.
There are lots of women who post here regularly who are simply the female mirror image of me. A lot of both men and women don't see much need to get married, and if a woman wants to be a single mom and do it all by herself, it's no skin off my nose. Heck, I'll even chip in with taxes to support their thug-spawn, knowing that childless women and married couples share as much of the burden as I do. Somebody has to make the future taxpayers.
If women don't do it? Oh well. I've posed the question more than once - if the radfems have 'won', then who has lost and what have they lost? I think it is women that have lost and men that have gained in many ways. Before the sexual revoluion I probably would have been forced to get married in order to have an outlet for my sex drive, but since then I have found plenty of women who DEMANDED sexual interest and gratification - until I caught on to the bait-and-switch game of "now you OWE me for giving me what I wanted from you." And, since women prefer men who aren't too interested in them and are a challenge - hey there is no bigger challenge in the world to a woman than a never-married man. I spent most of my 40s running overweight, overbearing, over-the-hill women out of my life. There are few things in the world as surreal as to have a woman you meet through business who looks like 100 kilos of cold mashed potatoes shoveled into a garbage bag announce haughtily "WELL, jewelry is awwwlways an appropriate way to communicate with a woman."
Dr. Helen has another thread going at the moment about Scandinavia. The original articles on which her post is based show the bias of the western mythology of masculinity, but there are plenty of Scandinavian and European men who have absolutely no problem with the way things are over there.
Remember the old Rick Nelson song, Garden Party? "Well, you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."
This spring I went out and wrote a check for new motorcycle - no loan, just cash out of one of my accounts. Meanwhile, a friend of mine just a few years younger is sweating bullets over how he is going to pay for his kid's college. He's married to a woman that I absolutely cannot stand, and after 5 minutes in her presence I start wanting to claw my eardrums out with a fork. Almost every time I go riding, some guy comes up to me and wistfully says "I used to have a bike, but my wife MADE me sell it."
Yeah, I'm gonna be real motivated to be one of those 50 guys who changes the laws so that can be me - NOT!!!
My favorite "trick" with a woman is to ask to sleep with her naked. "I promise I will not have sex with you."
If she agrees finally, I carry out my end of the bargain. After that 75% of them will chase you. Avidly. She is thinking "is there something wrong with me?"
I met my current mate that way. We have been together for 35 years now.
I have the good fortune that she wanted a MAN. Some one who would be her protector. And I have.
It all starts with this fundamental realization. A man must respect his woman and be willing to die for her and the kids. After she gets that "My Hero" kicks in.
It is the way we are built. Most of us.
Once you get the pieces in place life is like the happy ending of a romance novel.
"I have the good fortune that she wanted a MAN. Some one who would be her protector."
*yawn* I'm sure she's worth it.
zed:
Good insight into the current male/female situation.
Here's how to have a happy marriage according to a few studies:
If the man meets the woman's prerequisites (high enough income or forecast income, high enough social status etc.), then the more a man just does what the wife says, the happier the marriage. That is truly what I have read.
That also pans out with cases I have seen in real life. One happily married couple involves a man who works 10 hours a day as an engineer, then comes home and cooks, cleans etc. She doesn't do a whole lot of anything. He serves the woman 24/7 and he seems happy and the wife seems happy.
Go for it, guys.
First, he's smart and women mostly DO NOT LIKE smart men, because they associate it with low testosterone. Second, he lacks high status and activities that indicate high levels of testosterone, such as base jumping, motorcycle racing, etc. Last, he lacks high status and social dominance over other men around him. [Ask yourself why women "detest" nerds and any sign of intelligence. It's the testosterone!]
I guess I'm lucky to be a high testosterone nerd.
I used to bike a lot (the kind with big engines). When I met my mate I was living on the street for all practical purposes. Money does not make the man.
BTW I learned flirting late in life. I'm in my 60s.
And yes women do want dominant men.
Last week I was flirting with 20 somethings at a bar and attracted a fair amount of interest. It was fun.
And yes. I have a very understanding mate. But she does get jealous. Then she takes me home and makes me forget all about the bimbos.
She likes my flirting though. It his her way of showing dominance. "I've got HIM and you don't."
As I said. Once you get it all worked out life IS like the happy ending of a romance novel.
BTW Men: you can increase your testosterone level by taking a more active role in life. Lead. When other men follow your testosterone rises.
"I have the good fortune that she wanted a MAN. Some one who would be her protector."
*yawn* I'm sure she's worth it.
Yep. We both feel like we are living the happy ending of a romance novel. Bliss.
Did I mention we have 4 very bright kids? #2 son graduated with honors from U. Chicago (Russian language - he now works for a top consulting firm in Chicago). #3 Son is studying electrical engineering. #1 daughter is planning on a career in Chemical Engineering.
Almost every time I go riding, some guy comes up to me and wistfully says "I used to have a bike, but my wife MADE me sell it."
My wife made me buy my last bike. She loved snuggling up close to me while we rode around town. We both decided to give it up as too dangerous. People in autos don't pay attention. But we loved it when we were riding together.
I married my nth true love. I'm very happy.
My first love married some one else.
m. simon:
Why are you on here posting when you should be off protecting your wife or talking baby talk with her?
20 armed Crips gang members could be attacking her while you're posting your sappy crap, and you wouldn't have been there to protect her with your free-wheeling Karate kicks and the like that would make mincemeat out of them.
At least go watch TV or something.
Like I said - I knew there would be some people posting claiming to be men and bragging about what great wives they had, or claiming to be women and bragging about what great wives their husbands have. And, no, those posts don't provoke a reaction of "don't you wish you were me/him"?
BTW, did I mention that I'm 9 feet tall and an absolutely stunning shade of chartreuse?
"BTW, did I mention that I'm 9 feet tall and an absolutely stunning shade of chartreuse?"
------------
I have an immeasurable IQ (because I've never gotten an IQ question wrong), I can punch or kick a wall without feeling pain and my beautiful wife actually works at a job outside of the home.
Plus my daughter already knows at the age of 15 that she either wants to be a marine biologist or a horse trainer.
@zed--yes the same arthur, but I don't know about the "famous" part.
Actually, we are pretty much in the same camp. Regardless of the percentages I see where the laws and the current landscape can result in the attitudes that women have.
@helen--yes we do disagree on who will ultimately fix this problem. Pay attention to what zed and some of the other guys are writing. Basically, there is no motivation for us to fix this mess. We are single with no kids, and we have never been married. We are over 40years old which means that we are not being led around by our penises. We don't have a horse in the race. We are not feeling any pain.
After motivation comes organization. Simply put, guys aren't. The players and the thugs aren't gonna push for changes, why should they? They get a roll in the hay and then they hand the bill to some nice guy sucker. Zed referenced NiceGuy's website, go ahead and have a look at that site.
Take a look at the current active posters and see if you can pick one who will lead. Then see if you can find 20-50 more who will follow and actively participate. And this is a collection of "enlightened" guys.
So, to summarize the guys you have the over 40 single guys who don't care, you have the players and thugs who are "winning" under the current rules, and you have the remaining guys who have been effectively emasculated. There's your talent pool.
arthur,
Okay, so where does that leave the young boys of today? Those who are in school being treated like crap because they are male? Those who get older and work at jobs where they are harassed and discriminated against with no recourse in the laws, or those who grow up with no chance of being a father even though they want to but don't want to live with fear that they will lose their money, their livelihood and their kids? Does anyone here care about them? You say they are all emasculated--okay, so does that mean they don't care? Does that make it acceptable? And what about the over 40 guy who is picked up for taking pictures of his kids, looking at women too long and accused of harassment or accused unfairly through no fault of his own for rape or another crime that he did not commit because a woman said so? If none of us do anything about this, then do we really deserve freedom or liberty? Even self-preservation may fail in the end.
There is a very small percentage of men who get the power to change these things (legislators, governors, presidents, senators etc.).
That small percentage of men does not care about men, those men are in competition with other men, they even have a desire to stick it to other men to play the "Hero" for women.
Women in power or out don't care about men (unless they can get money out of them).
A whole lot of men themselves are blinded by chivalry and don't seem to care about themselves.
The ONLY TIME men seem to wake up a bit is when the one-sidedness is so blatant that it just can't be avoided. Like: The wife screws his neighbor and best friend, and the result is that the courts award her the kids, the house and a good chunk of HIS salary. He is to get lost except to write the check.
Some men don't even wake up then. It's his job as a manly man to pay for the little women even if she has a teensy bit of diffculty remaining monogomous. He should die for the woman.
And most other men just go back to sleep after that short period of being awake.
I don't know what to say other than: If men want to be stupid chumps, I guess let them be.
I'm glad there are so many chumps.
SOMEONE has to pay for all the entitled princesses out there, I'm just glad it's not me.
helen,
Ask zed about his excellent adventures trying to motivate and organize the men's movement. As he told me "I've quit this mess many times". And I can see why.
I bought a computer and started posting on MRA sites starting in 2003. It was good to see that men were frustrated and connecting. But I noticed a couple of things that were disturbing. First, it was a bitch session with little to no actions. Second, and the reason that I have given up on men is graphic in nature. Most guys on these sites are one blowjob away from quitting the men's movement and joining the other side. Once women started posted on these sites and flirting with the guys IT WAS OVER.
I have zero sympathy for today's young men/boys. Guys like zed and myself didn't have the internet when this shit started gaining momentum in the 70's and 80's. Today's young males DO. They communicate daily and they know damn good and well that things are screwed up. And they don't have the balls to do anything and they are too easily distracted when women show up.
My sympathy meter for them is reading zero.
Where does this leave the young women of today? Well, there selection of guys includes thugs, players, and wimps. Enjoy the buffet, ladies. As for lifestyle, well, work forever ready begin. Maybe, some guy will come along and buck the trend of declining marriage and birthrates and give you both. Then again, maybe not.
I don't see anything worth saving. And I doubt that I am the only person with that viewpoint.
Helen said...
Okay, so where does that leave the young boys of today?
Helen,
One of the reasons you draw so much anger from men is because it seems so incredibly difficult to get across to you points which are blindingly obvious to us. Add to that the fact that some of us have been having these same arguments for decades, and there is a frustration level which is quite obnoxious because even though we are actually arguing with a different person, to us it feels like a continuation of the same old argument which has gone on for years, and years, and years, and years, and years, and years, and years.
Departure from some vague fantasized ideal does not equal "oppression." If you look at the lives of young boys today and compare them to the lives of young men throughout history, they really don't have it all that bad. The problem stems from the fact that you seem incapable of viewing the world through their eyes, or understanding any perspective but your own.
I think that if you would actually survey young men today that you would find the desire to be "a father" to be much less common than you seem to believe. Parker's new book "Save the Males" hits the nail with a glancing blow but doesn't hit it on the head when she points out that boys today are not raised with an ideal of honorable manhood. Repeat that statement about 20 times and ponder the implications. Our culture is not teaching young men that they are needed or valued and they are going to do as the young of every culture since the beginning of time has done and incorporate those values into their sense of themselves and live their lives accordingly. Yes, school absolutely sucks for boys, which is why so many are bailing out of it. But, who is harmed worse by that - the boys who are alienated from the culture and its values, or the culture which has alienated a significant percentage of its future adults, the group which has historically been most productive and supportive of the culture, against itself? The term "Cultural Suicide" is one of the most insightful things Parker has to offer.
In order to understand the situation we have to seperate biological fatherhood from social fatherhood. Boys are always going to want to be biological fathers, but how they behave as social father is going to depend entirely on what the society and culture teaches them about that role.
There are lots of messages in the culture that social fathers are totally unnecessary. From the perspective of the boys this is no different from my upbringing that social fathers WERE necessary. Children of both sexes are supposed to learn the social values of their culture and incorporate those values into themselves. Both boys and girls are doing that today, and if those values don't match the ones we hold that doesn't mean that those kids are going to feel that they missed out on anything.
There have been plenty of cultures throughout history which were matriarchal, matrilineal, or matrilocal. In these cultures biological "fatherhood" really did boil down to nothing more than sperm donors and was not considered significant at all. The man with responsibility in children's lives was their mother's brother - because the biological relationship could be proven.
Today the biological relationship has been de-coupled from the social relationship and the definition of "father" boils down to "the doofus who has to pay child support." I'm sure you have seen the research that shows that a rapidly shrinking percentage of people think that a father has a significant social role in the family.
Look at the fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are men. Do you really believe that men have some inherent death wish that makes them seek out chances to be killed through their employment? No, they take those risky jobs so they can fulfill the social fatherhood role that they were socialized into incorporating into their self-concept.
Let's compare "boys of today" to boys of past days. Google the "Battle of Somme" in which there were more than a million casualties. More than a million young men didn't get the "chance to be fathers" under circumstances much more unpleasant than hanging out and playing video games. Google "Panama Canal Deaths" and ask yourself whether you really believe that there is some innate desire in men to pay child support which would motivate huge numbers of young men to face a high probability of death in order to work in dangerous circumstances?
This very post which started this discussion was you offering "Dating Advice for Men" which included such gems as -
"advice on why nice guys finish last"
"Because nice guys are weak guys."
"...The nice guy is too happy to be there"
Young men are a whole lot more interested in NOT "finishing last" than they are in being one of the doofuses they see on TV. Trust wife's ex-husband is a biological father, and you and I are footing part of the bill for it. If you are going to endorse the advice that it is a bad idea to like a woman too much, and count on some innate drive of men to watch other guys getting laid left and right while they have to settle for sloppy seconds, or maybe even festering fourths, and feel that they are losing out on something by not having the opportunity for their wives to shoot them in the back with a shotgun - well, I just have to say that your understanding of human nature is quite different than mine is.
I've been fighting this nonsense since 1970 - which, given what you told about yourself, isn't all that long after you were born. I have personally invested over $150,000 in the fight, and have had to fight women every inch of the way. I have seen hundreds of bad divorces - including many of the typical "he never saw it coming - just came home one day to find the house cleaned out and the divorce papers on the kitchen counter."
Go have a look at http://firstwivesworld.com/ and be honest and ask yourself if the women there are the kind of people who are going to motivate any man of any age to invest in making the world better for them?
In 20 more years, Rob Fedders is going to be me and Lincoln is going to be Rob Fedders. And, the boys of today are going to be mostly Happy Bachelors - http://happybachelors.com/
When I was a teenager, I had the delightful experience of finding a farmer that I worked for chopped into bloody bits inside a hay baler. Do you really believe that young men of today have such an innate death wish that they will take the chance of having that happen to them just so they can pay their court ordered child support?
Also when I was a teenager, the US was involved in a little conflict in a country in SE Asia called "Vietnam." Most boys my age got their draft notice within about 3 months of turning 18 or graduating from HS. When a buddy of mine got his (having no great desire to be killed or maimed in a war no one understood) he ignored it. One day the Federal Marshalls showed up at his house. Someone alerted him and he went on the run. The Feds finally tracked him down somewhere in Montanna and dragged him to the induction center in handcuffs and leg irons.
Oh yeah, that is a situation that is going to have men crawling out of the woodwork to fight to preserve - NOT!!!
The young men of today are going to give women exactly what they say they want and reward men for giving them by "giving" those men sex. By your own suggestion here, one of the worst things one of these young men could do is to "be too happy to be with her."
In the short term, it has been men socialized under the old value system who have been hurt the most by the unfair anti-male laws. But, that generation of men has been pretty much looted out of their wealth and now the ABA is setting their sights on gays and lesbians.
The next couple of generations of men are going to fly below the radar, seek to consolidate wealth for their own sakes and no other, and live as though they were on patrol in a sort of "gender Vietnam" in which those "short little guys in black pajamas" were "the enemy" and out to kill them if they could. Only, these days it is those "short(er) creatures with milk-secreting glands on their chests" who don't necessarily want to kill them, although many do, as much as they want to enslave them.
SOME boys survived Vietnam, and some survived the Battle of Somme, and some will survive the current gender war.
And, by and large, it will be women who are trapped in wage slavery in the corporate nightmare in their obsessive quest for "wage parity."
In the meantime, players and thugs will continue to get all the ({}) they want, by being "mysterious" and not having to pretend disinterest because they truly are disinterested and see women as little more than silly prey.
Now, I ask again - if the radfems have "won" then who has "lost" and what have they lost?
And, given the fact that men are better off in the current situation than they were in the old one, who has more investment in changing things back to the way they used to be?
How did John Galt go about implementing his promise to "stop this"? By quitting, going on strike.
Atlas really is shrugging.
One of the most enlightening conclusions I have reached was when I finally realized that women have been toxic to men throughout history. The Nirvana of love and co-operation between the sexes that so many of us believe once existed is a fable, a mere myth. The “past 40 years” did not “change” women so much as it removed the social mores in place that protected society from the very madness we complain about today.
The Mrs. Olsen’s, of Little House on the Prairie fame, and her henpecked husband have always been with us, bubbling just beneath the surface.
This was written over 700 years ago:
This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.
In fact, anyone truly interested in understanding the problems of our cultural malaise would do well to toss aside the shoddiness of modern academia and start delving into the past.
Belfort Bax, an anti-feminist writer who lived during the days of the “noble” suffragettes, wrote of how the women of that era were marching under the mantra of “If women had the vote, there would be no more wars.” Sound familiar? Today, this has merely morphed into saying, “If a woman were President, there would be no more wars.”
Mr. Bax also wrote of how the entire theatrical industry relied upon portraying men in the worst possible light with pure women always the victims of demonic males. As well, he wrote of the justice system of then time when the first women judges took to the bench. I read one piece by Mr. Bax where he described that instantly, female judges in prostitution cases, tried to equate the male’s role of occasionally paying for a prostitute to be the equal, or worse, of the prostitute herself who willingly plied her trade. He described how female judges often wanted to place the man in the dock next to the prostitute, and that there never failed to be some mangina in the gallery who would arise and cheer “Here, here!” He noted how 14 year old boys who were seduced by 16 year old girls, would be assigned all of the blame for being a sexual aggressor while the girl was portrayed as a victim. Is any of this sounding familiar?
Schopenhauer, writing in the mid 19th Century, described how women believed that a husband’s money was hers to spend as she pleased – if not during his life, she certainly believed she was entitled with his death. “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine” is not something new, it is old. Very old. Women have viewed men as little more than walking wallets for a long time already.
Malicious false accusations at the hands of women are discussed in the Bible, when Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife. (Genesis 39)
I seen in another comment here at Dr. Helen’s, that women killing their husbands while they sleep was also discussed in the Bible. (Judges 4:21)
Abortion is mentioned in the Bible, as well, women in both London and Ancient Rome would throw unwanted newborns into the river.
Now, often this kind of stuff leads people to start shrieking, “WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAWS!” But, I’m sorry, folks, the laws are not going to help us – they are going to make things worse. (Repealing laws is a viable solution – more laws is not. More laws lead to totalitarianism). And not only that, women don’t adhere to the law anyway. Men adhere to the law quite readily and can be controlled by it, but it doesn’t work that way with women. The just rule of law is a foreign concept to most women. Women can only be controlled by social shaming. And who are the ones who can effectively enact such social shaming? Women, that’s who. It has historically been the women that labeled girls who produced illegitimate children to be slutty, and so on.
Men can be controlled by laws but women actively resist “equality under the law”, as Aristotle pointed out a couple of millennia ago already: in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. / …the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. / …But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt.
Once one starts to realize that there are innate differences in men and women (duh), from their little toe right through to the hairs on their heads, including vast differences in mental processes, then one can begin to look at our “horribly misogynist past” and start to ask a VERY enlightening question: Just what kind of thing were they trying to stamp out in the past when they gender-restricted X from doing Y?
No, “2nd Wave Feminism” didn’t magically alter the nature of women from some mythical creature of unquestionable virtue that existed in the fog of the past. What the women’s movement did was remove the social mores that must have taken eons to implement, and whose purpose was to protect civilization from the more sinister aspects of the feminine which were always gurgling beneath the surface.
After all, those who perpetuate the myth that “equality” is some holy ideal that ought to be achieved at all costs, must also be forced to admit that if “men and women are equal,” then women must also be equal to men in wickedness and sin.
“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” – Ecclesiastes 7:26
Of course, I would like to point out that not all women are like that.
Nope.
Some are even worse!
“Better to live on the corner of a roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.” – Proverbs 21:9 --> (Lol, Father’s 4 Justice ought to make this their new slogan.)
So helen, is any of this sinking in? Are you starting to get a sense of where men are coming from and how they feel?
And this is just from the guys who are awakened/enlightend and have discovered various places to vent and discuss the issues. It doesn't even cover the guys who are royally pissed and haven't actively searched for an outlet.
You let me know when those 20-50 wise men are due to appear on the horizon to fix this shit. I'll be the first to hand them a beer. As of now, I am gonna jam my beers into the far reaches of my fridge, because I think it's gonna be a while before the problem solvers appear on the scene.
Enjoy the ensuing hell.
Arthur,
With all due respect, there isn't going to be an ensuing hell.
The world is going to simply keep turning like it always has, women will continue to manipulate men and a small percentage of (mostly older) men will see what is happening.
Read Rob Fedder's excellent post above yours to get a feel for how this has happened all throughout history. Money flows from men to women. Men work, women run their yaps. The best a man can due is SEE what women are and then play the game back.
And as far as looking up to Helen to be your mommy or savior, she is a woman, with all due respect to her, and she also clearly "married up" and has no personal desire to get off the gravy train herself.
And the world keeps turning.
The way in which society treats women reminds me of a bit of the conspiracy involving Santa Clause and children.
If you have a small child around, all adults will fall into the world view that Santa Clause exists. If one adult brings him up in front of the child, another adult may say that he heard on the news that radar was already tracking him over Greenland.
Yet another adult will chime in with something else, but NO ADULT around that child will burst out and say, "why is everyone saying this stuff, Santa Clause doesn't exist!". That would be rather poor form.
When I was growing up, our next door neighbors, not ten feet away from our house, were a man and a woman without kids. The man worked a fairly grueling job and would then come home and do yard work in the summer. He pretty much worked all the time on something, for instance building a deck on weekends. I would see the woman outside sunning herself during the day, reading a novel or magazine. Sometimes she would zoom off in her car to do lunch somewhere. She never seemed to work.
As a kid, I directly saw that the man worked his butt off and the woman took and took. My parents, both of whom worked, told me not to say anything around them - I would understand when I grew up. My mother said that the woman WAS working, she just didn't explain how. My father just kind of looked at the ground and said I would understand when I grew up.
The husband always talked about how his wife had the hardest job in the world. The wife agreed. All of the neighbors seemed to think this way too, in fact every adult I mentioned it to. The woman worked far harder than the man. The woman was to be praised, the man was just doing what he was supposed to.
I could see with my own eyes, and I knew it was utter bullshit. So now I'm grown up, in fact I'm heading towards 50, and I still don't understand it.
In fact, I see these situations all around me, I see the fictions that people, men and women, are spouting, and I still don't understand it. And I guess Santa will be over Greenland again in December.
Sorry, it's "Santa Claus" not "Santa Clause" ... I'll try to improve my spelling in the future, but it's tough here with a "no edit" one-time shot at it.
Arthur and Zed,
So let me get this straight. What you are telling me is that this blog is a waste of time if it seeks to galvanize men to do something to change their situation.
Instead, the message should be to warn readers of the impending "cultural suicide" that will result from the devaluation of men and the resultant apathy and alienation of men from the culture. This cultural suicide does not necessarily hurt men, but rather, the society that men live in. Older men can sit back and laugh knowingly by staying away from women and enterprises that require them to participate in this sick pattern that might put themselves into a life of servitude to a woman or to the state. Younger men can be thugs or players who see women as a means of sexual gratification and nothing more or they can opt out of relationships with women altogether lest they be tagged and used as a chump. Women should take over the corporate world and become wage earners while men shrug and engage in other pursuits that enable them to make plenty of cash while enjoying their bachelorhood. Do I have this right?
Helen,
I wouldn't push your sarcasm, seeing as how you are on the gravy train yourself (you married up). It's funny how some people on the taking end also want to rub it in other's faces.
On a completely unrelated side note, your vacation photo looks great. It looks very expensive. Nice that you can afford it.
And in response to your indignation coming, about how you clean up with your "forensic psychologist" job, making far more than your husband, don't embarrass yourself. Please.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@jg: "As a kid, I directly saw that the man worked his butt off and the woman took and took. My parents, both of whom worked, told me not to say anything around them - I would understand when I grew up. My mother said that the woman WAS working, she just didn't explain how. My father just kind of looked at the ground and said I would understand when I grew up."
I understand. Many, not all, married men must do this to spare their wives from driving them crazy. One thing I've noticed about lazy naggy wives, is they constantly ride their husbands case, like he's a child. The constant, albeit unnecessary, monitoring and scrutinizing of one's husband, drains ones energy and fools themsleves into thinking they do more than they really do.
@Helen and others:
"Do I have this right?"
I have carefully read the posts on this thread and have the following observations to make:
1. I've never been married, and, by and large, have to agree that the playing field (corporate, legal and social) are stacked against men in numerous and significant ways. Having said that, I am not ready to throw in the towel and hide in a cave until society pulls its head out of its ass.
2. I don't live on the Internet, but I can't think of any other web site that shows half as much thoughtful consideration to the status of men in American society as here. When I read the excoriating comments directed at Dr H re her marriage and how she doesn't seem to "get it," (i.e., that men are playing a doomed game), it makes me want to wear a loin cloth, beat a drum and then shoot myself. I've got bigger things to worry about than how the radfems have f*cked up the legal system, divorce courts and everything else. Their day is waning. Show me a woman who is successful in her career and I'll show you 300 who hate the rat race as much as any man does and who yearns for the traditional lifestyle...and all that goes with it. The Katie Courics and her ilk in this world are the paltry minority of women.
3. The legal system will not be changed until men change it. The legal system was changed by women who demanded the vote, the right to enter the workplace, etc. If they went overboard, then it is up to men to wrest back what is their due. Women are never going to give up what they have. So grow a pair and start lobbying. If the feminists could change the complexion of society, then men can do the same.
I find Dr H's site a refreshing change from the kowtowing blather of the MSM. If you guys have problems with society, laying your opprobrium on Dr H's shoulders is a bunch of whiny crap.
The sock puppet Kevin M rides in - just in time - on his white pony.
Tether,
I often wonder if you are the sock puppet. You often sound like our resident troll "Mary" who swoops by periodically to make her displeasure known. Her remarks, like yours, often contain personal insults towards me meant to inflame, not to incite discussion. I have to wonder why you do this, but more importantly, you should wonder about it yourself.
Sock puppet? I've always considered myself more of a Crow T Robot kind of puppet, if anything. And I resent ponies, white or otherwise.
Helen said...
Arthur and Zed,
So let me get this straight. What you are telling me is that this blog is a waste of time if it seeks to galvanize men to do something to change their situation.
No, Helen, not at all - at least that is certainly not what I'm trying to convey to you. I can't speak for Arthur.
At worst, I'm suggesting some perspectives based on trying "to galvanize men to do something to change their situation" for most of the past 40 years and from that experience learning what approaches aren't particularly effective and then studying them to determine why they aren't.
I like to use the example of medical practice before and after Pasteur. For about 2000 years, physicians followed Aristotle's crackpot theories of "humours." Illness was often considered to be due to too much blood, so medical treatment consisted of bleeding patients in a variety of creative ways. There is some speculation that George Washington died because his physicians literally bled him to death.
When Pasteur came up with his theory that there were invisible things called "germs" that were causing illnesses, he was soundly denounced and generally hated by the medical profession. If he was right, that meant that they had been wrong and that they had violated their Hippocratic oath to "first, do no harm." They had to defend their own egos against being destructively wrong. But, as his theory was proven correct and gained general acceptance, it revolutionized modern medicine and resulted in the first real reduction in death rates from disease in history.
You deal with very controversial issues here. It is going to draw people with strong opinions who are going to express those opinions in a manner which is often abrasive. Unfortunately, the harshness of the delivery often overshadows the message.
That has been the biggest stumbling block hindering progress for men's rights. Men in general do not even realize that their is a problem until it starts to affect them, and when it does they are upset, angry, and far from their calm rational best.
In order for "men" to "rise up and do something" they are going to have to go head to head AGAINST women's interests. The vast majority of men are unwilling to do this, and due to the fact that the men most motivated to try are the ones who are most angry about the situation they are easily painted as crackpot extremists and their points dismissed. It has the net effect of actually driving most men to the defense of women.
With the majority of voters already women, and with the vast majority of men sympathetic to women in general and very invested in placating the particular women in their lives, this always leaves the men seeking to change things in a very small and ineffective minority.
Where I disagree with Arthur is that I don't think it is the "laws." I believe it is the "attitudes." There are already laws against shooting someone in the back with a shotgun, but those laws are useless unless they are enforced. There are laws against false accusations, but as long as perpetrators are let off with a slap on the wrist no one is going to take them very seriously and they are never going to be a real deterrent.
Trying to bleed away the "humours" of the laws isn't going to accomplish anything until we address the "germs" of the attitudes which are what is causing the real damage. As long as people continue to consider the "real victims" of a false accusation to be women who might be afraid to make a false accusation themselves, the laws are almost an irrelevant detail.
In that previous great experiment in creating a Marxist utopia, the "men" never "rose up", for a variety of reasons. The police state was far too efficient in crushing dissent before it took hold, and few men had the strength of character and resolve to endure what Solzhenitsyn did.
Someone once commented that what brought down the Berlin wall was not Ronald Reagan, but blue jeans. It was the deprivation caused by the communist system compared to the wealth and luxury of the west which undermined support for the collectivist ideology.
Activism on the part of men is trying to get started about 80 years after the forces which are making it now necessary got started. The Frankfurt School has owned most of the academy since the 40s-50s and has completely dominated the helping professions - particularly psychology. Gramsci's "Long March through the culture" has effectively accomplished its goal of destroying all the cultural institutions which resisted global communism.
Now, I know that most of the readers of this blog will have no idea what I was talking about in the paragraph above. But, I'd be willing to bet that most of them could tell you who won the superbowl last year and American Idol last week.
Bread and circuses, Helen, give the people bread and circuses and they will generally be content enough to not make waves. Caesar was right on the money with that observation.
After decades of the general population being fed the "Big Lie" through a variety of the most sophisticated propaganda techniques ever devised, using the massive (but thankfully moribund) Main Stream Media, the first step we have to take in order to do something about the situation is to start screaming "The Big Truth" as loud as we can, and keep screaming it until those ideas begin to take root in the popular culture.
Nothing will ever happen for men's rights as long as they are positioned as being in opposition to "women's rights". That is why a gender "bi-partisan" effort is the only thing which has any chance of success. If a few men try to "rise up" and take rights away from women - like Mary Winkler's "right" to murder her husband and still be seen as a "good mom" - they are going to find themselves opposed by virtually all women and most men.
Using classic shaming techniques like exhorting men to "man up" is a waste of time because real nobility and willingness to sacrifice everything for idealism has always been far more rare than the the mythology of masculinity suggests. For every "John Wayne" (whose real name was Marion Robert Morrison), there are several Walter Mittys.
Keep plugging away with your blog trying to convey "The Big Truth." I do suggest, however, that you plan on keeping at it for a long time and not expecting much result in the very near future.
Zed,
I have learned a lot from this discussion and I appreciate the time you have taken to help me grasp the dynamics of the men's movement. In my opinion, it is a combination of laws and culture that will lead to change. Which comes first? That is difficult to discern and for that reason, a combination of changing attitudes and laws might be the most effective. In psychology, there is the question of whether thinking differently produces a different behavior or whether a different behavior produces a change in thought. I think they play off each other.
For example, if more men get custody of their children, it will become more acceptable for men to be primary or joint parents. What used to be rare now becomes the norm. A pebble can turn into a wave.
Helen said...
Zed,
I have learned a lot from this discussion and I appreciate the time you have taken to help me grasp the dynamics of the men's movement.
You are welcome, Helen, but the interaction has been more to my benefit than to yours. Since you seem to have read the book and have some grasp of Objectivism, you would understand that altruism is most often a cover for some sort of scam. As I have been educating you in the dynamics which have held back any sort of "Men's rights movement", I have also had the audience of all the people who visit your blog, which outnumber the sound-bite snipers with their drive-by shootings-off-of-their-mouths by probably 100:1 if your blog is typical. I appreciate having this platform, and a person generally sympathetic to men's rights issues, to make my case.
Here are a few more dynamics which I have observed which have bearing on why some approaches have always failed.
The biggest issue is that one of the primary theoretical foundations of feminism is simply as wrong as the idea that you can cure disease by bleeding patients. Men, in general, do not do things which collectively benefit men, but rather do things which individually benefit themselves. A great many men are more than happy to knife another man in the back if it gives him an advantage in wealth, power, social status, or approval of women.
Exhibit A - Mike Nifong
We are a competitive breed and most men are constantly looking for some edge over other men. If they can use an anti-male law to do another man dirty, they will. A couple more examples - the Democrats' use of Sexual Harassment law to try to sabotage Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court, and the Republicans' attempt to use the same set of laws to sink Bill Clinton.
This leads to the 2nd aspect, which is egotism on the part of men. A lot of men have the mindset "I am special, I am different. If that woman had been married to the great and wonderful MEEEEEE, this would not have happened." Thus, they truly believe that the man in a conflict with a woman really is to blame for the problems - until they find themselves in the same sort of conflict and go into victim mode wondering why no one else seems to care about them, conveniently forgetting that just last week they didn't care about any other man in the situation they are in now.
A lot of men have the attitude - "Your life will become better in direct proportion to how much more like me you become." Thus we have the "Well, the solution is just to be A MAN, and be smart enough to find the right woman - LIKE I DID." I've lost count of the number of men with this attitude that I have seen later go through SUDS (Sudden Unexpected Divorce Syndrome), and be singing the blues without ever connecting their arrogant cluelessness regarding the situations of others to their current loss.
Being fundamentally a Darwinist, I always believed that men and women were truly equal and could not be otherwise - in the same way that a pound of feathers and a pound of lead can be equal in WEIGHT while profoundly different in every other respect. Any sufficiently large and complex system cannot remain significantly out of balance for very long, because there are too many dynamic feedback systems which interact to make the system as whole continue to function.
The system was in a rough sort of balance back when the 2nd wave of feminism started, and it remains in an equally rough sort of balance today. For everything that either men or women have lost, they have gained something, and for everything they have gained they have lost something.
WRT to the specific topic of this post, women are losing the chance to have relationships with "nice guys" and are indulging their sexual freedom to sleep with mysterious thugs. The prices they are paying include single motherhood, the social alientation of men like Rob Fedders and Arthur from themselves (and from other women, thus the actions of one woman harming another), and the soaring STD rates. Slightly more than 1 in 4 teenage girls have one or more of the 4 most common STDs, and among black teenage girls the rate is 48%. They are going to pay a long term price in terms of their sexual, reproductive, and general health.
While today we still have the cultural equivalent of the Titanic ("Women and children first, after that it is EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF") with the officers firing pistols to keep the men out of the lifeboats, there has been a real change on the part of a lot of average men. While women are getting the lifeboats, some of the more resourceful men are (instead of preparing themselves to drown) tearing up the decking planks and smashing the furniture and building themselves life rafts on which women have no place.
Arthur and Rob Fedders have done a good job of articulating the positions of those men.
The women who rely completely on the passive-attractive strategy for attracting a mate are finding their pickings quite slim, and the quality of candidates for the job to be somewhat lacking. The more Arthurs and Rob Fedders that get created, the slimer those pickings will get. In 2006 we crossed the demographic crossover point when only about 49.5% of women were living with a husband. If the trend of the culture in general follows that of African American women (which it has been doing for years) in a few years it will likely be down in the low 30s - currently only about 31% of AA women are married, and if current trends continue, within just a few years the majority will end up never being married.
One of my core beliefs is that cultural values are always an implicitly negotiated compromise between the agendas of men and the agendas of women. If things go too far out of balance to one side or the other, the disadvantaged side simply begins to withdraw.
An interesting footnote to the Titanic story is the fact that when the lifeboats got back to shore, the upper class women had family and other support systems which took care of them, while the poorer women were simply turned out on the streets because they had lost their providers. As men like Rob Fedders, Arthur, and the Happy Bachelors withdraw from the game, a growing number of women are going to find themselves in the same (non)boat and competition for men with economic resources will actually increase. More and more women will be forced to work their entire lives because when the music stops they will be without a seat.
The simple fact that women have the majority of social power in interpersonal relationships and are able to nag men into changing things, puts them in the position of greatest power to effect change to the current situation once they have lost enough and current conditions become too uncomfortable for them.
For example, if more men get custody of their children, it will become more acceptable for men to be primary or joint parents. What used to be rare now becomes the norm. A pebble can turn into a wave.
This is already happening - the most recent famous example being the Federline-Spears divorce. As women begin to earn more, and increasing number of men will start getting spousal support and child custody and an increasing number of women will be trapped in the old male roles. This is what I am talking about when I say that for everything women have gained, they have also lost something.
I regard cultural values as a constantly changing very complex and dynamic system. It is not homogeneous and there will always be localized imbalances which average out across the system. A lot of men are every bit as happy to abandon the old male roles as women have been to abandon the female ones, which makes finding a mate somewhat more difficult for everyone.
A very interesting current note on this topic - the former governor James McGreevey has just had a judge rule that he does owe child support, but no alimony, and that his ex-wife has absolutely no rights to any of the proceeds from his new book. Women's claim on men's assets via marriage is beginning to slip, and I expect it to continue to do so. Pre-nuptual agreements are beginning to hold up better in court - with Trish Wilson-Smith and A-Rod's STBXW being examples.
Zed,
I also think we are seeing a new generation of guys who really don't care that much about women and what they want--but they are not really players or thugs. They have girlfriends but just don't get married or if they do, their wife earns a good income.
I was in NYC about six months ago and noticed in the restaurants I went to that over 50% of the women were picking up the checks and the guys seemed to have no problem with being treated. Since younger women are making more money than men there, I guess they figure it's only fair. I wonder how this will play out in the future? Will men get more rights and rewards for not working and letting women pick up the bills? Kind of ironic.
Will men get more rights and rewards for not working and letting women pick up the bills? Kind of ironic.
Wasn't that the grand plan all along? Men are either protectors and providers, or they aren't. Either women will adjust to supporting men who make less than they do, or they won't.
What is going to be really interesting is when women have to be the ones to investigate when something goes "bump" in the night.
"BTW, did I mention that I'm 9 feet tall and an absolutely stunning shade of chartreuse?"
Liar. Everyone knows Chartreuse is an ugly colour. :)
I also think we are seeing a new generation of guys who really don't care that much about women and what they want--but they are not really players or thugs.
I agree completely - it goes back to what I said above that I don't think boys themselves perceive that they are missing out on anything by not being social fathers.
On the other hand, the thug appeal is real. Here is an interesting article from Oz - http://www.stuff.co.nz/4650565a11.html
Sacked psychologist: Why I fell for violent criminal
By DONNA CHISHOLM - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 10 August 2008
The former high-flying psychologist struck off for her love affair with a violent prisoner says bullying by mental health worker colleagues left her vulnerable to the man's advances.
Keriata Paterson, the former president of the Psychological Society, was found guilty of professional misconduct for her affair with the man she had counselled in jail.
Now she says she may never recover from the abusive relationship which cost her her career.
The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal heard last week the pair had had an intermittent 14-month relationship after the man described as a "high risk, serious violent offender" was released from jail early last year. His name is suppressed.
Paterson acknowledged the irony of a person who had been trained to recognise the psychology and politics of domestic violence submitting to an abusive relationship and being unable to get out of it on her own.
Frankly I think the greatest contribution anyone can make to the MRM is to spread the word...unapologetically. I would simply say "Here's a couple website addresses..... give them a read and get back to me."
Discussions happen, but it takes time for men to relax enough to speak their mind.
Incidentally, I disagree that younger men don't care or notice. I haven't met one yet that hasn't noticed the "imbalances".
They just seem to let the resentment simmer quietly, mostly because they don't know about MRAs or the Men's Movement. Like, at all.
Well Zed, it's fairly obvious that past social restrictions on men's and women's behaviour was rooted in good sense.
Too bad we turned into a Collective of idiots.
"I was in NYC about six months ago and noticed in the restaurants I went to that over 50% of the women were picking up the checks and the guys seemed to have no problem with being treated."
-----
It's called "not dating entitled princesses or hookers".
I'm frankly glad to see that some men finally have a little bit of self-esteem instead of thinking that all they are worth to a woman is the money they can give her (or the things they can buy her).
I personally wouldn't respect an entitled princess or hooker with a very thin veneer of being a "date". Entitled princesses and hookers turn into entitled housewives.
Incidentally, I disagree that younger men don't care or notice. I haven't met one yet that hasn't noticed the "imbalances".
I didn't mean to say they didn't notice "imbalances", just that I don't see a lot of concern about not being social fathers. A couple of days ago I saw a young man in his early 20s in my neighborhood wearing a T-shirt with a big red heart on it full of bullet holes and the saying "Love is for SUCKERS!" I was talking with several friends of my great-nephew a few weeks back and 4 out of 5 of them expressed a clear and firm decision that they never wanted to have kids.
I think boys still fall in love as hard as they ever did, but that the social climate they are in today prevents women from capitalizing on that to lock them into a lifetime of servitude to them and wage slavery. I don't see the lives of these boys being as bad as coal mining for subsistence wages because a man was locked into the provider role.
Well Zed, it's fairly obvious that past social restrictions on men's and women's behaviour was rooted in good sense.
I think that is totally true, and I think some of that sense will return when the negative consequences of losing it become bad enough. Female violence is rising at an incredible rate (particularly in the UK) and when women finally wake up to the fact that they may have more reason to fear other women and girls than they do men, then they will start screaming for the restrictions. If men just stay out of harm's way, things have to level themselves out.
BTW, if one has to live among a group of people with really insane ideas, I'll still take feminists over the Skoptzy, for example.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/84/12/4324
The simple fact that women have the majority of social power in interpersonal relationships and are able to nag men into changing things, puts them in the position of greatest power to effect change to the current situation once they have lost enough and current conditions become too uncomfortable for them.
It's a long time coming for women to accept that challenge. Not that I'm a total doomsayer about the state of men and women, but I'm still wary about it. It seems that with all the lipservice I hear from women, they still want men to do the work on almost every level.
Not to mention that my own distrust for most US women. They have, by in large, earned that distrust, and not just with myself. Far from it. I'm not saying an entire gender has collectively smashed the social compact between women and men, but when so many of them have, and still expect men to "man up" and risk their souls plunging into self-sacrifice without reward or return, it's becoming more foreign and repulsive as I grow older.
Unfortunately, much of what I've been seeing from many women on so-called "romantic" forums is the lament that comes all too late. So many wanted their cake and eat it, too, and now that they are becoming more at a loss for finding men that desire a lasting relationship with them, they have already paid the cost of hurting men in the past to the pivotal point in their lives where they need men the most, men are hesitant to take the bait.
I can't say I blame them.
I've even known women that haven't sent men through the ringer, but proudly stated, "Well, I still COULD have but I choose not to." Would I want to have dealings with a woman that had that impulse on the back burner of her psyche?
I'm actually of the mind that while "women are women" that women are capable of changing their approach to men on several levels. The question is thus: "Will they?" This is where I agree with Zed about the attitudes behind the laws and policies. I've read about women saying, "Well, you shouldn't blame women for making this anti-male conditions we're seeing" while promoting them all the same. Legislature doesn't just come out of a vacuum; it is out of the minds and the motivations of the people who create and press for them before they are codified and implemented.
When an entire society is so bent to be gynocentric at the expense of men, it's difficult to give up a status that is privilege oriented while playing the victim card when it suits them. This also is concurrent with women who oscillate between "equality" and traditionalism when one doesn't work so well, and expect men to fall in line when women change their minds in order to still be in the occupant seat, but bark orders to navigate a life course.
Women in America are making choices, and it's a mistake to think they have no power. Do they have power, but it's the age old question whether or not they will accept the consequences of wielding that power. Men have been trying to balance that power with accountability in most periods of Western history. If it's too much to ask women to do the same, they will still be punished for not doing so even if they refuse to see the errors of their ways.
I think a large percentage of them are in for a rude awakening when men akin to myself---I'm in my 30s, never married, childless, and intent to stay that way---are using our feet to walk away from a gender war that feminists clearly started and continue to wage, whether through politicians or men via proxy. They are in danger of our callous indifference.
So many women I have encountered hate that with a fury; a "cold hearted" man that can walk away at any time is more frightening to them than a wife-beater or player boyfriend. A man they can't control or shame is no longer a beast of burden, even a "nice guy" they can manipulate into raising a thug's offspring while still claiming to be strong and independent in single motherdom.
I wonder when women that have hurt and used men will think when they are finally ready to make amends at the gender table, and those of us that are too burnt out to even show up will do. You cannot guilt and shame someone that has stopped listening because the sex dialogue was largely about women's desires and whims, especially when men's needs being voiced were damned as "whining."
Hey, Arthur, if you are reading this, what's up?
socio rev
Indifference for almost all women is where I have ended up. The physical contact, or total lack thereof, has become like quitting smoking. As time went on, the need diminished to almost nothing. Sure, every once in a while, I want a cigarette. But it passes.
Helen writes:
"Her remarks, like yours, often contain personal insults towards me meant to inflame, not to incite discussion. I have to wonder why you do this, but more importantly, you should wonder about it yourself."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I think your personal dealings are relevant, even aside from the hyocrisy angle. I realize, though, that opinions could differ on that, and I also realize that you don't want your personal issues brought out.
If someone is touting a stock, they usually have a disclaimer at the bottom as to whether they have personally invested in that stock or not. It sheds new light on what they are writing.
Similarly, I think a lot of men would have a different opinion of your advice if you included the disclaimer: "Attention, there is a net transfer of money from a man to the authoress, and it ain't because of her beautiful singing voice if you know what I mean".
If there is a net transfer, your advice to a man who has just been swindled out of money yet again by a manipulative woman that he "shouldn't worry, the right one will come along" (with the tacit assumption, I guess, that you are one of the "right ones") is the figurative equivalent of throwing a glass of water in his face and then laughing at him.
Girls get money out of men, and that's normal, right?
I think the field of psychology is littered with screwballs, and I think personal disclosure IS in order in many cases.
If a guy has five divorces behind him, I would have a different opinion of his self-help book "How to Have a Happy Marriage".
This comment has been removed by the author.
@tether "Tether said...
I think the field of psychology is littered with screwballs."
Fortunately, there aren't many screwballs here. There will be one less if you leave.
In my Opinion, guy has such a busy schedule - meaning he obviously knows how to manage time...yet he can't manage some time for you? To me the busy schedule is sadly a poor excuse.By his own admittance he shows that he is not a person to rate relationships highly - after not learning from his previous mistakes he still runs the "rat race". That is a great concern for you as it shows several things - lack of respect for himself and those around him, lack of maturity to take others into account.
http://go-get-girls.com/
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
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..........................
聊天室尋夢園聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友aio 網路交友愛情館aio 網路交友愛情館視訊交友愛戀之999成人站999成人站999成人性站999成人性站919sex色片直播網919sex色片直播網940aa成人影院940aa成人影院919sex色片直播網919sex色片直播網視訊交友9073985cc免費影片85cc免費影片
I have a hard time with this, because I am a shy and quiet guy and have a hard time finding someone to date. I don't want to play games with a woman, I want her to take my comments and questions at face value and be honest.
Cham: both addressed women as "girls"
I am still in my 20s, so sometimes it's appropriate to say girls. However, I try to use woman as much as possible. I've noticed that around my peers, it is more common to say girl as there appears to be a power in the use of word woman.
Elizabeth - I really enjoyed your long posts, and I'm about 2 years younger than you. Some of the characteristics of being love-shy apply to me.
The two things that annoy me the most about online dating are when women take a long time to respond or when they stop being interested, but never let you know.
Post a Comment
<< Home