PJTV: The growing rift between men and women
My guest on PJTV today is Dr. Richard Driscoll, a clinical psychologist who just wrote a new book, You Still Don't Understand.
The book and our discussion look at why relationships between men and women are becoming briefer, less satisfying and increasingly bitter. This is not the typical PC fare, but a deeper analysis of the importance of fathers, why men are intimidated by angry women, why that needs to change and much more. Don't miss it. You can watch here.
Update: Some of you have complained in the comments that there is registration and subscription required. I should have mentioned that the first 1500 views were free and it changed to subcription after that. Sorry, if it changes, I will post an update.
Labels: men's issues, men's rights, PJTV
posted by Helen at 5:09 AM
113 Comments:
Not trying to be a poo head, but I don't currently see what's to understand. Adam let Eve run the show one time and it's been illegal to run around naked ever since.
That was probably the single best interview I have ever seen. I guess because I have been struggling with these issues for so many years. I could not understand why, when she laid into me, I felt like I had been stabbed with a knife. Why I surrendered my dreams to support her, why she doesn't really care. I couldn't understand why, even when I am considering divorcing her, I took money out of my 401K and bought her a Mercedes. I get it now. She has the precious eggs, I have the cheap sperm. We are like the praying mantis, we offer up our lives for a chance to reproduce because if we didn't, we are out of the gene pool.
I could just picture my Labrador Retriever going to therapy over and over saying "Doc, I hate chasing sticks. It makes me angry when I have to swim after them through icy water, or run over frozen ground in bare paws, but every time he lifts his arms with a stick in his hand, I am overcome with the compulsion to chase it... I want him to throw it. What should I do?"
Chasing sticks has been bred into him. He can't not do it and free will has nothing to do with it.
This knowledge is liberating. All of this time I thought I suffered from some character defect because I had figured out that I was at the effect of all of these issues, I just didn't know what to do. I know what to do now. Leave her with everything and live the simple life I would have preferred anyway.
I used to scoff at men who wrote in and said that they would never marry as bitter losers, and I am glad that I had children, and I love women, but I don't blame the guy who doesn't want to do it one bit. Why hook yourself to the harness?
Barleycorn, John,
So glad you found our interview of value. I think if men could truly understand the psychology of the dynamics between men and women, they would not feel that somehow they had a "character defect." Thanks so very much for watching.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm only at the 10:41 mark, but I'm going to make some comments now.
1. Helen, I think you're wrong about the Tannen book and her attributions. Tannen seems to believe that different groupings occur because men and women talk differently, not the other way around.
2. Communications is a technique for manipulating the social and physical environment. From an evolutionary perspective, that is why it exists, because such manipulation was/is useful to the self. Men don't like male-female arguments because they are trying to avoid being manipulated by women. Women try to manipulate men to gain resources while men try to manipulate women to gain sexual access. (And, of course, there's always forcible rape.) However, women have to gain resources over an extended period, while the child is being raised, while men need sexual access for only a brief interval. So of course, women are better at verbal manipulation and more willing to engage in "discussions". Why wouldn't they be?
3. Where did Driscoll get that figure that pairbonding began occurring 1.7 million years ago? I've never seen that number before.
4. Long term pairbonding is much more common among birds than mammals. Pairbonding seems much more common in species where the offspring are born in a very undeveloped state. Human infants are this way because the brain has to be small enough to pass through the birth canal. Among birds, the reason may be that Mama has to still be able to fly while the child(ren) were developing in her.
5. Regarding "virtual fathers", i.e., the welfare system, look at the flow of money. It tends to go: men > government > women. Women tend to vote for politicians willing to hold guns to men's (i.e., father's) heads, extort money from them and give that money to women (i.e., mothers) That's probably why single women disproportionately vote Democratic, single men tend to vote Republican and married couples are more evenly split. A married woman is getting her resources directly from her husband. If the resources are "insufficient", she can always divorce him and employ governmental coercion.
Agree with some of BobH, but mostly 2. I think men don't so much avoid arguments with women as reject them. At least me and those I've talked with. 'Avoid' kinda makes it seem like the woman won, don't it?
Women rabbit trail incessantly to confuse the issue and men want to discuss the topic at hand. I've been in discussion/arguments where the woman will bring up something from ten years ago and then fifteen minutes later carp that I bring up something from last week. Who wants to talk with someone so blatantly loading the game set? Some men do it too, but it's mostly women that I've experienced that from.
Oh. Dricoll's 1.7 is just when the genus Homo became prevalent. There's no paleontological evidence. Australo could have pair bonded and we even have their footprints walking m/f close enough that they probably had their arms around each other's waists, but we just don't know.
Besides, what relevance is it? Humans don't pair bond.
To clarify - Homo sapiens doesn't pair bond.
Thank you Helen, I feel so liberated you can't believe it. I might even ask my wife to watch it, but I don't think it will do any good. The relationship up to this point is working for her in a primal sense, as I can see from this interview. She has no interest in fixing it. I could never understand her rock bottom belief that she held the whip hand, and could never understand why I accepted that belief. Now I do. She has control of a small number of procreation opportunities, not just the eggs, but the time and ability to produce a child, which is an extremely limited commodity.
"The video you have selected requires you to be a subscriber to Pajamas TV. To view this particular video, you would need at least the Entry Level Package (Student)"
No thanks.
Facile and pedantic observation of the day: I have one tiny complaint re this book's subtitle. Why should a book outlining the differences between men and women seek to resolve them?
Why do differences need resolution? Problems need resolution. Differences are differences, end of story. If my girlfriend can't stand football, what of it? Does that make her inferior, or a problem? If I would rather gouge out my eyes with a salad fork than watch Oprah or The View, do I deserve to be subjected to a harangue?
Numerous and better subtitles spring to mind. Just sayin'.
Some of the conclusions about men, women and our culture psychologists reach I don't buy. Am I the only one?
"Am I the only one?"
Nope. I keep my money in my wallet about some of them myself Cham.
My world view balks at evolutionary explainations, and I see the sexual "revolution" as a factor in much of the problems between men and women. That is not a very popular conceptualization! 8)
Trey
No wonder PJ Media is such a failure; they require registration and their web site sucks anyway. (Seriously, this is one of the worse designed web sites I've ever seen--it makes YouTube look like a work of genius.)
I'll also say that the requirement to register/pay prevents me from watching this. The price certainly isn't onerous, and I'm sure PJTV has expenses it needs to cover but I'm not willing to spend $$ online on web subscriptions.
Gee ... all of a sudden, they want money for this nonsense.
I thought Helen was just a bored, parasitical housewive (although she is an important forensic psychologist), and now I see that she wants to earn some money too for her important "advice" on this site.
Ummm ... don't give up your main job of being supported by your husband, Important Doctor Helen. You aren't going to get any shopping money from me.
Obama is our President now. I want me some free.
Trey
I'll have to pass on the subscription that was sprung on people.
Barlycorn, John:
There are no amount of justifications for your shoddy treatment. Not all women are conniving gold diggers.
"Not all women are conniving gold diggers."
---
You certainly better emphasize that. Don't want to offend any women. Might have to sleep on the couch.
Men have truly become spineless wimps. I almost think they deserve all the crap they get from women.
JG - my point is that you can't stereotype an entire gender. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal sutdy on this?
A near nova-burst of white enlightenment in the form of sage advice, a truly "right-on" take on modern-day life with practical applications to one's own life, a woman who has truly experienced and "seen it all", a woman who is going her own sassy way and is damn proud of it ...
... OK, damn it, sign me up for a subscription.
PJTV is worth the monthly payment. If you want to make a net savings, just cancel your cable subscription and stop subsidizing the MSM. That's what I did.
"... but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal sutdy on this?"
----
Maybe you should do a longitudinal study on the overall effectiveness of always depending on longitudinal studies (or, more likely, saying crap like that, trying to sound smart and being quite the opposite).
I'm serious here: I've started thinking more and more about people who live in a PLATONIC world (with the general meaning of Platonic, not the no-sex meaning).
They think in terms of the theories they learned in school, sometimes to the detriment of what is right before their very nose. Feminists are obviously the worst, because their studies are based on a hatred of men, not a real and true observation of the world.
But there are many others. Some people are simply incapable of seeing the real world because the theories they believe in are so strong.
It's worth thinking about.
"PJTV is worth the monthly payment. If you want to make a net savings, just cancel your cable subscription and stop subsidizing the MSM. That's what I did."
---
OK, Alex, I'm really sold on PJTV.
I've already canceled my cable subscription, and I've been picking up refundable cans left in the park until my arms are sore, but I still don't have enough. Will Doctor Helen let me make small weekly payments?
Should I get an extra job?
Weininger, Schopenhauer, Tolstoy, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Wilde, Aristotle, the Bible, the Koran, Buddha, Neitzsche, Freud, Unwin... and so on, and so on...
But modern academics, ah yes! THEY hold the keys to the mysteries of the universe.
Lol!
We study everything else from the old guys... ooh! aah! They were so brilliant for their time... they understand things... ooh! We admire them today... we study them in slackademia and think we are smart when we can quote them, as if it were a point of authority that is irrefutable....
BUT!
Everything they said between men and women, sex and so on?
Well, that stuff is so ridiculously misogynistic that it is just stupid.
On THAT subject, these men were plain stunned... and our modern "academics" run circles around these old cretins... FOOLS! The lot of them!
Even this fella:
Marriage is like putting your hand into a bag of snakes in the hope of pulling out an eel. -- Leonardo da Vinci
Bad Leo! Bad!
But no, there have not been any longitudal studies done on the manginaness of males to rush up and defend the ladies by screeching "NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT! WATCH YOUR MISOGYNY, MISTER!" - (except, there were studies - I suggest you start looking pre WWII, or even better, pre 20th Century. Don't worry, you can waaaayyyyyy back! You can find tales of manginas going waaaaayyyyy back too!)
Lol! I was gonna say something myself, but I thought the guy was joking.
Nope!
You're right.
Some are even worse!
JG - buck up dude.
Rob Fedders - what do those old dead white guys know anyway? It's all about what Harvard Law professors with darker shades of skin tone have to say...
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Women rabbit trail incessantly to confuse the issue and men want to discuss the topic at hand. I've been in discussion/arguments where the woman will bring up something from ten years ago and then fifteen minutes later carp that I bring up something from last week. Who wants to talk with someone so blatantly loading the game set? Some men do it too, but it's mostly women that I've experienced that from."
-----
It's fairly simple: when men and women are young, the woman indisputably has the upper hand because the man wants sex and she is the person doling it out. That changes as people get older, but apparently not the mechanics of interaction. (Most) men get used to being subservient to women and putting up with their on-the-spot rule-making and shifting standards depending on whose ox is being gored.
There's a fairly simple solution: Don't take it.
If you are married and have kids with her, you better get used to saying "Yes ma'am, No ma'am". And you better act like you mean it. Otherwise, tell her to knock it off and (when she invariably dismisses that suggestion) back it up by moving out or moving away or the like. Really do it, and suddenly. Most men don't have the balls, and women continue to intimidate and dominate them today.
Remember: Most women "marry up".
If sex didn't exist as a bargaining chip, most men wouldn't want a whole lot to do with the women they're with and the dribble that comes out of their mouth.
JG - stop sounding like a Men's News Daily refugee. It's tiring.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What I don't understand is why men are such mangina-chumps on the internet... on non-dating sites, where they have ZERO chance of getting laid... with anyone. Ever.
THIS is something Plato, Kant or Rousseau never had to contemplate.
Just exactly why is it that so many men feel the need to grovel spinelessly, under an anonymous name, to anonymous people, who really couldn't care if he got struck dead by lightening 5 minutes later?
I understand it from a "mate competition" point of view... whatever. Some guys choose to play the pathetic beta right off the bat... indicating to me that they probably get screwed by women an awful lot - but not in the sexual sense. It is just a measure of sexual immaturity, I suppose.
But, why for God's sake, on the Internet?
Conditioned and drooling like Pavlov's Dog?
So desperate for female approval that they sit like a hungry chick waiting for momma-robin to drop the worm of blessed approval down their throat?
Uber-betas that blindly defend women on the internet must get screwed by women in their real lives so badly... cripes! They ought to be able to see it after a while. But, I guess it's just like so many of those men who get massively screwed by divorce once, twice, three times, and are so hooked on feminine approval, that they are again, within a year, grovelling like a beta-chump on one knee to the fourth one.
Their arguments are as fruitless and circular as women's are, they run from the debate and change the subject, they hide behind the false intellectualist charge of "generalizing" (which is complete nonsense - all true academics must generalize to a large degree or they would get nowhere - the fact that penguins, emus, ostriches and kiwis can't fly should not stop one from generalizing that birds fly).
Basically they say absolutely nothing of real substance.
Except for, "Chirp, chirp! Hey you momma birds, please give me an approval worm. (Sob). I'm so beta and desperate... chirp, chirp. I need my anonymous character to be approved by anonymous women. Chirp!"
Makes no sense.
It is the challenge of our times, as no philosopher has been confronted with this before, and thus, there is not yet an answer.
JG & Rob = take your circle jerk elsewhere!
JG and Rob: If you were to make a list of the attributes an ideal woman would have, what percentage of that list would be taken up by physical attributes and what percentage by personality (mind and heart)?
Just asking.
Because y'all remind me of nature shows I've seen where duck eggs have gotten into the wrong nest and the resulting ducklings raised by a mama of a different species. They grow up to a lifetime of loneliness, attracted to ducks who are totally unsuitable to them and want nothing to do with them, while ignoring the ideal duck-mates that are right in front of them b/c they don't look right.
I think you are attracted to what you (think you) do not want, and oblivious to what you do.
To Laura(southernxyl):
"JG and Rob: If you were to make a list of the attributes an ideal woman would have, what percentage of that list would be taken up by physical attributes and what percentage by personality (mind and heart)?"
That is a false distinction. The real distinction is between stuff that is within her behavioral control (at a "reasonable" cost to her) and stuff that isn't.
1. Age isn't under behavioral control but using makeup to hide it somewhat is. Plastic surgery to look younger is also behavioral but the cost can be enormous and, for most people, unless the women is truly ugly (ie.e, 1 or 2 out of 10), the money is better spent elsewhere, like buying and actually reading a bunch of good non-fiction books, perhaps stuff by Thomas Sowell.
2. Ever hear of the phrase "big beautiful women". It's almost always used to describe a woman who eats too much, exercises too little and wants everybody else, especially men, to ignore her gluttony and laziness. Incidentally, fat women also tend to be poor women. I suspect that both of these attributes come from the same tendency to make a really bad decisions.
3. And then there is the 20 year old female college intern where I used to work. She had a great figure, obviously knew it, probably worked very hard to keep it and deliberately dressed to emphasize it in an environment where 97% of the guys were married and/or too old to be of interest. She probably just dressed so she could feel "good about herself". Her wardrobe would have been highly attractive in a bar but at work, it should have gotten her fired.
The point that I'm trying to make is that, very often, physical attributes reflect matters of personality.
Laura,
Normally, I wouldn’t bother to reply, but my oh my… you southern women know how to pull out your passive aggressive shamin’ finger and wag it with such charm and style that it seems like a breath of fresh air.
Seriously.
I get your argument though: Not all women are like that… you’ve been meeting the wrong kind of women… you should keep trying… (The ogre of the Patriarchy, one Mr. Fedders, barks in about a quarter down the page… with a few bark chasers further down).
By the way, it’s women that are afflicted with contradictory love, not men. There is a biological basis for this. However, I have not yet figured out the basis for women’s constant projection of their own behaviours onto men, and then blaming men for that behaviour. (i.e. The psychological/emotional abuse the multi-billion dollar DV Industry solely blames men for is stereotypically a female form of aggression known as Social Aggression or Relational Aggression. And women know this too! All you have to do is take “men” out of the equation and ask her how badly other women passive aggressively launch long term psychological/emotional hate campaigns against her and one can almost universally get a woman to admit that other women are far nastier to deal with than men… put a man in the equation, however, and the sisterhood circles the wagons to protect the herd. Lol! It would be funny if the consequences for men weren’t so dire.)
PS. In the above linked thread, the fellow named "Zed" seems to have his Leggo's properly lined up and colour matched.
It's almost as if he used to follow me around the web to see what I had to say about things...
...or something like that anyway.
I'm not arguing, Rob. I'm just asking, and BobH confirmed my suspicion.
There could be a woman of your acquaintance who has the heart of an angel, but she's fat or has harsh features, and you would die before you'd be seen with her in public. Instead you confine yourself to self-absorbed princesses, and then when the inevitable happens, you turn into the equivalent of male feminists and start woman-bashing. Seriously, I put you and the angry feminists in the same category: "Half the human race are evil, wretched people! Just by virtue of being men/women!" Not a dime's worth of difference between you.
But hey, if that makes you happy, who am I to argue.
I can't resist taking a quote from the review of the book mentioned:
"We will see why women are more easily offended and are more insistent in arguments, while insisting that it is not so. We will see why men are more highly stressed in angry confrontations and withdraw to avoid unpleasantries, which women interpret as indifference. "
So if this is true, Alex, Bob H, Rob Fedders and JG should be withdrawing and quietly leaving this discourse, because they are guys and guys are unable to argue.
Yet they aren't, and they haven't and many many many men hold their own quite well every day on the Internet, at their jobs and during conversations with their significant other. So this business that anyone with an x and a y chromosome combo is unable to prove their point in an argument is pure poppycock.
Cham
You have absolutely no idea how I react in person. First, it is incredibly easy to complain on the Internet where I can be anonymous and disappear forever whenever I want. Second, if I want to spend two hours carefully crafting a reply, I can. That isn't possible in a fast-paced verbal confrontation.
Lol!
Ah... I see a game of fembot bingo is sparking within you. The northerner comes out pretty quick, eh?
I've dated fat chicks and I've dated chicks with an ass so tight and firm, you could open a twist top bottle of Molson's between her cheeks.
Actually, fat chicks are worse to date because they are so full of self-loathing that they think you are an uber-beta loser for even talking to them. Also, most fat chicks are fat because they have emotional/psychological problems and project that into food. Most fat chicks are the ones with the blackest hearts of all. (On the other hand, most fat men are fat either because they failed to curb their eating habits as they grew older/their metabolism slowed... or, because their wives/girlfriends try to fatten them up (the chained betas) to make them less confident and less attractive to other women).
"Hot chicks," on the other hand, are much easier to deal with, and, in fact, are far easier to date and have sex with. They don't loathe themselves, and so, don't think you are also loathsome for approaching them.
It took me a while to figure that out... but, it's true. I can "score" with a hot chick in half the time, and with half the effort, it takes to score with a fat chick. Perhaps it also has something to do with generally only the top percentage of men hitting on "hot-chicks," and thus, they automatically assume that the men hitting on them already possess a certain degree of attractive Alpha-like confidence.
Btw. As far as women go, the 5's to 7's get hit on far more than the 8's to 10's.
My personal preference, however, is 125 to 135lbs, B to C cup breast, longer than a man's hair - of natural colour, a nice pair of jeans, a sweater/t-shirt (and one that doesn't say "zero to bitch in 2 seconds"), sneakers or flat bottom shoes, no tattoes or piercings other than ears, tastefully applied make-up or none at all (why should I be attracted to someone who is afraid of showing their real face?)... and so on. Basically, I am attracted to normal shaped, normal looking women... ie. healthy ones. As nature usually dictates.
Also, I have noticed over the years, that it is the "oddities" in the women I have come to adore, find sexy, and internalize. It is the freckles, or the slightly odd shaped nose, or the curious curve of her smile, or the sometimes smaller than "B" or "C" breasts... it is the oddities that I find I become most attracted to in the women I have loved.
Men are not so shallow as you have you projected yourself to be.
And being someone who has said over and over in this thread, that one can find out a plethora of information about "men and women" throughout the ages... from philosophers to writers, from religion to legends & myths... I don't see where I particularly come off as a mirror image of the rad-fem.
Ph D. totin' chumps like Warren Farrell and the "gender transition movement," however, get my hackles up. Why should we change? On whose authority? And where is the proof that everyone before us was 180 degrees wrong?
Surely those who believe in evolution, or even merely evolutionary psychology, must admit that we surely are not the first peoples to have existed who have tried to discard the traditional form of marriage... why haven't these other societies succeeded? Where are their offspring? A little Sodom & Gommorah anyone? Ever check out Western Civ's birth rates?
But, yes, I am a radical mirror image of feminists for reading the works of the great philosophers and writers like Cicero, Plutarch, Jefferson and Toqueville.
By not subscribing to the bullshit of "gender transitioning into androgyny", and pointing out that, hey, perhaps some of the long list of people I have mentioned in this thread ought to be regarded to have had some merrit, and perhaps we should ask ourselves "why" we simply assume we are "broken" and need to be "fixed" by feminists and gender-transitioning idiots... yes, THAT makes me a radical.
Btw. Are you a fat chick?
Cham:
This is also the Internet and not real life. Here's the exact point in my life when I learned that it does not pay to argue with a woman.
In my 20s, I lived with a woman. We got into an argument about going on vacation (she wanted to - and the understanding was that I paid for everything, as always - and I couldn't because of work and because I was sick of paying for her). It was only a verbal argument, nothing physical.
She got more and more heated and then called the police on 911. A bunch of them showed up, a policewoman took her aside to talk to her and other policemen surrounded me, ready to arrest.
I then heard the policewoman yelling at HER, telling her that you don't use 911 if you are just in a heated verbal argument. One of the policemen around me told me he didn't want to have to come back, so I had 5 minutes to pack something and I had to stay somewhere else for the night. I told him I didn't do anything, and he said either leave or go to jail, my choice.
In reality, I took my duffle bag to a bar, had a beer, and then came back home an hour or so later. That was the end of it. My girlfriend later said that she was so mad at the argument she considered (falsely) saying I had pushed her. On the one hand, she looks like a good person for not having done that, on the other hand, she's tacitly getting across that she has quite a bit of power.
I realized I could have easily gone to jail.
After that, I just withdraw and don't let things get heated. Some men also have violent wives, and if the argument gets heated, the wives physically attack them. Many men aren't going to call the police (and THEY may get hauled away if they do), so the only thing to do is to keep the woman from getting too agitated.
Cham...
You obviously are mistaking me for someone who just showed up to this game yesterday.
I hardly listen to Ph D's and their crapola anymore, because most of these guys are only able to study and publish their stuff because of the men who seen what was going on, and decided to go against their human nature...
...unplug from the fematrix, as it were.
...the men who have been screeched at, shamed, insulted, and banned over and over and over again, for simply saying the Empress Has No Clothes.
Now that enough of us have been speaking the truth long and loud enough, it is becoming easier for the chickens to come out of the hen-house and cluck more confidently around the yard.
Send us money, not thanks.
I started off all nice and chivalrist like Alex many years ago... but, I evolved out of it... on purpose.
Now nothing satisfies me more than to watch my Ph D totin', University teachin' sister get all twisted up into knots over the plain illogic of her arguments and philosophies.
Usually our conversations end something like this: "Well, well, I have a Ph. D."
If she can get a Ph D, then I ought not to respect the degree. In fact, when Western Civilization finishes its swan dive into the empty pool, I might make those who tell me they have a Ph D do poodle tricks for the scraps of food they are begging to receive from the mutton heads like me.
JG --
"It's fairly simple:"
No, it isn't. Anyone thinking it is is on the simple end of the equation themselves, male or female. No functional human is simple.
Okay.
"My personal preference, however, is 125 to 135lbs, B to C cup breast, longer than a man's hair - of natural colour, a nice pair of jeans, a sweater/t-shirt (and one that doesn't say "zero to bitch in 2 seconds"), sneakers or flat bottom shoes, no tattoes or piercings other than ears, tastefully applied make-up or none at all (why should I be attracted to someone who is afraid of showing their real face?)... and so on. Basically, I am attracted to normal shaped, normal looking women... ie. healthy ones. As nature usually dictates.
Also, I have noticed over the years, that it is the "oddities" in the women I have come to adore, find sexy, and internalize. It is the freckles, or the slightly odd shaped nose, or the curious curve of her smile, or the sometimes smaller than "B" or "C" breasts... it is the oddities that I find I become most attracted to in the women I have loved."
And then:
"Men are not so shallow as you have you projected yourself to be."
Not a WORD here about being attracted to a woman who is kind, generous, thoughtful, loving, happy, even-tempered, unselfish, etc. and you accuse ME of projecting shallowness?
***
Am I a fat chick? No.
And the point being made in this thread is that women tend to all follow the same trend... and the gender idiots are wrong.
Why don't you read that thread I linked to and get back to me.
That's why I linked it, so I wouldn't have to write a near book.
What part of psychotic fat chicks, therefore hot chicks behave more normal did you miss?
Do I have to spell out "normal" behaviour to you?
Or did you assume that because I am a man that I would be attracted to unkind, selfish, thoughtless, hateful, ill-tempered people?
I fail to see any real argument from you... which is why men choose not argue with people like you.
It is fruitless running around in circles, as you project your "special women's way of knowing" all over the place without backing it up with any thing other than shaming talk.
Isn't it odd that while men readily admit they haven't got a clue about women... women are damned confident they understand men inside and out?
Btw, the real reason men can't understand women is because they are afraid of the truth.
As Weininger says, the real blame lies with the men themselves, because their sexual egotism makes them see women as they wish them to be, rather than as they truly are.
"special women's way of knowing"
Huh?
You are the one who listed the things that attract you to women, all of which are visual attributes. I didn't do that - you did. You pick out a woman based on her looks, then you're shocked and dismayed by her actions. How stupid is that?
Uh huh.
Let's see. Two guys here took a mangina to task here for trying to chivalrously and needlessly defend women. (Helen certainly wasn't offended, why was he?)
All I did was merely point out that there is a plethora of information indicating that the gender idiots are wrong and that the "generalizing" argument is a pile of crapola.
You blew in here with your skirt over your head and started the same and completely unrelated argument that men like me have dealt with 10,000 times already: Not all women are like that, and you are to blame for not seeking out the right kind of women.
Like we haven't heard that one before.
Then you go on, with your "special way of knowing" that my problem is that I am attracted to some fat chick in my past who has a good heart, but who I am too ashamed of to be seen in public with.
Where that has anything to do with the mere fact that I pointed out that people have been "achieving consensus" on the behaviours of men and women for thousands of years already... well, I don't see it.
My response to your completely off topic shaming talk is far more in regard to all people are attracted to similar behavioural traits in others, and a person's looks has little to do with it - AT ALL - as I stated, with the women I love, it is often the oddities that I come to find the most sexy - precisely those things that you accuse me of being the things that repel me from the women I seek - with your special way of knowing.
Who doesn't seek "normal" behaviour in a relationship?
Duh!
Your off-topic, illogical argument, is because I argue that hundreds and thousands of highly regarded intellectuals from the beginning of time have all said the same thing, I must be attracted to the personality of a good-hearted fat chick but I am so shallow that I only seek those qualities in hot-chicks who never possess such qualities. Therefore, women are guiltless, and all those great philosophers I mentioned before... what the hell were they doing in this conversation anyway? This is about YOU and YOUR superficial attraction to physical attributes, rather than your willingness to settle with a nice fat chick (who rarely exists).
Lol!
How linear your arguments are.
You still didn't read that thread, eh?
There’s not much new under the sun that modern academics are “discovering” which has not already been put down into the written word, and then effectively censored out of existence by Slackademia itself. One might call it a “stimulus package,” in fact. After all, we are merely re-discovering that which has already been discovered, and paying people damned high wages to do it!
From 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 of 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.”
As from the days of Socrates to Galileo to Pasteur, the Slackademics themselves have most often been the biggest hindrance to the “progress” of human intelligence.
No, because I'm not making that argument. You're clearly happy with the women you have chosen to deal with, otherwise you'd choose different women, so who am I to argue with that?
I don't get that pseudo-pop-psychology "special way of knowing" crap but apparently you're all over it. I don't think we share enough language to even have this conversation.
And this has to do with???
How does my choice in women have anything to do with the point I making all throughout this thread.
I am saying the sky is blue, and you are responding by saying that my problem with life is that my Ford Pinto is a piece of crap.
Reading some of the horror stories, nothing frightens me more then some psycho-bitch calling 911 on me and evicting me from my own condo. I get the night shivers.
Rob - in your opinion does this quote reflect one person's frustration with his wife, or does it describe all women?
Because I personally know women (mostly older women) whose husbands bully them all the time. My friend's mother-in-law picked out the stuff for the kitchen of the house they built upon retirement, to spend the rest of their lives in. Her husband changed the cabinets to something other than what she picked out for no reason other than that he was paying the bills and so he could. They didn't match anything else in "her" kitchen that she was *expected* to fix all his meals in. She could hardly bring herself to walk into the room, she resented that so, but she dared say nothing to him about it or he would have done something else even more spiteful. She knew this from bitter experience. Does it sound to you like her opinion carried all the weight in that marriage? But in her day, you didn't walk away from a marriage no matter what, you just endured it, and so she did. I'll be danged if I would have. I guess that makes me a bad person. Anyway, I wonder what she would write about "men" if she thought anybody gave a damn about her opinion.
Rob Fedders - give me chains, fire and iron over a bitch any day! I can deal with the physical pain, but the mental anguish from dealing with uber-bitches is too much.
Once these angry frustrated women realize they can't deal with natural things like cooking for their man, they turn butch lesbian in their 30s and run off with the first fat lesbian who will give them the time of day. It's quite sad and left a trail of tears.
Sounds to me, Laura, that your friend's father-in-law was lashing out at the way ALL men feel about being strangers in their own home... in that almost all women tend to decorate and choose every damn thing in the house (including the house itself) so much that most men find the only space that truly reflects him in any way is either the garage or a dark, dank corner of the basement where his tools are stored.
Everything else has a damn doily underneath and every fricken room smells of potpourri.
More of women's way of knowing how a home should be, I suppose.
And, after all, don't women cackle with glee that the business world must cater to their whims because women make 80% of all purchasing decisions? (Lol! And they still whine that because of the choices they make, they receive only 76% of what a man earns.
I'd venture to guess that the husband in that marriage had long passed andropause and was no longer so easily manipulated by his wife's with-holding/rationing her love and sexual contact - because she no longer possessed sexual power in old age and he had a vastly diminished sex drive... and he resented her for making him live his life as a stranger in his own home. As well, I would suspect he was highly bitter upon reflecting on his life, how he had been manipulated out of his dreams in order to fulfill her dreams.
Virtually all women behave that way when they get married and move into "the nest." The husband's stuff slowly gets moved to the less desireable places, and then into storage, and then to the garage sale... while everything about him in the home is replaced by that of the woman.
In your house too, I'd imagine.
Please, walk around the regular living area and count up the things you have purchased, and then the things your husband has purchased. Tell us the results.
Of course, we make jokes about it and laugh about this phenomenon... and it is "funny" only because there is real truth behind it.
And, by the way, you can read about this exact same phenomenon in Schopenhauer's Essay on Women, written in the 19th Century.
And, btw, many, if not most, of the "old guys/philosophers" are as similarly harsh against the ways men are stupid in regard to allowing women to do this to them... but the question becomes, why do both men and women only concentrate on the misogyny of what is said about the ladies, while ignoring the equally insulting talk of the stupidity of men?
Furthermore, finding an exception does not destroy a rule or an adequate generalization.
And there was nothing or no-one that prevented the woman you refered to from picking up a pen and putting her ideas on paper and then attempting to publish them.
It is not the world's fault that she didn't do it. It is hers and hers alone.
In fact, she likely had a greater opportunity to affect the world in such ways than the vast majority of men do.
She's only a victim of herself.
Boo hoo.
There have always been a small segment of the female population that ran with the hunters. The problem is when the majority of women choose to be soft mommies, they blame men collectively for "holding them back." It's the same way that a teenager blames his parents for everything that goes wrong with his life.
Calamity Jane made her own way in the world, and the world respected her for it enormously.
But most women are not Calamity Jane, nor do they have any desire to be... despite what the hairy-legged ones say.
Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs -- Immanuel Kant
I did enjoy the discussion on the video and did find some points interesting.
I don't think that Tannen was wrong in the least. The two sexes (on average) don't mean the same things with the same words. My frustration there is that so many women assume that it is the men's fault when they don't understand them.
For example, I have worked very hard with my daughter to understand males. One thing that I have repeatedly beat into her is that males don't deal well with, or understand, that when a woman says that something would be nice, she is asking that he do it. I respond that, yes, it would be nice. She then knows that she has to actually ask "please" for it, and I will do what she wants. This lets the guy feel like her hero, and is far more willing to do what is asked of him than the indirect "it would be nice" type of requesting. And I think Dr. Tannen for that insight, and for many others.
That said, I found the video discussion interesting. It helped me understand why there are two standards - women are considered far more valuable than men are, esp. in our culture.
I have long been bothered that murder of or violence against women is considered far more heinous than against men. Men are far, far, more likely to be murdered or the object of violence, yet we obsess about the women. Why are their lives that much more valuable than ours are?
And part of the answer is that one man can father children with multiple women at the same time. From a species point of view, women are more important to the survival of the species than are individual men.
Yet, what was striking listening to the discussion was the realization of how much this is hard wired into us as a species. It really isn't rational any more, and yet, that dynamic still is strongly in effect.
I also found interesting the thought that part of the reason that males are chivalrous is that it increases our access to females and their wombs.
Btw, Laura.
I'd like to point out that you have also illustrated perfectly an earlier point that I made.
That being that the vast majority of what women deem "abusive" from men is in fact the stereotypical female behaviour, called Social/Relational Aggression.
Women collectively project their own abusive behaviours onto men and then gasp in horror at the evil men...
You have just said that this man was a bully, and the wife should have (and you would have) left him for this kind of behaviour - him dictating to her how her kitchen should be...
In a world where equality is the holy grail of all things stupid... how on earth then, is it not abusive for a woman to be equally abusive to a man for dictating what kind of home they live in, where every picture is hung (after her choosing it herself), where he must place his shoes when he walks in the door, what kind of frilly feminine pillows he must sleep with and so on, and so on.
And, unlike the falsified DV Hysteria drummed up by the feminists... this situation actually does happen in 95% of the homes on your block, each and every day. From a female to male direction, anyway.
And yet, when a man "pulls a female," and in a very female way, you are quick to jump up and label it as abusive.
I sometimes wonder if women find such stereotypical female behaviour to be so loathsome when displayed by males, because they recognize something dark and sinister from within themselves when they are doing the exact same things to men.
And perhaps men are too stunned to realize it... because they actively choose not to believe women, the supplier of their self-worth, could hold such deep resentment towards them...
And hey, I am not even saying we have to change it - but for cripes sakes, we've gone decades without even acknowledging it, while all the time the answers have been sitting there, collecting dust due to academic "censoring."
Once one starts to ask himself the question, "supposing that the way civilization was structured in the past was not because of the natural conspiracy of fabled Patriarchal evil..." it leads to the next question, which is, "what kinds of things within human nature were those in the past trying to control" and furthermore, "why?"
Rob - so frilly pillows means the guy can punch his wife in the mouth? You are a truly a Neanderthal if you think that. Besides any man that would allow a woman to walk all over him in the first place is not a man! Grow a spine!
Laura - if that woman wasn't bringing home the bacon then she had no say so in the cabinets. Besides he was installing them himself! She should have been proud to be married to a man who can install cabinets!
Bruce Hayden:
There are a couple of differences in the way women and men are murdered. The frequency of women being murdered by blunt force trauma or asphyxiation is greater than men. Men are more likely to be murdered by a gunshot wound than women. Women are often murdered by a significant other, loved one or husband. Men are often murdered by an acquaintance. The way someone is murdered and by whom play a role in which murder gets the media coverage and judicial care.
Alex, you flamin' mangina chump... PLEEEEASE quote where I refered to ANYTHING such as you are suggesting.
Seriously.
You are pathetic and are 90% of the problem.
Here comes Captain Save 'a Ho, cape and all! Good grief.
Talk about spineless.
And LAURA was the one who called it abusive for a man to do female behaviour, such as dictating how the kitchen should be.
And I am NOT married, you pathetic flameboy. I'm not stupid enough to put up with women's shit.
Why don't you let your testicles drop?
But first, your quotes please.
God, men like you make me ill.
Jackass.
Rob Fedders - is that the only way you can relate to other people through verbal abuse? You must learn to get more in touch with your feminine side!
Alex, false accuser...
Shamer of men at the beginning of this thread...
Caller of men to being spineless and neanderthals...
One who has spoken in absolutely no sensical fashion anywhere on this thread...
Did I mention blatant false accuser...
You ought to lose touch with your feminine side, chump, and reach into your inner manliness.
I suspect your last name Biden.
Where are your quotes? False Accuser.
Rob - hyper masculinity is a sign of insecurity. Real men are secure in themselves and have no need to engage in bashing other people, especially other men's supposed lack of masculinity. What's next - cries of SPARTA!!!
Laura almost makes it sound like the man in her story - who is paying for everything and doing all the work - is ABUSIVE if he wants to have input on *anything*.
If the woman wants something, another route is for her to get off her lazy, bossy butt and EARN MONEY by WORKING, instead of shaming the man into doing everything she wants.
I can't fathom why a man would want to marry a woman with this attitude of "your money is our money, and my money is my money", but maybe those types of women don't reveal that before the marriage.
In any case, Laura, you seem to have all the thought processes, unconscious assumptions and utter entitlement of typical American women.
Alex/False Accuser,
Your quotes please.
Rob - stop playing quoting games. You can re-read your own posts in this thread just fine. Real men do their own work!
JG - totally. I can't understand the mentality of the modern woman who thinks that she is entitled to her husband's money just because she allows certain "favors" in bed. Isn't that legalized prostitution?
Listen here, you false accuser.
You said that because I said women buy frilly pillows that men can punch them in the mouth.
Show me a quote where I implied any such thing, you false accusing chump.
Yeah, I thought so, you little chicken ass.
People like you ought to do twice the time... once for the falsely accused, and once for yourself.
You are Perfectly Pathetic, and embody all that is wrong in the West.
Excuse me while I run behind the bushes and barf on your behalf, False Accuser.
Geesh ! More dividing of men and women. It's our RIGGED/unfettered for the wealthy/corporate elite "capitalism" that's killing the relationship between man and woman. Don't go blaming same sex folks. You all's "greed is good" mantra is what allowed money to crush true love and you all out there are paying for it, directly or indirectly.
WALK IN PEACE !
My friend's MIL didn't work outside the home because her husband didn't let her. She completely internalized the man-is head-of-household, woman-in-the-kitchen thing and tried to find her fulfillment there, and he couldn't even let her have that. You sound like you'd be just like him. Thanks on behalf of all women for eschewing marriage.
I looked around in the living room. What I saw was stuff that either my husband chose, or we picked out together, and that I paid for because I'm the breadwinner. No girly stuff, I don't have time for it. Am I a typical American woman? I don't know. I don't think you're a typical anything, Rob - at least, I hope there's only one or two of you.
Laura:
Did the evil man chain her to the radiator or otherwise hold her prisoner?
If he did, he is clearly guilty of a felony. Did your friend's MIL report him to the police when she got a chance? If not, why not?
Even keeping her prisoner with the threat of, or implied use of, force and violence is a felony (usually falling under "kidnapping" statutes).
Are you claiming that this is what happened to that woman?
If the husband "didn't let her" in some other type of way (i.e. hypnosis or the like) how did he do that?
No, no, Laura.
Thank YOU, for illustrating to men the circular logic and the duck and dodge passive aggressiveness that men can expect in marriage.
I highly doubt that your husband picked out much of anything.
I call BS.
I also doubt that you ever talked to your friend's father-in-law about the situation. I'll bet you found out about this in a "bitch and moan session" with your friend.
One wonders how many of these B & M sessions you have where you don't believe poor, helpless women are the victims of males.
Nice straw argument though.
Did I tell you about MY friend who married a 350lb bearded lady from the Circus? She was really, really mean to him too!
You are pulling an Alex here as well.
I never said I expected women to be in the kitchen, nor did I express anywhere in this thread anything about "traditional roles."
Where did I say anything like that?
I think you ladies ought to be at the bottom of a mine shaft, working with the rest of us slaves. Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work we go.
This is just more of you projecting something from yourself... Suddenly... I am a cretin who would keep women chained to the bed, but the chain ought to be long enough to reach the kitchen. Just like your earlier fat-girl psychology that came out of nowhere.
This is EXACTLY what men can expect a lifetime of if they are so brave to allow a woman into their home.
Everything stretched so way out of proportion... complete denial of the obvious....
Thanks Laura.
We know there are millions and millions of you!
You ARE typical.
... her quarelsome voice never tires of chiming in... drown out a church bell... cares not whether her words are wise or foolish...
When I grew up, I had it drilled into me that I should not leech off other people, if I wanted something I should earn it myself etc.
I know there are some men in the world who live off women and the like, but I also think a lot of men were raised like I was.
So for me to have a spouse work full-time for me, while I just sit home, and then to complain about not having enough input on a particular issue, AND THEN TO HAVE EVERYONE (in my gender) RUSH TO MY SIDE ON THAT, is something I can't even fathom.
But here's Laura doing exactly that - and there are millions of women who act just like her and would also have sympathy for that side.
That's a HUGE difference between men and women. Most men who would lay into a leeching man hard simultaneously know that "that's just how women are" and would even defend a woman's right to sit home watching Oprah her whole life while her husband gets a heart attack from the stress of dealing with the outside world.
American women are taking their entitlement in that area to a new high, though. It's all expected, but the man is now a loser if he doesn't also take over all of HER traditional jobs at home, plus give her complete control over the money he earns. And men go along with this for the most part.
"This is EXACTLY what men can expect a lifetime of if they are so brave to allow a woman into their home."
Here is the mirror-image of man-hating feminism, held up for all to see. Once again, there's not a dime's worth of difference between you.
Here's what young men should have drilled into them:
You know your cute, sweet girlfriend who is easy to get along with and fun to be around? So you want to do your manly role and protect her and pay for her?
Well she's not going to stay that way.
You, on the other hand, are going to increase in what women find attractive - your earning power. She is going to DECREASE in everything men find attractive.
But then marriage is going to MAKE YOU continue the arrangement that you voluntarily wanted to be in earlier. You are now working for her, buddy. Surprise.
What men/society has to start realizing, is that what Schopenhauer said of men and women is true.
The "opposite" of male strength is female dissimulation.
It is what God/nature gave to women to offset the male's physical strength superiority.
Anyone who believes in Darwinism, (like all the lefty feminists), pretty much would have to agree with this.
Therefore men ought not to even try to "play the game" back with women, because men are horribly outmatched. Just as women shouldn't be stepping into a boxing ring with a man because there is no way she could win... a man is extremely outmatched and has just as little chance of winning when a woman plots against against a man with her dissimulative abilities... he gets eaten alive and doesn't even understand what is happening until it is too late.
Women are designed this way by nature. It's nobody's "fault," it is just the way it is.
However, one has to look at all these DV Morons, listing offence after offence of "psychological/emotional abuse," wherein they say that it can be more damaging than physical abuse... then understand that what they are talking of is actually stereotypical female behaviour... and then wonder why it is that males are portrayed as the major perpetrators of this "crime," and ask if that isn't female dissimulation within itself.
We men have been waiting for you ladies to reign yourselves in and exercise a bit of self-control and discipline amongst yourselves for decades now... but, it is obvious that this just ain't gonna happen.
No matter what is wrong with a woman's life, they will always grab onto the nearest male and blame him for it. How empowering it must be to behave like a spoiled teenagers blaming someone else for your own shortcomings.
Things will only continue to get worse until the older women start putting down the socialization/shaming hammer on the younger ones.
That is, after all, how women are controlled in a society - they do not respond to the law as much as they respond to socialization & shaming from OTHER WOMEN. Men are the opposite, and respond/are controlled much more through the laws enforced by OTHER MEN, than they are too shaming. (Both are affected by each, but one is more effective than the other for each of the sexes).
Don't get married.
Laura,
I'll tell you one difference between feminism and the MRA movement, and it's more than a dime's worth.
Feminism started going full tilt around the 1960s. My opinion is that industrialization and technical progress made work in the home (if you didn't have kids) pretty much useless, so some women - who naturally wanted to have a sense of fulfillment - wanted to move over to the men's side and work outside the home. You still have a big mass of women who just want to sit, though.
You then had change after change in society - and society and men agreed to it. In the 70s and 80s, women, intoxicated by pushing through all the new stuff, decided to push even harder and demonize men, make history appear to be a history of men oppressing women, call for affirmative action (even today - when some colleges are 75% women) and all that.
Men were supposed to perform their traditional roles (breadwinning etc.), in fact draconian laws were put in place (e.g. 42 USC 666 - "Bradley Amendment") to force men to perform their traditional roles, but more pressure was put on men to also perform the (increasingly lighter) role that women always had.
This started to get so tilted that finally, in the 1990s, some men started saying it had gone to far. And it clearly had.
Men are simply REACTING to women not being able to get their fill and not being able to be fair.
And it is good, because some men are now "waking up" and wondering: Why the hell am I working so hard for her, is she REALLY WORTH IT. And they are coming up with an answer of "no".
Sorry, "to far" should be "too far". I do realize that, but I just type too fast.
Rob sez:
"Therefore men ought not to even try to "play the game" back with women, because men are horribly outmatched. Just as women shouldn't be stepping into a boxing ring with a man because there is no way she could win... a man is extremely outmatched and has just as little chance of winning when a woman plots against against a man with her dissimulative abilities... he gets eaten alive and doesn't even understand what is happening until it is too late."
-------
Right.
I absolutely agree.
Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxwPU0W-Wg&feature=related
The first woman (who says she was inappropriately frisked) is utterly convincing. She is fully willing to do that to another human being for a very petty reason.
Technology (video cameras) etc. is finally starting to work against this innate ability that many women have.
"Things will only continue to get worse until the older women start putting down the socialization/shaming hammer on the younger ones."
That was my friend's MIL, trying to explain to my friend how being a submissive wife really is the path to happiness, until she herself couldn't keep up the charade anymore.
I don't think you've ever seen an old-school southern marriage if you don't understand how my friend's FIL could have kept his wife from working.
But I see what you are getting at. We've all evolved just a bit too far, and need to back up and emulate the bears. They come together and mate for the continuation of the species, (the males "score" as you say,) and then they go their separate ways, while the male bears play and do their thing and the female bears do all of the cub-raising by themselves. Bears don't worry about mutually-supporting partnerships or trying to make a home together, or anything like that.
Don't fret, there are now huge swaths of the human population right here in America (subsidized by your tax dollars) who follow this pattern, and more and more of them all the time. So you should not now have any problem getting what you want.
You know, Laura, I did not “come into this” kind of stuff from a mirror image of feminism.
I came into this because of studying Marxism, its goals, and its techniques.
Marxism’s goal is to lead the entire world into a suspended state, held by welfare and through totalitarianism, and then to collapse all of the world’s states/governments through the known economic failure of socialism. Once ALL of the world’s governments/states collapse, there will be a world government that pops up to replace these states – Marxists call it Global Governance. It will be ruled by totalitarianism as well, and the idea is to remove ALL of mankind’s motivators (wealth, greed, desire to reproduce etc) and once those motivators are gone, mankind will rise up from the ashes of our former selves (through controlled totalitarianism) and a “new consciousness” of mankind will emerge, and there will be Heaven on Earth… our brains will reach some supposed new glory, by having none of our traditional motivators, and mankind will become God himself. A new form of superior being.
From Engels all the way through to the modern age, Marxists have set their targets on the nuclear family, which they declared must be destroyed, in order to achieve their goals.
Karl Marx said that the way for Marxists to achieve their goals was to use philosophy – to screw with people’s minds, and to use what the philosophers of the day knew about human nature, and manipulate those philosophies to achieve their goals.
FEMINISM is a 100% Marxist movement. Their theorists admit as much, over and over again. Feminism also states, over and over again, that “equality” between men and women will not be achieved until marriage and the nuclear family are destroyed. Feminism believes that all women should be working, and the children ought to be raised by vast rambling welfare departments of the state. Many feminist theorists have openly declared their desire to destroy the state.
So, I came into this by going back to the philosophers and studying the things what Marx was talking about… what were the kinds of things about “the philosophies” that he said ought to be used in order to destroy the state/civilization?
And that leads into what was the human knowledge about the interactions between the sexes… from the philosophers… get it?
I couldn’t give a flying fig about all the crap you continually accuse me of.
I only care that it is OBVIOUS that what is going on in society today… the huge swaths of we you ridiculously assume I love… is the result of taking this former human knowledge and pitting men and women against eachother, in order to destroy the nuclear family – a number one goal of Marxism.
I am sick to death of arguing with little ninnies like you over such petty crap. But, this is what Marx said too… if you want to affect change in society, you have to lead with the WOMEN first, and then the men will follow… it is how the philosopher’s defined how society works.
Because every damn time a man tries to point out what is OBVIOUSLY happening, a chorus of whining women playing victim will come along and throw as many g-damned monkey wrenches at him as possible, as they play out their natural selfishness exactly as was predicted.
J.D. Unwin did in depth anthropological studies (Sex and Culture) of over 80 cultures and found that over and over again, that civilization is directly related to the sexual virtue of its women… and that the nuclear family is based on women’s sexual virtue. Without women’s sexual virtue, no family can exist… and when no family exists, civilization devolves to a natural and primitive state – like hunter gatherers.
Greeeeat!
When are women gonna smarten the hell up and realize that “the best interests of the child” (and women… and even, gasp, men) is that there is a functioning, safe, solidly based society for them to inherit?
But, women don’t give a crap… at all! They are the biggest group of “useful idiots” that has ever existed. They couldn’t care a tinker’s damn, so long as they get bitch and accuse men of everything wrong under the damned sun.
There is no way out of this until people start studying – HONESTLY – our innate natures.
Everything about interaction between men, women and the family is becoming criminalized, as the useful idiots are used to whine “victim, victim, victim” every step of the way, without bothering to stop and look at the big picture. Since men are the “initiators,” a plethora of laws have been passed on women’s behalf, making it nearly impossible for a man to be around a woman without constantly getting smacked on the back of the head by the law.
Governments pass laws against things they are trying stamp out, not things they are trying to encourage.
They are OBVIOUSLY trying to stamp out interactions between men and women – to separate us.
But none of that seems to matter to women – not one damn bit – so long as they get their bread and circuses from Oprah, and they are woo’d by Obama’s charm… and they still get to bitch and moan about those damn awful men.
Women have supported the criminalization of interactions between the sexes every step of the way. By their whining, their perpetual victimhood, and their underlying but obvious deep seated loathing of all things males do and are.
And those women who say they don’t support that crap… one has to ask: Are you doing a damn thing to stop it, or to even help?
Obviously the answer is NO.
I don’t marry because “husband” and “father” are becoming synonymous with “thief” and “criminal” and “assaulter.”
Don’t blame us men who choose to “go Galt” – we have been doing this for a while now… laying low… staying beneath the radar… choosing NOT to become an enemy of the state for the crimes of “husband” and “father.”
Some of us pop up on the internet to warn other men – in the same way that we were warned and informed. We “knew” something was wrong… but, we could never figure it out, until other men showed us what was happening. Call it a moral responsibility… pay it forward, as it were.
Have a look around you.
What’s going on?
Stop being a victim, and show us what that “Grrrrrrl Power” is all about.
If we manage to make it out of this somehow, I fear that women will be none too popular at all.
Stop shaking your fist with might and glory with one hand, while beating people over the head with your begging bowl held in the other hand.
Until that happens… Go Galt.
Don’t marry.
Don’t cohabitate.
Don’t date.
Don’t become a criminal.
Don’t… don’t… don’t do it!
Rob, I tried to understand your last comment. I really did.
You're worried about "Marxism destroying the family" - I get you here - and then your solution is "don't marry". I am not seeing the flow. I understood how all women are crap and you don't want one. Fine by me. Now you don't want to live like the bears either. Do you even know what you want?
"Have a look around you.
What’s going on?"
Here's what's going on with me. My husband and I have been married 26 years. He tells me, in word and deed, that he is happy. Maybe he knows something you don't.
I never watch Oprah. I did not vote for Obama. If other women want to do those things, in a free country they can. It's not for me to try to stop them.
I suppose you mean for me to read this:
"If we manage to make it out of this somehow, I fear that women will be none too popular at all."
as a threat? It's the kind of thing the man-hating feminists have said is behind the opressive patriarchy and I've always refused to believe them. Maybe I should take a second look.
Yeah, ok Laura.
Wake up. Nobody is threatening you with jack shit - but, why do dopes like you get off on throwing monkey wrenches around all the time? Does it make you feel good?
Misogyny to Feminism is a never ending cycle all throughout history. The Yin and the Yang... the male principle into the female principle...one evolves into the other and then back again. As a civilization prospers, it grants women more and more freedom... near the end of a civilization, there are marked characteristics of rampant promiscousness, homosexuality, and complete break down of marriage... androgyny... ruled by the feminine principle of unvirtous female sexuality...
Then civilization collapses, for a host of reasons - some being lowered birthrates and the decay of the nuclear family... and THEN, after the collapse, it generally starts out very misogynist again and builds itself a new civilization... which becomes more and more feminine again... until near the end it we get again what we have now.
And good for you! I'm happy for your wonderful 26 year marriage. But pull your head out of your ass, and look around... that is becomeing rarer and rarer, isn't it?
Duh! What's going on then?
Don't blame me for the history of the world... you women live on this planet too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Women would obviously rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.
Christian morality has been such a good builder of civilization because it is one of the few models that promotes principles of both the male and the female... male leadership with females being held up in great honor and respect.
Many other civilizations that have existed did not honor women nearly so much.
Do you not notice the massive attacks upon ANYTHING Christian too?
The underlying foundation of our entire civilization is based upon the Bible... see the Magna Carta... look at the US Constitution... listen to the Founding Fathers, who, by the way, were not trying to convert people to Christianity, but explaining WHY the system they created needed to follow the model of the Bible.
And women and society cannot continually expect men to self-immolate themselves into an obviously hostile, and increasingly illegal notion called "marriage" when each day, another, more hostile set of laws replaces the old ones... all to the cheers of "grrrl power!"
Go Galt.
Don't marry.
They're trying to collapse it anyway.
Don't blame me for it... what are you doing to stop it?
Rare marriage - "Duh! What's going on then?" Oh, I see it, of course. War on poverty = paying women to have babies out of wedlock. I think that's what did it, really. No-fault divorce didn't help either because people don't feel the need to work through their problems, but that's a bit too facile b/c my friend's FIL (not to beat a dead horse) felt no need to work through problems either. Maybe taking prayer out of the schools. I used to think that wasn't much of an argument but like a lot of other things I'm rethinking it.
I also note that you said this:
"J.D. Unwin did in depth anthropological studies (Sex and Culture) of over 80 cultures and found that over and over again, that civilization is directly related to the sexual virtue of its women… and that the nuclear family is based on women’s sexual virtue. Without women’s sexual virtue, no family can exist… and when no family exists, civilization devolves to a natural and primitive state – like hunter gatherers."
but earlier you said this:
"I can 'score' with a hot chick in half the time, and with half the effort, it takes to score with a fat chick."
Have you thought through what sexual virtue in women would mean? It would mean no "scoring" for you. Doing your part to promote sexual virtue, are you? Yet you challenge me to stop other women from watching Oprah.
The friend's in-law story has an interesting end, by the way. Her FIL had a severe heart attack and was thought to be at death's door for several days. Somehow he recovered and returned home from the hospital, and to everyone's surprise he started attending church with the family. They wondered how long he would keep that up. Then he was meeting with the preacher, and then really to everyone's surprise he asked to be baptized. He had been as a kid, but apparently the heart attack put the fear into him and he had examined his life and realized he wasn't ready to face the judgment. So there he was, an old man up there with the 9-year-olds getting baptized. I asked my friend some time after that if her FIL was being any nicer to Miz H., and she thought about it for a moment and then said he actually was. So maybe it's not too late for some folks.
"Do you not notice the massive attacks upon ANYTHING Christian too?"
DUH.
Well, Laura,
I see what you mean... but, you must understand as well that the desire to have sex and to reproduce is the underlying principle of ALL living things... humans too.
If society is going to make it next to impossible to be a responsible father and husband, to harness a man's sex drive for the good of society... then men AND women are going to adapt and find different ways to fulfill their urges - their prime drives.
I never intended on "scoring" with chicks.
I thought I was gonna marry my highschool sweetheart, who I lost my virginity with... college, her giggles at the phrase 'women need men like fish need bicycles' and the encouragement for her to explore herself sexually with other partners fixed that life path after four years though.
Onto the next love... listening to "new ideas" all the way... to be penalized again for the crime of being a respectful, but boringly responsible male... the thugs were so much more appealing!
Men and women are gonna adapt after a while.
I'm nearly 40... I don't expect the world will be filled with 40 year old virgins.
Humping has been happening for thousands of years already, and I expect it will continue for some time into the future as well.
The circumstances surrounding how we do "the deed" and whether it is pro, or anti-civilization, is up to society itself, and the social mores it creates.
It's almost like men have to apologize for wanting to have sex / having sex with a willing female partner.
Laura talks about male bears "scoring" above, as if they're getting away with something. They SHOULD be paying the females bears, or giving them some kind of compensation, apparently.
Laura and her ilk are simply too far gone for me in terms of entitlement and shaming. Just because most women in America are like her, and it therefore seems "right" because that's how the majority is, doesn't make it right.
In real life, I simply avoid women like her.
Rob,
Even someone like you, who appears to be a bit enlightened about the crap women pull, seems to be "explaining himself" to a shaming Laura. At least that's a bit how it looks.
Shaming, entitled pieces of work like her have been around for eternity. You don't owe her anything, even if she stares at you in an intimidating way over the top of her bi-focals. LOL
My favorite shaming woman was Margaret Dumont in the old Marx Brothers films. She would shame everyone until Groucho cut through her crap, and then she would swoon.
Yah, I know JG - but there are also more people than just you, me and her reading too.
That's how I learned... and how I found the clues to begin my own searching.
It was harder a few years ago, because any man who knew anything would get banned after writing two paragraphs.
A debate against women's circular logic is actually a good way to get gobs of information out there in a way that is much easier than sitting down and writing a 5 to 7 page article for my blog, which continually gets attacked by feminist porn-violation spammers in the year old comments, or the Google-fem-censors that keep knocking down my ranking while "not censoring."
JG: "Laura talks about male bears "scoring" above, as if they're getting away with something. They SHOULD be paying the females bears, or giving them some kind of compensation, apparently."
Did I use the word "score" incorrectly? I don't think I was the first person here to use it. I thought I was using it in the same sense that Rob was. Not so?
****
Rob: I understand about people having the desire for sex and all - I'm one of them, of course. My 21-yr-old daughter tells me she expects to wait for marriage, as I did. At one time that would have been a given. I don't know how many men nowadays would give her the time of day, once they realize they're not going to - whoops, I can't say "score" can I? I've told her, because she has a very tender conscience and sets sky-high standards for her own behavior, that if she slips up it won't be the end of the world. I don't want her to hate herself or feel like a bad person if she ever should let biology take over. She insists that she will not. "Society" being as it is, I hope she can find a like-minded young man because I will eventually want grandchildren.
Women also "score" and also make notches.
They do it in different ways though... but they do it to reaffirm their sexual worth.
How many guys have fallen in love with them... how many guys would be willing to marry them...
Women who go clubbing "score" by the amount of attention that gets paid to them, without them having to provide sex. Your girlfriend can go out to a club, and guage her sexuality, and have it re-affirmed by how many guys ask her to dance, or buy her drinks. They are guaging their "score"... often times sizing up their worth this way before dumping hubby/boyfriend, without actually cheating... sort of...
And they do compete against eachother for which woman "scores" the most.
Ever overhear women discussing another girl's recent engagement ring? How much it cost etc. etc.
Women's sex drive is equal to man's - it just manifests itself in different ways.
Women seek "alpha" like men seek T&A.
Women's desire to have children (The Baby Rabies) is as intense as men's desire to bed a woman... they would both sell out their mothers and commit treason at certain points in their life to make it happen.
Women think about "being sexy" in equal proportion to men thinking about sex.
There is balance everywhere in nature.
Equal is not sameness - unless you are a Marxist.
I guess I'll take your word for all that. I don't go clubbing, nor do my friends.
Back when I was a girl (when dinosaurs roamed the earth) I don't remember discussions about what engagement rings cost. Used to, people thought talking about money like that was vulgar. People I associate with still do. It's thought to be rude to brag, or to ask personal questions. I don't know what the kids do now.
Come to think of it, just about everything you describe about women doesn't describe me or my friends. Since I don't go to clubs or wherever you find the women you describe, without the internet I suppose your path and mine would never ever cross. We'd be oblivious to each other's existence.
However, even though I hadn't heard the term "baby rabies", I have to say it's pretty apt. I had to be a mommy - I think I'd have lost my mind if I could not.
Well, Laura, it doesn’t really matter whether women want to acknowledge things that are going on within their nature or not. It doesn’t stop these things from happening. One of the pillars of feminine dissimulation (akin to pool hustling) is denying they have any sexual prowess, and are perpetual victims… it is the use of the power of weakness. Women have been refusing to acknowledge this about themselves since, well, women have walked on the earth. They will only acknowledge anything about themselves when they turn on eachother. They will NEVER acknowledge it in regard to male-female. They never have, and I doubt they ever will. I don’t even know if women are aware of it themselves. This has always been the age old question of women – and neither of them paints a pretty picture. Either women know what they are doing, and it indicates something very sinister about their nature, or they are unable to understand what they are doing and therefore do not possess the most fortified of minds. It’s one or the other, I’m afraid.
What women (and men) ought to be contemplating though, is what it is that we offer to eachother.
Sorry Ladies, you make pretty crappy men. Women trying to “be butch” and walk with the guys… um, yeah… guys already do that better than women. If we were looking for something that fizzled like Coca Cola, smelled like Coca Cola, looked like Coca Cola and tasted like Coca Cola… I think I would go buy a bottle of Coca Cola instead of the similar, but inferior Koka Kola – especially when Koka Kola is far, far more expensive.
I get a kick out of hearing some women complain about not being able to attract “Mr. Right,” and then hear her list off all her attributes which SHE finds sexy in the opposite sex… like, I have a good career, I own my own home etc. etc.
Oddly, men have NEVER given a crap about those things from women. But some women think men will flock to them for having these “qualities.”
Men already do those things better than women. Hands down. Why would we want an inferior imitation of ourselves? I’m not physically or emotionally attracted to men. The vast majority of heterosexual men aren’t. That’s what makes them heterosexual!
The same thing goes for men.
When the genders became “re-arranged,” women told us they wanted men who could cry… so, men started becoming emotional and crying… then women thought that was endearing, but also somewhat icky. So next, they told us they wanted men who enjoyed the same things as women did – a man who could be like their best girlfriend – and soon the Metrosexual was born… but women found that it was annoying to compete with a man to see who was the prettiest. Ick-ee! And now, you hear them cry, “where are the REAL men, anyway?” (We left the building when you told us we had to cry, silly!)
It appears that men make pretty crappy women, too!
Duh! Who hasn’t figured out that if “opposites attract,” then “sameness repels,”
So why is androgyny the order of the day then?
Women competing against men to be men, really does reduce them to nothing more than a walking vagina. That’s it. Mere sex objects. If it weren’t for the little hairy triangle, men wouldn’t bother with them at all.
Similarly, men have been reduced to mere walking wallets. ATM machines with legs. It is the only thing women get better from mirror image feminized men than they get from women themselves.
I’m not saying that women have to be washing dishes and birthing a dozen babies in order to be attractive to men.
But, women have to start being the best damn women they can be – they have to rediscover their femininity and thrive within it. It is NOT feminine to try to be better men than men. What are women offering besides the hairy triangle? They are gonna have to figure that out for themselves in this modern age.
The same thing as men. If they want to be more than mere walking ATM’s, they are going to have to rediscover masculinity… and that means stopping their mirroring of the feminine, and becoming the best men that men can be… and usually, it also means to stop letting women tell them “how to be a man.”
But, before any of this can occur… the gender idiots who are trying to “transition us” into androgynous units that despise eachother must be run off the continent and into the sea where they belong – along with all their laws and other crapola they have foisted on us.
Then, we will have to look deeply at what once WAS known about men’s and women’s innate but incredibly DIFFERENT natures – and recognizing the factors that are “pro” and “anti” to civilization. And we will do best to make the modern day academics sit at the back of the bus for the rest of the trip… as they have done plenty of damage to us as it is already, and their driving privileges ought to be revoked.
Either that or we get made into NWO zombies… or the more patriarchal-misogynist cultures around the world will move in as our Sodom & Gomorrah civilization refuses to multiply and wipes itself from the face of the earth… going… going… gone.
I feel like I'm reading you explaining about Martians or something.
I remember that when I was in high school, over 40 years ago, my mother told me some things to look for in a man. Now, she did tell me that he should not consider it toooo much to ask that he bring home a paycheck, but she also told me that the time when a woman could expect a man to support her and her kids had come and gone, and to prepare to support myself if necessary. But she also said that his parents should still be married. And I should look at the way his father treated his mother, because that's the way he would treat me. And he should not be a mama's boy, but he should speak of and to his mother with respect, because then he would respect me and teach my kids to respect me. I used all of this as a guide, and when this person crossed my path and told me he loved me and wanted to marry me and I compared him to my mama's checklist I gave myself permission to love him back. I was 21 years old. What the hell did I know? It's worked out just like my mama said.
As I said before, I'm the breadwinner now. That was not the plan but it's the way things worked out. I did not marry him for things he could give me, I married him for who he was/is.
"over 40 years ago"
that would be "over 30 years ago" come to think of it
I have to say, I do believe thats the way men and women should be together. But a lot of today's women are only looking for a man with a good wallet, and if that stops, she dumps him. I know because I ran into hard times with work and my ex took the kids and left me, and up to this very day I have never collected from the state. She just couldn't stand the tempary job I had. And I truly loved her for her and did everything that I possibly could have done.
Helen, I just got the book. Looking through the index and briefly skimming the book, there is no mention of the problem of paternity uncertainty and paternity fraud. The closest mention is some stuff on page 14, including: "If you catch you wife cheating and you conclude that you have a huge problem on your hands, then for whatever it's worth, you are probably right." No kidding!!!
What gives? Given his comment in the interview about the males in most mammalian species being deadbeat dads, I can't see this as being an accidental oversight.
BobH,
There was a chapter in Driscoll's previous book on single moms and other issues that he left out of this book, saying it was too explosive a topic. Not sure if there was any information on paternity fraud there etc. Or perhaps he felt there were other topics to cover that were just as important. Hope you find other chapters in the book helpful though.
Helen
They do address paternity uncertainty in Chapter 10, ("The Rise and Fall of Fatherhood"), page 181, but don't mention the current American legal system's response (or lack of response) to it. Being a devout cynic, I attribute their lack of emphasis to (1) probably 85% of the book's buyers will be women, (2) the current legal environment WRT paternity fraud makes women look pretty bad, especially when women spout the ABA party line that men should just put up with it, (3) that legal environment also provides substantial disincentives to men getting married and (4) the authors are, after all, marriage counselors.
All in all, it's not a bad book, kind of redundant, but well worth reading.
Laura,
What would your answer to the following question be:
Given that the average woman in a heterosexual relationship controls how 80+% of household spending occurs, isn't it only fair that the average woman should be earning 80+% of the household income?
"Blogger Davout said...
Laura,
What would your answer to the following question be:
Given that the average woman in a heterosexual relationship controls how 80+% of household spending occurs, isn't it only fair that the average woman should be earning 80+% of the household income?"
I didn't see this till today. Don't know if anybody is still looking at this.
Davout, if the wife is the one doing 80% of the grocery shopping, buying 80% of the kids' clothes, doing 80% of the visits to the pediatrician, etc., then she's doing 80% of the spending, right? And her husband is probably happy for her to do it because otherwise it would be his tail at the grocery store, the department store, and the pediatrician's office.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home