Maxims of Manhood?
I had some time today and picked up a new book entitled, The Maxims of Manhood: 100 Rules Every Real Man Must Live By
that was floating around the house (sent by a publisher to Glenn). As one can gather from the title, the book is full of little maxims about "how to be a man." Though there were some decent maxims to sift through, I must say I wasn't terribly impressed.
I guess if you are a man who likes being told what to do or needs tips like "keep the one-night-stands classy," then this little gem is for you. Me, (granted, I am not a man) I would rather go my own way without a set of rules that sound more like the writer is afraid to trust himself and resorts to cliches about what men should be rather than be who he is (but he does admit in the end of the book after all the maxims that one should use his own judgment).
My biggest complaint is that his "modern code of masculinity" reads more like a cross between objectifying women on the one hand and being a bit too PC for my taste (others may disagree) on the other. For example, Maxim #86--"First date is always drinks" sounds harmless enough until you read the reasoning. The author points out that if the date is gorgeous and laughs at your jokes, there is no need to buy her dinner, if ugly, she has wasted your time and your money and finally, if she is just horny, you could just "take her to Home Depot and you'd still be in good shape." Real nice treatment of women there.
On the other hand, he spends some time with PC nonsense--pretty much acting as if most men are either pigs (Maxim #90--"You Don't Cheat") or just plain goofballs. In Maxim #67--he states "Don't be That Guy." "He's the scourge of nightlife, the butt of all jokes, the dregs of our gender...." If you're acting like just about any of Carrie's dates in "Sex and the City," you've turned into That Guy." What has "That Guy" done to deserve this title?
He paid for a beer with a hundred-dollar bill... "as if women will come flocking because he's made 20 percent of what a hooker makes in an hour." He clipped a Blackberry to his belt, tipped too little, or talked/ bragged loudly on his phone about his stock portfolio, and dances too close to women. Annoying? Sure. But to be called the "dregs of our gender," seems a bit extreme. I can think of things a lot worse. Of course, some radical feminists can't.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this book is totally without merit. But I must say that it was not for me--but then, I am not his target audience.
If you have other books with advice for men that you have enjoyed, or not, drop in a comment with the title and why you like/disliked it.
that was floating around the house (sent by a publisher to Glenn). As one can gather from the title, the book is full of little maxims about "how to be a man." Though there were some decent maxims to sift through, I must say I wasn't terribly impressed.I guess if you are a man who likes being told what to do or needs tips like "keep the one-night-stands classy," then this little gem is for you. Me, (granted, I am not a man) I would rather go my own way without a set of rules that sound more like the writer is afraid to trust himself and resorts to cliches about what men should be rather than be who he is (but he does admit in the end of the book after all the maxims that one should use his own judgment).
My biggest complaint is that his "modern code of masculinity" reads more like a cross between objectifying women on the one hand and being a bit too PC for my taste (others may disagree) on the other. For example, Maxim #86--"First date is always drinks" sounds harmless enough until you read the reasoning. The author points out that if the date is gorgeous and laughs at your jokes, there is no need to buy her dinner, if ugly, she has wasted your time and your money and finally, if she is just horny, you could just "take her to Home Depot and you'd still be in good shape." Real nice treatment of women there.
On the other hand, he spends some time with PC nonsense--pretty much acting as if most men are either pigs (Maxim #90--"You Don't Cheat") or just plain goofballs. In Maxim #67--he states "Don't be That Guy." "He's the scourge of nightlife, the butt of all jokes, the dregs of our gender...." If you're acting like just about any of Carrie's dates in "Sex and the City," you've turned into That Guy." What has "That Guy" done to deserve this title?
He paid for a beer with a hundred-dollar bill... "as if women will come flocking because he's made 20 percent of what a hooker makes in an hour." He clipped a Blackberry to his belt, tipped too little, or talked/ bragged loudly on his phone about his stock portfolio, and dances too close to women. Annoying? Sure. But to be called the "dregs of our gender," seems a bit extreme. I can think of things a lot worse. Of course, some radical feminists can't.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think this book is totally without merit. But I must say that it was not for me--but then, I am not his target audience.
If you have other books with advice for men that you have enjoyed, or not, drop in a comment with the title and why you like/disliked it.
Labels: interesting books, men
posted by Helen at 1:20 PM
90 Comments:
Has it helped Glenn become a better man?
I'm sure "Real Men" nervously try to memorize this book and implement all of its imperatives.
Then they can loudly tell other men how to act - and probably get women interested in sex while they do so.
Or something like that.
*Yawn*
A Real Man gets drained of money by women and doesn't utter a peep in complaint.
A Real Man always beats up other men (well, at least if they are smaller than him) whenever a woman says they did something she didn't like. He never, ever takes a look at whether she is making things up or manipulating.
A Real Man does everything women shame him into doing, especially if she starts out "... a Real Man would [fill in what she wants him to do] ...".
A Real Man overworks until he dies of a heart attack while letting Princess stay home and watch Oprah and have sex with the neighbor.
--------
Maybe I'll write my own book.
I really enjoyed the King, Warrior, Magician, Lover set of books by Moore and Gillette. They were not how to books per se, but had an interesting Jungian (of all things!!!) approach to masculinity that I really enjoyed and learned a lot from.
Trey
Though not a book, The Art of Manliness is a decent, classy site:
http://artofmanliness.com/
i`ve enjoyed most of what ross jeffries has had to say over the years. his material is all over youtube and google video. not everyone`s taste, but there are those who would prefer to take what jg suggests while his tongue is firmly in his cheek....and suprisingly continue to act that way expecting different results.
I just finished reading "The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide." (I think I saw this at Instapundit.) It's more about being a man than survival. I'm going to have my son read it.
The problem with maxims is that they make things trite. Plus, how do you keep a one night stand classy?
Well, as a romantic and a medievalist, I would recommend Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In the poem, Gawain is a Realist who is thrown into a Nominalist world, particularly in his confrontation with the Lady of the Castle.
She uses word games to try to trick him into identifying himself as a character in a romance novel, questioning him on his knowledge of the text, then acting on that identification and knowledge. In other words, she tries to seduce him with mind games.
But Gawain is a good Realist, and he refuses to betray the Lord of the Castle and to dishonor the Lady. And for that he gets a nick on the neck by the Green Knight, as well as the ridicule of the Knights of the Round Table.
There is much to be learned in this poem.
DADvocate,
"Plus, how do you keep a one night stand classy?"
According to the book, "Casual sex is just one more plank of the sexual revolution--a natural extension of feminism, really--so you're honoring the principles of women's suffrage..." So, apparently, guys are to get laid to help the women's movement. Yeah, right. Oh, and don't "act like a douchebag." This includes making plans and canceling, hinting that you want a relationship and then give her the pink slip and "don't be the guy who does not know how to reciprocate."
Actually, I'm not sure how a "Real Man" can be distinguished from a good person.
Neither gender should cheat other people or manipulate or be dishonest. Both genders - all people - should try to protect and help other people to the extent possible.
I've never heard any convincing reasons why only men should have these qualities.
The rest of the "Real Man" crap always struck me as an inefficient way for achieving another, maybe slightly disguised goal.
If your true goal is to get chicks, acting like a Real Man may not be your best bet.
If your true goal is to be admired by other people, the Real Man shtick works on dopey people, but not on people who can see through your behavior.
If you get a feeling of satisfaction out of playing the Patriarch - sitting at the head of the table - belittling other men you feel are beneath you, and all women of course, and puckering up to kiss the butt of your boss or others you feel are above you ... ---- .... you are an idiot.
If you think that women shouldn't be held to any standards of fairness or justice or fair play, only "Real Men", you are an idiot.
Lastly, my impression in going through life is that most self-appointed or self-named "alpha males" and "Real Men" are not what they think they are. They are role-playing for whatever reason, probably because they are scared shitless to think for themselves and thus have to always play the role society puts on them.
Too many rules for me. First, I'd have to research how douchebags act as opposed to jerks. Then, I'd have to buy a Sawzall. I'll just continue to be a sociallly active recluse.
Oh, yippie. Another quaint little tome dredged up by a self-appointed expert on all things male and vetted by some ponce in the publishing industry. I'll bet Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval are rushing right out to buy a copy.
@Helen said... According to the book, "Casual sex is just one more plank of the sexual revolution--a natural extension of feminism, really--so you're honoring the principles of women's suffrage..." So, apparently, guys are to get laid to help the women's movement. Yeah, right. Oh, and don't "act like a douchebag." This includes making plans and canceling, hinting that you want a relationship and then give her the pink slip and "don't be the guy who does not know how to reciprocate."
_______________
So, basically, whether or not it is classy or helps the women's movement, is, if feminists are consistent, based on how a woman feels about it afterwards, which may be different the next morning, the day after that, the week after that, or the month after, etc.
So, if I, as a man, turn down sex, I'm insulting the woman and inhibiting the sexual revolution and not classy. If I participate, and she regrets it later, I'm a douchebad and not classy.
Feminists opinions and tenets change so drastically and rapidly that I'd get whiplash if I cared.
Dad:
A douchbag is a gravity flow device, while each jerk requires incremtal effort throughout the activity.
Correction: Incremental
And Douchebag
Then, I'd rather be a douchebag as it requires less effort because gravity does the work.
Thanks, tomcal.
Far too long. Can be compressed to "WWBD?" What Would Bogie Do?
I tend towards Gibb's rules. Otherwise it boils down to I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these to others, and I expect the same in return.
Sounds like the author of that book doesn't even know the basics of how to be a real human, let alone a real man.
Treat everyone with respect. That's all anyone needs to do in my book.
I haven't read this book but I did glance at "The Rules" book when it was first published. The authors told women to let a man call you a minimum of 3 times for a first date before returning the call.
Now think about that advice for a minute. If you don't return the call the first time, or even the second time, you will be pigeonholed as someone who can't perform the most basic common decency in returning a call. Also, many decent men would lose interest after leaving one message let alone 2. What a woman would be left with was crazed stalkers that don't get the hint you aren't interested.
So I have drawn a conclusion about dating advice books. I'd suggest not worrying about what a real man would do or a real woman would do but more so what a decent person would do. A one night stand isn't classy, it will never be classy and it should be treated as such. My suggestion if 2 people or more wish to have a one night stand would be to lay all the cards out on the table before the evening begins and then go from there. Take classy out of it.
I've never heard any convincing reasons why only men should have these qualities.
Because "Real Man" is how women manipulate and shame men. Ever heard a man use the phrase? Most likely, no. I hear women use it all the time to denigrate and shame men, usually as a means of enforcing compliance with the speaker's dictates.
If you want to understand men (guys, actually), I've heard that Dave Barry's book is quite good.
Perhaps it was in this book that Dave wrote (paraphrasing), "Women would rest a lot easier if they realized that men are as simple as we seem."
The Book of Bonecrkr
164) Any time you hear a term like "real man" you should automatically assume someone is trying to manipulate you. What they are trying to do is convince you that cleaning up the mess they made of their own lives is your responsibility. That you don't have the right to choose the women and the situation that is best for you. That you are somehow less, if you do what you want instead of what they want. The correct response to this is to laugh in their face. Feel free to meet her, seduce her, f*ck her and then dump her because she has a kid. Sorry toots, you’re great, but there is just no future in a relationship with you because of all the bad decisions you made in the past......and it's your responsibility to deal with it, not mine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eye of the Mind’s author:
Men get shamed and mindgamed all the time with the tired old RealMan™ bullshit. But, the reason it works so well is because there is a germ of monumental truth to it. The man who claims dominion of himself and refuses to accept the dominion of anyone else over him is a man who understands the true secret of power, and thus has more real power than the vast majority of the people in the world.
Such a man is "real", and is really a man. But, to distinguish that from the mindgame so often used to shame a man into doing what others want, I call that being an "authentic man."
The concept of masculinity which actually did give some punch to a guy's desire to be thought of as a "RealMan™" has long since been deconstructed. The truth is that a real "real man" would blow off this kind of shit without even reading it, and certainly without thinking about it twice. In short, the less of a "real man" someone is, the more likely they are to pay attention to this sort of shit, and the more of one he is the less likely he is to waste one second of his precious life on it.
The key to defeating these kinds of mind games is to become genuinely secure in your own masculinity - which is the foundation principle of MGTOW. We define what a real man is, not someone who can't tell the difference between a real man and a lapdog who piddles himself if mistress raises her hand to beat him.
A very effective comeback I often use when someone lays some of that "RealMan™" crap on me is - "(sigh) Oh well, I guess I will just have to come to terms with being an UN-real man, or maybe being a SURreal man would be even better!"
Remember that the movie and character which women have most swooned over since it came out, contained the line –
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Now, that is how to get their panties wet every time!
I basically agree with that sentiment, . said
The paradigm today is that feminists / just plain women are milking one side with "how come a man can do that and I can't" - and fairness kicks in and of course women should be given every opportunity that men have. But it goes even further: Men are expected to reduce standards, look the other way, provide help and otherwise do everything possible so that there is EQUALITY OF OUTCOME, even though Jane the Firefighter certainly can't carry Fat Gramma down the stairs, and I've never seen women banging down the door first among policemen in a really dangerous drug raid.
Women can sign up for the army and EXPECT not to be put into combat, because it is POLICY that women are not put into combat. But they get all the perks and retirement benefits and all the rest that men get.
On the other hand, women today milk the traditional duties of men. Women still very much "marry up". Child support and even in part alimony are subject to really draconian enforcement measures today. Measures that would have been considered "jailing someone for a debt" or "slavery" in another era. I have come across women who EXPECT me to help them, and not just in minor ways. Women I don't even really know and have no real obligation to. Men's traditional duties are truly alive and well in a myriad of ways.
-----------------
This "mix and match" attitude on the part of women today makes me think that the best approach is: "Women say they want equality, well give it to them." Full force.
I personally follow the law and will not be hitting a woman or engaging in other behavior like that against women. But, on the other hand, I am not going to do anything at all against a man who does. Sorry, I'm not legally obligated to do so. Women are equal to day, and I am going to treat them with equality.
I was fixed up on a quasi-blind date with a woman about 15 years ago.
We went out into the city and a rough-looking guy came up and asked me for money. I said "no". He walked away.
She said in a very loud voice, "Get a job".
A lot of thoughts came together with that: If he came back and caused a problem (which I probably would have done in his situation), I would have talked to him and calmed him down, and of course defended the woman against him if he got violent. I resented the fact, though, that she had put me into that situation.
Another thought came up later, after she described her situation in full: SHE didn't work, she simply got alimony from the ex. She apparently had never worked much in her life, and her attitude was the men were the ones who work, and they have to woo the women with their money. But she was almost a knee-jerk reactive-type person if anyone said anything about the difference in men and women.
She disgusted me.
She did say that she was going to, like, write a bestselling novel or something, but the last I heard through our mutual friend, she had bagged a (rich) sap once again who simply paid for her to sit at home (or do whatever she wanted).
Cool. At least I didn't have to pay for her. But I just can't fathom the reasons behind men doing that. And these men are just legion, even today.
N.B. I also saw some kind of dating show with "Chuck Woolery" (if that rings a bell) after my blind dating experience.
The woman started stirring up trouble in a bar with biker types, and the guy on the date said he resented being put into that position.
She said, "I want my guys to fight for me a little bit".
That must be something rooted in women somehow. In any case, I'm not sure the old, traditional wisdom about them being the most empathetic is always dead on. I think they simply have a good game going, and most men are more competent with cars or engineering or the physical world than they are with regard to being manipulated by women. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for women, and the men think they are Real Men until the divorce court reduces them to wage slaves (while the woman smirks and takes off with the next guy).
Sorry, but "Real Men" seem to be true dolts.
I think any book by or about Winston Churchill, Harry Truman or any American military manual on how to conduct yourself as an enlisted man or officer. And of course my old boy scout book. I know none of these books were written specifically for the purpose you talking about Dr. Helen. But they all cover how men should or have acted. You can learn a lot from books and the people who are in them.
i have a friend who pays girls to be seen with himm. it`s not that he is bad looking or unable to talk to women, it`s just that he prefers the arrangement.
for the time they are together, usually in a public place, they carry on like a couple. dinner, dancing, sitting together holding hands etc.
but no sex.
then i realised, over time, that other guys were doing similar things...but that the women they were with weren`t nearly as attractive as the ones that my friend would be seen with. the other guys were married and had girlfriends and these relationships cost many times more than the evenings fee my friend paid one or two nights a month and those guys were miserable for the most part.
interesting arrangement.
not my trip mind you.
i found a woman who shares values with me about family, love, our future and so on....and we do most things together...but it took me a while to find her.
honest soul searching and knowing what i did and didn`t want well before we found eachother.
on a dating site.
she had no picture, and the one`s she sent when i asked initially sucked.
but she was just so nice and real compared to the other hair and nails girls i found myslef out with to be interviewed for the position.
we knew the moment we met.
crazy huh?
real man? marlboro man? wallet with legs?
don`t know. don`t care.
check out a few ross jeffries videos.
he allows a man to have choices. (women too.)
i like that.
Doomed:
I recall an early version of the Boy Scout Handbook which stated "Any real boy prefers the ruddy complexion of the outdoorsman to the pasty white skin of the stay-at-home."
It always seemed vaguely obscene to me...
"then i realised, over time, that other guys were doing similar things...but that the women they were with weren`t nearly as attractive as the ones that my friend would be seen with. the other guys were married and had girlfriends and these relationships cost many times more than the evenings fee my friend paid one or two nights a month and those guys were miserable for the most part."
------
To but it bluntly, most men I know who have any long-term relationship at all with a woman are paying for it in some way or another.
Women will pay money out if they think it's going to get them something out of the relationship down the road. It's even anchored in the law now that women who support men through a medical degree can lay a claim to part of his future earnings.
But it is just so overwhelming: A "stay-at-home dad" is going to become a divorced dad. Trust me - in every single case I've ever seen that has happened. It may take a while, but it will happen. Women just will not tolerate that.
I would like to see a study that adds up the NET money (in other words NET of the money that flows from woman to men) - the NET money in life - that flows from men to women.
Why has no one done a study like that?
I think with alimony (~ 7 billion per year according to IRS figures), child support (~ 100 billion or more?), net dating expenses (?), informal prostitution (?), workhorses paying for stupid housewives (?), men being taxed more than women, but women getting more government programs than men (WIC (?)), and on and on and on and on ...
... I'm pretty sure that men are forking quite a bit of money over to women. LOL
This is all ignored, and covered up, and chivalrously set aside by men, and aggressively denied by feminists. And just not thought about at all by the general public.
It's a massive point here, and I wish someone in society would acknowledge it or study it or comment on it. But it's taboo.
I've experienced it myself, and I pride myself (today) on not taking shit in my personal relationships with women.
They will just apply idiotic arguments, but the exact wording doesn't matter - they know it and you know it - because you are not getting access to the pussy if you don't agree with their "logic".
And I guess the difference between me and "Real Men" is that I don't accept that from women, but "Real Men" not only accept it - and pay for it - they are trying to shame other men into thinking that is how it is going to be.
I have occasionally run across women who aren't exploitive hookers. I treasure them. That sounds odd, but what people don't realize is that almost every housewife is an exploitive hooker and most women in general behave that way.
Sorry, sometimes a spade is just a spade.
It's not even necessarily bad: I think it's just genetics that people (men on their side, women on their side) behave in this idiotic way.
Men are just as silly as women in this whole theater. I thought I'd mention that before all the calls of misogyny start.
The Compleat Gentleman: The Modern Man's Guide to Chivalry, by Brad Miner
This book explores in depth, and with wit, what it means to be an honorable man in the modern era: strength, obligation, selflessness, virtue. Highly recommended. I've added this to my teenage son's summer reading list.
How fortunate that manginas and metrosexuals have been given their marching orders by women in general and the preference is now for "real men", you know the ones..
Not given to the whims of women by just being himself..
Sadly, quite a few wimps still have to realise this..
Well done Helen I stand in awe of your continual attestation..
By the way, my blog may be somewhat controversial but I must confess this latest one may have some merit..
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2009/07/women-are-more-sensitive-to-criticism.html
Gee, ChristianJ,
And didn't I see you leave a comment on MND a few months back, where you threatened a man for DARING to diss Dr. Helen?
Diss Dr. Helen and he had to deal with you, eh?
What gives?
"Real men" bore me.
Yawn.
Being a "real man" is, to a great degree, determined by the culture in which you live.
In Central America, any "real man" will have 1 or more "casas chicas" [small homes] where he houses his mistress(s) and his illegitimate children. He is expected to provide for them make sure they have most of the opportunities his legitimate children have, and to not have any more illegitimate children than he has the means to support.
His wife "knows" this is going on, but doesnt want to hear about it, and won't allow him to bring any of the problems of his other families into her home. As long as he follows those rules, she will tolorate, even defend, her husband's behaviour.
This form of "don't ask, don't tell" has been going on for almost 5 centuries in the Americas, and for who knows how long before that in Spain and the other countries from which our ancestors all emigrated.
His wife "knows" this is going on, but doesnt want to hear about it, and won't allow him to bring any of the problems of his other families into her home. As long as he follows those rules, she will tolerate, even defend, her husband's behaviour.
A classic example of female hypergamy. She'll accept mistreatment so long as she needn't be involved with a man she deems beneath her station.
here are 99 words any real man MUST know
http://www.biggeekdaddy.com/humorpages/Various/99wordsforboobs.html
@Original Post: "If you have other books with advice for men that you have enjoyed, or not, drop in a comment with the title and why you like/disliked it."
___________
I enjoyed the book "The Great Female Con" by Andey Randead. It is likely to make some people mad, especially women, and it is at times a bit too informal (and even crude) for my taste.
What I liked about it, though, was how it gave simple explanations for marital problems that usually people attempt complex explanations and solutions for.
In a nutshell, the author explains how the increased options and security given to wives by the laws and the courts have lowered their tolerance level, while at the same time increased the tolerance level of husbands. He argues that wives can be less tolerant because if her husband doesn't meet her expectations, she is almost certain to get the hosue and the kids and can sue him and make him support her for the rest of his life. Conversely, men have been wussified and are extremely tolerant because if he puts his foot down, he can lose his children and have his life ruined by a good lawyer.
It's a good read. I've also heard an interview the author gave which was interesting.
I think "Real Men" are living in a dream world or a world they have constructed themselves, and they can't see reality. Real, true, actual reality.
Being a Real Man means taking tons of crap from women because that's what you do in your model of the universe. Then you either die of a heart attack or go on a murderous rampage.
Similar to the advice "He's just not that into you" for women, I think Real Men ought to check out: "Maybe she IS just using you".
Women will pay money out if they think it's going to get them something out of the relationship down the road. It's even anchored in the law now that women who support men through a medical degree can lay a claim to part of his future earnings.
Expect the law to change now that women are earning a majority of medical and law degrees. In those cases where the divorce, custody and support laws favored women the "women industry" has worked very hard to maintain the status quo. As we start seeing more marriages between women with professional degrees and men with no degrees, the lack of an advanced degree will be held against men in the case of divorce. They will be portrayed as lacking ambition and be told to go out and get a job, not take alimony. That they may have supported their wives while those women earned their degrees will be ignored.
Does anyone believe any court in this country would award a man a percentage of his ex-wife's future earnings?
Divorced high income women are already starting to whine about paying alimony, using the "real man" epithet.
@Ronnie Schreiber said... "As we start seeing more marriages between women with professional degrees and men with no degrees, the lack of an advanced degree will be held against men in the case of divorce. They will be portrayed as lacking ambition and be told to go out and get a job, not take alimony. That they may have supported their wives while those women earned their degrees will be ignored."
_________
I've seen that. If he earns less or is less educated than her, he lacks ambition. But if she earns less or is less educated than him, it is blamed on her marriage to him and she is entitled to compensation. Equality isn't the goal, it is simply the noble sounding cover for the real goal... transfer of wealth and options to women, and obligations to men.
Real Men and some of their idiotic fans are described here:
http://columbine101.blogspot.com/2009/01/columbine-101-lesson-one-real-world.html
Enjoy.
isn`t it funny that even typing into text boxes becomes an act of courage sometimes?
the trouble starts with dating.
"i`ll pick you up, bring flowers, carry your coat...etc".
that`s the old gsme of open the wallet.
are you still doing that, or fantasizing that that is how you will treat the right woman on the first date?
all of the discussion of lawyers and paying for education and unequal earnings stems from dating self-indulgent narcissistic little princessess.
and how do they get that way?
culture.
mommy and daddy pour thousands into barbie doll sets and riding lessons and little outfits...and they still behave that way at 40.
and yes, i gave the mother of my children a house, a car and sole custody of my boys...and she comes to the kids soccer games in her lulu lemon yoga get-ups and giggles with the dads....
(sigh)
i stayed at home ad parented them while she went to work and stuffed every penny into the bricks while i worked part-time so that the kids could wear soccer boots that she didn`t think they needed.
and women don`t even want castrated chumps. they dream about the self actualised man and read about them in books (have you read a romance novel?) and complain that men consume porn that takes men`s attention from them.
and before we go too far bashing the shit out of the modern woman, just realise that there are good women out there that aren`t bandits and will value a loyal companion for love....
...if that`s who you are.
Randian -
How's the wife being mis-treated, if the man can afford his mistresses and illegitimate children, and never brings the problems from his other families into her home?
Bill
A classic example of female hypergamy. She'll accept mistreatment so long as she needn't be involved with a man she deems beneath her station.
Also, so long as the mistresses are below the wife's station.
I agree with Bill. I don't think they see it as mistreatment. It's just part of the price they pay for benefits they enjoy by being married to a man of higher station.
It would hurt me deeply if my wife had sex with another man. We promised to be faithful to each other. Our religion teaches, it demands that.
The same would go for my wife, she would be hurt and devastated. Our spirituality teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong on many levels.
Trey
Here are some Real Men, and fantastic pictures of them:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/07/remembering_apollo_11.html
I'm sorry, but some of you need to grow up. I'm looking at you, JG.
"...almost every housewife is an exploitive hooker and most women in general behave that way."
Have you met "almost every housewife" or "most women"? Or is it maybe possible that your sampling technique is somehow imperfect?
In any event, you realize that you're talking about your mother, your sister, and your daughter, right? Not just the ex-wives and -girlfriends who pissed you off?
Would you have put that sentence in an email and sent it to your momma?
You apparently don't have an argument, Brian, because you're simply trying to get personal.
But as long as you're going there ...
... my mother and sister were never housewives and are no big fan of them either. I don't have a daughter (if I did, I wouldn't raise her to sit on her butt watching TV and leech off a man).
Now what's YOUR problem? The woman you're paying for is getting a little expensive? You want to justify that you're not being used?
Women a hundred years ago DID do a lot of work around the house. Today, with all of the appliances and ready-made items, the DON'T.
If she does not have small children at home - and especially if she has no children - she's a parasite. With a capital P. I don't understand why men want to support them. Do they feel like Real Men(TM) or something?
No. There's an argument in that post, and your response helps illuminate it. Look closer. It's about something called "confirmation bias."
As in, every woman who conforms to your low opinion of women "counts", and every woman who doesn't conform "doesn't count." That's why your mom and sister are apparently excluded from the sweeping category "most women."
Convenient, ain't it?
Brian, my mother and sister are excluded from my statement because 1) they are not and never were housewives and 2) near as I can tell they are forthright and do not try to exploit men for money.
It's that simple.
Housewives are parasites by their very nature - it's built into the structure. It's like saying shoplifters are people with lower morals. They are.
OK, Brian, maybe this will help you:
My aunt was an exploitive parasite.
LOL
Hmm. Does this mean you're retracting your claim that "most women behave that way", and just sticking to the "housewives" subgroup (and in particular the "childless housewives" subgroup)?
Mind you, I still think "exploitive parasite" is much too strong, and seems to indicate a confidence in your evaluations of other peoples' relationships that is probably not warranted. But it's a damn sight better than "most women behave [like exploitive hookers]", so I'll take it.
And it doesn't have to be a "confirmation bias" or even a major coincidence: THAT'S HOW WE WERE ALL RAISED.
It's no coincidence that an entire family uses chop sticks. That's how they were all raised.
And I think most women behave that way. Certainly not ALL, though.
Please define the word "most". 51%? 75%? 99%? Give me some way to quantify our disagreement.
More than half.
More than half of the women I run into in life seem to exploit men for money in little ways or in major ways. Most means > 50%.
BTW, "that's how we were raised" not only fails to diminish the likelihood of confirmation bias (which is about the way your brain tallies and weights data, not so much about how it collects it), it also points up another kind of error: the fact that your sample is not representative.
I am a native English speaker and am aware of the dictionary definition of the word "most". My question is, if you had to write your sentence with a number and an equal sign:
"[X percent] of women are exploitve parasites"
what would the number X be? Ball park; say two sig figs.
Nice talking to you, Brian.
You disagree. That's OK. I have to go and try to get a woman to buy me dinner now.
Fair enough, JG. I have to get my employer to do the same. Another time, maybe.
Does anyone have any data on what percentage of women stay at home as homemakers? I cannot find the data. Maybe I am googling the wrong phrase.
Trey
brian, jg? maybe a small story will help. i was adopted at birth and raised by a couple who instilled traditional anglo-saxon values in me. my dad worked and my mom sayed at home. my mom then died and my dad drank. my brother and i survived, had children and so on.
recently i was re-united with my birth mother.
she had a series of lovers and husbands. one husband was my father, who made my mother give me up for adoption.
my mother died two years ago leaving her husband of some 20 years and a fortune made in the art business in scotland and europe. her husband was, of course, wealthy and supported her for all these years...joking the one time that i met him that "i had a bentley at one time, but couldn`t afford her and my wife..."
so...my two mothers. vastly different women. the women i`ve dated, married and had relationships with have been on a scale somewhere between those two women who brought me into and along in this world.
thanks to the internet and forums such as this, men are starting to be able to voice thier feelings about mysandry (man-haters) and be able to open thier eyes before they step into culturally formed traps while trying to be "real" men.
Tmink:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/12/art3full.pdf
At page 6.
That data is 10 years old, but I imagine you can find more recent info if you fish around on the bls.gov website.
BRIFFAULT'S LAW:
"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such asociation takes place."
true dat.
but the female needs to not enter into contracts if they percieve no benifit.
the uterus has an interesting mind.
and i believe that briffault`s law refers to instinct, not reason.
Does reason over-rule instinct? Or is reason more often used to create a justification of one's instincts?
I would say that in 95% of the population, the ability to reason is used to justify following one's instincts.
Jail is full of innocent people.
reason certainly comes after instinct.
Tomcal, thanks for the link. I had difficulty teasing out which women stay at home because they want to and which are unemployed.
And then there is the question of do we consider a stay at home mom a person who works part time or not.
It gave me a headache. But maybe I can slog through it better tomorrow. Thanks pal. I will report back if I figure it out.
It is interesting to me how difficult the figure is to find. It seems that it is a loaded subject from several angles.
Trey
Trey:
Yes, it was difficult to find, until I changed my paradigm; searching not for information on stay at home moms but instead on the hardships and nobility of working women.
Approaching it from that angle, the data spews forth.
As a superset of my early comment, I should have recalled that old Aggie sentiment:
Aggies do not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.
Everything else? details.
"searching not for information on stay at home moms but instead on the hardships and nobility of working women."
Wow, Brilliant and too damn funny! It nearly cost me my life though as I struggled to keep the grape nuts in my mouth.
Last time I ever do that.
Trey
"what would the number X be? Ball park; say two sig figs."
Brian, I'd put the number at about 15%, more or less 1 out of 7. This roughly corresponds to some other things that I've seen, such as a study that reported that about 15% of the population has significant diffculty separating fantasy from reality. And I think there's another percentage of women, somewhere between 5% and 10%, who have a visceral fear or dislike of sex.
So if we combine those numbers, we wind up with, worst case, 25% of the adult female population who are unsuitable as mates. What percentage of the adult male population are unsuitable as mates, and which side is getting shorted? That's an interesting question. I'll go try to research that.
Dave, I think that 15% is a reasonable number. Traditionally, people talk about a "10% a**hole factor" in any large group of people. You probably could've told me anywhere between 5 and 15 and I'd have been agreeable.
I'm less quick to agree to your inclusion of women who don't like sex as "unsuitable." Unsuitable for you, maybe. Unsuitable for me, definitely. But some men don't like sex either, and for those guys a woman like that is perfectly fine, even preferable. This is one of the points I was trying to make with JG: when you're evaluating other people's relationships, the default position should be to defer to their judgment about the quality and desirability of the affair. I'm not saying you should always defer, but you should at least tend to defer. Does that make sense?
As for men, I expect the fraction is actually larger.
@Brian said... "But some men don't like sex either, and for those guys a woman like that is perfectly fine, even preferable."
____________
If neither like sex, but want a family and companionship, that is their business and is absolutely fine. I have no problem with it.
One thing I think is nearly an epidmemic today is where one like sex more than the other, typically the male liking and wanting it more than the female, yet the one who wants it least feigns equal desire not only to have, but to please, in order to bait the hook for marriage (they may not be averted to sex, just not attracted to the partner they are baiting). Then, after the marriage, they not only cease to pretend to enjoy and like to please, they actually paint it as their spouse having a problem with selfishness and pervertedness.
henrymakow.com
bait and switch is a standard way to sell substandard goods in any marketplace.
and sell is the operative word here.
I read that book, a gift from a friend who had read it and was looking to rid himself of it. I read it and agree with you whole heartedly. I discussed it with the young gent that gave it to me, and tried to offer him some wisdom, but he thinks he will stick with the book.
Though I think there is "that guy" type out there, I do not think it is one man. At points in a real life man's time on the rock, it is his turn. Either he learns from it, grows, and finds better, more subtle, or bigger goofs to do, or he stays a small man.
The book was supposedly written for men but seemed more like a miss manners thing. I don't even, in my opinion, think women should abide such silliness, other than watching for their own security a bit more closely.
Good call.
Bah. My only suggestion: be a man among men, and a gentleman among women, and everything will work out just fine.
"My only suggestion: be a man among men, and a gentleman among women, and everything will work out just fine."
----
Well, you better get back to being a "man among men". Real Men (TM) don't do wussy things like post on the Internet, you should be off wrestling full-grown tigers.
Kim, what constitutes being a "man's man"?
I assume you are not enough of an idiot to say that you can beat up all other men with your hand tied behind your back or something like that.
But if you start to list character traits, my next question (maybe you can answer both at the same time) is going to be: Why shouldn't PEOPLE (men AND women) have those traits?
My impression is that chivalrous dudes like you are responsible for situations like the one with Mary Winkler (women can do what they want with impunity because they're just women).
Why would someone buy a woman dinner? Just ask her what time she's eating dinner and tell her that you'll meet up with her afterward for drinks. You've just aced her out of dinner and still get to go out with her.
Post a Comment
<< Home