"I seriously wanted to punch Oprah after watching that."
A great line from an Althouse commenter after watching a segment on Oprah in Copenhagen oohing and ahhing over their universal coverage:
Update: Here is the video of the Oprah show (with her comments 1 min. 15 sec in) (via commenter vbspurs).
"Just imagine, you don't have to work or marry to get health insurance. Everyone has it at the moment of their birth!"
(Oprah, pretending to have heard of this situation for the first time ever in her life, with dead-on mimicry of Michael Moore in France, in "Sicko")
"So wait, you tell me that a woman doesn't have TO MARRY A MAN TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE OR TO SURVIVE IF SHE LOSES HER JOB? That they can marry a man for LOVE and not like they do now, for benefits??"
I seriously wanted to punch Oprah after watching that.
Hey honey. Just because you hate men, or people from your background primarily want a man for their ability to pay your rent and groceries, doesn't mean the rest of us were raised like that.
The world isn't a ghetto, where life would be so much easier if the government would support you, without any effort on your part. Moocher. Man hater. Get lost lady.
Update: Here is the video of the Oprah show (with her comments 1 min. 15 sec in) (via commenter vbspurs).
Labels: Oprah
posted by Helen at 12:57 PM
49 Comments:
First time reader.
You got me, I'm hooked.
Welcome David, you are in for a good time!
"So wait, you tell me that a woman doesn't have TO MARRY A MAN TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE OR TO SURVIVE IF SHE LOSES HER JOB? That they can marry a man for LOVE and not like they do now, for benefits??"
In the U.S. a woman doesn't have t marry a man, or another woman (or an animal of their choosing) to get health insurance, simply get a job where it's a benefit or pay for it yourself. All of my kids had health insurance at the moment of their birth because I provided it. Does that make me as great as the governments in Europe?
All Oprah proves is that you don't have to have brains to make a lot of money. Just appeal to the ignorant desires of the masses.
Lots of women do want a man for the financial advantages he brings and/or the social status he brings, i.e. they don't want the man, they want his money and status.
Does that make me as great as the governments in Europe?
Actually, it makes me greater than the governments in Europe because I didn't take money from others by force to pay for my and my family's health insurance. I earned it.
Wow Dr. Helen, you really cover a lot of my favorite subjects but not many people really delve into psychology and violence with a conservative world-view.
Then the Oprah headline.
A couple more like that and this will be my home page.
But to address the topic at hand, Oprah seems to be well meaning, but her show is essentially an "analysis free zone" where the leftist litany is never questioned, no matter how loud and smelly the elephant gets.
It's group therapy to help people deal with the nagging effects of cognitive dissonance without actually changing anything significant. After all, the "Universe" is subject to the "vibrations" of your intent. If you don't have the results you want, you just need to wish harder and get in sync - surely it has nothing to do with your behaviors and habits...
david_rees,
Welcome, I'm glad you found some topics here that interest you.
Sadly, most women marry men for free groceries and benefits. This is obvious. you need only observe women in any social arrangement that involves payment.
Men marry these women. This fact is just as disgusting as Oprah's comments, but also more interesting.
From the link, Sexual Utopia in Power,
[quote]
Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him [...]
Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatu- ated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to point out natural female inconstancy [...]
An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most males. Women are not so much naturally modest as naturally vain. They are inclined to believe that only the “best” (most sexually attractive) man is worthy of them. This is another common theme of popular romance (the beautiful princess, surrounded by panting suitors, pined away hopelessly for a “real” man—until, one day...etc.).
This cannot be objectively true, of course. An average man would seem to be good enough for the average woman by definition. If women were to mate with all the men “worthy” of them they would have little time for anything else. To repeat, hypergamy is distinct from monogamy. It is an irrational instinct, and the female sexual utopia is a consequence of that instinct.
The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own [irrational] utopia, not that of men.
[unquote]
That was a pretty crappy comment from Oprah... this idea that women marry men for benefits or whatever. But it is not different than some of the nasty comments found on this blog and the underlying assumptions (that women are only with men for money, benefits, etc.) are the same.
I don't know a single couple like that though. Most of the couples I know are dual income. A few have stay at home mom's or mom's who work part time but they have very small children and daycare is insanely expensive here.
In my household, my husband earns almost twice as much as I do but I provide the health care because in my job, I have access to cheaper, better insurance than we could get through his work. Does that make me a pig because he makes more money? Does that make him a loser because he's dependent upon my health care?
Or could you consider that we are partners and equals?
Wait till Oprah starts showcasing crap like this....
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/01/off-topic-now-they-want-us-to-kneel.html
Lisa wrote, "That was a pretty crappy comment from Oprah... this idea that women marry men for benefits or whatever."
It was crappy because (1) it is true, and (2) Oprah misattributes the cause.
Lisa wrote, "I don't know a single couple like that though. Most of the couples I know are dual income."
And didn't most of those women marry men who outearn them? Wasn't it an especially important factor in their search for a mate? Don't you know couples who divorce over money? Is because of too much money, or because the man earns too little?
Come on, This stuff is obvious. Women marry mainly for money. Men are stupid for marrying them.
"Or could you consider that we are partners and equals?"
Men and women are not equal under the law, neither family law nor civil law nor criminal law. Women are superior to men at law.
This fact allows women to take legally a man's children, his fortune, his property, and his good name. Men risk more in marriage than women.
This makes it all the more stupid to marry.
Jeff,
If that is your true opinion of women, good luck in life. You are going to be miserable.
You honestly think it reasonable to make sweeping generalizations about 51% of the population?
I've known plenty of men who've married women for their money... as many as I've known woman who did the same. Most couples I know marry because they truly care about each other. But if you think marriage is all about some &itch grabbing some poor innocent man's money, well, what a sad life you lead.
Jeff,
Have you tried men?
You might just find happiness with someone you can consider your equal. Or maybe you can find someone to outearn you even, so you won't be so jealous of the women in that situation, like they're getting more for their companionship than you? Just a thought.
Mary
Lisa, Mary
It never ceases to amaze me how women will, without any sense of irony, try to manipulate men into trusting women while they appear to do nothing costly to themselves to actually eliminate the American Feminazi Police State.
Lisa -
I am happy to hear you and your social circle enjoy working and do not consider your men to be indentured "providers." I hope you are a vanguard of balanced, sane women who can help stop the stereotyping of men as clueless, unemotional boors and women as endlessly insatiable nags.
Unfortunately, not all women are like you. When Cosmopolitan runs an article called "how to snag a rich man" (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/dating-advice/Fascinating-Facts-About-Rich-Guys) it's clear to me that there's a market of entitled females that want to read about how awesome it is to make money the old-fashioned way - and what tips they need so they can make it a reality.
Keep in mind that this article notes that many rich men like to have young, hot girlfriends, and calls the men "shallow" for this. What hypocrisy!
I don't understand why Mary and Lisa are so mad at Jeff. They have a much more optimistic view of marriage, and it's fine for them to chide him for his cynicism, but is his opinion and experience invalid? 97% of alimony goes from men to women, giving great credence to the theory that up to 895 of women "marry up."
Whether or not you know any parasitic spouses, Jeff is right - under today's laws, men risk much more than women in marriage.
I was readying a piece of the "Don't Marry" blog and I'd like to make a further point about the marital contract. I read a story in the NYT last week about engaged couples and financial counseling. The counselor was apologetic that he had to talk about money with young people brimming with hot love.
His advice was good, but I think this guy had his attitude all wrong. Instead of pitter-pattering like he was teaching middle school sex ed, he needs to tell his clients, "look, you gotta plan all this sh**, because marriage IS finance. Figure out who's going to pay the bills, who's quitting work for the children, and how you're going to save for vacations and emergencies. Don't have unprotected financial sex with your fiancee!"
There's a school out there that prenups are selfish and unromantic. Again, marriage IS finance. Although prenups are supposedly "distrustful," Someone who is not interested in helping their spouse manage risk has trust issues of their own and has to do some soul searching.
I'd love to believe in Lisa's romantic ideals of marriage as equal commitment. I seek such an ideal myself. But marriage was invented to bind male productive capacity with female childbearing ability, and to bind partners for childrearing.
Fortunately given today's laws, one does not have to get married to be lovingly committed to a partner (except for states featuring common-law or "gotcha" marriage declarations).
Also, given the tide of gay marriage creeping into this country, it is only a matter of time before divorce and alimony wrecks the world of committed gay couples. I expect the gay community will say "THIS is what we fought so hard for?"
I have learned a lot from a lot of the different blogs that exist to defend the rights of men in society.
I was fortunate to grow up in an environment where I never witnessed any of the things that are now so common in our society. If I did see it, I did not interpret it this way.
Now there are all these new paradigms about men and women and in one sense, I see the validity of this view, but I don't like it.
To me, it seems as if men are now completely on the defensive - that our gender has been so damaged and victimized by women or marriage or the culture that we are being told to make a calculation - that it's not worth it.
Some marriages make it, some are good, some people are really happy, but we told that the possibility of that kind of life is not worth the likely outcome that we will be ensnared and consumed by this feminist machine.
Certainly that can happen but the question that is never asked is - where are these men finding these women? On what basis are they making the decision that these women are worth marrying?
From what I have seen so far, much of it seems to be wrapped up in this stupid dichotomy of the Alpha / Beta male.
Rather than men asking themselves good questions, we are being fed this message that the FIRST question to ask about a given action or response is "would that make me beta?" Oh we can't have that now. We must intuit what the Alpha would do and then we have our answer.
On the surface, this would seem to a much needed rediscovery of macho. America needs macho. We need about a 900% increase in macho right now. Men need to step up and be men. Yet somehow the definition of "being a man" has been reduced to "make money, f*** bitches" (and don't pay 'em).
So back to choice and character - how are these men selecting their wives? Do men actually look for character in women? Does anyone care? What about world view, values, purpose, the capacity for suffering, concern for others, a willingness to sacrifice and to own up to mistakes?
I know women who possess those kinds of qualities. They exist and a lot of them are very attractive.
As men, we need to step up and take responsibility for the choices we make. Stop selecting whores for your wives and stop trying to divine the "alpha response" in every situation. If you were truly "alpha", you would not waste time thinking about this BS.
David,
You had me until halfway through this last post. Maybe you have friends who have dedicated themselves to becoming pickup artists, but I was never taught to live on an alpha-beta axis, and I certainly don't analyze my moves to see if they are sufficiently alpha for my persona.
People like Tom Leykis and Roissy feel they are "taking power back" from the feminization of society. They have a good point, but I think they are overblown.
Let's not forget that the social ideals of chivalry and fake "manliness" are as much a function of female pressure ("a Real Man should buy a woman dinner and a pricey ring") as male locker-room talk ("dude, I totally pounded Jenny last night").
What's really interesting is that Roissy has openly admitted that the "sex-positive" hookup culture has devolved us closer to a state of nature - the big winners have been the alpha males, the guys who were getting laid before anyway. If anything, the lack of shame in sex today means women are freed from their "beta male" bonds (guys who would have been assigned sexual partners through the courting process) and can go hypergamous with the top shelf of male society. Conversely, the alphas can monopolize the sexual market and push out the other 80%.
You can choose to believe in a system of behaviorism where emotional connection to a woman is per se evidence of beta, but most men are healthy emotional creatures (despite what women's shows and magazines might tell you about "dogs" and "pigs") and desire more than polygamous sex as a course to social fulfillment.
Like radical feminism, radical PUA philosophy goes way too far in its aims, to the point where even things that make you happy are dismissed as illusions because the happiness didn't come about from their orthodox ethic.
"As men, we need to step up and take responsibility for the choices we make. Stop selecting whores for your wives"
This is good advice to anyone, but it's not really the point of what Helen and others are getting at. The system itself incentivizes bad behavior, so in many cases it doesn't matter if you chose a non-whorish wife - the system _wants her_ to take you to the cleaners. The system is an ass, and no bleating of "caveat emptor" is going to change the system (in fact it will simply dismiss bad results as bad judgment on the part of the man, and go on with the status quo.)
I don't know how they are selecting their wives (some may be screwing it up), but it's dangerous to think that they made some error that you or I aren't going to make - that you have the "Rosetta stone" of marital success. "It's not gonna happen to me" is not a strategy.
Another thing: the forces of social conditioning are strong, and like girls, boys are conditioned from birth to pedestalize and provide for able-bodied women, to treat them as greater beings by virtue of their organs. This makes it difficult to simply "not choose a whore for a wife" and it takes a lot of time and effort to de-program that conditioning and learn how to rationally separate good women from shrews and parasites. Which is why there is such a market for radicals like Roissy; he fills an educational void.
I am absolutely sure that women SAY one thing but do another.
I see what Lisa, Mary & Co. are SAYING above, but men need to think twice and three times before getting married (or don't get married at all) and that is reality. Absolute reality. No matter whether a woman calls you gay or not because you don't automatically do everything she demands the instant she demands it (like marrying her).
And the problem with marriage is not just the divorce rate. Lots of married men are stuck - paying and paying and paying to a demanding, bitchy wife 15 or 20 years down the road. They are unhappy but figure they'd be even MORE unhappy (and a lot poorer) if they divorced.
Lisa, Mary and other women with those views should put their money where their mouth is: If a divorce happens, everyone keeps the money he or she earned. No one gets alimony. No one gets an unfair cash settlement. No one pays child support because there is joint custody. No one benefits financially from marriage.
All of a sudden, women would be wailing that it's "unfair".
Oh, I forgot:
If she sits at home while he pays for her, a calculation will be made upon divorce as to how much he paid out minus an hourly rate for her housekeeping and sex.
She can then pay him back after divorce on an installment plan.
William,
I love what Mike said in the comments section.
People like Tom Leykis and Roissy feel they are "taking power back" from the feminization of society. They have a good point, but I think they are overblown.
That's a name that I haven't heard in a while. How can anyone, after listening to the things he talks about (which come from listeners and the news), reading the stories on this and other blogs (like The False Rape Society), and just paying attention to what goes on in the world say that he (I'm not familiar with Roissy, so I can't speak to what he (or she) says) is overblown? I definitely changed my behavior after being exposed to the information put out by people like Tom and the folks over at the FSRS. I already had several women try to intentionally become pregnant by me (little did they know, I have been fixed for years now). One even tried the poking-holes-in-the-condoms trick on me. People like Tom and others aren't, IMO, overblown. They're providing an invaluable service for people who will listen. Should his show be taken 100% seriously? Not necessarily. Should many of his lessons be taken 100% seriously by men? Absolutely. Without question.
As men, we need to step up and take responsibility for the choices we make. Stop selecting whores for your wives
Better advice would be to stop selecting wives.
The laws aren't going to get changed for the better any time soon if people keep buying what women and governments are selling. We need to treat this as an economics problem. Women and governments are selling a bad product (American women and marriage (immigrant women are such a small portion of the overall market in women, so they're really irrelevant to this discussion)), so we men should just stop buying what they're selling. If you're married, get a divorce (if you're with a good woman, you can still love her without a piece of paper). If you absolutely want to have kids, move to a state that allows gay adoption with a good male friend, set aside your egotistical need to see something pop out of a woman that has your DNA (there's no guarantee that the thing coming out of the woman that you think you love is yours anyways), and adopt a needy child (just make sure you have an agreement with your "partner" that you can continue to go out and date women if you aren't actually gay). Trying to figure out which women are evil women is like trying to judge a book by its cover; it can't and shouldn't be done. By the time you've figured out whether she is or not you've wasted a huge amount of time, money, and energy and have potentially paid a steep price to figure that out. The only way to fight this problem is to realize that any woman might be an evil woman and therefore to treat all of them in the same fashion. If women who are offended by being treated like this are truly good women then they'll fight to have the laws changed so that bad women can't continue to give them a bad name; if they don't then they're simply showing their true colors. Never forget, we have what they want: money and sperm. By starving the beast of the former, we'll have much more success at changing the laws. By starving the beast of the latter, we'll have much more success at preventing more beasts from being born.
J. Bowen,
Roissy operates on a biological imperative/Darwinist idea. He seems to think it's the "law of nature" that the top dogs get all the booty, and thus morally good for him to mack on lots of women. He is a funny guy, though, and I enjoy reading his blog.
On Leykis: I enjoyed listening to TL back in the day, but I find his recommended worldview to be a little extreme. To him, romantic partners are the enemy, and he advises young men to live "off the grid" and get as much stuff (sex, adoration) from women with the smallest possible contribution. That's the same parasitic attitude we're here criticizing in many American women.
Roissy is more extreme - he tolerates, if not celebrates, the current anti-male social dynamics
because the strong deference to women creates a bumper crop for alpha males by further disenfranchising betas. At best, Roissy's attitude is "living off the social grid"; at worst it is hypocrisy.
[i]That's the same parasitic attitude we're here criticizing in many American women.[/i]
Why shouldn't men engage in the same behavior? Should we avoid doing so to be chivalrous? Chivalry is simply BS - benevolent sexism. If women and the government are looking out for their own interests to the detriment of men as a whole, why shouldn't men as a whole look out for their own interests to the detriment of women and the government? Forget going Galt. Men should declare an all-out war. The idea that we should somehow forgo our own interests out of some feeling of benevolence or honor is ridiculous and has led to what we have now.
I have long detested Oprah Winfrey for so many reasons I can't begin to list them.
A big one: Rebuffing criticism of her tremendous charity to girls in South Africa while she disregards American youth as being "shallow and materialistic," just who was it that made herself famous for telling her audience that they have the keys to a FREE CAR taped under their studio seats?
Who got famous for harassing the staff at posh accessory and designer outlets until the owners made the staff stay open just so the Great O could shop there?
That skank is the goddess of shallow materialism. She is a goddamned whore in so many ways she deserves the title "madam."
I saw that Copenhagen crap on Oprah live in a Jiffy-Lube waiting room. It never ceases to amaze me how many women consider her some kind of female messiah.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Forget going Galt. Men should declare an all-out war."
----
J. Bowen:
It's not even necessary. Any man who becomes enlightened will not fall prey to a woman.
And men who don't (yet) get it are certainly not going to be in a war. At most against men who get it.
Right now, they can only get a little out of you. Men pay more taxes, for instance, and women get more benefits from taxes.
As men balk more and more at getting married, the state is going to have to make it more and more obvious that they are taking money away from men and giving it to women. Sooner or later, even the dopiest chivalristic man is going to wake up.
1. He might have valuable advice on some things, but I can't follow anyone (Leykis) who seriously espouses the "third-date rule." Not every guy is looking for sex, anyway, and those who are are usually seeking something a little more than "just sex." Let's play against the stereotypes, not with them. And if we'd lose the macho notion that you're more of a man the more sex you have, fewer men would fall prey to manipulation.
2. Not every woman out there is looking to bilk her husband. Are there many materialistic, manipulative women out there? Yes. Is that all women? No. Are they even a majority? I somewhat doubt it.
If that is your true opinion of women, good luck in life. You are going to be miserable.
After my second divorce, I gave up dating. I have 4 kids who are wonderful and spend lots of time with them. My youngest son stays with me full-time.
I do the laundry, cooking, house cleaning, mow the yard, garden, grocery shopping, etc. Never been happier. No woman who thinks I'm the Burger King and she should always have it her way.
Oprah is a misandric sexist and there's simply no getting around it. Tyra Banks, on the other hand, suprised me once when she did a show about male victims of domestic violence. I used to feel much the same about her, but I took it all back after that episode.
Plus, Tyra is hot.
Just sayin!
Trey
You know, if we had a way of including in the bill a mandate which precluded the use of personal wealth for one's medical care, meaning she would get what we get, I bet the hog would stop her ooh'ing and aw'ing very quickly.
@Doom
Very true! If that could happen, 99% of these Lear Jet liberals would, if faced with compulsory participation in the crap they endorse, shut their traps!
This comment has been removed by the author.
A year ago my now 21-year-old daughter had a baby with her boyfriend. She finds it very bizarre how much the government hands to her. She jokes that if you want to pay for college, be a girl and have a baby. Ironically, when she and her boyfriend get married in May, she will be much worse off benefits-wise. She will lose my insurance (through me), her boyfriend will lose his (through is parents). My granddaughter will still qualify for medicaid/s-chip. She will also lose her grants. The impact is high enough that she keeps second guessing their decision to get married.
Once I dared to say something not so nice about the sacred cow (oh the irony!) that is Oprah, and I almost had to run for my life. Understand, this was in a group of ladies, in a mall, in the middle of the South, where everyone had to prove how "progressive" they were by slobbering all over Oprah. As for me, I'm with you on the punching...
Meta: Why don't they seem to want to team up? Obviously there are women, such as Dr. Helen, who find the War Against Boys(TM) to be revolting and counterproductive, the hookup mentality debasing to both sexes and the egregious devaluation of husbands and fathers a threat to civilization itself.
So why the "Men should mever marry! Never!" mentality instead of the (and it applies to both sexes) "For the love of Heaven don't marry unless you can team up with someone who is fundamentally opposed to the above idiocy"--?
Pace Homer, such couples would be "a joy to their friends and a terror to their enemies." Not to mention, practically speaking, they'd outbreed the feministas--and with any luck pass on the good sense.
Great Great Great Blog
Your blog is so excellent. I am your regular reader of your blog.
I follow your blog. I like your way of posting.
Hey i am interesting in adding your http://www.drhelen.blogspot.com/
in my blog
http://spacestation-shuttle.blogspot.com/
I am honored to add it to my blog in right side bar links.
Will you add my blog in your blog list
Thanks for visiting my blog as well!
Please reply dear.
Does Oprah not know that a woman can get her own job with her own benefits? Or that she can get her own individual insurance policy with a $5,000 deductible for $150 a month if she is a 42 year old woman in Tennessee who has been laid off and doesn't want to pay cobra rates?
To the "Dude-just-don't-get-married" crowd: I am a woman. I have worked and paid my own way my entire adult life. My husband left - I did not go after him for massive amounts of child support, alimony, or assets. I simply did the responsible adult thing and supported the children that I had brought into the world.
I am an old-school feminist: I believe in equal work for equal pay. I have labored in the fields, I have manually carried irrigation pipe, I have shingled the roof on my own barn by myself. I have been told -- in these exact words -- "yes, you deserve the raise, but we're giving it to the man on your team instead, because he has a family to support."
Even though I am 5'8", weigh 130 pounds, and have been told I look like Christie Brinkley, the only dates I could ever get were from sleazy gold-diggers who were looking for ME to pay THEIR way.
All I ever wanted was the exact same kind of partnership you all claim you want.
Yet men like you never give women like me a second look. Meanwhile, I have watched -- for decades now -- while the crazy gold-digging whores get scooped up again and again.
Why is that?
"All I ever wanted was the exact same kind of partnership you all claim you want.
Yet men like you never give women like me a second look. Meanwhile, I have watched -- for decades now -- while the crazy gold-digging whores get scooped up again and again."
JB,
It is a mirror of the experience of men on this blog - why do so many women tell us they want attentive, respectable men, but go for manipulative, self-absorbed assholes and leave us good men in the cold?
I don't have an answer, but we empathize with you. You like us are fighting massive cultural conditioning (brainwashing?) - men are "supposed to be" sex-obsessed, unemotional and slovenly, and women are "supposed to be" naggy, emotionally labile, and endlessly careful about looks, clothes and keeping up with the Joneses.
Most people are not emotionally mature enough to recover from the shock of meeting someone who doesn't fit into those roles.
Thanks for being a sane woman - every one of you makes it a better world for men like us.
Following up my previous post...
I was never able to attract swaths of female attraction like some men. I wondered if that was an indictment of my manhood or person-value.
As I got older and more experienced, I realized I didn't want much to do with the "average woman." I stopped judging myself by the reactions of silly people, and life got much better! This had the great benefit of keeping me
from the types of bad women this board talks about. I never had the experience of hardcore manipulation or emotional bloodletting of an entitled woman, and I _never got the idea it was normal_! Thus I've always demanded a stable, healthy couplehood, and when it's not there I know from experience I can be single for a while and it's no big deal.
Yet men like you never give women like me a second look. Meanwhile, I have watched -- for decades now -- while the crazy gold-digging whores get scooped up again and again.
Why is that?
The answer to your question is simple: there's no real way to tell the difference between you and the women who say the same thing but do the opposite. Basically, you're suffering because other women pass themselves off as you. Want to help yourself and other women like you? Join in the war against the women who you and women like you are competing with. Otherwise, stop complaining.
"... there's no real way to tell the difference between you and the women who say the same thing but do the opposite."
----
Right.
And there are women who are absolutely brainwashed into that point of view, and they believe it themselves.
Lisa above describes how her own husband earns almost twice what she does. But she doesn't know a single couple like that.
It helps if you go to one of the "Seven Sisters" (universities that daddy pays lots and lots of money for).
In the 1950s, I think the situation was that women leeched off men, but they felt some guilt and tried to reciprocate by baking and making him feel comfortable when he came home from work.
Today, the paradigm is that men are basically still expected to be the contact with the real world - and mostly the *real* breadwinner - but women will refuse to acknowledge it and not only not reciprocate, but actively make fun of him.
And many - or most - modern "men" go along with this.
Men: You don't have to accept it, and women don't have to be the measure of your life.
Sometimes, when you just see them as silly parasitical creatures, and no longer as your mommy and the measure of all that is good and right up on a pedestal, you even get laid more.
And the additional bonus is that you start seeing reality.
I will slightly modify what Tether said: when you make women earn your trust and admiration, instead of simply giving it because you've been taught to do so or you think you are inferior, you will be more attractive to the type of women you want to be attractive to, less attractive to the princesses you want nothing to do with, and much clearer-headed in any situation.
"Today, the paradigm is that men are basically still expected to be the contact with the real world - and mostly the *real* breadwinner - but women will refuse to acknowledge it and not only not reciprocate, but actively make fun of him."
I've seen the last part of this in action - young girls fawning over guys, for the first time flush with disposable income, as they all duck out of work at 4:30 to hit Happy Hour. Meanwhile they mock and disparage hard workers as suckers, teacher's pets putting in extra time to suck up to the boss. They're nowhere NEAR as cool as us bar-hoppers - we're having the best years of our lives!
Then those guys get stuck on the career ladder while the 7-to-6ers keep developing...and the girls quietly switch allegiance from the late-20's, burning-out party guys to those starting to reap the durable benefits of going the extra mile.
I enjoy drinking beer, but I'm glad I learned very early how much time and money (and effort) is wasted thinking that "a social life" is defined by putting in time in loud, dark, drunk bars with people who can barely make sense when sober, let alone durnk. It'd be nice if more people realized these "cultural stories" we're taught about life aren't how it has to be.
"Then those guys get stuck on the career ladder while the 7-to-6ers keep developing...and the girls quietly switch allegiance from the late-20's, burning-out party guys to those starting to reap the durable benefits of going the extra mile."
-------
And then the "winner" gets, as his prize, to pay for the prize for the rest of his life.
I think you're still stuck in the paradigm of "winning over" the girl, and the approach du jour is to work harder than those party boys to gain final victory (although in real life the party boys sometimes become head of the marketing department or sometimes the head of Ford Motor Co. if their last name is Ford).
Is the prize really worth it? That's a thought that has to at least be entertained.
"I think you're still stuck in the paradigm of "winning over" the girl, and the approach du jour is to work harder than those party boys to gain final victory"
Au contraire - I've identified the scheme, and now I work to avoid it. I just find it funny how the "value proposition" changes from valuing fun nightlife - guys who like to drink and carouse - to valuing people-assets - secure "providers" who have spent their twenties investing in themselves. I have done the latter, and I don't have much interest in "providing" for someone who has simply decided that I'm a better deal at my age than the burned-out party boy who has developed the permanent whiskey-face.
I spend my spare time in productive pursuits of passion (hobbies and such) that put me in touch with other dedicated, interesting people, instead of glorified marketplaces of "nightlife" establishments. This has the dual effect of making me feel fulfilled for pursuing my non-work personal development, and also keeping me away from hollow rejection of meat-market "buyers" (who will go on to mock my geekiness as they try to get shallow guys to buy them stuff).
I read PUA blogs, not to learn the techniques, but to learn to spot their quarries (PUAs endlessly profile "typical" target behavior) and then stay away from them.
Oprah has it backwards. A lot of women work at jobs with benefits so their husbands can run the farm or have their entrepreneurial venture.
Like my sister.
Post a Comment
<< Home