Mr. Right has left the building....
Richard Whitmire, author of Why Boys Fail
has an interesting article in the WSJ (via Hot Air). The article, entitled, "The Right Man Is Getting Harder to Find," takes a look at why:
The rest of the article seems to go on about how women cannot find guys suitable enough for them because they (the women) are too highly educated and too "high level" [my words] for the men they date. And most "worrisome" according to Whitmire is the following:
So our society has created a mess where men are vilified in the classroom, fed PC rhetoric, told their life's goal is to make women happy and do anything that assists her with her goals, while simultaneously told that he is a dope, idiot and unable to care properly for children, and now people are questioning where Mr. Right went?
He just became the stereotype that society has portrayed him as for the last 20 years. It is certainly no mystery that women can no longer find "Mr. Right."
has an interesting article in the WSJ (via Hot Air). The article, entitled, "The Right Man Is Getting Harder to Find," takes a look at why:There's no single answer to the "why" question, but social scientists agree that the education mismatch Ms. Downtain experiences with men is a significant player behind the increase in college-educated women choosing single motherhood.
This mismatch signals the emergence of a phenomenon studied more commonly in the animal kingdom than in the human one—the "operational sex ratio," the scientific term describing what happens when one sex outnumbers the other. In human populations, gender balances can tilt following world wars or times of migration (think California Gold Rush), resulting in a shortage of men or women of marriageable age. Currently, the most blatant outbreak of the operational sex ratio is playing out in China, where sex screening or, worse, infanticide has led to an estimated 32 million more males under the age of 20 than females.
The rest of the article seems to go on about how women cannot find guys suitable enough for them because they (the women) are too highly educated and too "high level" [my words] for the men they date. And most "worrisome" according to Whitmire is the following:
A more worrisome issue arises when men take advantage of their relative scarcity by making life miserable for would-be girlfriends. Why settle down when you are a guy and the supply of eligible women appears to be unlimited? The female students hate such a situation, which is one reason admissions offices end up accepting male applicants who are less academically qualified than their female counterparts.
So our society has created a mess where men are vilified in the classroom, fed PC rhetoric, told their life's goal is to make women happy and do anything that assists her with her goals, while simultaneously told that he is a dope, idiot and unable to care properly for children, and now people are questioning where Mr. Right went?
He just became the stereotype that society has portrayed him as for the last 20 years. It is certainly no mystery that women can no longer find "Mr. Right."
Labels: men's issues
posted by Helen at 6:02 AM
223 Comments:
Right your are, Dr. Helen.
At nearly 50, separation and impending divorce dropped me into the dating pool for the first time in my life. It was frightening as hell, as at times I felt surrounded by sharks circling.
I asked a woman friend what was going on... and had this explained to me. I was a 'hot commodity', having already been in a long term relationship. I was already trained and experienced in how to care about someone else, and comfortable with sharing lives and space.
It seems these are lost arts to today's men, for whatever reason, and those who still can manage them are rare.
Carteacho,
Thanks very much for your comment. I have a question. Note that you mention a "hot commodity" as a man having been "trained" by a woman. I understand what is in the relationship for a woman--a "trained" guy to attend to her needs. What's in it for you?
I see things a little differently, carteach0. You willingly enter the dating pool and then are frightened when eligible women are interested in dating you? Then you call the interested women "sharks" and feel like you are a "hot commodity".
If you walked into a store would you be shocked and horrified if a salesperson thought you might want to buy something?
The "gap" or lack of good men is presented as being due to the greater education of women, but I don't think that's the issue.
More likely the opposite: The greater entitlement of women is due to the brainwashing that is disguised as education at universities today.
But these women are not "educated". As an extreme example, women's studies does NOT promote logical reasoning, critical thinking and a patient, thoughtful attitude towards finding the truth. It promotes the exact opposite and produces know-it-all, indoctrinated bitches who can only parrot the lines their teachers told them. They do NOT think critically about the assertions made in women's studies, they do not question the truth of them and they do not think logically, but instead are used to having their feelings uncritically accepted.
So these women can't think, have no job skills and have their heads full of one-sided half-truths and downright lies. That doesn't sound like a classical education to me.
On the other hand, a man may be intelligent and read quite a bit - and have a logical mind - but he sees the utter bullshit that goes on today in (liberal arts) universities and very intelligently gets a tech or trade certification to make money. And he teaches himself the rest.
But Modern Day Woman looks down on that. She has a picture of the Dream Guy in her head, and woe be it to the guy she "settles for". He will wind up paying for her and catering to her and all the rest, while being subtly or not so subtly insulted by her because he doesn't meet her precise specifications.
Helen, I think you may have seen a few words in my comment that I didn't actually type in. 'Trained', yes, by years of experience. 'Trained by a woman', no, I didn't say that.
Being in a relationship, especially in a living arrangement, can be a complicated experience. Living peacefully with someone else does not always come instinctively, but often requires thought and consideration. After doing it successfully for years, one becomes skilled at it, just like with any other endeavor.
When I said 'trained', I meant trained by years of experience.
What is in it for the man? Exactly what's in it for the woman, if it's an equal, open, and sharing relationship.... as I am in now. I *think about* what will make her happy, and I work at making it happen. Little things or large, I make it part of my day to make her life better.
What do I get in return? She does the same for me. It's a fair exchange, and one that leaves us both happier in the long run.
My career is as an instructor, and I work with young men and women all day. Mostly... young men. The degree of selfishness and outright 'neediness' I see in young people is astounding. It's ingrained in them deeply, and I doubt it dissipates quickly as they enter their adult lives. This self involvement is the opposite of what I practice in a relationship, and I suspect is what's at the root of most relationship issues among young couples today.
I'm not advocating totally giving up 'self' and personal enjoyments. Those are necessary for a person to be healthy and happy. What I am speaking of is the ability to consider the happiness of someone else as important to yourself, and making such a goal in tandem with your own.
Carteach0:
Some would have said in earlier times that a divorced man is not a "hot commodity" because divorce means you were not able to get along with a woman.
But I realize today that divorce is so common that no one thinks that way anymore.
As for the rest, something about your statement sounds a bit odd - I'll have to think it through what exactly it is.
JG, sometimes people change, and sometimes they just can't be together. It happens. Sometimes it's congenial, and sometimes it's not pretty... but it happens.
As for odd... been that way all my life (g).
Carteacho,
Thanks very much for your response. I agree that "if it's an equal, open, and sharing relationship...", it is good for both parties. In regard to the neediness and selfishness, however, our society often teaches people that others owe them and this goes for both young men and women, of course. But I do think some of the "callousness" or apathy on the part of young men is a specific cultural response to perhaps an unconscious acknowledgment that society sees them both as "the enemy" and expects little of them at the same time. This psychological dilemma leads to a feeling of "why bother?" We have been pushing girls to succeed for the past 30 years while telling boys they suck, now they do, no surprise.
Helen, I can't find fault with your theory, except to say this: As someone who teaches mostly at the high school senior level, I am convinced our school systems and society have created a generation left unchallenged. By this, I mean they have been told for years that success is nothing to get excited about, and they will be just fine coasting along, with everything being done FOR them. Male or female... a generation trained to entitlements. I can't help but be certain this translates into their personal relationships as well.
Carteacho,
I absolutely agree that success is seen as a negative or unimpressive. When success is seen as no big deal, or worse, is punished as is happening with the current administration as well as the education system, then we are left with a culture where coasting is good enough.
However, I do see society as more willing to pull for girls and women in our society. They are protected by law, moreso than men and their lives are held as more precious. The boys see it, see their fathers and grandfathers kill themselves for nothing and think, "what the hell? Coasting and a good time are a better use of my time. If no one wants me happy, at least I'll do what I want." This mindset comes at a cost, mainly for society as the boys may just turn into men who don't give a damn. When our society says that success is important and starts to treat the sexes more equally, perhaps this will change.
I agree 100%.
It is even in church settings. I attended at church 20 years ago that started preaching that if the wife was unhappy in the marriage, that ultimately it was the man's fault. I left.
I realized at some point over the past 10 years that I had to reject the PC stuff sent my way by society and just be a guy, period.
There was a time when women (yung ladies) went to college because that was where she could find a guy with a good future rather than hanging around at home and working at a store. College guys? they might become lawyers, doctors, teachers, dentists etc.
If the ration in college is changing, then guys would be smart to go there and meet a girl with great job potential.
Intelligent Design works!
Fred,
I realize it is statistically insignificant, but every single couple that I have seen in which the woman earned substantially more than the man later divorced. And prior to the divorce, there were years of increasing insults and abuse against the man from the woman.
On a more general level, no matter what they say, women just do not like a man to earn far less. No matter what they try to force themselves to think based on the politically correct statements in their indoctrination classes in college.
I normally see statistics that around 20% of couples involve a higher earning woman and lower earning man. Now it has supposedly increased to 27% or so.
But let's look at that: I have also heard that the recession has affected men much more heavily. Lots of women are in taxpayer-paid (governmental or university) positions that are less subject to the whims of the economy.
So maybe Bill got fired and has to temporarily work at a lower-paying job and Mary is temporarily making more than him.
But if you look at the "core" figures of 20% that seem to apply to all economies, you see situations in which a nurse may be making more (right now) than her husband going through residency traning to be a specialized doctor. She may make more than him for years, but she's counting on the jackpot, and we all know what is going on there. Same with a man who is putting all his money, time and ooomph into founding a business.
Also, women tend to marry older men. He may be in retirement now and just working part-time while she is still working full-time. There are lots of situations like that.
And finally, if you think about it, Heather Mills may well have had more earned income in their marriage than Paul McCartney. She did a few modeling gigs, he may not have worked at all. So Heather was a wife earning more than her husband.
In any case, it's probably some genetic thing in women that they want a higher-earning guy. No matter what they tell others, and no matter what they tell themselves.
Unfortunately, because the idea of a *real* equal partner in life sounds good to me, not a housewife sitting on her fat butt with a hostile attitude.
Colliges are a racket for most degrees, and guys are hip to that.
The productive degrees, engineering, science, math, and the piratical applied degrees of business are still male.
Men like to make things.
The tax supported navel gazing, group hug 'degrees' are where, grossly, the women hang out.
So you have productive male fishermen, truck drivers, high and low voltage electricians as socially unattractive to brain washed, not too bright women with their faked, ripped off degrees.
Another thing, why is it alright for the women to fake breasts, liposuction and low watt forth tier degrees looking down on real guys, doing real work?
And, our society, our economy doesn't like mining, fishing, lumber. We are NIMBY about manufacturing, smelting, mills.....and all the men or the type of men that work them.
Yeah. We should all go into glorified paper shuffling and sell it to the Europeans...er..Chin...
A third weird thought. Combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan have the highest moral, reenlistment and such. Maybe it is because for so many single mom, safety obsessed, just out of PC high school, it's where a male can be male(ish). For the not as bright, the thug culture and crime.
My grandmother told me when I was a wee lad that marriage meant very different things to men and women. For women, marriage was a safe harbor; a foundation of hearth and home; the center of the family universe. For men, it was a "civilizing influence" as she put it -- men by nature being footloose and fancy-free, marriage required taking responsibility for the family and acting like a grown-up.
But over the past four or five decades, men have been progressively shunted out of the family picture in various ways even as they are being ignored in the workplace. Is it any wonder that men decide that marriage is not worthwhile? What's in it for us? You see this in black communities most poignantly: the state having long since taken over the "benefactor and protector" role in children's lives, what is left for a man to do but live for himself only?
I believe that it is in a man's nature to grapple, to strive for things. It's not simply for selfish reasons (status, success) but also to benefit the family. Without that grounding of a wife and family, a man is...unrooted. There is no legacy and hence no real drive to improve himself.
Why master a difficult and time-consuming trade like (say) plumbing if a prospective mate will find it "beneath her"? A necessary and honorable line of work, without which society would be immeasurably worse off, and yet this somehow becomes a liability when trying to attract a woman because it is not "educated" enough for her.
I believe that this is the main reason why deveoped countries tend to have falling birthrates and other social problems. Men cannot be marginalized in this way and still be expected to take on all the responsibilities of marriage and family at the same time (even if they can find a suitable mate). Better to stay single, play the field, and spend your money on fishing boats and new trucks.
Have you noticed have often women whine that' s "its hard" to raise their children and have a job too?
Maybe its the women who aren't qualified to raise kids.
I raised two sons by myself, no wife, no daycare EVER and went to work everyday for more than 30 years.
I also maintained 5 rent houses and 2 antique Harleys and built a 1935 Ford hot rod from the frame up, along with many other projects in the same period.
My sons turned out good, no drugs, no trouble with the law, both graduated from college.
One is a Certified Jeweler, the other an Electrical Engineer.
I enjoyed every minute of it and only regret that they grew up and left home.
One other thing: I am 59 and have NEVER owned a television.
Yep, just linked to your post here:
http://powip.com/2010/01/and-a-good-woman-hmm/
Have you noticed how often women whine that "it's hard" to raise their children and have a job too?
Sorry, I should have 'previewed'.
And prior to the divorce, there were years of increasing insults and abuse against the man from the woman.
Well, I don't want to turn this into a misogynistic rant, so I'm going to try to be careful how I say this. I realize that you can't generalize about women; every woman is different. What follows is what I found in my own failed marriage -- it may not hold true elsewhere.
When my ex and I first got married, I was working a good job and she was still going to school. Therefore, I paid all the bills for the few years while she was in school.
However, when she graduated and got a job, she became resentful when I asked her to pitch in for the household expenses. In her mind, paying for stuff was my job. Her money was her money, but my money was our money. She justified this by saying that I made a lot more than she did (which was true). But I pointed out that when all the bills were paid at the end of the month, I was broke whereas she had almost all of her paycheck left over.
Over time, it got worse and worse. It ended up being one of the main reasons we divorced. It wasn't a money thing, really; I didn't mind the money so much as they attitude she had about it. To her, it was my responsibility to pay for things because I was the man. Yet she became incensed when I asked her to clean up around the house and make dinner (male chauvanist!). After we divorced and she had to pay her own way, she sudddenly realized the load I'd been carrying all that time. And I was amazed at how much money I had left over at the end of the month -- I would have described my economic position as "lower middle-class" while married, but I felt as rich as Midas after the divorce. (I moved into a smaller place with lower rent; I didn't spend as much on utilities, food, etc.; I spent a lot less on "going out"; and so on.)
I've long thought that for marriage to be "worth it" to a man, there has to be some other motivation other than the financial (love of wife and children, optimally) because otherwise it's just all downside and expense. Health costs, the orthadonture for the kids, two cars, new clothes, college money, it just never ends.
For many men the idea of being a mule in harness for twenty years to provide for a family only to have the wife divorce you at age 50 because she "needs to grow" is a chump's game. If the family is a man's legacy and the legacy can be taken from you at any moment, what's the point?
What does a college degree have to do with being a good wife and mother?
Badkingjohn:
I think that's how many or most women think about money and marriage.
But the problem lies with the many men who accommodate them. I have never understood it.
I have asked men who are fully supporting a sit-at-home with no kids, and the answers are some kind of vague "a REAL man takes care of his wife" or "I like home-baked bread and has time" or other nonsense that I simply cannot understand.
But there are so many male saps who are not only able to be taken advantage of, but willingly and readily take it - and they don't even care if they have to pay everything over to the sit-at-home in a divorce. The men think it's great, I guess. I honestly can't wrap my head around ideas like that.
THOSE saps are the problem in society, not the women with less-than-perfect morals who just want a free ride.
I think probably these men have been brainwashed since they were little kids (by mommy and female teachers) that they are absolutely worthless as human beings and they should be happy that ANY woman pays any attention to them - even if they have to be wage-slaves to get that attention.
Before WWII, 90 percent of Americans lived on the farm and little boys spent the day with their father.
After the war, the boys were raised by stay-at-home moms and female teachers who were influenced by television shows glorifying female infidelity-----Wasn't one of those shows, "As the Stomach Turns"?
I would like to have grandchildren but I won't have any if my sons marry, she leaves and takes the kids, never to be seen again, so I have taught my sons the facts.
She will get your house, half your money and you will not get to be a real father. (A real father lives in the same house as his kids)
Because of the way females are raised in American culture now, women are more trouble than they are worth now. At least, that's been my admittedly anecdotal experience. Seriously, when I analyze the balance sheets of all of my relationships and ask, was it worth all the trouble, the answer has always been, no.
Then there's the fact that marriage has been perverted by the legal profession to such an extent that it's a game for men who are losers. It used to be that a woman had to prove some wrongdoing on the part of the man in order to obtain a divorce. Now, she can find herself a BBD (Bigger, Better Deal), and just split with the kids and half of her first guy's shit. A friend of mine who lives in California - poor sod - had exactly that happen to him. He did nothing wrong, his ex just found a guy she liked better, moved out, took the kids, and wound up with half of what the poor guy worked to build for them. That's bullshit, that's what that is.
Contemporary American culture is one of rampant misandry, and I think more and more guys are waking up to that fact.
As long as it's all about ME, then it's not about us.
My own anecdotal experience: married a feminist ex-lawyer (I know, I know) while in college.
The marriage rapidly went south under the insults and attacks. Strangely, her beliefs and desires and dreams were "good" while mine were "wrong, evil, etc." There was no "different" allowed. There was the Right Way to Live (her way) and then there was The Path of Evil.
After a while, the marriage had all the appeal of living in a totalitarian state, including Thought Crime.
After one interrogation where I resisted the pressure to confess my sins, self-criticize, and admit my unworthiness, I finally asked her, "When we got married, did you ever think you might have to change?"
In a moment of stunning honesty, she said, "No."
Her expectation was that I would adapt to fit her needs in all things. That she was the reference standard of behavior, and thus, the marriage would be HER marriage, not ours.
Looking for Mr. Right is great...as long as you're willing to be Ms. Right for him, too. If that part is missing, no reasonably self-aware man who values himself is going to want to have anything to do with you.
I agree with Huc & others about the odds of a bad outcome so we ask why guys put up with it when it doesn't appear to be overall worth the hassle. I think the answer is the fear of the other side of the equation. Loneliness. I think a lot of guys have a bigger fear of this than they do the pack mule role.
I know a lot of women just like Ms. Downtain, and they're all the same. Full of themselves. Completely unreasonable in their demands and expectations. Oh, and so conceited and condescending too.
I for one won't have anything to do with them. It's their attitude that renders them worthless.
Feminism and the Male Response:
Feminism: "I'm smarter than you. I'm better than you. I make more money than you. I have a career! You can't tell me what to do."
The Male Response: (Yawn) "Buy your own house, bitch."
And so it ends.
Back when I was an undergraduate I took a course on ethology, the science of animal behavior, particularly as it pertains to mating strategies. On the final exam the professor posed a hypothetical population and asked, as a predator, what the best way to wipe out the population would be. The correct answer, of course, is to attack the females. Because a population with an inordinately high concentration of males cannot reproduce and perpetuate itself. (See China in this regard.)
The point being that this is the fallacy of feminism. It's not so much the villification of men as it it is the denigration of women.
Because feminism deludes women into believing they can postpone marriage and child-bearing, not to mention their responsibilities for child-rearing, until well past their most productive years (biologically, a woman basically has a ten-year window of opportunity to conceive, between 18 and 28; after that, it becomes increasingly problematic), the net effect is to essentially to remove women out of the mating pool.
And then what? Well, she has her degree(s), her career, her bad attitude, and an empty house with no joy in it. Clap clap clap. You go, girl!
There is no Mr. Right for these women. He simply does not exist, not in their minds anyway. Because they do not want a life partner, a helpmate, and a parent for their children. (That would be oppression, you see.) No, what they want is a caged bird, a PC parrot, who only sings the glories of her.
I am reminded of a scene from Barfly, the movie about the poet Bukowski. In the end, the rich magazine heiress offers him the guest house at her mansion, where he can live for free and write in peace. He says, as he turns her down, "Tully, baby. Nobody who could ever write could ever write in peace."
In other words, no real man would ever submit to being a caged bird. He demands the freedom to live his life as he sees fit and do the work which drives him. If women were so much smarter than men, as they maintain, one would think they would have figured that out centuries ago.
Women have the ability to get educations, earn good money, reproduce and own property. I wouldn't hold your breath that the gender is going to make any sweeping changes any time soon.
That's an excellent snotty and provocative comment, Cham, and it shows how little women really know about how much men do for them.
Eliminate men's sex drive and innate chivalry and then separate the country into two independent countries - let's see how long the smart, sassy, independent women last.
Snotty and ignorant. Cool.
There's a lot of the "Getting your hands dirty is icky" idiocy going around; an awful lot of the time it seems to be not just "I make more money", it's also "You degrade yourself doing dirty work, so you're not worthy of me", it seems.
So it's become not just "You should make more money", but "You should make more money AND do it in a 'suitable, highly esteemed' manner or it doesn't count." And some of these women wonder why they can't find Mr. Right?
One thing's for sure: They wouldn't really need a patent office on the women's side.
Cham, if I am reading your remark correctly, are you saying that women will not change due to a sense of fairness or justice or morals, but only if material things are taken away from them? And as long as they can get "stuff" out of men it doesn't matter how they treat them?
Cuz that's sure what it sounds like.
Cham -
"I wouldn't hold your breath that the gender is going to make any sweeping changes any time soon."
So, the sweeping changes they made in the last 20 years are now set in concrete? Don't bet on it.
Dirty hands:
I've written before, I knew a gal down here that moved in from north. She was a manager for the PR of the local hospital. She was husband hunting. One guy took to her and she liked him *until* she found out he "dug wells".
Around here, not only do you 'dig wells' with equipment, not a shovel, but he friggin' *owned* the company. This is pure gold in the rural communities, but she only saw the dirty hands.
She's since moved back home.
JG:
I did not say anything about women getting "stuff" out of men. I didn't make a comment about how women treat men.
As long as women are satisfied with their life as it is, don't expect changes. Change is born from dissatisfaction.
The Futurist has a long article posted, basically proposing the Lysistrato strategy. The Lysistrata strategy done by men, hence the last letter changed to the masculine o.
Men think if they refuse to marry women, on a big scale, that women won't have children or relationships. Neither is true. Witness women's willingness to have children solo, and become midlife lesbians after they give up on the men.
Just saying, the consequences you anticipate may instead have unintended consequences. I think there's a Law about it.
I really worry for my nephews. I don't even know what to tell them.
Just curious, did you catch Cokie Roberts on ABC this morning (1/24/10)? While discussing John Edwards' adultery, Sam Donaldson said that people compartmentalize their actions. Cokie interrupted and said that only men compartmentalize and lie. Still trying to find video of it. Not yet on ABC.com.
No, Kentuckyliz, women can manipulate better with sex.
What men have to do is cut off all the fruits of their inventions and industry to women. No tax money taken from men and given to women.
Look out your window in the summer. See those MEN building that house? Well now, a woman doesn't get that house after they're done building it. Society does this today with various mechanisms designed to obscure the real work that went into the production of things.
And I guess men would just have to get used to doing without all the benefits in society from women - like women's studies professors, cosmetics and shoe buyers, housewives, and affirmative action people.
"Cokie interrupted and said that only men compartmentalize and lie."
----
Well, I've never heard of a woman lying.
TO: All
RE: Heh
I like the way C.S. Lewis put it....
We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. -- C.S. Lewis
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. When the fit hits the shan, there will be damned few of us left for people to look to for help....
P.P.S. Why am I reminded of that line from Watchmen?
Men would never put the Lysistrata option into effeact. A) Men like sex way too much to go without for the length of time it would take for this strategy to work; and B) they don't have to, because there's plenty of no-strings sex to be had. All things being equal, men are lazy: they'll take the path of least resistance. Why put the effort into being married and raising kids if you can get sex basically just for the asking with none of the troublesome (and expensive) side-effects?
Women most certainly aren't going to give up their economic self-sufficiency, and I don't think men are asking them to. Women are going to find that it has costs: stress, failed relationships, dysfunctional family lives, and all the rest. The cultural costs of raising children born out of such dysfunction are even now playing out -- the "divorce culture" of the 1970's has led to the current generation of disaffected and needy Gen Y and Millennials.
Both sexes need to remember that it's not just about them. Marriage is primarily about bearing and rasing children to be responsible adults. That's the whole point to the institution. And a well-adjusted child needs both mother and father.
Doc Helen,
The reason why men don't marry is simply because the ROI is too bad for them. They get nothing out of it, so they don't do it. The ROI for remaining single is much more to our liking, so we're staying single more-duh.
Badkingjohn,
Your comments were gold! I made two blog posts out of them. You other guys, such as Bruce Wayne, are spot on too. Screw women & the horse they rode in on! The fish can remain without their bicycles as far as I'm concerned...
MarkyMark
Finding Mrs. Right is no picnic either. Let's face it folks. Whether we are a man or a woman. We are all looking for a mate that will support our strong points/strengths and supplement our weaknesses. I think this applies to God's intentions for us and to the basic biological truths of our species. Many of the comments on Dr. Helen's post have been insightful and significant to this issue.
There is a goodness with being Mr. Right. The problem is finding Mrs. Right. And where is Mrs. Right hiding? I believe she can be found in a traditional values neighborhood near you. The same neighborhood where Mr. Right lives methinks!
I think Dr. Helen should be applauded for talking about these important challenges in our country.
Modern American women are teaching american men more than "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" with how they act. They are teaching men it is better to give than to receive. American women in large numbers give nastiness to men but expect to receive warm wishes of having great success and luck.
How about, you made a bed for yourself you now sleep in it with your ten or so cats and go quietly into childless spinsterhood.
No man worthy of being called a man will take the holier than thou tongue lashings that I have read in the comments that various men have received without eventually hating the person and giving it to them. What kind of nutcase thinks that another person is going to stand still and take it for no other reason than being a man?
It is my heartfelt belief that said women who are like that certainly don't deserve a husband and most certainly don't deserve to have children. Women who are like that to another adult would most certainly do grave damage to a child's emotional well being! And to think courts hand over the children to these harridans is it any wonder that 70% of our prison population is filled with the aftermath of single motherhood?
Buy a cat you feminist harpies! Mr. Right can't stand you because you are Ms. WRONG!
Something to throw into the mix here:
Women's power (sexual power) drops off radically as they age.
Young women are full of themselves and insufferable because everyone is chasing after them. Men their own age, younger men, older men, everyone. Of course they are going to act like know-it-all spoiled brats, and most of them - also simply due to their age - don't have a well developed sense of fairness or justice. So they are simply going to treat men like crap.
On the other hand, even among women who hold their looks for as long as possible, the skid downhill from age 40 to age 50 is dramatic. I have known some women who still looked really good at 40, but some even lose it in their 30s.
The older they get, the more they realize that men are not really chasing them anymore. So some of them actually drop the caustic behavior. Then - horrors - they find out that men are still not really all that interested; they certainly can't manipulate like they could when they are young.
If loneliness is an issue with men, just wait a while. Women are a lot "easier" when they are older, the problem is that you no longer care.
I haven't read all the comments, but from my experience in several big cities the expectations and entitlement of lots of young women are totally out of sight - daughters of middle-upper class families who think they are entitled to continue that kind of lifestyle. In that way, their search for Mr Right is really a hunt for a sort of "paternal alimony."
They also read signals strangely...just last night my lady friend told me "I want my friends to like you, but they don't because they never see you paying for anything for me. They think my roommate's boyfriend is cooler because he doesn't even think of letting her pay."
I noted that her roommate's boyfriend also watches football all weekend and doesn't spend a lot of personal time with her, and she's always complaining how he's not emotionally connected to her.
But the friends don't care - he's "cooler," because he pays. I told my girlfriend her friends have twisted ideas about men, and that their lack of romantic success is probably a result of it.
As long as women are satisfied with their life as it is, don't expect changes. Change is born from dissatisfaction.
Except that there are plenty of women who are not satisfied with the current status quo. Many are "making do" because they have no other great options, but they would be the first to admit that they wish things were otherwise.
Look at black professional women, to take one glaring example. Doing well in material terms, yes. Happy with the overwhelming man shortage and the prospect of probably never finding one? Not at all.
In my view the only thing that will change the status quo is when the pain factor for women of the deterioration of men becomes so acute that women demand changes. We're not there yet, but if the educational changes continue in the way they've been going (and the US government makes schools not admit men to make it balanced, meaning that the 60/40 threshold would most certainly be crossed), we very well may be there in 20 years.
If loneliness is an issue with men, just wait a while. Women are a lot "easier" when they are older, the problem is that you no longer care.
Ka-ka-kaboom! JG NAILS it!!
Her expectation was that I would adapt to fit her needs in all things. That she was the reference standard of behavior, and thus, the marriage would be HER marriage, not ours.
An attitude that is quite common among women I know.
From TFA:
"I'm being honest and telling them about my life, but I feel like I'm coming across as too good for them. That is never my intention."
Yeah ... I kinda doubt that. The next woman I meet that doesn't think her doctorate amounts to a veritable apotheosis, despite the complete lack of any actual achievements to back it up, will be the first.
Much easier to say "oh yes dear, your incredible intellect is far too intimidating for me to handle, I'm going to run away in emasculated shame now because you have crushed me with your wonderfulness" rather than be honest and say "If you could ever get over the idea that a person's worth is completely determined by a piece of paper, you might turn out to be someone it was actually fun to be with, but I sure as hell am not going to waste any more time waiting to see if that'll ever happen."
Personally, I suspect that women are just hard wired to not be satisfied with any mate that's not higher social status than they are. Which would pose obvious mathematical challenges no matter what, but when you add in the all but completely artificial educational requirements as a status proxy to browbeat potential mates with, well, as TFA says:
"Today, more and more well-educated women have to ask themselves: Am I willing to "marry down"?"
Since the answer is virtually always "NO", well, we're just going to have a lot of unhappy women, aren't we now?
Makes me rather thankful to be a guy and be hardwired to be perfectly content with "fertile", and maybe "hot" as a lucky bonus but we can certainly pass on that if it's not immediately available...
I've often said that Civilization (at least Western civilization) was born because men were trying to impress their girlfriends. "Look at that bridge! Pretty cool, huh? You said last week that you hate taking the boat across, so..." It's a joke, of course, but with a nugget of truth to it.
Left to themselves, men really are lazy bastards. We'd rather crap outdoors than build a flushing toilet; but Thomas Crapper took the lead in popularizing the new device partly because his wife was complaining about having to empty the thunder-jug every morning. A man would probably be just as happy to loll around the cave eating grapes and drawing stick-figure naked chicks with charcoal, but the wife and children needed better living quarters: off to build a house (or yurt, or whatever). Wife complains that you're gone all day hunting bison and leaving her alone with the kids? Invent animal husbandry and agriculture so you can stay closer to home and still have enough food to see you through the winter.
Art? Music? Pretty much exclusively dedicated to either a) praising God, or b) impressing girls.
So if you ever wonder why modern culture doesn't seem to produce great art or culture any more, wonder no more -- men aren't trying to impress the ladies as much as they used to.
JG,
I was told that if you look at dating sites, you can sort women out into two categories:
A) 18 - 29
B) 30 - 39
A) will generally be looking for any club type they can. Simply because there is such a high demand for them.
B) will be looking for almost anyone with increasing desperation. Will take anyone, is needy for attention, etc., etc.
LOL! It's funny to hear that though I don't need to look to double check. I just find it hilarious when people say that. I've seen the 30 - 39 most of them are McDonalds fed single moms you pass by in Walmart or get in the check out line to.
Men think if they refuse to marry women, on a big scale, that women won't have children or relationships.
No, men think if they refuse to marry women, on a big scale, a lot more men will be happy.
My 2 cents are this:
Men are generally willing to start a relationship with incomplete data. i.e. if a woman is really attractive, or possesses other outstanding qualities then we will risk entering into a relationship, absent knowing other factors, some of which are very important in the long term. If we start becoming fond of a particular woman we start to adjust our expectations to meet her qualities emphasizing the good and minimizing the bad. Thus from the beginning we maximize flexibility.
Yet from my observations women seem to demand 90% compliance with detailed specs before they will even start down the path. My impression is also that rather than adjust expectations once they are in a relationship they just assume that they can eventually adjust a man to fit the 10% of specifications he did not meet at the beginning.
I and most of my guy friends, are all the marrying kind: we are all steady fellows in our early thirties, moderate-to-conservative, trained (in nearly all cases by both parents) from childhood to be respectful of women, want a permanent long term monogamous relationship and in nearly all cases possessing a college education and well paying employment (I am currently a law student so hopefully the employment part is in the near future).
Yet none of the single women that I or my guy friends know give any indication of interest whatsoever. We are simply not worthwhile in their eyes as potential mates.
Mene, mene, tekel upharsin
We have been weighed and found wanting.
Why would a man ever be Mr. Right when:
- A woman looks at someone who isn't a Hunky McStudmuffin and exclaims out loud, "ewwww, you? Gross". And/Or laughs loudly.
- A significant other's first words by phone, after a couple of months separation overseas in the military, are "buy me gold".
- One hears constant complaints of "you aren't like X", when X is nearly always drunk and beats their partner, but the rare time when sober buys them lots of stuff.
- When one offers to cook dinner because he likes to cook, he gets accused of not liking her cooking, or anything about her, "why did you ever marry me if you hate me so much".
- She does everything possible to prevent conceiving a child, and blames the lack of kids on him.
- He gets constantly nagged about taking her out, letting her choose the venue (dining, dancing, whatever), nothing but complaints are heard about and during the evening, "you can't dance", "the food here stinks, I could do better", etc.
- A woman gets offended by a man doing simple old fashioned things like holding a door for her or paying for a date, AND hearing "you are no real man".
I could go on, really, I have 8 married years of examples like the above, and about double that from the "dating" years.
The "her money is hers, our money is hers" is soooooooo true.
I've read this thread with great interest. I married a much better educated woman than I was in 1974. She was a college educated nurse and I was a dumb ass junior NCO. She made much more money than I did and the first few years of our marriage that was critical to our success.
I was confident in who I was and what I was. I was the kind of G.I."jock" you see today on the TV in Iraq and Afghanistan. I jumped out of airplanes, smoked and shot at people who annoyed me.
In the following 20 years our roles reversed themselves several times. In 1978 I found myself in England with a wife who couldn't work. I was a junior NCO with a wife and two sons. It was time to grow up. I studied and got promoted each time in the following two promotions cycle. I was now a senior NCO making enough money to support my family.
We returned to the U.S. and again she was the dominant breadwinner. Then she tired of nursing and went back to school working only part time. I worked, cooked the meals so she could attend night school.
10 years later I retired from the military and went to work in the corporate world making a six figure income. She retired from all work and became a contented housewife doing charity work in the community and belongs to a womens group..
Now we are both retired although I have a small business on the side to keep busy.
Throughout our marriage we learned that the most important part of our relationship is that we like each other; she’s my best friend. I guess we somehow gave up a piece of our individuality to better succeed together although I don’t really feel that we did.
One thing we did from the very beginning that I think was important was that we pooled all our resources into one pot, joint checking accounts, credit cards in our married names, everything. That was a major step in making a commitment to the life we wanted to share together.
I read these comments and I hear a lot of pain and whining and ego. I think too many people over analyze their lives, effectively turning themselves into emotional blobs, fearful of life and afraid to take chances.
Sometimes ya gotta go with your gut. Man up guys, jeez
@Paul --
And therein lies the problem:
I and most of my guy friends, are all the marrying kind: we are all steady fellows in our early thirties, moderate-to-conservative,
Problem One, depending on where you live -- "conservative" can be a problem with educated women in blue cities
trained (in nearly all cases by both parents) from childhood to be respectful of women,
Problem Two: Often this is phrasing to cover behavior which is "nice guy" behavior -- women are generally not attracted to this in sexual/romantic terms, but want men to whom they are *not* attracted in sexual/romantic terms to treat them this way. This doesn't mean women prefer jerks, but they don't like "nice guys", either -- not if they can have their pick, at least.
want a permanent long term monogamous relationship and in nearly all cases possessing a college education and well paying employment (I am currently a law student so hopefully the employment part is in the near future).
Problem Three: These are things that, if not present, disqualify you, but if present, do not help you. In other words, they are things that don't help you to have, but simply prevent you from being disqualified on this basis.
Upshot: Women today want guys who are sexy, charming, good looking *and* educated, well-earning and so on. And have a bit of an edge on them -- not jerks, but not "nice guys" either. The men who meet these criteria are very rare in our culture, and will continue to be so.
Man up guys, jeez
Which in four words sums up why men get trampled underfoot in the current culture.
Shorter version of "Jim in Texas":
"I am really full of myself, so become a Real Man like me".
I've seen idiots like him get drilled - even late in life - in family court. They change their tune after that.
When Miss Right became Ms Right it was the beginning of the end. When Hillary said in a speech that she was diverting funds for assisting all to girls-only schools and women-only businesses and no one shouted "sex discrimination" and instead nodded in agreement at the lie that "investing in girls and women just pays off more" it was the tipping point at which we fell off the cliff and embraced free fall. We are now, despite the remaining vestiges of prosperity, well on our way to being a third world society. Fatherless, castrated nations do no prosper. They simply become dictatorships and police states.
The biggest problem I have with many women I meet is that they're boring! They don't have any hobbies or passions or anything; their life plan is to hook a guy into spending money and lots of time glorifying her. They spend spare time watching Bravo and reading Cosmo. A lot of them seem to have jobs with no career path, they're just playing out the string until a husband can support them.
I used to think I was socially weird for feeling out of place talking to them...then I realized they were boring, and I moved on to talking to interesting people.
Side reading: the Cougar's Lament.
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=roissy.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-1237311%2FLIZ-JONES-Wish-lonely-Christmas-spare-thought-millions-women-like-me.html
If no one wants you to come to their Christmas dinner, it has to do with more than just being single at 40 (nothing wrong with singledom at that age) - you're probably a total drag.
Liz Jones is the Daily Mail's Carrie Bradshaw and the other gals caricature - harpy, obsessed with judging people on minute details, implicitly misandrist and bitter that she didn't wind up with Mr Right when her eggs were fresh.
@Jim in Texas
Based on the dates you included in your post, you're probably in your early 60s.
Times change, sir. (Thanks for your service to our country.)
Women become invisible after their looks fade. Few notice them and care. Entitlement attitudes follow the same downward trajectory when Ms. Entitlement finds she no longer has an audience that caters to her.
Problem is, an unattractive middle-aged hag doesn't suddenly become more attractive when she has a temporary attitude change. She's still an unattractive old hag. The attitude change won't hide the wrinkles, sags and age lines.
Some naive men are willing to risk losing everything for a hot woman. Very few are willing to assume such risk for unattractive used-up old hags.
I ask women on the Personals websites why they left their husbands.
Quite a few have told me that their husband was a good decent man who was not a problem, but "THEY FELT THAT THEY COULD DO BETTER".
Lets see, You are 56 years old, fat and ugly and you think you can do better than a good decent man??
Jim in Texas:
Men are starting to have some real problems in society. Something's going on - they are committing suicide at three or four times the rates of women.
You are lacking in empathy and/or ignorant of what is going on and/or one of these guys who never understands anything until it directly happens to him.
So I guess get back to work. You have to support the housewife.
Jim in Texas said...
"Sometimes ya gotta go with your gut. Man up guys, jeez"
Which is what I did and do, and I get looked upon by a lot of women as if I have some STD, or am too much of a knuckle-dragging grunting retrosexual impervious to being changed.
I have one piece of advice for anyone looking for "right". Spend hours thinking about everything you must have in a partner. Write each one down in great detail. Rank them 1 to 20 or 50 or however many items you have...
then delete all but the top three.
Then ask yourself why anyone with those thrree traits will choose you.
@ Jim in Texas:
I've seen male acquaintance after acquaintance "man up" and get drilled in family court. A good friend of mine is going through hell right now because his ex found another man. And he never mistreated her, she was a whore at heart and hid it from him before the marriage. Thank your lucky stars that never happened to you and your chronically naive perspective.
Much thanks for your fine service to this country. Regarding what's going on now in many shattered families, you are a completely clueless buffoon.
Well, just so the misogyny doesn't totally get out of hand....
I generally find older women (35 - 50, say) to be far more interesting than younger women. Primarily due to the greater life-experience and exposure to the world. But, absent some circumstance I cannot now forsee, I wouldn't even consider marriage. Why? Mainly, both parties in that age group bring a lot of baggage to a marriage, mostly in the form of ex spouses and children.
For a man, this situation is fraught with all kinds of peril. The children are generally too old to 'bond' with the interloper, which presents a rift right off the bat between husband and wife. The children play off the "real" parents with the step-parents, and often the step-parent has no real hand in guiding the children's lives -- thus taking away the main benefit of being a parent in the first place. Again, it's all expense with relatively little reward.
Then there is the financial question: a man who marries later in life simply has vastly more to lose if things don't go well. To lose half your assets at age 25 is one thing; to lose half your assets at 50 (with a possible burden of alimony on top of it) is potentially back-breaking.
A man who marries later in life must take an enormous risk for comparatively little corporeal reward. In short, a man at that time of life pretty much must marry for love alone, because there is little else in the institution for him. The calculus beings to change a bit once the prospective mate's children are grown and out of the house, but not by much.
For the record, I find it very unfortunate that our society has so degraded marriage that it is now mainly a financial question for a man rather than one of love and commitment, but that's where we are. And the destruction of the institution of marriage is going to have some very grievous effects on our society in the next 50 years or so. When the family bonds are broken, who cares for the elderly, the sick, and the down-on-their luck? The State does. Taxes skyrocket; quality of care plummets; a generation of feral, risk-averse children prove incapable of supporting a (far larger, demographically) generation of older people who couldn't be bothered to teach them properly when they were younger.
There is always a price to be paid for mucking around with fundamental social institutions. We may live to see the bill for our own follies come due.
""I am really full of myself, so become a Real Man like me".
I've seen idiots like him get drilled - even late in life - in family court. They change their tune after that."
Maybe so, life's uncertain. I'm certainly not going to live my life fearful of what might happen.
badkingjohn said...
"Well, just so the misogyny doesn't totally get out of hand...."
So we let the societal and legal misandry become even more entrenched and accepted as the norm.
M'ok, some animals are more equal than others.
"@Jim in Texas
Based on the dates you included in your post, you're probably in your early 60s.
Times change, sir. (Thanks for your service to our country.)"
Thank you and yes, times change but values don't. Once again, I see and hear people caught up in the self-created hubris of their lives, experiencing great angst.
Faith and self discipline and service and integrity and commitment and any other value you can name hasn’t changed. They still require investment of effort and maybe that’s missing in some young men. If so, It’s not insurmountable and it can be re-instilled into those that might not have it.
Sometimes you have to step outside of your life and seriously examine yourself from the outside.
I’m certainly not qualified nor prepared to pass judgment on anyone, I’m just sharing my opinions and my observations hard won, sometimes painfully hard won, in my life.
Remembering that all free advice is worth what it cost, I offer this advice to any young man unsure of himself and unsure of his life.
Find a man that you admire and then try to emulate him. We all see role models in our everyday lives and need to consider them consciously. There are positive role models in every young man’s life. Find them, talk to them, and try to act like them. It might be your boss or someone you work with or for. It might be a neighbor or someone from your church. They are there and they are worth studying.
I still see young men behaving as stupidly as I did when I was their age and that, in my opinion, is a good thing. Maybe sissified schools have knocked some of the spunk out of them but 17 year olds and hormones are a powerful mixture, hard to keep down. They just need to be channeled into positive behavior.
True, I am a product of my environment, in my case if was the military, but I also worked in the corporate world and saw many men that were admirable and worth emulating.
I have to say that I am gratified to see other young men expressing the same values and truths I was dedicated to when I was their age.
As for me personally, I was raised in the south and had a grandmother with a built in titanium knuckle that descended onto the back of my head if I didn’t hold a door open “for a lady” or failed to show what she considered proper respect to women. That’s why I still hold doors open for ladies and even still - less often than when I was younger - open the car door for my wife and pull out her chair. Since I live in Texas that’s almost expected but regardless, the memory of that knuckle is far scarier than any scowls or comments I might receive.
It’s not easy being a man, but it’s not that hard, either. “Man up” is not a flip term, it’s advice to a man to take his responsibilities seriously and, well, man up.
"you are a completely clueless buffoon."
To quote Dr. Helen's husband, "heh." Certainly not the worst thing I've been called in 61 years.
I'm sorry your life has been so painful. I guess there are some events that are outside our control that so warp and shape our lives that we become bitter cynics.
I'm glad it didn't happen to me.
Cheers.
I'll tell you - the problem is not feminists, it's chivalrous hard guys like Jim in Texas.
Feminists would be a giant impotent laugh number if they weren't being backed up by people like him.
Thankfully, Jim is probably in a position where he can't do much harm.
But chivalrous dudes like him are family court judges, legislators and university presidents. They are the ones causing the problems.
Joe Biden is a good example of that. He pushed through VAWA and other legislation that is borderline unconstitutional. He sees himself as a hero.
But anyway, back to Jim in Texas:
You're an irritating person (because you are full of yourself) and that's about it. I think you better man up, boy, and quit thinking that it's all about you.
Jim, Real Men (TM) don't come back on to bitch-squabble with other posters.
You should be out chopping wood or kicking someone's ass.
I'm starting to lose faith that you are really a Real Man.
Man up, boy.
TO: Jim in Texas, et al.
RE: Things That Change
Faith and self discipline and service and integrity and commitment and any other value you can name hasn’t changed. -- Jim in Texas
Right. Those things don't change at all. But then we get people like Tether......
'nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Real men DO eat quiche. If it's got LOTS of spicy chilies in it.....]
So many of the comments here seem to be similar to the comments from "'men are expected to produce' more than they consume. " What we are having is a breakdown in society: women are being pushed to the front of the line, and men are saying the heck with this. So in economics, Britain could produce fabric and wine cheaper than Portugal, but because of relative factors, it behooved the British to export their fabric and import Portuguese wine.
Now both men and women can play the game of sex manipulation and exploitation, but it seems to me that women suffer more from living with a man and not being married, than the man does. However, men suffer more from a marriage ending in divorce. So, why would the woman live with a man without a marriage or why would a man marry? Men and women both suffer when marriages or co-habitation ends. However, it seems like men will do better to avoid marriage, both from financial and emotional damage. Society and children are better off when parents marry. So what can be done to make this situation better?
The answer to this riddle is "hypergamy". Women aren't interested in their perceived inferiors, and the huge imbalance of degrees awarded creates, via the lens of credentialism, perceived inferiors. Women also, by and large, won't tolerate men are less dominant than they are. That's why the more women push themselves to display masculine-dominant characteristics the more inferior, and therefore ineligible, they perceive men to be.
There is also the disconnect between what feminism says women should want in a man, and what they actually want in a man. This is resolved by blaming the man for the disconnect.
Women whining about not getting 'Mr. Right' is no more realistic than if a man were to whine about not getting a supermodel.
Men understand the realities of supply and demand, but these women in the article clearly do not.
By the way, everyone should read 'The Misandry Bubble'. It explains everything.
I agree that chivalrous white knights are a bigger problem than women themselves.
They think being chivalrous will get them laid. Being even minimally observant would correct this fallacy, but that is too much to ask, apparently.
It's interesting that there's so much here about dating/marriage that's purely transactional and focused on the relative "worth" of one "partner"... not a lover, versus the other.
Does anyone marry for love anymore, or is that passe' in our brave new world?
I must be old fashioned cause I've always thought that, for better or worse - richer or poorer - yadda, yadda, had something to do with love, not business.
"Dating" myself, eh?
JG wins the thread with this sentence :
More likely the opposite: The greater entitlement of women is due to the brainwashing that is disguised as education at universities today.
Bingo. Bingo. Bingo.
Upshot: Women today want guys who are sexy, charming, good looking *and* educated, well-earning and so on. And have a bit of an edge on them -- not jerks, but not "nice guys" either. The men who meet these criteria are very rare in our culture, and will continue to be so.
Someone the other day put it this way, the guys who get laid are either the alpha males or the players (or both). The stud-muffins, the guys making all the money, the politicians, etc. don't have to work at getting laid - women throw themselves at them (one guy I know, in his early 60s, is still the recipient of this from women even in their 20s).
I was surprised a couple years ago to find that there is a real science to getting laid, esp. by beautiful women (unless you are a real alpha mail). And, it takes practice, practice, practice. And, deep down, these guys aren't usually very nice.
The result is that many single guys, esp. in their 20s after college, just aren't getting laid that much, and it is getting worse, as women get more empowered by society.
These guys used to be just fine, but the feminism and misplaced liberal beneficence (think LBJ's War on Poverty) destroyed the traditional family. As has been run into the ground in this forum, our legal system is heavily stacked in favor of women, as is our welfare system. The result is that women don't need men directly to have and raise families any more, and so many don't, or at least don't stick around, when they can get the fruits of a marriage (i.e. his labor) without the inconveniences.
There are a lot of downsides to this. One is that many guys end up running in juvenile packs (i.e. gangs), and then end up in prison.
Another is that without the expectation of raising kids in a marriage, a lot of guys these days are opting to put themselves first. They play a lot more, and many just work enough to pay for that play.
Women moan about the pay-gap, but invariably ignore that it is primarily a result of men working far longer hours and not taking time off to be with the kids. And for this reason too, it is not surprising that most science and medical Nobel prizes go to males. They have traditionally been the ones to make the inventions and build the companies, because they worked so much harder at it. But any more?
My thoughts on how a woman can get Mr. Right is that she look to settling down a bit earlier for good, and seriously date the less desirable guys from the point of view of current desirability. In other words, don't go for the older successful guys, and definitely stay away from the players. Esp. in the early 20s, the guys are typically much more desperate than the girls are, and there are plenty there with a lot of long term potential.
When the guys are in the later stages of their undergraduate degrees, and into graduate school, it is often fairly apparent which ones are going to be long-term successful. Many of these are quite nerdy. And, they are most often very susceptible to feminine interest, given how rare it is for them.
Oh, and the best way to get to know them is to go to school with them. If you want to marry a lawyer, go to law school. If you want to marry a doctor, go to medical school. All that time together only makes things easier.
I'm a 50 yo white male with a masters degree. I have a secure job and my house is paid for. Never married, never gonna be. So I'm getting a kick out of these posts.
I was raised to be respectful to ladies. But in college in the 70's and grad school in the 80's, the feminists taught me to stop treating like ladies and treat them like equals. And on the job in the 80's and 90's these same women taught me to treat them like competitors, competitors who know a lot more about Machiavelli and manipulation than I do. One careless remark, one disagreement with their politics and dogma and they'd play the victim and use the PC rules to demote you or remove you from employment.
At work, watch your words and say as little as possible lest you offend a woman or a minority or some other protected class. Freedom of speech does not exist in a PC office. Constant wariness reinforces distrust and suspicion.
The same feminists often quoted Steinem about women needing men like a fish needs a bicycle. ''You can't do anything for me that I can't do for myself!'' was something I heard many times when I was dating. Liberated women spent 35 years treating men with contempt and now they're surprised when the men they despised don't want their company.
I've been approached by lots of women. Almost all of them were divorcees or single parents. It's sad that so many seem desperate. I won't waste their time, just tell them plainly ''Why should I want to spend the rest of my life raising some other man's children?''
I've been asked to be a sperm donor and declined. I could claim I'm virtuous and being Green, minimizing my carbon footprint. Or maybe I'm just childish and selfish. No children means no child support payments.
I like the comments about men who've decided it's okay to just coast for a lifetime. It fits well with a lot of things I've seen. Is that the result of an affluent society or one that's decadent and hopeless?
If you get lonely, if you want someone to love, or someone who will love you, buy a dog. And treat it right. Dogs know more about loyalty then most humans.
@Mike --
Does anyone marry for love anymore, or is that passe' in our brave new world?
I must be old fashioned cause I've always thought that, for better or worse - richer or poorer - yadda, yadda, had something to do with love, not business.
"Dating" myself, eh?
Love is fine, but it isn't a stable enough basis to support a long-term marriage, because it's quite fickle. It waxes and wanes, it's subject to change, it has ups and downs. The old marriage vows used to implore (or, rather, contain promises to encourage) people to ride out these waves of highs and lows, but the real reason people did so was because of (1) intense social shaming on divorced people and (2) laws that did not permit divorce other than for a proved good reason (the big "A" reasons like abandonment, addiction, adultery, abuse).
We live in a society that has removed both (1) and (2) and is trying to "wing it" on the basis of people marrying "for love" and "because we're soul mates".
The result of that is reflected in the divorce rate.
Seems cynical, but it really isn't. People married for love in the 40s and 50s just as they do today but those marriages lasted longer than today's marriages. What has changed? The laws around marriage and the social shaming and stigma around divorce.
It's not that hard.
You can have a partner who is rich, good looking, with character, with integrity, has the ability/williness to be a parent and has wonderful friends...
Pick two.
There might be one or two examples of people with large doses of all of the above, but most of us come with some positives and some negatives. In spite of what the beer commercials say, you probably can't have it all and that means you have to make some choices about what is most important to you.
You want rich and good looking? Well, those are probably not going to come with oversized portions of character and integrity.
You want rich and good looking? Well, those are probably not going to come with oversized portions of character and integrity.
Yeah, but try getting modern women to UNDERSTAND that! You may as well try to herd cats...
Such bitterness! Such angst! I guess Hell truly hath no fury like a women, err man, scorned. It's getting tough to tell the difference.
@ Jim in Texas:
I do respect your approach to life. It's my approach outside of dating. But having been abused by a woman from childhood (my mother) and having had to deal with the repercussions in my adult years, I'm not exactly the quickest person to trust.
Thanks again for your willingness to serve our nation. And congratulations on finding and keeping a good woman as your life partner.
I envy you. :)
Such bitterness! Such angst! I guess Hell truly hath no fury like a women, err man, scorned. It's getting tough to tell the difference.
Shaming language. Anything else to offer?
If not, then promptly STFU.
It seems to me that women have a deep seated DESIRE to be angry.
They certainly put a lot of effort into being that way.
I'm in my later 40s, never been married, but would like to, but I've got a fair amount of baggage that I think most women wouldn't want to handle. I'm also only a social worker, not a corporate dynamo, so I guess the self-centered upwardly mobile women that men are bitching about here probably wouldn't give me the time of day, and that's fine, I've resolved that I may never marry and I'll just make an interesting life for myself.
But are women as nasty as this? The women I've dated are never like what's described, although I meet mostly women in church who probably have different values. Yet I still can't believe women are as bad as described here.
That's why Jim in Texas was a nice alternative to read. He gives a good perspective and puts all the negativity about women in its place.
Some of these guys make me hope women avoid them, and that they just stay home and masturbate for the good of the women they might otherwise entangle themselves with.
TO: R and Others
RE: Don't....
I envy you. :) -- R to Jim in Texas
....'envy' him. Get out there and get in the 'game'.
Personally?
I recommend going Airborne. And Ranger.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Life is a 'rush'. Especially while doing the one-minute door check with your knees in the breeze.]
TO: Jon Sling
RE: Go[o]d Reading Material....
That's why Jim in Texas was a nice alternative to read. He gives a good perspective and puts all the negativity about women in its place. -- Jon Sling
Try THIS!!!!.
I think it will provide you—and others—with some clues on what to look for in a woman who could be your wife.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I don't just appreciate good women. I married one.]
Jon Sling are you really so naive as to think that all the guys on here *dreamed this stuff up*??
P.S. But are women as nasty as this? -- Jon Sling
Obviously, a LOT of men think that too many of them are. And, I have to admit having good reason to believe they are right.
The problem is, it's likely to have been a self-inflicted wound in most of the cases. We get 'stupid'. Use the wrong 'head' to do our thinking for us. And, more often than not to our own detriment.
Been there. Done that. Got the scars to prove it.
Yep. Like the courts enforce Proverbs, Chuckle.
You're an ignorant ass. And I say that as a Christian and a lawyer. Misinforming men about the law when it comes to marriage and insinuating that Proverbs will sort it all out to avoid that mess is ignorant and actually actively hostile towards men.
Shame on you!
Yeah, good luck trying to find a Proverbs 31 woman in church these days! Churches are just as feminized as the world around them. Find a non-feminist woman in church? Hell will freeze over first...
JG - "every single couple that I have seen in which the woman earned substantially more than the man later divorced. And prior to the divorce, there were years of increasing insults and abuse against the man from the woman."
A man who earns far less than his wife is lucky if all he suffers are insults prior to divorce.
I mentioned this subject to my wife this evening, and she related that one of her fellow prosecutors (a guy I know personally) had to testify against his own mother, who had murdered his father apparently to avoid pay ~$50k/yr in alimony (turn-about being fair play). She told me that the story had even been covered on Snapped (a television show about women who kill the men in their lives). Knowing this, it was easy to locate many items, like this one, confirming that this was exactly what happened - including the mother trying to blame the murder on her own daughter to save her own ass.
I cannot fathom how the guy deals with this, especially given that his own wife is a pediatrician and makes nearly double what he does.
@Novaseeker - Sure, if you insist.
Women demanded equality and the resultant societal changes have outstripped their wildest dreams. We’re in the midst of what may eventually be a nearly complete sexual role-reversal, at least for a significant minority of both men and women. For women, particularly the educated class, well they’re just going to have to accept what men were forced to accept for centuries: there are going to be few equals of the opposite sex for you to choose from so compete bitterly for those that exist, accept a mate who is your lesser, trade your wealth for their youth & beauty or learn enjoy your life alone. I, for one, welcome women to this arena … let the games begin.
The most surprising change to me is not that in women, women’s attitudes towards men, or of society’s denigration of men and elevation of women but of the attitudes of men themselves. Men are, increasingly, in need of a big group hug and a shoulder to cry on. This, self-feminization (?), is just plain odd. Men, to me, seem increasingly distraught, emotional, and unable to cope with the new realities. Hasn’t that been the male stereotype of women for centuries now? Society is oppressing & denigrating men but men now respond like … women? Weird, or “grow a pair” if you prefer.
For those men who have been paying attention and playing along there may never have been a better time to be a man. Perhaps not if you’re the sort that nearly flunked out of high school and believes that the ability to drink the better part of a case of beer at one sitting is a marketable skill but for those with some ambition, drive and ability the market is literally forcing men out of their traditional career roles and into more entrepreneurial endeavors. Thanks to women who view you as their lesser and a traditional job market that will abuse, ignore & belittle you, you may now devote your time and resources to developing a business of your own rather than dragging along the deadweight of a mate and her larva. If you’re any good at it you’ll be financially much better off in the long run and the next paragraph will become relevant to you.
Young beautiful women no longer demand a commitment, or for that matter that you buy them dinner, before they will sleep with you. I doubt it if has ever been easier for those men so-inclined to find a much younger woman willing to bed them while giving nothing in return. Again: what, precisely, is the down side for men here?
Shrieking harpies like Ms. Downtain (well she's probably a shrieking harpy) have never been easier to identify and avoid. That sort is increasingly doing precisely what she appears to have done: self-selecting themselves out of the mating pool. Those that have not (yet) followed suit are so easy to spot that they might as well have flashing neon lights floating above their heads. This is a wonderfully positive development for men because the odds of inadvertently winding up with one of these creatures are exponentially longer than they were a generation ago. But if you’re one of the new-style glutton-for-punishment males: go for it, those fish are literally jumping into the boat. I see no negatives for men there.
@Novaseeker (cont.)
Financial ruin via marriage? Bah. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, “Trust, but verify.” Any man who would get married without an iron-clad 50-state prenup from a firm he has good reason to believe will be around a while and whose malpractice carrier’s limits he knows to be sufficient to make him right in the event of an adverse decision on the validity of said contract is a chump. If she won’t sign it she doesn’t love you but out of courtesy you should probably break this to her before her wedding day, otherwise it might come as a bit of a shock. I’m slightly more forgiving, but only slightly, of men who fail to send the majority of their assets on vacation to a sunny tropical tax-haven jurisdiction that won’t enforce judgments from US courts prior to getting married. In the event that the worst happens, said men can rejoin most of their beloved assets in a pleasant locale and live happily ever after.
For the record: I love women, just not the ones like Ms. Downtain. The women in my life have been almost uniformly wonderful with the exception of my sister who is a shrieking harpy who tortures men for amusement. Otherwise I’ve wonderful female friends and family members who have always been there to comfort and support me when I needed them. On the precious few occasions in my life when that seemed in doubt a new and wonderful woman would appear seemingly out of nowhere to befriend me. Life is good.
Anything else you’d like a few comments on? They're worth at least what you've paid, probably less.
Women are amazingly unprepared for when the costs of feminism, presently heaped onto men, transfer back to women.
All these supposedly 'educated' women merely received brainwashing masquerading as education.
How can someone be educated if they don't grasp the concepts of :
a) Supply and demand
b) Cause and effect
c) Reciprocity
How?
"Again: what, precisely, is the down side for men here?"
Well, gee, let's see: sexual disease transmission? Sounds like a downer to me. Hey, if you're in the market for damaged goods, fire away (literally and figuratively).
Me? I'll opt out of the whole mess and watch society crumble from the sidelines.
Seriously, the smart thing is to not go along with any of this crap.
@ Chuck Pelto:
My response to Jim was only a congratulation to him for avoiding the landmine otherwise known as marriage and finding a 'keeper'. I'm not interested in the game and have many opportunities to pursue relationships, which I think are overrated. Not gonna go there, I've got better things to do with my time.
I'm enjoying life with hobbies and hanging with friends, men and women alike. Life continues to get better.
But my mother taught me that no woman should be totally trusted. All I ever needed to know about women I learned from her.
Been there, got the tee shirt. Having experienced hell growing up I won't trade what I have now for the chance of that happening again.
If she won’t sign it she doesn’t love you but out of courtesy you should probably break this to her before her wedding day
You may already know this, but judges have ruled that demanding a woman sign a prenup or you won't marry her constitutes duress, and duress invalidates a prenup. Probably not law in every state, but this is the kind of ruling that has a tendency to infect every state, like cancer.
@ randian - Hence the other portion of the relevant paragraph.
@ blahga the hutt - My comments are for the consumption of those folks in the crowd who've earned their big boy pants which would typically entail the ability to determine when it might be a good idea allow said pants to continue covering the oozing pustules that dot their corpulent posteriors (and anteriors). The thoughtless & careless will always suffer the consequencs in the end. C'est la vie.
John Galt sez "Any man who would get married without an iron-clad 50-state prenup ..."
----
A couple of points:
1. When it comes down to brass tacks, family court judges sometimes decide that the prenuptial agreement will not be followed. High-profile examples of this include Steven Spielberg (who had to fork over a record amount to Amy Irving after only a few years of marriage and despite a prenuptial agreement) and Jack Welch (the General Electric manager). There IS no iron-clad, 50-state agreement (and ... see below).
2. The second issue is that the state can change the terms of divorce any time it wants. A good example of that: Men who got married in the 1960s under "fault divorce" may have thought that if they behave themselves in the marriage, the wife can't just be awarded all his stuff in a divorce. Then most states changed the divorce rules to allow "no fault". Now, Pumpkin can walk anytime she wants with a huge chunk of his assets, alimony, child support so high as to be alimony and all the rest.
And the point is that states could FURTHER change divorce procedures in the future. If you get married today, you have no idea what the state will be doing with you and your marriage tomorrow. And it IS bad enough for men today.
-----
You are naive and ignorant, but you make up for it with your shaming language.
TO: Novaseeker
RE: As If....
Yep. Like the courts enforce Proverbs, Chuckle. -- Novaseeker
....you expect christianity from the 'bench'?
And you call ME 'ignorant'?
How very 'odd', counselor.
TO: All
RE: Being a Christian
You're an ignorant ass. And I say that as a Christian and a lawyer. -- Novaseeker
I don't seem to recall where name-calling was part of the christian-ethic. I guess I'll have to ask....
Where is it written that one christian should call another one an 'ass'?
Please cite book/chapter/verse.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you have a grievance with your brother, go to him in private and address it with him.... -- Paul]
TO: MarkyMark
RE: In the Church
Yeah, good luck trying to find a Proverbs 31 woman in church these days! Churches are just as feminized as the world around them. Find a non-feminist woman in church? Hell will freeze over first... -- MarkyMark
Maybe you've been in the wrong churches.
There are a LOT of 'churches' that claim to be christian, but when you look at them and compare their actions and words against what's written in that Old Book, you'll realize that they are just so many hypocrites.
You seem to have had some experience with that. I have too, in the past. And even today.
But I will admit that I didn't find the distaff in a church. We met at a holiday party thrown by Denver Mensa at the Denver Museum of Natural History. [Note: And thanks for reminding me of that happy incident. I've even got a photo of that on my desk. Me in my dress blues. She in a pretty pink get-up of harem pants and stuff. And the man who I was talking to and was best man in a t-shirt of a cigar saying, "I was rolled in Jamaica". I just reached out and grabbed her as she was walking past, just as the photog was about to snap a picture of me and my friend in our strange juxtapositions of attire. Her expression is one of a cute bunny between a wolf (c'est moi) and a coyote. But we're all 'grinning'....]
At any rate, back on topic, my current church is of the 'Covenant' persuasion. You might want to look into them. But be aware, there can be 'bad-apples' anywhere. So you always have to be on your guard.
Good luck,
Chuck(le)
[God builds His temples in the heart, on the ruins of churches and religions. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]
TO: R
RE: Missed My 'Point'
I'm not interested in the game and have many opportunities to pursue relationships, which I think are overrated. Not gonna go there, I've got better things to do with my time. -- R
In referring to the 'game', I'm not, repeat NOT, talking about women, buckie.
Go down and see your local recruiter if you admire Jim in Texas so much for his service to this country. I grow tired of these people who congratulate such as Jim and don't do a damn thing of their own to help defend US.
Hope that helps....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and Airborne-Ranger qualified. And so am I.]
TO: All
RE: blahga the hutt
Me? I'll opt out of the whole mess and watch society crumble from the sidelines. -- blahga the hutt
Sounds to me like blahga is part of the problem.
With no children to consider, he doesn't give a damn. Then again, with no children to consider it sounds to me like he's taking his particular genotype OUT of the Game of Life - Grand Design version.
And maybe that's a good thing....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If your parents didn't have any children, chances are you won't either.]
Jim in Texas and John Galt have joined Jose and SWWBO in the circle of commentors who post along the lines of "well I'M happily married so what are you guys whining about?"
Their answer to marital confiscation is pre-nups, when anyone who has been paying attention knows that chauvinistic judges just do what they damn well please. Their answer to an unplanned pregnancy would probably be "dude, why didn't you wear a condom?" even though birth control failures are common.
It's a greatly naive attitude, but fits into a human tendency to assume that if someone's situation went bad, it's due to something they did that would never happen to you, and therefore it's not your problem because you're a better decision maker. Married people say it about divorcees, cops say it about defendants who misstepped through the legal system. The only group I've never heard it from is soldiers - they seem to understand that good soldiers get killed all the time, for reasons that have nothing to do with being a good or bad soldier.
As far as "group hugs" are concerned, men (like women) are very emotional creatures. Most young men have spent their entire lives being denigrated and negatively compared to women, so it's no surprise they are having an emotional crisis.
If you want to buy into the Marlboro Man image that men should be stone-cold, if you're that dedicated to playing out a crude stereotype that suppresses male expression and encourages women to unload on men without caring it might hurt them, you can go down that road alone. I'm not going to deny part of my humanity because women and some wannabe white knights might think I'm less manly.
TO: Topher
RE: Actually....
Jim in Texas and John Galt have joined Jose and SWWBO in the circle of commentors who post along the lines of "well I'M happily married so what are you guys whining about?" -- Topher
....I see Jim in Texas as more like "there ARE good women out there and I got 'lucky'."
And believe me....it IS 'lucky'. And good on him for being 'lucky' the first time out the gate.
RE: Them Unrighteous Judges
....chauvinistic judges just do what they damn well please. -- Topher
And Novaseeker was 'complaining' when he sees such on a recurring basis. Seems to me that Some Wag mentioned this sort of behavior on the bench quite some time ago. I have to wonder just how far along in his 'christian-walk' Novaseeker is if he doesn't recall that comment.
And by the way, I watched one unrighteous judge throw out an entire will of a close friend. And, I suspect, it was just to turn the administration of said will over to the city-contracted law-firm that handles probate. And I have to wonder if there's a kick-back scheme at play with that sort of business.
Under the will, the heirs would have received something significant. But as they contested the will, it put it in the hands of a judge whom I think did 'willy nilly' with it. And as a result, the heirs got damned little after the law firm took it's 'fair share' for 'services rendered'.
RE: Being Manly
I'm not going to deny part of my humanity because women and some wannabe white knights might think I'm less manly. -- Topher
I doubt if anyone here has called you less-than-human. Less than 'manly', perhaps, but hardly a lower-life-form. I believe that's reserved for the infantry-types.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[In Law, as in war, possession is 9 points out of 10. And the infantry are the bailiff's men.]
I see Chuck the Bully is back.
A fascinating, complex man with many different conflicting facets.
A devout Christian full of hate for other people. A self-proclaimed Mensa member who has a lot of trouble with logic. A self-asserted military tough guy who comes across on the Internet as a prissy, petty, irritating little bitch.
Any tips on how I can be like you when I get older, Big Chuck? I'm already drinking lots of milk and insulting lots of people.
TO: All
RE: 'Projection', Anyone?
A devout Christian full of hate for other people. -- Tether
'nuff said. And it correlates well with my earlier comment about him to Jim in Texas.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. The jealousy is an interesting added touch....
I understand what Galt is saying, and he's correct. For the entrepreneurial kind of guy, and a guy who has some "Game" (whether formal or not), the current times are good. Men are freer than they were before, do not need to get married to be considered legitimate socially, do not need to become corporate drones and so on. That much I agree with.
But the vast majority of men don't fit that description. The old model constricted the few men like Galt describes, but created families and jobs and so on for the rest of the guys. The current system doesn't do that very well at all and many of the "regular" guys are getting left behind.
I do not view this as a socially neutral thing. Women are generally hypergamous in terms of attraction. I do not think that this hypergamy was conditioned on the social situation of women having fewer opportunities available to them, because the educated women we see today still prefer to select mates hypergamously if they can manage to do so. This is wired behavior, which is probably maladaptive to some degree today, but that doesn't undo the wiring. It's very unrealistic, I think, to expect that the highly educated women (I say "highly" because women with BAs will marry men without them who are tradesmen or police officers or what have you -- there are plenty of, say, nurses or other "educated" women who marry such men, but not too many lawyers, doctors or university professors who do) will suddenly start marrying "down" to any huge degree. Some of these women will do it, but many won't. The same applies to BoyToy type husbands or househusband types -- some women may pursue these, but many women are not going to want to support either a BoyToy husband, or a househusband (never mind respect him or be attracted to him sexually).
Why? Because a BoyToy is redundant in a sexually permissive environment. Men married trophy wives to secure sexual access (and the "on-my-arm" factor) to these women in a context where marriage was normally required to secure such access. In the current environment, women have no need to marry a BoyToy to get him to accompany her to a function, and certainly not to sleep with him -- she can get those without agreeing to support him financially, so the BoyToy husband idea is mostly a male projection based on the way that male/female sexual dynamics work from the male perspective. From the female perspective a BoyToy husband is not needed -- she may very well want a BoyToy, but the key is that she need not *marry* the BoyToy to have him on her arm or in her bed. Men do not withhold sex as a bargaining chip for commitment, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
As for househusbands, many women will prefer to outsource this --> it allows her to control much more tightly what is actually happening in these areas without negotiating it with a househusband on her financial support system. There will be *some* of these marriages, particularly in the case of very high testosterone women, but I don't expect that they will become the norm because, again, most women don't prefer to have men playing this role in their lives.
So I think we're going to see a mix of choices by highly educated women, but many of them will be choosing to be single mothers, I think. That's not terribly socially neutral as an outcome, due to the relatively worse outcomes for children raised without fathers, on average.
It's also a poor prospect for the country to have most of our men underperforming. Women used to say that it was a stupid idea to exclude women from education and careers, due to social pressures, because we went without their talents in these areas -- which is true, I think. But we seem to have backed ourselves into a place, as a culture, where we are now "okay" with forgoing the talents of most of our men, as they underperform, undereducate and underproduce in our society on what seems to be becoming a chronic basis. I'm doubtful that a society with such a large group of underperforming men has a bright future, or much of a future at all. Sure, the John Galts of the world (literally and figuratively) will find their way no matter what happens -- but the rest of the guys won't.
"But we seem to have backed ourselves into a place, as a culture, where we are now "okay" with forgoing the talents of most of our men, as they underperform, undereducate and underproduce in our society on what seems to be becoming a chronic basis. I'm doubtful that a society with such a large group of underperforming men has a bright future, or much of a future at all."
I want to respond to this before we all get accused of more "group hug" anxiety. Men are not underperforming because they are afraid of women in the workplace, or they can't handle a strong equal woman, or whatever other excuses arrogant women give when men won't date them ("they're intimidated by my intelligence, they just want a Barbie doll!")
Men are underperforming becase they have been actively denigrated by feminist philosophy, television memes, magazines, family courts and even Presidents. Men can't listen to voices telling them they are worthless without making some changes; the changes are to either fulfill the rhetoric thrown at them, or to live "off the grid" and not sell out for society. Both have the same result, underperforming men.
For the entrepreneurial kind of guy, and a guy who has some "Game" (whether formal or not), the current times are good. Men are freer than they were before, do not need to get married to be considered legitimate socially, do not need to become corporate drones and so on. That much I agree with."
Roissy has noted several times that what is happening is an "unflattening" (my words, not his) of sexual society. Back in the day the marriage system matched up providers with wives, and the thrills of illicit sex were just that, illicit. But now that the system has broken down, it's never been a better time to be an alpha male - (most of) the girls have always wanted you, and now you can have them without social shame. It's anarchous, institutionalized hypergamy.
I find it kind of disgusting, and I'm the naturally monogamous type who would like to find a partner I can stick with for life. Unfortunately, my type was written off by feminism as an oppressive force and a sucker to be had, and with the laws the way they are I have declined to play either role role for the time being.
Chuck said:
"Go down and see your local recruiter if you admire Jim in Texas so much for his service to this country. I grow tired of these people who congratulate such as Jim and don't do a damn thing of their own to help defend US."
You don't know a damn thing about what I or my family have done to defend this country. I've got the documents to prove it.
Too bad you swallowed stupid pills before posting here.
Put your money where your mouth is Chuck. Bet me $10K that I haven't done anything to defend this country. We'll take it to a notary and make it a legally enforceable document that I can use to take your money.
Or are you a know-nothing ignoramus who will not take up my challenge?
Your move Chuckie. I've got $10K that says you're a know-nothing gutless coward who won't back up your words when someone calls you on it.
R,
Don't let him get to you. He is full of hatred for other people, and a frequent trick of his is to assume things about people that may well not be true in an attempt to cut them down and get their goat.
He practices at this all day, so it's likely the only thing he can do in life. You don't have to match him and, more importantly, you don't WANT TO descend into his world full of hate.
But an occasional poke back at Big Chuckles is kind of fun.
@ Tether:
LOL. It doesn't get to me. But I'm interested in the money. It's a sure $10K when I prove with proper documentation that I've served my country. Chuckie shot off his mouth and it's time for him to put up or be shown as the pathetic, ignorant loudmouth he seems to be.
Besides, it's fun to show these internet tough guys out to be the gutless cowards they are. He'll lose $10K for sure if he's stupid enough to take my challenge. And he started it with his moronic comment about going down to the recruiter, as if I've never served my country.
I could use the money but I bet 'Chuckie' doesn't show. It's a sure $10K loss if he/she/it does take the challenge.
TO: R
RE: STILL Missing the 'Point'?
You don't know a damn thing about what I or my family have done to defend this country. -- R
Well. It can boil down to one of two things.
[1] You don't communicate well. As you came across as one who pats soldiers on their back and then kicks them in the ass in your post at 2:20 PM, January 24, 2010, on this thread.
Not the sort of comportment I've come to expect from a comrade-in-arms for another such.
[2] You're a liar trying to come across as having served US with that comment. And you ARE right. I don't know what you have or HAVEN'T done for the rest of US. But I'm willing to learn.
I've got the documents to prove it. -- R
Good on you. Please share....
Click on my name and e-mail me a scanned copy.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
P.S. When you manage to get your panties out of that knot, please get BACK on-topic....
TO: R
RE: Please....
I've got $10K that says you're a know-nothing gutless coward who won't back up your words when someone calls you on it. -- R
Specify the nature of the wager. Your comment comes across as your being so 'exercised' about this OT matter that you're slobber is rolling down your monitor.
Is it that YOU'VE never served? Or is it that I'm a "a know-nothing gutless coward who won't back up your words when someone calls you on it"?
As I stated in the earlier comment, you've done nothing that indicates to me that you've done ANYTHING like Jim in Texas has for US. If you have, show me some evidence. I offered you a means of doing such in my previous post.
Otherwise, it looks like you're projecting with that "know-nothing gutless coward who won't back up your words when someone calls you on it" you were describing earlier.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
@ Chuck Pelto:
Sidetrack the challenge Chuckie? Your sad attempt at diversion won't work. You wanna talk smack, back it up with cold cash. Here's how the challenge will work, assuming you don't puss out:
- Dr. Helen, if she agrees, will act as facilitator. Dr. Helen will be paid $2K for facilitating this.
- Legal document to be signed by both parties and notarized. Losing party will be obligated to pay off the challenge.
- Each party will deposit $5K into an irrevocable escrow account specifically set up for this challenge.
- Upon my submission of a DD 214 or Honorable Discharge (to be confirmed as genuine by the Veterans Administration) the losing party, which will be you, will pay the remaining $5K of the challenge.
- The agreement wording will be such that any legal costs of collecting the additional $5K not deposited into escrow will be charged against the party not living up to the agreement.
You'll get a copy of my document when the documents are signed and your $5K is deposited into the escrow account. I will also deposit $5K into it. But the winning party's deposit won't count toward the $10K as the entire $10K is the responsibility of the LOSING party.
Money talks Chuckie.
$10K Chuckie. You're the last one who ought to be talking about getting on topic since you're the one who said I should go to a recruiter.
Come one Chuck, I could use your money for a nice vacation. You'll get a copy of my Honorable Discharge when I get your $10K.
You're right, I am slobbering. A sure $10K is pretty appealing.
TO: Topher & Novaseeker, et al.
RE: Going 'Off the Grid'
Men can't listen to voices telling them they are worthless without making some changes; the changes are to either fulfill the rhetoric thrown at them, or to live "off the grid" and not sell out for society. Both have the same result, underperforming men. -- Topher
Do you consider going combat-arms as "living 'off the grid'"? Or is it a third option?
What was it someone said earlier about re-enlistment rates amongst the warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan? They're higher than in other unit-types?
In the combat-arms, men are appreciated for being {HORROR!} 'men'. In the other unit-types they're just as anxious as in regular society. Women traipsing through the co-ed barracks in their undergarments and no one can say 'boo'. Like that Muslim Major at Fort Hood. The PC environment is palpable and a ban on good order and discipline.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: All
RE: [OT] R
This proves my point of R's projection....
Sidetrack the challenge Chuckie? -- R
He talks a good fight, but when it comes to put-up or shut-up, he can't find it either in himself or in his paperwork to send me ANY proof of his legitimacy. Instead, he tries to snivel and whine that I'm the one trying to 'sidetrack' the issue.
It's easy to say things that one can't back up. Especially when they won't back it up.
I asked for a document to prove his veracity. All he does is act offended that I'd even question him.
And look at this...
You'll get a copy of my Honorable Discharge when I get your $10K. -- R
....he'll only show me his DD 214 AFTER I give him money.
How nice.....
Talk about 'gutless cowards', albeit a clever one.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I was born in the day. But it wasn't yesterday....]
He Everyone:
This PROVES Chuck Pelto is a paper tiger internet tough guy:
I challenged him to a $10K proof challenge that I have served this country.
Chuck Pelto sidesteps the issue and won't bite even though:
- There will be a THIRD party making the arrangements
- Money will be placed in a bank escrow account
- A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE document will mark the terms of the challenge
- I'm willing to deposit $5K into escrow for the challenge but Chuck won't
No amount of spin will change the fact, Chuckie, that I challenged you and you won't put up the money.
Poor Chuck, he wants proof of my service but won't put up the cash to back up his statement that I ought to go to the recruiter. When I have proof that I've done that and much more.
$10K says I served this country Chuck.
You've got nothing but spin.
Why should I show you before you put the money into escrow? You ran your mouth off. Back it up.
I'm willing to put up $10K of my money to prove that I served. Why should I let you off easy when you're the one who made to recruiter comment?
$10K Chuck. And don't think we don't see your spin for what it is. A pathetic and sad attempt to extricate yourself from a hole you dug with your own mouth.
Hey Chuckles, send me your military documents. And your social security number and bank passwords while you're at it.
I'll give you an e-mail to send them to - if you ain't chicken.
k thx
BAWK BAWK!
Chuckles is chicken.
TO: Topher
RE: Good For You
....I'm the naturally monogamous type who would like to find a partner I can stick with for life. -- Topher
I'm that way myself. A LOT of us are. Except maybe a few around here who complain for the sake of complaining. [Note: Oh well....everybody ought to have a 'hobby'.]
RE: The Current Unfortunate Nature of Society
Unfortunately, my type was written off by feminism as an oppressive force and a sucker to be had.... -- Topher
Don't hang with the 'feminazis'. Let along let them get you 'down'. As the saying goes....
Illegitimi non carborundum
Live by that.
But be careful with whom you associate. The moment you detect a strain of male-bashing, leave that area and have nothing more to do with them. And if they ask you why you took away your gracious company, be gentle when you tell them to go to 'hell'. Remember, being politic is telling people to "Go to hell" and making them think they'll enjoy the trip.
RE: Declining to Play
....and with the laws the way they are I have declined to play either role role for the time being. -- Topher
Well....
....you've gotta play SOME kind of 'role'. Sitting on the sidelines IS something of a role, but not one that I'd care for myself.
After getting bashed, I'd pick myself up, evaluate what happened and what I could have done better, and got back in the game. Third time has been the proverbial charm.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. -- George Bernard Shaw]
P.S. How prescient. And he never lived to recognize the truth of it.....albeit, he was being sarcastic about the matter when he wrote that.
TO: All
RE: [OT] R, Again
Funny, isn't it.
I ask for proof of R serving US and all R can do is ask for $10K before any proof is provided.
And he can't find the 'courage' to click on my name and send me his proof.
What a scammer.
So, as I commented earlier, he was projecting about that "know-nothing gutless coward" if he can't click a mouse button. And, for all appearances I've seen, something of a con-artist too.
'nuff of this nonsense. He still ranks as having done nothing in the service of this country until he shows some evidence.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You haven't lived until you've almost died.]
Everyone:
Chuck continues to want proof of my having served.
He has NOTHING to lose because the money will be deposited into BANK ESCROW with legal conditions.
His money is legally protected. Until he loses the challenge, which he knows will happen.
And I did suggest that Dr. Helen, if she was willing to do this for $2K, could act as intermediary.
Chuck won't bite.
Can everyone see how internet tough guys act when confronted?
Chuck knows he shot his mouth off and will pay for it if he takes me up on the challenge.
I WILL NOT SEE A PENNY OF THE MONEY UNTIL I PROVIDE PROOF I SERVED THIS COUNTRY IN THE MILITARY. Then Chuck's $5K would be released to me from escrow and he would be legally obligated to pay the remainder of the $10K challenge.
Chuck's sad attempt to spin his cowardice is to sidestep these facts and suggest that this is a scam.
$10K challenge stands Chuck. But you've made it clear that you won't meet the challenge and are trying to salvage what remains of your dignity with unproven innuendo and fact-free comments.
Chuck, R -
Please stop.
Signed,
The Thread
Men are underperforming becase they have been actively denigrated by feminist philosophy, television memes, magazines, family courts and even Presidents. Men can't listen to voices telling them they are worthless without making some changes; the changes are to either fulfill the rhetoric thrown at them, or to live "off the grid" and not sell out for society. Both have the same result, underperforming men.
It's complex, but this is a part of it. Shifting the early educational system dramatically to favor girls has been another part of it as well -- it creates the impression in boys that academics and doing well in school "is for girls", which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The problem, of course, is that because men outnumber women at the right end of the bell curve, no-one really cares about the "also ran" men. The old system had places for the "also ran" men, while the current one doesn't really care if they fail, it only cares about forcing equality at the top, despite the disparities in aptitude at the right end of the curve. This won't end well, I think.
Roissy has noted several times that what is happening is an "unflattening" (my words, not his) of sexual society. Back in the day the marriage system matched up providers with wives, and the thrills of illicit sex were just that, illicit. But now that the system has broken down, it's never been a better time to be an alpha male - (most of) the girls have always wanted you, and now you can have them without social shame. It's anarchous, institutionalized hypergamy.
Indeed this is exactly what we have today. The problem, though, is that women are attracted to one kind of man for short-term sex and another for long-term mating -- there was a study done by the U of Michigan a few years ago that confirmed this -- women selected more "cad" types when they assumed the relationship would be short term, while selecting more "dad" types when they assumed the relationship would be more long-term. Of course, if possible, they would generally prefer a mate who transcends the cad/dad divide, but these men are rare to say the least. But what we have today is, for the most part, women deploying sex in an effort to try to get the short-term sexy cads to commit to them -- i.e., so that the woman can "flip" the cad into a dad with cad-like qualities, and avoid making the cad/dad trade-off in choosing a mate. And dangling sexual access before the cads is the way young women are trying to do this.
For the most part, it's an ineffective strategy. The reason for that is precisely that these short-term desirable cads are also men who have a ton of female options, because multiple females would like to "flip" him into being their own personal, committed-to-them-only, cad. So it's very easy for him to avoid commitment while getting the sexual access he wants. In other words, the free sexual market only appears to favor women in freeing them up to pursue cads. In fact, it really only favors the cads themselves, because casual sex is a cad's game par excellence -- once sex has been deployed by the woman in an attempt to obtain commitment, the cad can simply laugh and move on to the next woman. Eventually most women learn that the casual sex thing is a man's game, primarily, but for many of them they are already carrying quite a bit of baggage by the time they realize this.
I suspect that quite a few of the educated women in their 30s who are complaining about there being no Mr. Right in the vicinity probably passed over more than one Mr. Right in their 20s when they were busy deploying sexual access in an effort to flip some cad or other into being a committed cad/dad hybrid.
TO: Novaseeker
RE: Interesting....
I suspect that quite a few of the educated women in their 30s who are complaining about there being no Mr. Right in the vicinity probably passed over more than one Mr. Right in their 20s when they were busy deploying sexual access in an effort to flip some cad or other into being a committed cad/dad hybrid. -- Novaseeker
....point, that. And likely quite accurate.
RE: On the Other Hand
Eventually most women learn that the casual sex thing is a man's game, primarily, but for many of them they are already carrying quite a bit of baggage by the time they realize this. -- Novaseeker
....there's the ploy of getting pregnant and monetary support until emancipation of the off-spring. [Note: Let's not get into government-funded child support issues.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We must make the world honest before we can honestly say to our children that honesty is the best policy. -- George Bernard Shaw]
TO: Topher
RE: [OT] Heh
Already had.
'nuff of this nonsense. -- @ 10:55 AM, January 25, 2010
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Don't wrestle with a pig. He enjoys it. While you get dirty.]
novaseeker, that is scarily true of many of my friend`s daughters, who are busily leaving facebook portraits of thier activities for all to see.
much to the horror of thier mothers.
as a person recently going through the dating scene again....at almost fifty years of age, the baggage issue i saw in many women was terrifyng to me.
on one hand these women were sexually interested in man of my age who kept in shape and had a symetrical face with strong anglo-saxon features, but on the other...i called the commerce game on them in the first conversation, stipulating clearly that i didn`t date, but that i was looking for a lifetime commitment from the right woman to enjoy the second half of our life together.
one woman i saw briefly told me recently she is seeing a lawyer now.
a lawyer! not a man, but a high-earning job. what a c**t.
so, a fat little man with money is partnered with a very attractive, but shallow woman.
wonder how long that will last.
at least she`s nowhere near me or my boys.
and cham....the sharks are after, not a handsome man of moderate means, but assets.
when you met a woman for coffee and she shows up in riding pants and $1500 coach riding boots, the small head says oh wow, but the big head says....shark!
TO: dr.alistair
RE: How Long?
so, a fat little man with money is partnered with a very attractive, but shallow woman.
wonder how long that will last. -- dr.alistair
I'd say the probability was 'high' for 'until there was a child from the 'union' and a bit...to get it old enough into day-care'. A very HIGH-END day-care at that. At guess who's expense. Three guesses. First two don't count.
It would make an interesting study for some aspiring sociologist or psychologist. That is IF they have the courage to attempt it AND they aren't run off the campus by a horde of self-righteous feminazis waving pitchforks and buckets of tar and feathers.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. It would probably take some guy with the courage of an Airborne-Ranger and the skills of a civil torte attorney to accomplish such a study and carry it through to completion. But then he'd probably have had two careers already!
And I have YET to meet a member of the Staff Judge Advocates Office who sported jump wings AND a ranger tab....
@ Topher:
You got it. :)
Chuck,
"Sounds to me like blahga is part of the problem."
Not at all. The people screwing themselves silly are the problem. I happen to think that humans are above simple animal instincts. We're reasoning creatures (well most of us are, anyway), which puts us above anything else on this planet. It's a shame that the current generations have decided to devolve. Like I said, I really don't feel like getting damaged goods at this point. I'm 36 years old. Why would I want to have an unwanted child or even worse, some sort of sexual disease, like herpes?
"With no children to consider, he doesn't give a damn."
And pray tell why should I? Indeed, everyone else takes a "me first" attitude both on this site and elsewhere in society. Why should I be any different? I can only help myself. If other people want to be dumb, they still have that right in this country.
"Then again, with no children to consider it sounds to me like he's taking his particular genotype OUT of the Game of Life - Grand Design version."
Well, I tend to look at things more spiritually than the animal kingdom version known as the Western World at this point, so I'm not really all that concerned. Genes are irrelevant. The soul is eternal. If I come back in another life, then I will. Whether it's genetically linked or not really doesn't matter. I thought someone as "spiritual" as yourself would understand something like this.
"And maybe that's a good thing...."
Like I said, makes no difference to me. I don't worry about that sort of thing anymore.
"Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If your parents didn't have any children, chances are you won't either.]"
Precisely why the Western World will eventually become Muslim. Should be an interesting future for feminism/male gamers...discipline vs. id. I wonder who will win out. My bet's on the muslims (which is unfortunate for all of us)...
I've always wondered why these "traditional" guys *want* their situation: After a couple of decades of being a housewife, the woman is fat, dopey, out of the real world, demanding and boring. A lot of times they were never all that much even on the day of the wedding - that seems to be another characteristic of the wives of "traditional" men.
Can any of the "traditional guys" (I'm trying not to be rude) explain to me WHY you want that situation so badly?
I think it's based on "meeting your obligations", but you don't *have* to get married (at least the way I see it).
I would feel bored to tears with a woman like that, in addition to feeling used (financially exploited) and bearing an unreasonable burden for not much in the way of reward.
I really would appreciate an answer going beyond "because that's what Real Men do and I'm the realest of all Real Men".
while china and india watch as we are bred out of our own civilisation.
If the answer is "compansionship" and a partner, it seems to me that a woman on your level - who also helps to take care of things in the real world (partner) - would fit the bill more closely. You can actually talk to a woman who is in the real world with you.
No, there is something else going on there with regard to men wanting some woman to just sit at home. Maybe it's playing the "hero" role or fulfilling the expectations of parents, other relatives and friends.
I honestly never understood it.
jg, in transactional terms that is called the game of white knight.
sweeping a girl off her feet moments before being eaten by the dragon/ run over by a train/ sold into slavery.
if we ask the question, what next? we see that in this kind of relationship the man must continue to to what he has done, and so must the woman.
classic rescue/victim game which results in switching to persecute to stave of boredom....(with the help of lawyers, lovers, family members, friends.)
once a man or woman sees the game for what it is and can be adult enough to make personal changes, the game can stop.
the adult man wants what you describe, a comapnion partner with enough adult structures in place to contibute fairly and not switch the game to persecute for any reason.
The biggest problem I have with many women I meet is that they're boring! They don't have any hobbies or passions or anything; their life plan is to hook a guy into spending money and lots of time glorifying her. They spend spare time watching Bravo and reading Cosmo...
I often have that problem too, at least with younger women I've met.
Wasn't there a Greek philosopher that stressed the importance of women's character development? That way, when her looks faded, she would still actually have character.
Not to be snarky, but it's sad seeing 40-50 year old women over-compensating with fake tans and animal print tights when there's nothing inside.
TO: LordSomber
RE: Sooooo....
Wasn't there a Greek philosopher that stressed the importance of women's character development? That way, when her looks faded, she would still actually have character. -- LordSomber
Considering that and all that stuff written in the OLD part of that Old Book, don't you get the distinct impression that this has been going on for quiet some time? That we're not the first to have had to deal with it?
The significant change being in the last century?
Gee....
....what does that correlate well with?
Three guesses.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. The answer to the 'problem' is STILL trying to find the woman with the character that was described by JG and, even earlier, in in THIS!
The biggest problem, is as I stated earlier, our own stupidity.
"while china and india watch as we are bred out of our own civilisation."
So true Dr. Alistair...
"The biggest problem, is as I stated earlier, our own stupidity."
Can't argue with that, Chuck. Discipline vs. Id. Id loses every time, even if it doesn't seem so at the time.
and i have been criticised here for saying that i have found a woman of character...but the fact remains.
i am a lucky man.
my only wish is that i could have met her years ago son that we may have made our family together.
chuck`s link describes her well.
tonight we will celebrate robbbie burns day together and i will recite nigh on unintelligable poetry....just for her, for she misses her childhood home so.
TO: dr.alistair
RE: Me....
i am a lucky man.
chuck`s link describes her well. -- dr.alistair
....and mine too.
TO: All the Naysayers Out There
RE: You See!
There IS hope. But, at times it may seem like looking for a needle in a 'making hay-stack'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Who can find a virtuous woman. She is more precious than rubies.....]
P.S. And as for Mr. Right having 'left the building'....
....if it's the 'meat marketplace', you've got THAT right.
My opinion is that you have a view of women that is exaggerated for some reason, Chuck.
To me, they are just human beings. I was built by nature or God or whatever with a sex drive towards them, but I don't ascribe mystical powers to them. I don't put them up on a pedestal.
People like you have always sounded a bit bizarre to me. It's the same feeling I get when a woman who collects Beanie Babies goes on and on about her new acquisition. They may be nice, but they're just dolls.
But I know if I say that, she's just going to rip into me about being envious of her because of her collection (and her latest acquisition). She really believes that. So I just listen to her drone on.
And the even more bizarre thing is that I have heard "traditional" men drone on about how great their wife is ... and then a few times in life I've met them. They are just demanding, dopey, not-even-very-good-looking stupid women. And that's all.
Now I'm sure you're married to a combination of Heidi Klum and Mother Theresa. But not all of the traditional twits are. So I wonder why they are so hot to pay for some lard-ass to sit at home and get more and more demanding as the years pass.
I have a sneaky feeling that they got latched into marriage when they were young, and they spend the rest of their lives "meeting their obligations" to her.
While they fuck someone on the side and don't tell anyone about it, because it would ruin their Christian image that they have so carefully cultivated by going to church every Sunday (but not otherwise giving a rip about what real truth or spirituality is).
I'd say that a woman who got a man to "meet his obligations" to her over a lifetime - while he gets nothing really in return except more and more demands and less and less gratitude or even acknowledgement - has really pulled a fast one. On a stupid mark.
TO: JG
RE: Perhaps....
My opinion is that you have a view of women that is exaggerated for some reason, Chuck. -- JG
But on what do you base that opinion?
Is it that I say there ARE good women? Or that dr.alistair, Jim in Texas and I have found one of this very rare breed?
RE: The Distaff
Now I'm sure you're married to a combination of Heidi Klum and Mother Theresa. -- JG
Spiritually? Not a Mother Theresa. (1) She's not a Roman Catholic and (2) she's not celibate. But a woman doesn't have to be canonized by the Pope in order to be the sort of woman described in that link.
Physically, not a Heidi Klum. More like a Mathilda May. Or at least she reminds me of my wife. Except for that business of sucking the very life-force out of me.
They even have the same maiden name.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Eat your heart out....]
Chuckles,
Apparently you didn't get my comparison with Beany Baby Dolls.
It could be the very best Beany Baby Doll in the entire universe. And Super-Duper good. To the woman who collects them.
And the problem - that she doesn't understand and that you analogously don't understand - is that I STILL just think they are dolls. One doll may be nicer than the other, but they are just dolls.
No I'm not saying that women are dolls. I'm using the esoteric technique of ... speaking figuratively ... that you most surely know about from your Mensa meetings.
I honestly have the weird notion that women are just human beings and not Goddesses to worship. And, by the way, as a Christian I thought you weren't supposed to worship anything but Jahweh.
-----------
Chuckles further sez: "[Eat your heart out....]"
Chuckles, would you be rabidly envious when I say that my car is really bitchin' (without really describing it or showing a picture or saying anything that even remotely sounds bitchin')?
Then why do you think I'm envious of you? Are you just trying to be a pissy little bitch again?
LOL.
TO: JG
RE: Are You....
While they fuck someone on the side and don't tell anyone about it, because it would ruin their Christian image that they have so carefully cultivated by going to church every Sunday (but not otherwise giving a rip about what real truth or spirituality is). -- JG
....'projecting' here?
Or are you a 'reformed' christian?
I've never met a 'reformed' whathaveyou that wasn't quite 'rabid' about what they are reformed from....whatever that may be.
You should have been in that Corporate Diversity Training session I had to attend when hired on by USWEST. The defrocked, i.e., 'reformed', Roman Catholic priest was a one-man stand-up 'comic' to watch. He made the whole experience 'worthwhile'....after a fashion.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Hell is empty and all the devils are HERE. -- The Tempest, a la Mandatory Corporate Diversity Training Session]
Chuckles writes: "....'projecting' here?"
-------
Ain't me at all.
I wasn't even necessarily trying to throw that at you.
I have seen that pattern quite a bit, though. People who wear their Christian religion as some kind of badge, in some kind of competition. To be pious. And the joke is that they do all of the formal rigour, but do not get the essence, which is thinking about what the universe or God is really like.
In other words, morons.
And those seem to be the same kind of people who are rubbing material things - or people they married - into your face. In an attempt to show they are superior.
It gets really embarrassing when they are trying to rub a late model Audi in your face and you have a Mercedes. But many don't have the heart to tell them.
TO: JG
RE: Well
Chuckles, would you be rabidly envious when I say that my car is really bitchin' (without really describing it or showing a picture or saying anything that even remotely sounds bitchin')?
Then why do you think I'm envious of you? Are you just trying to be a pissy little bitch again? -- JG
...in the first place you come across as saying such women don't exist. Then, when some of us point out that they DO exist you get your panties in a knot. And when we persist in our insistence that such women do exist and go into detail about them, you start calling us names.
You and someone else around here.
You going to offer a 'wager' as a next step in your escalation?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I got two bitch'n cars already. But I can only drive one at a time. A hot convertible for the regular roads and a Jeep Scrambler for hauling heavy stuff and doing off-road up in the Rocky Mountains.
What's your point? Cause your beginning to bore me.
P.P.S. It's against my ethic to be envious of whatever you—or anyone else—has got.
But YOU, not being a christian, as far as I can tell, can go ahead and take my advice.....
P.P.S. It's against my ethic to be envious of whatever you—or anyone else—has got.
But YOU, not being a christian, as far as I can tell, can go ahead and take my advice.....
jg wants all women to be grabby little shrews...and guess what? he`ll find them. they are out there. in droves. in the malls, on the golf course (because that`s where all the rich men are, right?) and in the salons getting the hair and nails done.
my girl walks with me and talks with me and we cook together and clean our mutual home together...and we are sickeningly in love...and tonight she will ride the elliptical trainer while i lift weights and we will watch an old hitchcock movie later....
and tomorrow, much the same.
boring.
for the rest of our lives.
but you can`t convince some people that there are women of virtue out there. they call that fantasy, or pedestal placement, or niavety...anything to deflect from the thought that there might be someone out there who could actually think that way.
but i will say this now, for the record.
if you expect to find a woman like that who is yours for life, you`d better be that for her too.
for life.
for better or worse. sickness or health.
or didn`t you ever hear those words before?
You're starting to sweat, Chuckles.
LOL
Your entire life is teetering before your eyes, just based on my few comments here. Heaven forbid that someone really takes you apart.
"Dr." Alistair scribbles: "jg wants all women to be grabby little shrews ..."
--------
Man, you could not have missed my point more.
I respect a lot of women. There are also lots I don't respect. Same with men.
I'm not looking for a shrew, and I have mostly been in long-term relationships with women I consider to be fair. And intelligent.
The point I am trying to get across is that women are just human beings - just like men are just human beings. They are not goddesses up on a pedestal. And I think, Dr. Alistair, you are only putting your current girlfriend on a pedestal because the relationship is fairly new (first few years). Everyone here has had the experience that you have a different view of your partner in the first few years.
Anyway ... there seems to be a lot of resistance to my unorthodox idea. Women don't have to be the measure of who you are. They don't have to be anything other than what they really are.
I think the "traditional" guys are resistant to what I am saying because the only other alternative is to actually look at their own lives an say, "Holy shit, I HAVE been supporting a demanding parasite and not really getting that much out of it".
And that's just too high a dose of reality.
jg, i was merely commenting on what you wrote here.
my view is that if you know what you want and know how to get it, why would you focus on what you don`t want and how much that would suck if you did have it?
i know fully well that there are demanding parasites out there. my children have a mother who`s like that...and she`s determined to take from them also.
Dr. Alistair:
I want to tell men that they don't have to take that. I feel bad for men who have no idea that they don't have to take that crap from women.
i would like to tell men that also...
...but i tell men that there are women out there who are not like that also...to be fair to them and to the women who have some virtue about them and want loyal companionship.
"but you can`t convince some people that there are women of virtue out there. they call that fantasy, or pedestal placement, or niavety...anything to deflect from the thought that there might be someone out there who could actually think that way."
I want to address this and the question of "why would a man have a life goal of supporting a do-nothing spouse?"
I think there is some cart-before-the-horse psychology going on. Many men desire the stability and reliability of a happy, monogamous marriage, and due to somewhat innate chivalrous tendency to pedestalize women, the idea of funding a spouse who does other labors with her time is one connected with that stable-marriage dream. Lots of men want a virtuous woman...the mistake comes when they think that by funding her to stay at home, they are making her a virtuous woman, like it's a molting process. Classic inverted thinking.
On another topic, discussed above, cads vs dads: young women who dangle sex to the cads to recruit them and try to transform them into dads are not only ignorant of the fact they have to choose between the two (except in rare cases where the two coexist in rare men), they are ignorant of the Madonna-whore complex in men.
So far as I can tell, men have women they'll _do_ and women they'll _date_. The latter are wife-and-mother candidates, the former are not, and it's based on the woman's respect for herself.
For lack of a better term, the sluttier a woman appears (especially on first impression) the further she goes into the "love her and leave her" category.
So as college girls drop the neckline, hike up the skirt and advertise their sexual availability, they are pushing themselves into the "do" category, guaranteeing the only men they'll get offers from are planning to move on to other pastures.
Now, if young women want to go clubbing and have some casual sex, I don't really have a problem with that...but they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they are seeing a representative cross-section of male society. They will get the guys who want what they are selling.
It's just funny to watch as those girls cross their mid-20's, get a bit more mature and all of a sudden aren't as attractive to the cads. Then they crawl back to the "dad" types who they rejected with laughter years before, and ask to be forgiven and accepted.
Many years since she ran away
Guess that guitar player sure could play
She always like to sing along
She always ended with a song
Then one night in the alley of the Commodore Hotel
I chanced to meet a bartender who said he knew her well
And as he handed me a drink, he began to hum a song
And all the boys there at the bar began to sing along
If you'll be my Dixie chicken, I'll be your Tennessee lamb
And we can waltz together down in Dixie land
--Little Feat
Topher,
That's exactly what I meant by "damaged goods" earlier. Why bother with that?
I'm so glad I'm a guy. My life doesn't have to revolve around a woman. I have the power to make it what I want it to be.
That aside, I can't believe that this topic has generated so many posts over the course of a day.
J. Bowen,
It's a very interesting topic. And you're right, guys do have power. It's simply a question of what to do with it. That's why so many guys on here (and other sites) just puzzle me to no end. They complain of injustices and at the end of the day, what do they do? Most of them answer "well, I'll just sleep around with a bunch of women." Huh???? How's that helping "the cause (is there even one)?" Doesn't that just perpetuate the nonsense?
TO: J. Bowen
RE: In a Word?
Doesn't that just perpetuate the nonsense? -- J. Bowen
I'd say that's a big 'YES'.
It takes two to tango and if each party keeps deliberately stomping on the other party's foot....well....you know....
You get a LOT of hurt/sore people out there. Just look at some of the posts here.
I suspect if it hadn't been for sheer dump 'luck', a.k.a., Acts of God, I'd probably believe like some of the characters around here.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[There, but for the grace of God, go......]
TO: Blahga the hutt and J. Bowen
RE: Oops....
I must be getting tired. I mis-attributed the citation.
My apologies.
Off to bed....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[To have no errors. Would be life without meaning. No struggle, no joy. -- Haiku Error Msg]
P.S. HEY!!!!!
Isn't that what some of us on this thread are talking about?
"Most of them answer "well, I'll just sleep around with a bunch of women." Huh????"
What? Who on the thread said there were going to do that? There are those who say they aren't interested enough in women to go through the challenge and risk. There are alistair types who say they won't marry but are enjoying life with a partner. There are SWWBO/Jose types who invoke shaming language and say "my marriage is GREAT so what are you so worried about?"
Not a lot of pickup artists posting here. The secret they don't want to get out: PUAs and alpha-dog types benefit from the current system and while they will give lip service to injustices against men, it's really just lip service - they leverage the injustice to their own benefit and use it as an excuse, as if they've been dealt so poor a hand that they can do whatever they wish.
"That's exactly what I meant by "damaged goods" earlier. Why bother with that?"
Many women are taught to manipulate men with sex, but they think the way to start doing it is to be super-sexual, and then withold it for bargaining. Trouble is, by the time you get to Step 2 the alpha-dog you've "attracted" will just move on to a new quarry. So by being overly slutty, some young women play themselves out of whatever sexual power they might have had.
Topher,
There are several guys on here who post like that. They complain about women and relationships and then proceed to sleep around. If that's what they want to do, so be it. That's just not my choice.
I was also referring to other sites that talk about this as well, though I don't think I really explained that well. My apologies for that.
"The secret they don't want to get out: PUAs and alpha-dog types benefit from the current system and while they will give lip service to injustices against men, it's really just lip service - they leverage the injustice to their own benefit and use it as an excuse, as if they've been dealt so poor a hand that they can do whatever they wish."
Oh, I'm well aware of the idea of "game", but like I said, I think it's just a bunch of iddish garbage that pushes this nonsense along. But my question is, what are these "alphas" really gaining? I mean, 1/4 of the women in this country have some sort of STD. If that's "victory" for them, hey, have fun with that. I'd prefer not to get the clap or herpes or something else, or an out of wedlock child.
It's a juvenile thing, because, let's face it, as a country we're becoming more and more adolescent. It's all about the id. Think about relationships. "I can't have my way, so I'm leaving." Sound familiar? You'll see a lot more of that in the coming years. Wait until the Millenials start marrying (or the equivalent of it) in droves. It's a train wreck waiting to happen.
So no, I don't put women on a pedestal, but I would like to see at least some of them start to grow up a tad. If it doesn't happen, then it doesn't happen. I'm well aware of the fact that there are some good women out there, but it's such a crap shoot nowadays my question is "who has the time for that?" I sure don't. So I simply opt out and if it takes "my genes out of the pool" well, then it does.
"Many women are taught to manipulate men with sex, but they think the way to start doing it is to be super-sexual, and then withhold it for bargaining."
Very true. This is at the heart of the feminist mantra. Hate guys, but sex away with them...
"Trouble is, by the time you get to Step 2 the alpha-dog you've "attracted" will just move on to a new quarry."
Exactly. Not a lot of long-term thinking involved in this, is there? Hence my comment about the "id".
"So by being overly slutty, some young women play themselves out of whatever sexual power they might have had."
Again, the id. But at this point, it doesn't seem to me that alphas bring much to the table other than oversexed organs. What are they really contributing? Apparently not much. Lots of women? Please. Tell me of any civilization which has endured for very long with that kind of animal behavior (and even in the muslim world it's not nearly as prevalent as many think).
Women are out there who are worthy of praise and love and who will return it in abundance. They may not look like Heidi Klum, and in fact they probably do not. But they are golden nonetheless.
Vapid fops like JG would have us believe that living in a committed relationship with such a woman is a joke on us. But in reality the joke is on them, as they repeatedly have shallow sex with superficially attractive women, while avoiding the good ones.
Some of us, ahem, have found one of the good ones.
"Vapid fops like JG would have us believe that living in a committed relationship with such a woman is a joke on us. "
This is my single biggest problem with the PUA community, Roissy in particular. There is an attitude that _any_ kind of personal sacrifice, commitment or emotional bond is evidence of the dreaded "beta."
The PUAs have confused what you do with the way you do it. You can be a monogamous, dedicated fellow without losing your manhood/confidence/sauce/"alpha." It's insecure to think otherwise, and they are encouraging men to hold on to their insecurity instead of bleaching it out of their system.
Blogger Hucbald said..."Because of the way females are raised in American culture now, women are more trouble than they are worth now. At least, that's been my admittedly anecdotal experience. Seriously, when I analyze the balance sheets of all of my relationships and ask, was it worth all the trouble, the answer has always been, no.
Then there's the fact that marriage has been perverted by the legal profession to such an extent that it's a game for men who are losers. It used to be that a woman had to prove some wrongdoing on the part of the man in order to obtain a divorce. Now, she can find herself a BBD (Bigger, Better Deal), and just split with the kids and half of her first guy's shit. A friend of mine who lives in California - poor sod - had exactly that happen to him. He did nothing wrong, his ex just found a guy she liked better, moved out, took the kids, and wound up with half of what the poor guy worked to build for them. That's bullshit, that's what that is.
Contemporary American culture is one of rampant misandry, and I think more and more guys are waking up to that fact.
10:37 AM, January 24, 2010"
That pretty well sums it up for me. A lot of great comments on this thread.
A lot of younger women think it's ideal to be an alcoholic, bisexual egomaniac. Guys like "Jim in Texas" are from another world. They don't have the slightest clue what the world is like NOW.
Almost all of my friends have gotten married. Almost all of them are miserable. One of them was telling me about how, now that they've had a couple of kids, he no longer gets sex or even any attention from his wife. He's just an employee in his own home. He told me, "It's not that I don't love my wife and kids but...I wish somebody had told me what it's like (to be married with kids)." Sad.
I'll pass.
"The PUAs have confused what you do with the way you do it. "
If I can quote myself, this is actually a key tenet of the PUA shtick. You don't have to have an alpha male resume, you can just "act the part." Thus their insecurity that doing "beta" things will mark you a beta, since to them "alpha" is a state of action, not a state of being.
I don't want to get too loquacious here, but it is worth noting that my dating life got a lot more relaxed and more enjoyable when I recognized a simple thing: the ability of most women to hold unrealistic, irrational and highly conflicting desires, often at the same time or switching with rapid frequency. A corollary of that is the ability to say what they "want" when they really want something else, or to never anticipate the "arrival paradox" - that when they get what they want, they might find they don't actually want it.
Perhaps men do the same in large numbers, but I have not tried to date men, so I don't know. People are really bad about figuring out what they actually want. It is interesting that even the most rational, sane women I know have had many incidents where conflicting desires are brought to the fore, and all that computes is a quizzical look.
Novaseeker sez: "Vapid fops like JG would have us believe that living in a committed relationship with such a woman is a joke on us."
------
Well, at least understand what I am saying before you start the name-calling.
I'm NOT saying that men shouldn't live in a committed relationship with a woman. I'm NOT saying that men should become pickup artists.
What I was asking about is why "traditional" men actively WANT to be in a one-sided relationship in which they become a wage slave to the woman and she has no real commitment to him (not today, under no fault divorce laws).
Here is an example: A guy I worked with had a sit-at-home wife who got more and more demanding over the years. He was short-tempered and obviously under stress trying to produce enough for this woman (for the record: He probably made 90-100k a year, it wasn't enough for the sit-at-home pig). She had a house so big that he had trouble keeping up on the mortgage payments. She wanted the house, not him. She was driving the SUV around town, he drove a little car to work.
She (negatively) gossiped about him to her friends. Constantly. She made life hell for him when he came home. Nagging, nagging, nagging, nagging.
Now this was a Real Man who fulfilled his obligations. And my question is: Why?
She will take off the instant she gets a BBD. And he doesn't realize that. In addition, I think he has low self-esteem and is "buying" her, on top of a whole slew of other pathologies. But in any case, she's getting a great free ride.
My desire is to:
1) Try to understand why men want to behave that way and
2) Maybe try to open their eyes that there are better forms of relationships than being slave to a sit-at-home pig with no gratitude.
There was split labor hundreds of years ago, and women really worked hard at home, just as men worked hard in the fields.
But few women churn butter, beat the rugs and all that today. Oprah apparently gets really good ratings, and it's not from men down at the steel mill.
So if you think that men should be slaves - but you're not even going to explain why - then I don't really buy your position.
Note on abbreviations:
BBD = Bigger, Better Deal
Also:
People on this board are very heavily misinterpreting my statements.
I don't have any illusions that I'm an especially clear writer, but I know that I can at least adequately get my point across on other topics.
When there is so much interpretation - far above the normal amount - I start thinking that people don't WANT to understand what I am saying. Maybe the misreading is unconscious / not deliberate. But it is going on.
I guess that is easier than taking a real look at what I am saying.
To repeat:
Women are just human beings. Putting them up on a pedestal, feeling you are not worthy of them, thinking you have to buy them (by being a wage slave to them over decades) and all the other pathologies I see with regard to women are silly.
THAT'S what I am trying to get across.
A relationship with a woman who has a sense of fairness, who works with you instead of against you (WHILE she is taking your money), and who sees you as an equal, not an inferior slave to serve her, is probably the way to go.
And people here are really against that?
TO: All
RE: A Change of 'Toon'?
A relationship with a woman who has a sense of fairness, who works with you instead of against you (WHILE she is taking your money), and who sees you as an equal, not an inferior slave to serve her, is probably the way to go.
And people here are really against that? -- JG
Earlier, he was indicating that men had as much chance of finding such a creature as finding a unicorn on which she rode in the woods behind their house. And that men who claimed they'd found such were either liars or worse.
NOW????!?!?!?
Maybe a good nights rest was all he needed.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Myths and creeds are heroic struggles to comprehend the truth in the world. -- Ansel Adams]
Chuckles sez: "Earlier, he was indicating that men had as much chance of finding such a creature as finding a unicorn on which she rode in the woods behind their house. And that men who claimed they'd found such were either liars or worse."
--------
Here's what I wrote, for example, at 5:57 p.m. on January 25 above:
"... and I have mostly been in long-term relationships with women I consider to be fair. And intelligent."
Chuckles, I think some of the other people are misinterpreting what I am saying in good faith. You, on the other hand, are trying to actively distort what I am saying.
I think people like you and Jim in Texas who are actively extolling the virtues of being in a "traditional" relationship (read the "sucker" - the man - pays and pays and pays for the house pig) are a bit misguided, to be charitable.
I would not want the kind of woman you hold up as some great thing. Honestly. A using house pig who is some great thing does NOT exist.
TO: JG
RE: Yeah....Right....
You, on the other hand, are trying to actively distort what I am saying. -- JG
That's why you were saying all those things about christians, badges, piety, hypocrisy and implying being liars in an earlier engagement with me.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
P.S. Looks like that caffeinated beverage brought back your old 'loveable' demeanor....
TO: JG
RE: Yeah....Right....
You, on the other hand, are trying to actively distort what I am saying. -- JG
That's why you were saying all those things about christians, badges, piety, hypocrisy and implying being liars in an earlier engagement with me.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
P.S. Looks like that caffeinated beverage brought back your old 'loveable' demeanor....
I stand by that, but that has nothing to do with your unicorn speech above that you attributed to me.
Since you're moving on to a new topic (probably to cover up the fact that you realize you were wrong with the old topic):
I DO think that some people use Christianity as a badge or a means of saying "look at me, what a swell guy I am". Those people follow all of the routines and rituals that have been built up, but don't really think about the true nature of God or the universe.
They were brought up to think that people see you as "good" if you say you are a Christian, so they say that. Really silly, if you ask me.
TO: JG
RE: Try....
I stand by that, but that has nothing to do with your unicorn speech above that you attributed to me. -- JG
....not to be too obtuse. It makes you look 'stupid'.
'nuff of your foolishness and obfuscation.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
TO: All
RE: Looking At This Thread....
....from a DIFFERENT angle.
I'm wondering just how many of the gainsayers here fit the ideal of the linked-to article.
Then again, it can be looked on from the perspective of Dr. Helen's initial thesis. And Mr. Right is the guy who has left the building because he doesn't think of himself as a 'victim'. And better yet, he has no intention of becoming one.
But the people on this thread who insist there are no such creatures as a 'good woman' are beginning to come across as a variation on that old Aesop fable about the Fox and the Grapes....
They're all sour, anyway.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A hangover is the wrath of grapes.]
Um, I don't consider myself a victim. I simply won't play the current game. It's not my loss.
I just think the odds are starting to get so skewed as not to bother looking.
"Women are just human beings. Putting them up on a pedestal, feeling you are not worthy of them, thinking you have to buy them (by being a wage slave to them over decades) and all the other pathologies I see with regard to women are silly."
I totally agree. I LOVE women. I have no time for girls in women's bodies, and I don't have a lot of time for guys who supplicate to women who haven't showed they are worth the praise.
Unfortunately, this is a tightly ingrained social tendency...
First, the natural order is for women to compete for top mates, and men to compete to be the top mate. Men are biologically programmed with "am I worthy?" angst, because that urgency motivates them to climb the ladder so they can pass on their genes.
Secondly, men are taught from childhood that women are the standard of behavior. As we move even further into a white-collar service industry economy this will increase, since girls are just better than boys at sitting still and doing what the boss/teacher says.
Thirdly, men hit their testosterone sexual peak earlier than women, and they hit it when the women are at their physical beauty peak. This creates a seller's market where men have to beg for female attention. (When women hit their mid/late 20's sexual peak, when many "unhappy" wives start to wander, men of that age are cementing the stability of their career and becoming ideal providers, and women who were not snapped up are now on the hunt for those physical and fiduciary pleasures with a new urgency.)
These three factors combine to create a massive inferiority message to young men from birth through "marrying age." Until a man is about 30 or is around a lot of women who past their mid-twenties (or haven't been brainwashed by women's studies), he'll never be exposed to the concept that women are anything other than "better" than him.
Sadly, by this point many men are either unhappily married or beyond salvage. What's really interesting is that feminism is exposing nature's wrath...nature wants people to breed young and healthy, which is why young bodies are more attractive to the opposite sex than older ones. But for the first time in history (excepting postwar periods with heavy casualties), there's a large cadre of women who are now the buyers instead of the sellers. Predictably, men aren't buying.
Post a Comment
<< Home