"...we are forcing them to quantify their value based on something out of their control: men."
Commenter Fidelio makes note of this article at Forbes entitled "Marriage, The Last Frontier" by columnist Jenna Goudreau. Goudreau naively thinks that marriage is the last frontier of the women's movement but mainly seems pissed that men are not under her and other women's thumb:
Staff reporter Goudreau is trying to make it sound like she thinks marriage is not anything that the modern woman should strive for but her wording here is more telling of what she really thinks:
Ahh, so the real problem for this columnist is that men are supposed to come under women's control in order for women to feel satisfied and stop them from calling men names like "man-children." Boy, that's really going to get the men running to get married! When women learn that a relationship is about love, compassion and equality, rather than control, maybe men will start to want to marry them again. Goodreau has it all wrong. It is not that men are "man-children." They are just grown-up enough to know that a controlling woman like Goodreau does not a good wife make.
Update: Stuart Schneiderman has more.
After reading Hannah Seligson's book A Little Bit Married--designed to invoke an internal freak-out that goes something like this: Why am I not married? Will I ever be married? Will I be forced to wait so long that my eggs dry up, my boobs reach my belly button and every eligible bachelor deems me unworthy of love?--I decided that marriage is the last frontier of the women's movement....
In part that's because this new generation features the "child-man," Seligson offers, who doesn't feel like adulthood comes until age 35. He lives with a woman for the regular sex and side benefits of emotional nurturing and a free live-in maid. Marriage is not yet on his mind because marriage represents financial stability, an end to partying and generally becoming old (apparently love and commitment are not deemed worthy criteria).
On this point I think she's right. A young urbanite myself, I know many of these man-children, who I find both amusing and frightening, and begrudgingly call friends. I do not, however, date them with the anticipation of marriage. Are we women so silly and trusting as Seligson suggests?
Staff reporter Goudreau is trying to make it sound like she thinks marriage is not anything that the modern woman should strive for but her wording here is more telling of what she really thinks:
If we continue writing guides on how to get your guy to propose or in-depth analysis on why he hasn't, we're not teaching our young women to focus on the quality (and equality) of their relationships. Rather we are forcing them to quantify their value based on something out of their control: men.
Ahh, so the real problem for this columnist is that men are supposed to come under women's control in order for women to feel satisfied and stop them from calling men names like "man-children." Boy, that's really going to get the men running to get married! When women learn that a relationship is about love, compassion and equality, rather than control, maybe men will start to want to marry them again. Goodreau has it all wrong. It is not that men are "man-children." They are just grown-up enough to know that a controlling woman like Goodreau does not a good wife make.
Update: Stuart Schneiderman has more.
Labels: Male Bashing, marriage
posted by Helen at 9:19 AM
93 Comments:
"[A] relationship is about love, compassion and equality, rather than control."
That may be true about a relationship, but it's certainly not true of the marriage contract.
It's the difference between the sacrament, which is a co-equal partnership, and the law, which is a discriminatory, unequal faux partnership.
A man who enters into a marriage contract has no legal guarantee that he will not be bankrupted and no legal recourse if he is betrayed.
Men are not going to start marrying women out of love and compassion, not as long as there is no equality.
When divorce is only allowed for just cause, when the biological father of an adulterate conception is required to pay child support, when the courts stop presumptively treating men as the oppessors and women as the oppressed, then marriage will make sense.
As it is now, it's merely a license for women to bankrupt and betray men, without penalty but reward.
The good news is that these women are literally taking themselves out of the gene pool. Good riddance.
GawainsGhost,
"Men are not going to start marrying women out of love and compassion, not as long as there is no equality."
Which is why I think it is so important for women, as well as men, to fight for justice under the law.
Fuck her. Period.
A marriage requires work, self sacrifice and a willingness to compromise. The American woman is not interested in any of that and wants it all on her own terms. Then she can't figure out why the proposal doesn't arrive.
"Then she can't figure out why the proposal doesn't arrive."
------
Men are still marrying bossy American women left and right.
There used to be some cable show called "Bridezilla", and the men were even marrying those women. And paying for her to have temper tantrums. Men are married the Housewives of Orange County.
Men are marrying women and men are still supporting sit-at-homes. Lots of men are working towards a heart attack while CupCake plays tennis, gambles with his money and watches Oprah.
The problem is men. True, many women seem to act like spoiled brats when they are not given boundaries and they take no responsibility for themselves, but the men are the ones allowing this.
I can't fathom it for the life of me, but I've even had these men get on me for not getting married. Incomprehensible.
I've even come all the way around from the other side and now quasi understand why alimony exists.
The Real Man(TM) creates a monster sit-at-home after 20 years who is incapable of working, incapable of taking care of herself and incapable of relating to anyone in the workplace after being used to dominantly boss around everyone in the household. It's the American equivalent of Chinese women who bind their feet and are helpless.
But when the love affair of Real Man and eye-batting CupCake ends, who should pay for useless CupCake?
Her parents if still alive? Taxpayers? Or the Real Man who created the monster?
I vote for the Real Man. I pay enough in taxes. Fulfill your duty, Real Man dude.
Although I'm a little hesitant to judge men for avoiding marriage -- considering all the matriarchal divorce laws -- I agree with her that promiscuity should be criticized. These whoremongering men generally ARE man-children. And I don't think it's fair to jump on her case for stating the obvious, that men are generally outside of women's control. At least, they *should* be outside of women's control. It's good to point that out.
Advising women to seek out quality men instead of whoremongers is exactly what we should applaud.
If a man does what a woman wants, then she will say he is "grown up." If a man does what he himself wants, a woman will say he's a "man-child."
Women have arbitrarily defined male maturity as what women want.
Even now, I am surprised at the capacity of feminist women for self-indulgence.
The good news is that these women are literally taking themselves out of the gene pool. Good riddance.
Would that that were so.
Drew said: I agree with her that promiscuity should be criticized.
Firstly, the writer is not criticizing these men for promiscuity. As Dr. Helen already pointed out she's criticizing them for being out of a woman's control.
Secondly, it does take two to tango you know. You seem quite willing to criticize men for promiscuity, but not the women?
To be honest I still wouldn't accept your criticism even if you weren't a hypocrite, but at least I'd respect your position. Now you have nothing but my contempt.
"Women have arbitrarily defined male maturity as what women want."
-------
Yup.
And women are very effective at enforcing this (with most men anyway). That's where all the RealMan rhetoric comes from and all the shaming and insults and snide remarks and all the rest that women effectively use to keep men in line.
"These whoremongering men generally ARE man-children."
-----
I don't really care who they're having sex with. If they are supporting themselves and being responsible in life, they are not "man-children".
On the other hand, a parasitic, helpless woman is considered "mature" if she has gotten some stupe to legally commit himself to paying for her.
Give.Me.A.Break
And lets see you tell women to quit whoring around (it's kind of 1:1 in heterosexual, non-orgy situations). Come on, let's see it. LOL. Be consistent.
Unless you've seen me in real life, you have no way of knowing that I haven't said exactly those words. Now quit acting like a man-child and act your age.
And I'm pretty sure my use of the word "whoremonger" implies that the women they're sleeping with are whores.
I'd hazard a guess that she's never been married before, has no idea what marriage involves, and likely won't get married until she herself is at least 35, at which point she will either change her tune completely or force the easily controlled man she chooses to wear pink shirts and clean the house for her while she goes to karate and focuses on the same thing she focused on before marriage: herself.
Well, I think the criticism about some men never growing up is true, especially men whose father were taken from them.
Of course, this would also be true of the woman-child whose perspective so taints the article. I wonder if she too lacked a relationship with her father.
So while I agree that these immature adults exist, I blame feminism. 8)
Trey
I realize this may come as a shock to Ms Goudreau, but men are not nearly so clueless and immature as she might believe.
Just as women evaluate men as potential mates, men are, in turn, evaluating *them.* Ladies, every one of your potential picks is running a business-case analysis on you, and I'm afraid there's some very bad news. You see, for him, and thanks to you, marriage represents very little measurable benefit...and quite staggering measurable cost. And you wonder why he is hesitant to rush into it?
This may not be at all relevant but this afternoon I saw a bit of Tyra show (NO: MY daughter watches it!), and they were discussing losing virginity, at what age. The oldest to lose hers was 17, others were 13, 14.
Our economic times will doubtless keep many from getting married for a while, no matter their feelings about marriage and love and marriage.
Scott sez: "Just as women evaluate men as potential mates, men are, in turn, evaluating *them.*"
----
Not really.
That's the whole problem here.
Frankly, I'm starting to think that the "Real Men" who marry the woman right away and do everything she says are truly the weak ones. The people who THINK on their own - and withstand the pressure of society - are doing something that takes more courage than "Real Men".
In any case, as I pointed out above in more detail, men are still lining up to marry these moronic women.
Along JG's lines, I don't buy the conventional wisdom that girls mature faster than boys. Girls hit puberty earlier in today's society, thanks to advanced health and nutrition that induces menstruation, but men hit their sexual peak (certainly one measurement of maturity) earlier than women. Men are also capable of supporting themselves earlier in life, as men can take on no-college blue-collar jobs with much more effectiveness than women, who by and large require college degrees for the white-collar jobs they covet.
The shaming language of the argument is also sick. Usually "maturing" is in the context of wants to get into a committed "relationship," which as has been noted on this blog is a misnomer...women are never under any pressure to commit, and when they reverse a commitment it's assumed to be for the indisputable reason that she felt like it - the so-called "female prerogative."
If there was any more example needed of the perpetual victimization mindset that plagues the typical American woman, this is it:
"He lives with a woman for the regular sex and side benefits of emotional nurturing and a free live-in maid. Marriage is not yet on his mind because marriage represents financial stability, an end to partying and generally becoming old (apparently love and commitment are not deemed worthy criteria)."
This is such garbage...these men didn't pass through a membrane into women's living rooms. A woman CHOOSES a man like this, chooses to sleep with him, and chooses to share a home with him (and be his maid). Like it is with princess women, the qualities and tendencies of these men are on display from the word go. She then pronounces she is shocked, shocked he won't take out the trash, and opens Cosmo to try to learn ways to manipulate him into being the way she wants.
The ultimate irony and stupidity of the situation is if these women got their minds right and wanted a stable, well-heeled, responsible man, they could have him on the spot. Legit men are everywhere. But nooo...Little Missy isn't "attracted" to him. He's too much of a "safe option." She's gotta go for the "bad boy," and then show the world she is so wonderful that he will reform for her.
It's pretty raw narcissism to think you are the modern-day Anne Sullivan or Dr Higgins for layabout men.
It seems like no matter how attractive and friendly she may be, every woman in the country is absolutely paranoid she won't be able to get another man, and so stays with a boor.
I used to look down on these kinds of guys (still do, don't have any friends like them) but I've stopped blaming the men for this behavior. Men do what works (so do women), so until women stop judging men by height and looks first and character and compatibility second, nothing will change. If women want to be enablers, I will have zero sympathy for their situation.
If she elects to try him out hoping she can "change him" into an upright citizen, I can only recount the story of the scorpion and the frog.
I love Gawain's post, but I take one issue with his first comment above...
I don't think punitive marriage laws are the reason men are avoiding marriage (cf. JG's point that men still marry these shrews every day).
I think men are avoiding marriage because they can get the basic benefits (sex, cohabitation and appearing in public as a couple) without having to be married. And, to the horror of Goodreau, they are this way because women agree to it.
Another item: it just shocks me how many women I meet who are super controlling, like their mate's life is just a tool for her to use. Goodreau makes what could have been a good point by saying women shouldn't build their lives around snagging a man, but she destroys it by simply telling men to get in order the way women want.
I am one to believe that a key ingredient in a good marriage is a lack of belief in "happily ever after." Lives are not static; jobs change, minds change, people want to do new things. Supporting (within reason) your spouse's changes in life is a large factor in the happy marriages I see, and avoids resentment that you are being kept down by the other person.
Another reason Suze Orman's client is a such a wench - now that she's got hers, she expects him to soldier on like a robot when he wants to expand his mind and change careers.
I find it revealing that there is so much pressure put on men to marry by shaming them with slogans like "afraid of commitment." After all, when a man chooses not to marry, there is no family torn apart. However, there is no corresponding shame when women "take him to the cleaners," even though a family is torn apart and children are scared.
If men are bad when they choose not to commit, why are women not at least equally as bad for tearing apart that commitment (and children from their fathers)?
In fact, women who do so are rewarded with the house, savings, alimony, child support, and the same "standard of living" for doing so.
TMink, while there is truth in what you say, you must also understand that many women have redefined maturity mean something that is essentially boils down to "if a man has fun, he's immature."
One thing that irritates the shit out of me in my marriage, besides the lack of sex, is that it's okay for her to fly off to her high school reunion, go to Vegas with her girlfriends, etc. but if I even hint at taking a vacation by myself, I'm an asshole.
I always sought a commitment, so this was never really a problem for me, but "fear of commitment" s shaming language from a woman who picked a man with more options.
The key is, as Richard Devlin notes, a woman wants commitment from a guy for whom commitment is a sacrifice. No one complained that the geeky kid who couldn't get a date was "afraid of commitment." If he sought a commitment, he was "clingy" and a "stalker."
Fear of commitment portrays as irrational mental illness a rational choice by a man whom all the girls want.
@Topher said... No one complained that the geeky kid who couldn't get a date was "afraid of commitment." If he sought a commitment, he was "clingy" and a "stalker."
__________
I've long noticed the paradox of the often-heard female lament that they want someone to value them for more than their body, yet men who see women as prey appear to be more appealing to them.
"I've long noticed the paradox of the often-heard female lament that they want someone to value them for more than their body, yet men who see women as prey appear to be more appealing to them."
This is why I've pretty much stopped listening to protests of bar-hopper partiers and women's magazines. Their statements are full of paradox and desires that violate the laws of physics and logic. They want everything both ways - their way.
They don't even _know_ what they want; many of them lack the confidence and courage to really live independently, so they don't have the experience to evaluate what they should want. All they do is parrot what they think their hot friends are doing, or what they read in a Cosmo or saw on TV.
I went through much of my first 20 years or so lamenting that I couldn't make good conversation with females. Then I realized most of the women I was trying to talk to were boring and unimaginative.
I am very intellectually curious, so I have unusually high standards for conversational interest, but I felt liberated knowing that it was OK to not make good conversation with a boring person.
Of course, both Cosmo and the pickup artists would have told me otherwise, that it was MY job to puff myself up into an interesting person for these hair-and-nails types with no hobbies save chatting and flirting. Glad I didn't learn that lesson, no thank you.
What is funny is that she thinks 'marriage is the last frontier of the woman's movement'...
...when in fact it is the greatest damage done by the 'Woman's Movement'.
US divorce laws are extremely rigged against men. Naturally, market forces will lead to fewer men marrying (with the number of men still marrying a function of either ignorance about the laws he would be under, or social shaming).
How is a woman who does not understand a) Cause and Effect, and b) Supply and Demand, employed at Forbes Magazine?
She should no longer be employed at Forbes.
By the way, women have far more difficulty with commitment than men.
Women file 90% of all divorces. When a man declines to marry his girlfriend, he is not seeking payments from her for years on end on a 'no fault' basis.
Also, women who file for divorce put the well-being of children at a low priority.
So the next time a woman claims that men do not commit, slam her for her projection and hypocrisy.
Dr. Helen wrote :
Which is why I think it is so important for women, as well as men, to fight for justice under the law.
But no one is fighting for it.
This is THE biggest issue of the next decade.
Islamic terrorists and a 10% unemployment rate do not destroy entire societies. Misandry CAN destroy an ENTIRE society.
It is more important than anything else.
For those of you not familiar with Game and Pick-up artist tactics, the entire Goudreau article was known as a 'compliance test'. She is testing a man to see if he is a pushover.
If he is, she would not be attracted to him,
If he is not, and instead teases her back and escalates the sexual tension, she becomes more attracted.
Any decent pick-up artist would have Goudreau eating out of his hand within 2 hours.
Why are women like Dr. Helen (i.e. who actually are responsible adults) so rare?
Dr. Helen's level of wisdom and maturity would be considered 'expected' for a man.
But among women, she is one in a million.
That does not reflect well on womankind.
Hate to stay on the soapbox, let's go back in time for Forbes to this:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html
A Forbes writer penned a column titled "don't marry a career woman" claiming that stats showed marriages were less happy if the wife made more than $30,000. Since this was obviously misogynistic, the column was removed from the site, Steve Forbes issued a public apology (for an advice column!) and re-published the column alongside a counterpoint by a woman that read "don't marry a lazy man." Typically, she implored men to carry through with their "responsibilities."
I don't have any problem with career women, but I find it very curious that the man's article cited social science research, which while possibly flawed was at least a sound scientific effort.
Meanwhile, the woman's article was essentially "MY marriage isn't like that so the man's article is WRONG!" She makes reasonable, but completely unsubstantiated, speculations as to why the study could be flawed, but never cites or quotes any scientist who could comment on it. She didn't appear to understand the idea of statistics - that there is a _distribution_ of possibilities, and that stats describe trends in that distribution that also allow for exceptions and outliers.
Steve Forbes is a whiteknighting pedestalizer.
We should bombard him to demand an apology for Jenna Goudreau's writings, since he caved so easily to feminist shrieking.
Some conservative he is - it appears that notions of personal responsibility and fairness take a backseat to the horrible prospect of being called names by Feminists.
Shame on you, Steve Forbes.
Someone wrote a devastating deconstruction of Jenna Goudreau, as a complaint to Forbes. He says that a person who cannot grasp basic market forces has no place at a business magazine.
Please weigh in at the link if you actually want Forbes to hear your disapproval with such articles.
Wow! Where to even start? How about with this "maid" BS? No woman I ever dated would act as my "maid." Quite the contrary, while they expected me to be "the man" (ie to pay for most things we did or used or ate or whatever togehter, and to do the hard physical labor, like "help" them move), they wouldn't do squat to help clean the apartment, even though they were practically living there (because it was "nicer," ie more expensive, than their own). Oh no, "I'm not going to do YOUR housework for YOU."
Women like this author would make me laugh at their presumptuousnous and cluelessnes, if what they said wasn't simultaneously so sickening. Men don't want to marry, not b/c they want to stay "man children," but b/c women have made marriage a legal and social nightmare for men. And yet these haridans want to make it even worse for men, so that it will be "equal!"
Marriage is voluntary, toots. Make it attractive to me or shove it. Or do without it, like more and more men seem to able to do. But women pine away for it. They dream of it. Long for it. Plot and scheme and manipulate for it. "How do I get him to 'commit,'" "He went to Jareds!" "How do I get my bf to propose to me??!!?!?" Do you see men doing anything like this? No. Where are the men's "Groom" magazines? Nowhere.
(continued)
And why is that, dumbass? Because marriage is a bad deal for women? How fucking stupid can you be! No, because it is a great deal for women, too great a deal. So great that it stinks for men. I don't have the stats for the US, but in the UK the marriage rate sinks to its lowest ever since recording began every new year.
Men are refusing to be controlled. They are refusing to die in harness so M'Lady can sit on her fat ass and try to "discover" herself at age 40. They are refusing to do all the work, pay all the freght, and then have everything they worked for, and their kid, snatched from them b/c Ms. Thang has decided she has "fallen out of love" with him.
It wasn't men who brought about this state of affairs. It was women. You all were told you shouldn't marry in your teens, 20's, or even early 30's (you know, when a man might acually want to marry you). And you bought it. No. You had to put your "careers" first. Then, when you are no longer young, hot, sexy, fertile and desirable, you bitch and moan b/c Cap'n Sav a Ho isn't sailing in to rescue you from a life of unending work, your CC debts, and your cats! You're now too old to have kids safely and surely. Or you already had them with Mr. Wrong and now you expect Mr. Right to come in and pay for them! No wonder he would rather play with his Nintendo, or whatever they call it now!
La La La La La, I can have it all. I can live my life any way I want to without a man or anyone else telling me what to do. I don't care about society. I don't care about what men want. I only care about me. Look at me, with my cool friends, and fancy pocketbooks and shoes and dresses and Sex in the City lifestyle. La La La La
Then La La La turns to Waaaah, Waaahh, Waaaaah, call me a Waaahmbulance! b/c, after a certain point, nobody gives a shit about you. Your job was a joke all along, which you only got b/c your boss hoped you might put out, your attractiveness brightened up the office, or the EEOC was on his ass. And you hate it anyway. You waaaaaaaaaaaantaaaaaaaa get married and have baaaaaaaaaaaabies. But those immature "man children" are either soured on the opposite sex altogeher, or are looking for a younger, better version of you to fuck and chuck, or if they are foolish, to marry.
If the old rules and laws were in place, most men would happily work in harness all their lives for their wives and children. Young men adore women. Many of them long for a real gf, never mind a wife. They would marry young and have kids and be faithful, till death did them part. But that is not the world the feminsts wanted. This is the world they wanted. Well, you got it sweetheart. You got your own cigarette now baby, you've come a long, long way! Hope you like it!
"Any decent pick-up artist would have Goudreau eating out of his hand within 2 hours."
Who would want her?
We could end most of this debate tomorrow by getting each state to pass a law that simply says the following: "section X Y Z (no fault divorce statute) shall be amended as follows: ' the applicant for a divorce under this statute shall be deemed to have malicious disregard for the well-being of the children they share with their lawful spouse for the purpose of assigning custody.'"
There is going to be a point in life which is probably coming up pretty soon if it isn't already here yet, where women of marriageable and child-bearing age are going to start getting a bit fearful of the misogyny. Eventually they will feel that trying to get married and have kids with a guy isn't worth it. Either they will become like black women and still have kids but not get married or dispense with the process entirely and enjoy the money and satisfaction they get from their jobs and businesses. What I strongly doubt they will do is earn the money of Oprah Winfrey, become the sexual enthusiasts of Jenna Jamison and turn into June Cleaver in the kitchen.
The good news would be that men would feel absolutely no pressure at all to get married, have kids and earn money.
TO: Topher, et al.
RE: Actually....
I don't think punitive marriage laws are the reason men are avoiding marriage (cf. JG's point that men still marry these shrews every day).
I think men are avoiding marriage because they can get the basic benefits (sex, cohabitation and appearing in public as a couple) without having to be married. And, to the horror of Goodreau, they are this way because women agree to it. -- Topher
....it's BOTH.
And, as someone so cleverly put it on PJM (before it started going 'south')....
Re: Operation “Feminist Movement”
Men, our long twilight struggle with the opposite sex is over. Our victory is total. -- Article at PJM.
That's the answer to the second part of you comment. The first part, about the egregious divorce laws is the 'hammer' that causes men to avoid the marriage.
The feminist solution, as we'll likely see in statutory and case law, will be to generate a body of law that requires men to pay 'Palimony'. And I think a body of case-law for that is already being built in some states.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Bad law is more likely to be supplemented than repealed. -- Oaks' Laws]
P.S. In which case, the 'palimony', women will, in truth, have become 'whores'.
P.P.S. And the government, via the court system and some government agency such as the federal Family Support Agency—which handles child support payments today—will manage the payments to them.
Palimony is already the reality in many States and countries. And it is being extended continuously. The time frame for it to kick in keeps getting lower, and the degree of intimacy required keeps becoming less.
In places where this has happened, men need to be very careful. But even that is not always good enough, b/c they change the laws and apply them retroactively.
Women, for all their big talk about being strong and independent, always want a man to pay their way, and for the kids they desire too.
And, if a particular man can't be found to pawn the burden off on, all of men collectively (ie the taxpayers, who are mostly men) will do.
I sometimes wonder if we should just go ahead and make it official. Men are not wanted. Fathers are not wanted. Only their money is. So, let's cut the pretense, since we need kids to pass our culture, however fucked up, on to. Let's just us (the taxpayers) pay women to have and raise babies. Cut out all this fake marriage and palimony and child support and maternity leave BS. Each gal can have two or three babies on the public till. It's what they're good at anyway! It's the only thing they can do that a man can't do better!
Stay home and raise the brats. And shut up about men.
"or dispense with the process entirely and enjoy the money and satisfaction they get from their jobs and businesses."
If only that were true...but it appears that women have tried equality, and as a whole don't like it much. Cf. this woman on Suze Orman's show. Or women who don't like paying alimony, think it's "unmanly" to take the ex-wife's money and carp about it on that website. Or this Forbes article when Goodreau demands that men become the knights the women wanted to marry up to. Or the women profiled by the BYT who are going to Yale but plan on leaving the workforce when they marry their Yale man, as if one of the world's top colleges was simply a matchmaking enterprise.
Not all women are like this, some enjoy the challenge and responsibility of a career, but one of the hardcore realities of America is that the women's marketing industry - from dolls up to Cosmo magazine - programs women to not be happy, to always seek some new superficial goal of a better butt or fluffier cupcakes or a better husband.
Conversely, JG is right - most women have no concept of what men's lives are like, as men as raised from birth with the pressure and expectation of providing for others. Feminists act like men were having a gay old time prior to 1970, when in reality most of them were slaving away at jobs they didn't like to pay for the suburban family ideal, and never complained because they weren't the complaining type and because they were raised that it was their "responsibility."
BYT above should read "NYT" - although it's a Freudian slip as Roissy calls it the "New York Beta Times."
Wow, you responded to Cham as if he were serious? I was sure it was satire! Black women enjoying their business succees to raise their chldren? Does anyone think that is what is going with any but a tiny fraction of Black single mothers. Or any single mothers, really.
Women not wanting to marry b/c of misogyny? Women are dying to marry. As you say, even the upper class, privileged, certainly able to make their own way variety are only looking for an MRS degree! And what "misogyny" would that be anyway? The kind that lets women take, take, take and never give back? The kind that treats women like children when it is convenient for them (like when they consent to sex after drinking, or shoot someone for no good reason) but then demands equality in every situation where that is to their benefit?
I just had a flash in the shower...feminism is having a "Grapes of Wrath" paroxysm. They promised it all, and now metaphorically feminism has arrived in California and is coming to realize they'll never be rich (as in have all the things they wanted).
You can always count on the left to look at a culture that bashes men and marriage laws the persecute men, and then twist it to fret about misogyny. Misandry? What's that?
I think when you create anti-male laws that cause women to undervalue what their men do and reward them handsomely for harming their men and sabotaging their relationships with they children, I think it shouldn't come as a surprise when you get increased misandric behavior from women in general, and pointing this out is not misogyny.
Conversely, if laws were lined up men's incentives with poor treatment (and downright abuse) against women (the Middle East comes to mind), it would come as little surprise that it would result in increased misogynistic behaviors against women. Pointing that out would not be misandry, either.
It gets tiresome to explain the obvious.
Joe, good point, I wish I had included that in my post and thank you for adding it.
I recall Bill Cosby talking about taking the victim role as a minority. He said it was like a drug! It "absolves" a person of all their failings and shortcomings, it massages the ego, and it lets us pretend we are blameless for our outcomes. He also said it keeps people stuck and prevents them from succeeding.
Too many women and minorities are victim addicts.
My wife and I were watching some tv last night, and I just said "dumb man" when there was a male oaf on a commercial. Of course, I said it a lot. She finally said "I cannot imaging how painful that is for you to hear all the time, that you are dumb and incompetent because you are a man."
We had an interesting discussion about how it makes me think less of the companies who advertise, their products, and the people who write the commercials. The victim role is not attractive to many of us. Thank God.
Trey
TO: TMink
RE: Give Thanks
The victim role is not attractive to many of us. Thank God. -- TMink
Indeed!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature (including women like these), shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39, read the preceding passages for the FULL IMPORT-IMPACT....]
P.S. If you have a 'Life' in the first place, you'll have the confidence to face all your foes.....
I can see that the world consists only of misandrists and misogynists based on this thread. Yup. Women are whores and men are kads.
Trey
Is there another like your wife?
TO: All
RE: Alex and....
I can see that the world consists only of misandrists and misogynists based on this thread. -- Alex
....poor reading/comprehension skills.
I have to wonder when Alex graduated from high school.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A man only learns in two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people. -- Will Rogers]
TO: Aurelian
RE: Any More at Home Like Her?
Is there another like your wife? -- Aurelian
Yeah....
....but I'm married to her.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. There are more of those out there. But you have to look in the right places. And know what you're looking for.
joe, you said;
One thing that irritates the shit out of me in my marriage, besides the lack of sex, is that it's okay for her to fly off to her high school reunion, go to Vegas with her girlfriends, etc. but if I even hint at taking a vacation by myself, I'm an asshole.
the thing is that you are....but you have to look at her motive for the trip to vegas or going to her re-union without you.
marriage is about loyalty and trust. you might trust her, but she shows no trust in you...which says a lot.
it begs the question...why be marrried if you are going to do significant things apart?
Aurelian: "Fuck her. Period."
Hopefully, not at the same time.
"Are we women so silly and trusting as Seligson suggests?"
In a word, yes.
Ask a woman who is dating a douche why she doesn't dump his arse. You will be subject to more empty, fearful rationalization than a defense attorney with a capital client.
One of the sadder things people like Goudreau don't want to admit is that as women became "sexually empowered" and started going home with every wannabe-alpha male, decent guys saw what worked and started changing their behavior to get women's attention. If women chose better, men would act better, but women who play the victim to a man they chose appear to argue that they are no better than their own animal desires.
Topher: I'm not responsible for anyone else's behavior.
Well, as anyone who came of age in the 1970s (which was when everything changed) knows, it's heads she wins, tails he loses.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/espn_reveals_the_ugly_truth_EGMXjyk0l9GQNJlOIdDImL
Men have to mind what they say and do. Women do not.
TO: GawainsGhost, et al.
RE: Indeed!
Men have to mind what they say and do. Women do not. -- GawainsGhost
I like the way some tagline I saw puts it....
No woman ever took a man to Hell, unless he had a ticket in his pocket.
And she gets to 'punch' it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[In the battle between you and the World, back the World.]
dr.alistair, you are so far off the mark it isn't silly. This has nothing to do with trust--I have seen this pattern repeated many, many times. Women are repeatedly told they can have if all. For them, anything that makes them feel better about themselves is permissible. Anything which makes them not in control is not. It's a simple variation of "what's yours is mine, what's mine is mine."
The crazy part is that if you bring this up with women, they laugh AND AGREE.
As for the specifics; I don't want to go to my own high school reunions, let alone those of someone else. I have no desire to attend a crafts convention in Vegas. My wife going doesn't bother me in the least--hell I don't go to Tupperware parties, craft fairs either. I actually don't like traveling alone; what bothers me is the reaction.
Another illustration. When we got married, my wife wanted to pursue a degree in education. We jointly agreed that she would stay at home while our small children were babies and toddlers, and then go back to school. Even before our kids all transitioned to elementary school, she changed her mind. Fast forward, she's now working part time. At first, she insisted that she was now paying for her hobbies herself. Again, what's mine is hers and what's hers is hers. I blew up. To my wife's credit, she quickly realized the implication of what she was saying and backed down.
(This is VERY common, even among couples with less disparate incomes. The power play also happens in the bedroom. If a husband doesn't sexually satisfy his wife, he's cad and a loser, if a wife doesn't sexually satisfy her husband, that's okay because he's a cad and a loser.)
ok joe, but then you proved my point by saying you don`t share values.
you guys aren`t on the same page and it hurts.
i went through it for 15 years, only to give a woman i didn`t like a house, a car and sole custody of my kids.
the struggles in relationships stem from lack of shared values in core issues...not the beliefs themselves, but agreeing.
i suggest, and get criticised for suggesting, that one can tell a bit about someone`s values by asking the difficult questions early...like the first time you get to talk to her...about things like honour and discipline and truth.
instead of after two kids and the third house.
that`s all i`m saying. that`s all i`ve ever been saying.
to find an honourable woman takes time, effort and patience...and possibly waiting until middle age to find a woman who has seen enough shit to want a quiet life like you do.
but you have to be that too, and not some dick hoping to "play" while she plays good wife.
i`m fifty this year and i have seen enough of the women that topher and jg talk about. where i differ is that i believe there are good women out there who are looking for a companion to share life with instead of scoring bragging rights at the yoga class...and i might be wrong.
the woman i am to marry on may 5th has passed my tests (that`s right) and far surpassed my wildest expectations...in fact she barely seems real some days carrying her end of the boat.
but then again, she gets an honest guy glad to cook for her and hold the door open and be a decent father to my kids and provide some guidance for her son and daughter while her ex acts like a spoilt douche-bag any chance he gets.
i guess i`m different than the guys she dated after her marriage. self-absorbed golfers and so on.
Once again, I thank goodness for two things:
1. I'm happily married, and
2. if death were to end my marriage (the only way it will ever end), I'll never get married, or even date, ever again.
Back to my twenties: one-night stands only, as and when I feel like them. and if none are available, I'll read a good book instead.
dr.astair, I think we agree far more than we disagree. However to say we don't share values is absurd; it is correct to say we don't agree on certain things and agree on others. That is quite normal for relationships and if you think your current one is different, you are extremely naive.
My wife and I still share enough values to keep our marriage going. A divergence has grown in other areas in the past 20+ years. I did learn very early on that women have far more flexibility in changing the rules of the game than men do (especially if you are a member of a conservative religion as we were when we met and for many years after.) Things are not so intolerable that I would get a divorce, but that doesn't mean some things don't drive me crazy.
That said, I totally agree that we didn't ask the brutally hard questions before we married. We were young, naive and believed a lot of the relationship BS of our joint religion.
Having had the full power of the state bear down on me in a divorce that left me broke and broken, I will never allow myself to be in that vulnerable a position again. I am keeping my money and my stuff and my peace of mind. Do not need the hassle, the abuse nor the threats. Life is good and I want to keep it that way.
"Dr." Alistair:
You seem to be crowing about your great and successful marriage and tactics used to bring that about ... even before you are married. Wait 10 years and then crow about it.
Also, that kind of behavior is normal for a 20-year-old. They are all bragging about how much money they are GOING TO earn and how fast they are GOING TO become president of a Fortune 500 company and all the rest. It's silly, because you don't brag about something you haven't done yet, and many won't do it, but it's normal for that age.
If you are around 50 and have already had a failed marriage, it's hard to fathom why you are engaging in that behavior.
Save the lecture for what we all should do. Please.
@GawainsGhost: Fascinating article (and I usually avoid the Post like the plague).
I blame the litigious nature of American society.
1. If we don't like something: Make it illegal!!! Let Officer Friendly deal with the problem (like drugs, prostitution, etc. None of them went away).
2. Sue! Sue! Sue! If you coffee's not hot enough: sue! If it's too cold: sue!
3. Modify human behavior by threatening life-support (i.e., job and income). If that sportscaster were a character in a comedy, the audience might laugh or it might be offended, but what transpired is fair game and part of human life: blatant honesty. But when a man does something WHILE HE'S ON THE JOB, then everyone goes after his paycheck. It's the sleaziest form of crying "Wolf!" next to playing the race card.
If I had kids, I'd tell them the smartest thing they could do is avoid working in large groups or corporations. Teamwork is horsesh*t today; you have more to worry about your coworkers than someone in a dark alley. Michael Crichton called it perfectly in his novel Disclosure.
If I were to use a word to characterize the next 30 years of American economics, it would be "mercenary." Our kids are going to have to learn to look out for themselves more than our parents ever did. It's getting predatory out there.
TO: JG & Other Scoffers
RE: 10 Years?
You seem to be crowing about your great and successful marriage and tactics used to bring that about ... even before you are married. Wait 10 years and then crow about it. -- JG
The distaff and I have been together for 18 years. And that's better than my two previous marriages combined.
And, as I recall, you don't care for my 'crowings' about these parts.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Who can find a virtuous wife. Her worth is greater than rubies. -- Proverbs]
joe, thanks for your reply. my comment was regarding core values, not whether you like the same band or snack food. i have been in two marriages, and both ended due to an emerging disparity over core values, that had i pressed early on, would have told me all i needed to know about where the relationships would fail...but i didn`t have the knowledge or maturity to make those choices then.
i may come off as a bit of an evangelist but as a 49 year old i have some experience, practically and technically, when it comes to relationships...and looking back i can see where in my own situations, applying conversational tactics at a point where i wasn`t so emotionally involved with these women, i could have saved myself substantial grief.
with regard to what jg persists with, all i can say is that it seems to irritate him that someone managed to look twice before crossing the street and is actually happy with a woman heading for marriage.
now, of course, he will be there in ten years to tell me "i told you so", but jeez, where`s the payoff in that?
as an addendum, it may be said that all women, once the ring is on the finger, change like the flick of the switch....and thanks to some i will be sensitive to that...but above all else i believe in marriage as a spiritual union, and just because a culture has eroded the institution to one of commerce, i don`t have to subscribe to that view, much as i don`t subscribe to credit cards or on-the-spot financing.
i do a lot of things the old fashioned way. i cook meals, and play mucic by hand with my family, and we play games at the table together, and camp as a family, and i talk with my love until the small hours.
in contrast i see people out in restaurants and glued to the tv and ignoring eachother most of the time while they seperately imput information from personal devices....so i can see where people would find it easy to split if there were problems, because they don`t have attachment in the first place.
This reminds me of the old saw attributed to Socrates: By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
as if one of the world's top colleges was simply a matchmaking enterprise
What? you've never heard of a woman going to college to earn her Mrs. degree???
I just had a flash in the shower...feminism is having a "Grapes of Wrath" paroxysm. They promised it all, and now metaphorically feminism has arrived in California and is coming to realize they'll never be rich (as in have all the things they wanted).
That was the biggest lie in the 60's feminist movement: men could and did have it all. It wasn't true then, it is less true now. You can't have it all, hard choices and sacrifices will have to be made.
An analogy to marriage would be that of a team of horses: if the Budwiser Clydesdales aren't pulling together in the same direction, that wagon isn't moving.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"What? you've never heard of a woman going to college to earn her Mrs. degree???"
Of course I have, but my concept of MRS degrees is places like Wellesley, specifically designed as 'finishing schools' for students to be farmed out to Yale/Harvard/Princeton mixers and fraternity events.
While I am all for women doing any job they are capable of, up to and including the Presidency, it bothers me to think of places like Yale or MIT being used simply as conduits to somebody's Prince Charming fantasy. Those schools are very valuable resources for American society.
Chuck,
Those rubies still look like a good investment to me. One can buy a lot of comfort with those jewels. At least you'll get your value's worth with rubies. Not really sure that can be said for the modern Western woman.
TO: blahga the hutt
RE: Rubes
Those rubies still look like a good investment to me. -- blahga the hutt
And, as I've said in the past, they're cold comfort in bed. Let alone trying to get a child from them.
But keep up with your bad-attitude. I'm sure you'll find what you expect. Something to do with 'looking for trouble' and passing up a 'gem' when you encounter it.
What was it we've been talking about on this site about women who pass up good men? You're an example of the same from the other perspective.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Go looking for trouble and you'll find it every time.]
Chuck,
"And, as I've said in the past, they're cold comfort in bed. Let alone trying to get a child from them."
Rubies can buy a very comfortable bed indeed. And since I really don't want to have kids, especially when I see society going to complete hell around me, that's not really going to induce me to go looking around.
"But keep up with your bad-attitude. I'm sure you'll find what you expect. Something to do with 'looking for trouble' and passing up a 'gem' when you encounter it."
Far from it being a bad attitude, I find it to be very healthy indeed. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of gems at this point. But then, I've also stopped looking long ago.
"What was it we've been talking about on this site about women who pass up good men? You're an example of the same from the other perspective."
Perhaps, but I know where I stand in the grand scheme of things at the very least. I don't have to keep looking over my shoulder every five minutes to see if a potential girlfriend is deciding to sleep with another man or suddenly decide in the middle of a marriage that she has lesbian tendencies and wants to discover that.
As for looking for trouble, I'm not looking for anything, so I doubt it's trouble that I'll find. In fact, it seems that the guys who go looking for women today are the ones who end up getting screwed (no pun intended) all the time.
Ahh, so the real problem for this columnist is that men are supposed to come under women's control in order for women to feel satisfied and stop them from calling men names like "man-children."
And here is the crux of the problem. At least for the modern American Male. He is supposed to be controlled and manipulated into doing her bidding. In the beginning she shakes a little tail, a little chest, opens her legs from time to time to keep the interest going and like a black widow, she is able to get her man to be her man totally and suck the life out of him over time. This is all figurative of course, but it goes back to something I've been observing about males in the US for a long time and that is how they are portrayed in media that is precipitating to that image to the rest of mainstream America. The best example of this is beer commercials and how men and women are portrayed in them. Commercials are an excellent barometer of the level of misandry and negative portrayal of men that I have seen in a long time. Men are portrayed is bumbling morons who are basically man-babies looking to drink, get laid, play games, and watch sports while the women are their to save the day. Don't believe me? Just sit and watch these commercials and you'll see. From the Simpsons, The Family Guy, Two and a Half Men, How I Met Your Mother, and on and one, men are viewed as one-liner morons who constantly get themselves into jams that require a woman close to them to get them out of or fix.
Boys can't grow up to be men in this society. They have no way to do it. What is the rite of passage for a boy to become a man in America? Is it just turning 18 to vote and serve or turn 21 to be able to get to a bar? Women get the short end of the stick as well. For 4 decades they have told that they need to be empowered? To do what exactly? All the while this empowerment has been instituted in the highest halls of government and academic institutions and enscrolled in the public policies of political correctness. Now I get to come to a blog like this and read an article about a woman's interpretation of what a man is or should be and I just want to punch her in the face for being so moronically stupid.
I'm a man. I've become a man by doing the things a man should. Growing up honestly, taking care of his family, protecting his weaker siblings, his mother, his father. Making sure that they are fed, making sure a roof is over their heads, making sure that when it was time for me to have a family that I always did the right thing by them the same way. Slaving through the daily bullshit of living and stupidity to ensure that these traits continue. There is so much more that can't be enumerated in a post like this, but this type of misandry/male bashing will not stop. It's too profitable to end it. Go look at a commercial for birth control/contraception. Not a single man in sight (for obvious reasons). However, the young women portrayed in these commercials are young, pretty, empowered and doing stupid shit like getting into a full bathtub with your clothes on to prove your empowered. Cutting your own hair to prove how confident you are. Showing you setting up clothing on a manikin in an empty boutique to show how independent your thinking is while you are being told how bold it is to take contraception to control your choice of reproduction. Because the implication is, is that a man has no control and if you have unprotected sex with a man, well, you must be the responsible one while the male is nothing more than a sperm geyser looking to inseminate everything with vagina, so be empowered and take our contraception because you are a woman and we know you can roar.
It's all horseshit. All of it.
"It's all horseshit. All of it."
Hear, hear. And that's why I stopped playing the game long ago. And I'm better for it.
On thing that should be pointed out is that it isn't just men being disadvantages by the feminist bullshit. I've griped about my wife here, but she, my oldest daughter and several women I've worked with are totally fed up with feminism and being constantly denigrated by those shrews and nags.
The extension of childhood into the twenties isn't just devastating men, but women as well and it's mostly thanks to nanny state baby boomer assholes. Public schooling should end at 16 to begin with. At 18, a person should not only get all the rights an privileges of adulthood. Period.
Age of consent should be 16 as should the right to live on your own. It doesn't help to have laws requiring insurance to cover dependents until 26. That's stupid--no healthy, able bodied person should be a dependent past 19.
We are coddling our youth and it will destroy society. We are coddling feminists and victim theology with the same result.
TO: blahga the hutt
RE: Yeah...Right....
Rubies can buy a very comfortable bed indeed. -- blahga the hutt
But a 'cold' one. Or, if you go for a woman of the sort you think are the only kind available, she's the sort of 'cold'-hearted whore you're looking for. And, given a chance, she'll take all your rubies for herself.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Fools rush in....]
Chuck,
"But a 'cold' one. Or, if you go for a woman of the sort you think are the only kind available, she's the sort of 'cold'-hearted whore you're looking for."
Who said anything about getting a prostitute? Good lord, I don't want damaged goods, why on earth would I then go and get seriously damaged goods?
"And, given a chance, she'll take all your rubies for herself."
But that proverbial "she" won't be taking anything if I'm not looking for someone, period, eh?
TO: blahga the hutt
RE: Heh
So....
....you're contribution to the future of humanity is 'nil'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Children, n., messages we send to a future we shall never see.]
I have been married three times. I have been comfortably married to my third wife now for 25 years. Our sex life is regular; we have no running complaints, and are pretty much together on financial priorities. There are no strangers hiding in the woodpile as far as I know—we are both kind of old for that. The reason I think that this is so is because I finally figured out what women really want from a man. Freud not withstanding, I think it is simple. What they want is for him to take responsibility—for everything. The women in my life want me to figure out, without being told, what they want to do; and then tell them to do it. That way, if it works out well they take the credit. If not, it was my fault for telling them to do it. As long as I am a good guesser and take the blame when things go wrong, my relationship stays strong.
Ken, your time on earth is now passed. You will soon be elevated to a higher plane.
Methadras:
I enjoy the commercial for the morning-after pill:
It's the morning, a woman is waking up alone in bed. She's very concerned and worried. There's been some sort of mishap. She needs to take control, take charge, get busy right away. She goes to the pharmacy, she talks to the pharmacist, she is given a box. The box will make the problem go away. She's back to being happy, in control and self-assured.
I've become confused as to how this problem occurred in the first place. I guess when you have sex the minute the male participant ejaculates he vaporizes and a woman will end up in bed alone. This male vaporization occurs even if the condom broke or the diaphragm got dislodged. Men will never be there to deal with the challenge, according to the commercial. Not only is it a good thing for a woman to be empowered but she better be sure has loads of self-esteem and know how to handle a difficult challenge alone before she goes dipping her toe in any sort of sexual waters. After a woman solves the problem, of course, the male will return for more sex and she can hang out at the coffee bar with her friends. Life is good.
Cham,
I'd like to comment on your well-thought and very provocative post, but I must admit I've never seen an ad for Plan B or its equivalent. Maybe I'm not watching the right networks?
Plan B commercial. Enjoy.
Cham,
Thanks for the link, just watched it. That is quizzical - I can understand the message of "don't expect someone else to be responsible for your sexual health" but the absence of men (unless the women are buying something, like a house or a book) is bizarre.
(What's interesting in counterpoint is that I've read several columns arguing against male birth control, saying "gals, you have to take the pill because men WON'T be responsible enough to take it!" Obviously, this sets up a cultural expectation for men to not take it, when they should be encouraging mutual responsibility.)
My real problem is that it portrays Plan B users as one-night-standers - notice the woman throwing her pillow, no doubt because a man walked out after the act. Plan B is also pretty useful for a monogamous couple whose condom breaks, and from a public health and wellness standpoint they should be marketing to them too. I think sets up a bad idea, almost normalizing the idea of a one-night stand (which is not safe sex no matter how much protection you use).
Topher:
I am wondering whether Plan B made 2 commercials. 1 with only women and another with couples. Think about the messages the couple commercial would have sent had they included the men in the bed in the morning. It may have been construed as: "Hey guys, don't worry about birth control because we can make an unintended pregnancy vanish. You two can go visit the pharmacy at your leisure after sex and buy a box. Problem solved." I'm not sure that would have gone over well even to the masses who enjoy watching those lovable male doofuses on TV. That might have been really tough to take.
I think our culture may be okay with a responsible pretty young white woman with a nice apartment having a discreet one-night-stand. Our culture may not be okay with older married people who either already have kids or don't want kids doing everything in their power to avoid pregnancy by buying the box. I think Plan B was having a hard time finding a creative way to outline the application of their product. However, their final choice was really terrible, it sent an absolutely horrific message about how men view the responsibility of birth control. In essence, you can have all the hoochie you want but if the condom breaks get away from your sex partner as fast as you can, let her take care of it.
Very sad.
Post a Comment
<< Home