# Are Men Fed Up With Women?



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

What do ya'll think of this article an it's implications? Feel free to debate.
Why Are Men Angry: Manning Up Author Kay Hymowitz Explains - The Daily Beast


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

What a load of crock. And the idiot is a published author? She has done nothing in that ridiculous excuse of an article besides spewing misogynistic asinine drivel that not only degrades women as being "obsolete" slutty, potential 'gold diggers' in the face of PS3 and internet porn, but also roundly insults the intelligence and maturity level of men. I refuse to believe that most mature individuals in my age group are only looking for: "financial independence, toned triceps and sex." But, I am sure she is doing her target audience a great service by reinforcing their materialistic, objectifying, superficial and decidedly moronic way of approaching sex, relationships and life, at large. I wish them all luck in attaining any semblance of meaningful happiness; they'll be needing my _wishes, _I assure you.


----------



## Type B (Nov 9, 2011)

Hmm.... I've read better articles about men being angry with women. I'm not very fond of the female species personally, but that article is piss poor any way you look at it. 

Why does the author think of the ages of 20 - 39 as "pre-adulthood"? You're not an adult until 40? Boy did I make a mistake becoming independent all those years ago! 
:dry:


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Type B said:


> Hmm.... I've read better articles about men being angry with women. I'm not very fond of the female species personally, but that article is piss poor any way you look at it.


You're not very fond of women in general? Why? Also, women aren't another species.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

^ Cool it, mate!


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

I'm not really going to waste much responding to the article in the OP, other to say that she sounds like a whining MRA, and probably is looking to get a lot of money by selling her book to men like that. She seems to blame women for the alleged woes of modern men, and seems to have no idea of what the patriarchy is.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> ^ Cool it, mate!


Cool what? I was asking a question.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> Cool what? I was asking a question.


To me, it sounded as if you were about to launch into a rant. Let's do try to keep this civilized and on-topic.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> To me, it sounded as if you were about to launch into a rant. Let's do try to keep this civilized and on-topic.


Except that I wasn't, and didn't.


----------



## psychologicalDan (Apr 1, 2012)

Ha ha, interesting article, I have seen some threads/articles which have not quite successfully articulated what it is like, or what is expected of men in this new western age of supposed equality.

@*skycloud86*

Defender of all women? lol this could be another amusing argument you are seemingly drawn to!

..... sits and waits for the entertainment to start


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

psychologicalDan said:


> Ha ha, interesting article, I have seen some threads/articles which have not quite successfully articulated what it is like, or what is expected of men in this new western age of supposed equality.


You mean where men are still the more privileged sex, where women are still second-class citizens in many countries of the world and so on? People like the author of the article need to spend less time blaming women and more time blaming the patriarchal system.

Here's a good image that I saw a few days ago - 












> Defender of all women? lol this could be another amusing argument you are seemingly drawn to!


Women can defend themselves, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be posting my feminist opinions.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Generally speaking, I think the author is right in that women want both equality and inequality. They want a succesful career and at the same time they seem uncomfortable with a man who doesn't pick up the check or in other ways take care of them financially or otherwise in a way that is inequal. 

There is a classic experiment on in psychology in which men and women of varying degrees of dominance were teamed up to do a task in which one person is the leader and the other the follower. Unsurprisingly dominant men usually became leaders regardless of how dominant the women were. But more interestingly, when dominant women teamed up with submissive men, the women usually ordered the men to take the role of the leader. That's human nature and most people can't escape its confines.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Staffan said:


> Generally speaking, I think the author is right in that women want both equality and inequality. They want a succesful career and at the same time they seem uncomfortable with a man who doesn't pick up the check or in other ways take care of them financially or otherwise in a way that is inequal.


This is not something inherent in women, and is caused by gender roles and societal expectations. Not every woman wants men to pay for them.



> There is a classic experiment on in psychology in which men and women of varying degrees of dominance were teamed up to do a task in which one person is the leader and the other the follower. Unsurprisingly dominant men usually became leaders regardless of how dominant the women were.


Firstly, what is this experiment called, as I've never heard of it.

Secondly, there is always cultural and societal influences affecting people.



> But more interestingly, when dominant women teamed up with submissive men, the women usually ordered the men to take the role of the leader. That's human nature and most people can't escape its confines.


They ordered the men to do something, that's being dominant no matter how you look at it.


----------



## psychologicalDan (Apr 1, 2012)

ha ha
No no, your not supposed to pick a fight with me, I just want to watch you fight with other people!

Go go go!

(P.S I'm from New Zealand, we have a proud history of feminist activists/demonstrations and political leaders, like Helen Clarke)




this is an interesting video you may want to watch as a opinionated feminist.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

> This is not something inherent in women, and is caused by gender roles and societal expectations. Not every woman wants men to pay for them.


I think it makes more sense to view behavior that doesn't vary much across cultures as inherent. If this was just roles and expectations there would be plenty of societies where these roles were reversed. 



> Firstly, what is this experiment called, as I've never heard of it.



I'm not sure it has a specific name but it's mentioned in David Buss and Randy Larsen's textbook Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature (2009).



> Secondly, there is always cultural and societal influences affecting people.


Yes you said that and I replied.



> They ordered the men to do something, that's being dominant no matter how you look at it.


Well, yes that's according to the experiment. Both men and women have trait dominance. But in ordering men to take charge they make a case for women feeling uncomfortable in leading positions.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

psychologicalDan said:


> ha ha
> No no, your not supposed to pick a fight with me, I just want to watch you fight with other people!


I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Staffan said:


> I think it makes more sense to view behavior that doesn't vary much across cultures as inherent. If this was just roles and expectations there would be plenty of societies where these roles were reversed.


If it was inherent, then why isn't everyone ok with the idea of men paying for women?



> Well, yes that's according to the experiment. Both men and women have trait dominance. But in ordering men to take charge they make a case for women feeling uncomfortable in leading positions.


Because women have not been brought up with the idea that they can/should be leaders, unlike men. There are many women who are very comfortable in leading positions.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

> If it was inherent, then why isn't everyone ok with the idea of men paying for women?


Inherent means it will be less variation, not a complete lack of it. Eating is an inherent behavior but even in that case some people under certain circumstances will starve themselves to death. 




> Because women have not been brought up with the idea that they can/should be leaders, unlike men. There are many women who are very comfortable in leading positions.


And why is this the case all over the world and throughout history? Again, lack of variation suggests that it is something inherent in human nature.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Staffan said:


> Generally speaking, I think the author is right in that women want both equality and inequality. They want a succesful career and at the same time they seem uncomfortable with a man who doesn't pick up the check or in other ways take care of them financially or otherwise in a way that is inequal.


Yes, some women are like that. But why do some men put up with them? Maybe they have no clear idea of what they want in a woman but are desperate enough to date anyway? Or they are too cowardly to date a proper feminist? 

Also, the whole idea of "dating" is crap. If you get to know people with an agenda/ expectations in mind, of course you're gonna set yourself up for disappointment. Some people of both genders are way too dependent on the other gender as potential romantic interest. If people just did what they are interested in and got to know people by chance, they might get to know someone as a person rather than a dating-partner who's supposed to act out a pre-defined role in the dating scenario.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Staffan said:


> Inherent means it will be less variation, not a complete lack of it. Eating is an inherent behavior but even in that case some people under certain circumstances will starve themselves to death.


So then if it is inherent, why is the author of the article blaming women?



> And why is this the case all over the world and throughout history? Again, lack of variation suggests that it is something inherent in human nature.


For much of history, women were barely above livestock in terms of rights and equality. It's only been in the past few hundred years that women, and even then mostly only in the West, have been allowed anywhere near the same rights as men.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Yes, some women are like that. But why do some men put up with them? Maybe they have no clear idea of what they want in a woman but are desperate enough to date anyway? Or they are too cowardly to date a proper feminist?
> 
> Also, the whole idea of "dating" is crap. If you get to know people with an agenda/ expectations in mind, of course you're gonna set yourself up for disappointment. Some people of both genders are way too dependent on the other gender as potential romantic interests. If people just did what they are interested in and got to know people by chance, they might get to know someone as a person rather than a dating-partner who's supposed to act out a pre-defined role in the dating scenario.


My intention was not to point the finger at women. What I mean is that most people of both genders behave in a way that is dictated by biology and evolution in a much larger degree than they seem to be aware of.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

> So then if it is inherent, why is the author of the article blaming women?


They are not blaming anyone. They are just writing about the outcome of the experiment.



> For much of history, women were barely above livestock in terms of rights and equality. It's only been in the past few hundred years that women, and even then mostly only in the West, have been allowed anywhere near the same rights as men.


So?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Staffan said:


> My intention was not to point the finger at women. What I mean is that most people of both genders behave in a way that is dictated by biology and evolution in a much larger degree than they seem to be aware of.


Yes, I guess you are right about this. But if they aren't willing to face this fact and at least try to change these behaviour patterns, then they don't have much of a right to complain. 
I think many men still (secretely) want to be providers and that's why they put up with such women, even though they complain about it. 
E.g. a female colleague of mine moved into her boyfriend's house and isn't paying any rent whatsoever. She earns enough to buy her own house (or at least take out a mortgage for her own house, as is the norm here). Why does the guy let himself be abused like this? If I were a guy and some woman moved in with me and made me pay all the bills and the rent I'd tell her "You know what, I'm not your mum. If you wanna live here, I expect you to contribute financially. Otherwise you can fuck off because half the popuation of the world are women and I can always find another one." 
I mean, 'love' is all very nice, but why should that lady be allowed to scrounge off the guy (and probably nag him as well) just because she's a lady? I think this is particularly prevalent in the UK because both genders still cling on to outdated notions of chivalry and gentlemanliness.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Yes, I guess you are right about this. But if they aren't willing to face this fact and at least try to change these behaviour patterns, then they don't have much of a right to complain.
> I think many men still (secretely) want to be providers and that's why they put up with such women, even though they complain about it.


I agree, it makes no sense complaining because men contribute to this as much as women. He is paying her rent to enjoy the fantasy of being the breadwinner. The reasonable choices would be to simply accept that or try to make it work on a more equal basis. But the divorce rate is higher when the woman is the breadwinner.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Staffan said:


> They are not blaming anyone. They are just writing about the outcome of the experiment.


I was referring to the article linked to in the first post of this thread.



> So?


Seriously? Are you actually going to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about? Women were so oppressed for millennia that very few, if any, women were able to be leaders of any kind and even then they were royals and nobles.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> I was referring to the article linked to in the first post of this thread.
> 
> Seriously? Are you actually going to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about? Women were so oppressed for millennia that very few, if any, women were able to be leaders of any kind and even then they were royals and nobles.


Ok, the article has that angle. I was talking about the book.

I only say that the lack of variation suggests that this behavior is inherent and governed by our human nature. And again, lack of variation is a matter of degrees not a zero variation, as I said before.


----------



## Yardiff Bey (Jun 5, 2011)

Kay Hymowitz attempting to shame men into marriage? Hmph. She obviously hasn't looked into the statistics of divorce much. (I did, because I'm divorced - and so is my brother.)

Source: Divorce Statistics and Divorce Rate in the USA

First marriage: 41-50% breakup
Second marriage: 60-67% breakup
Third marriage: 73-74% breakup

That's quite a risky proposition the first time. Way more risky the second time. And even more risky the third time. Almost like playing Russian Roulette with two-three bullets instead of one. To be fair, they say that the divorce rate is dropping...until you read that it's dropping because men are choosing to cohabitate rather than marry. Ouch.

Higher chance of suicide, too (I looked, because I'm divorced - and so is my brother): Suicide Rate Greater Among Divorced Men, Research Finds

So...Kay derides American men for staying at home to play video games?

1/ guaranteed fun (often with friends *looks around PerC*)

2/ zero chance of divorce and associated stress

3/ less chance of suicide from associated stress

4/ doesn't require much money (less income and work-related stress)

How about someone who says "fuck it, not worth the hassle" and spends his time making money so that he can travel overseas and enjoy seeing new sights? Or learning something for the sheer fun of it? Or doing something along the lines of extreme sports? Something with guaranteed *fun* in life, rather than something with a high chance of loss and guaranteed stress in the process.

Income, lets look at employment: It's Official at Last: Women Outnumber Men in US Workforce - Building Gender Balanced Business

Given the state of employment in America at present, it's no real surprise. If a woman is employed is she going to look at an unemployed or low-employment guy with a view to marriage? Unless of course she doesn't want kids, in which case - why marry? So the guys look at that as well, shrug, and go back to playing their computer games.

There's probably a million other reasons also - nothing exists in isolation. That's just three that I pulled outta my ass from my own looking into life.

Hello @psychologicalDan, nice to run across a fellow-kiwi. 

I like Girl Writes What, she seems to have a cold and realistic eye - and very concerned with her son's possible future. I especially like her "Feminism and the Disposable Male" video. I've heard of that one from a couple of sources.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Yardiff Bey said:


> Source: Divorce Statistics and Divorce Rate in the USA
> 
> First marriage: 41-50% breakup
> 
> .


True, except that you can't predict the behaviour of an individual (or 2 individuals in a relationship) from statistics.
What makes individuals assume that they won't be one of the 50-59% for whom it DOES work? It all depends on the dynamics of the relationship. Or have you ever heard of anyone who was in a good relationship and said: "Oh, I'll get divorced, because everyone I know is getting divorced as well." ?


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Boss said:


> What a load of crock. And the idiot is a published author? She has done nothing in that ridiculous excuse of an article besides spewing misogynistic asinine drivel that not only degrades women as being "obsolete" slutty, potential 'gold diggers' in the face of PS3 and internet porn, but also roundly insults the intelligence and maturity level of men. I refuse to believe that most mature individuals in my age group are only looking for: "financial independence, toned triceps and sex." But, I am sure she is doing her target audience a great service by reinforcing their materialistic, objectifying, superficial and decidedly moronic way of approaching sex, relationships and life, at large. I wish them all luck in attaining any semblance of meaningful happiness; they'll be needing my _wishes, _I assure you.


When a woman posts something badass like this, it gives me faith that I can find a good woman.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

This is what I think:

Those of you who know me well are aware (by now, I'd hope) that my PlayStation no longer works. Went on-the-fritz last summer--quite horrific an ordeal, to be honest. Cut me deep.

But truth be told, I'd rather stare at a defective console than deal with the majority of these shrieking harpies out there today. Life's kinda short, ya know?

Either way, I'd like to thank the wonderful members of the feminist movement from relieving me of my obligatory gender role. I am no longer obligated to eternally hitch myself to a woman I'd wish to replace in two years and work a shit career to support her and the ugly kids I never wanted. Now I can lounge around all day in my Spider-Man PJs, play my Xbox (not an ideal replacement, I'll admit) and watch porn when my testosterone surges from achievements acquired by online play. 

I can also eat pizza whenever I want. Doritos, too.


----------



## Enkidu (Apr 19, 2010)

The article is pretty skewed, but I suppose that frustration is karmic. Victorian-era misogyny is luckily long gone, yet discrimination between the sexes takes new forms everytime a generation changes guards. For instance, I've read that the Wonder Bra of the 1950s was a slightly self-contradiction piece of hardware: it provided support (which is nice), it propped up breasts (probably helpful), yet it objectified breasts (as a fashion article) by drawing more attention to size, how much they protruded, etc. This is subtle repression; at once a tool for sexual control for females but at the cost of objectification. This same repression is what's behind the article author's exaggerated message. It's like Yahoo or AOL news, it grabs your attention (it's sensational) and alarms you (exaggerates a small trend) by triggering your Amygdala. It's a trick, don't fall for it. 

It's ironic - when women complain that "He's an insecure, sexist asshole who never listens to anything coming out of my mouth!" or "She's a frigid bitch! Her mouth just goes and goes" is systematically the same problem. And it is a problem, of sympathy mostly. Girlfriends have told me horror stories about abusive men they knew, just like I've heard of some scary women that treat men like trash. The article is right to claim that male frustration is systemic, but calling it some kind of cultural rage is a bit much. So what? Women's rights are strengthening, less men can coerce women to sleep with them. It's karmic.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Ha, my PS3 still works.

Lucky bastard I am.

I don't need women, sorry. Then again, they don't need me either. Maybe look into that again in a half a decade or so, or maybe a decade.

We're living in times where everyone can be totally independent form one another while additionally humans could never be as self-sufficient either.

So there we are again, equality and such.

No harm done, nothing to see here and I'm back to playing Dragon's Dogma!

Cheers everyone. :mellow:


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

That article is skewed, I agree, but its not a complete load of shit. Instead of taking it at face value, I'd suggest anyone in opposition to what was being said look deeper into the issue.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Chipps said:


> That article is skewed, I agree, but its not a complete load of shit. Instead of taking it at face value, I'd suggest anyone in opposition to what was being said look deeper into the issue.


There's a lot of strawman in that article. I don't take it that seriously, but I think it's worth reading between the lines.

In my experience a lot of the complaints about the state of modern relationships get down to this: We don't really need each other as much as we once did. In many ways this is due to technology, but it's also due to the success of feminism. 

Until very recently (the last 50 years or so) women in the Western world didn't have the means to support themselves, and if they wanted to keep their options open and not settle down with one man as they reached some age of reproductive maturity, they were considered sluts, witches, or potential lesbians (and therefore, weird outcasts). Not anymore. Women are now EXPECTED to take care of themselves and they demand (and deserve) respect for doing so. But there's been a complimentary (or in some ways desultory) effect on men thanks to the feminist revolution: We no longer are looked as as cads or bounders for choosing not to say in relationships that we don't enjoy just to do the right thing as manly providers. Women can get by on their own and make their own choices, and thus so can we. We do pretty well, thanks microwave dinners, casual dress at work, social networks, and porn.

So without any social pressure to keep us together, and with the ability to reach out to alternate providers for basically anything via Facebook, texting, meetup groups and what have you, and with a vast assortment of labor-saving tools and services to make solitary life easy and affordable, what's to keep people together these days? 

It might seem sad that I'm reducing relationships to utility. The only reason to get married is because you are in love, and that needs to be there for it to work. But no matter how much those feelings of love and fellowship and common bond are present to you at the beginning of a relationship, as time wears on the other person is going to get tedious in some way. If you feel you are helpless and useless without them (because they are paying the rent when you can't, preparing meals when you can't, taking care of children when you can't) there's a practical stickiness that will keep you from choosing a more fun alternative. Take away those incentives to ride out those dead stills or setbacks in your intimacy, and chances are you'll move on.

The problem is that almost everyone seems to accepted this modern freedom as something inherently good without acknowledging that its prime product is loneliness. We get to stand on our own like Nietzschian supermen, staring into the abyss. How reassuring! Not a new insight, but it seems to have been lost to us whenever I see an article and thread like this.




Yardiff Bey said:


> Kay Hymowitz attempting to shame men into marriage? Hmph. She obviously hasn't looked into the statistics of divorce much. (I did, because I'm divorced - and so is my brother.)


I'm twice-divorced and don't plan on going back for 3rds. I'm convinced neither was a real marriage because marriage to me is just the pronouncement of a pre-existing bond within a pre-existing community. In both cases my partners and I were assuming that the bond and the community would be created by the marriage. I think that's where most people are at when they get married these days: Two relatively solitary individuals with unrelated communities that who think a property-sharing and survivorship agreement and a party to celebrate it has some mystical power to unite them as one. I support gay marriage partially because I think they probably have stronger personal bonds and a better community than do most straights at this point.



FlaviaGemina said:


> Or have you ever heard of anyone who was in a good relationship and said: "Oh, I'll get divorced, because everyone I know is getting divorced as well." ?


If your expectation is that even in a "good" relationship you don't get fucking sick of the other person and just want to leave at times, you are wrong. If you're surrounded by people who have left marriages behind and seem to be happier for it, you will more likely see it as a good option.


----------



## Hruberen (Jan 2, 2012)

Well I used to be angry at girls, but now I see there are pros and cons to being a man or woman. To boil it down into its simplest form, while looking for love, assuming equal attractiveness, a woman will have better opportunity, while a guy will have better quality.

Girls can and will get asked out very often if they are attractive, and they can also ask out guys if they wanted to. Guys rarely get asked out, even if they are attractive, they have to do most of the chasing.

However once in a relationship it is generally the guy that leads the interactions like kissing and sex, and therefore has better control over the quality of the interactions.


----------



## Yardiff Bey (Jun 5, 2011)

FlaviaGemina said:


> True, except that you can't predict the behaviour of an individual (or 2 individuals in a relationship) from statistics.
> 
> What makes individuals assume that they won't be one of the 50-59% for whom it DOES work? It all depends on the dynamics of the relationship. Or have you ever heard of anyone who was in a good relationship and said: "Oh, I'll get divorced, because everyone I know is getting divorced as well." ?


Correct.

Counterargument: what makes individuals assume that they will be one of the 50-59% for whom it does work? Also, there are loveless marriages out there "for the kids". Further: while marriage triggers marriage (ever noticed that?), divorce triggers divorce (mine triggered my brother's - and he was in a loveless marriage "for the kids").

Further thoughts: Kay Hymowitz is not thinking rationally. Her book is an utter waste of time - unless she's done it only to make herself some money and a name as an author and becoming semi-famous for stirring up some controversy. I wouldn't put it past her.

If someone has gotten angry enough to say "fuck you" to the concept of dating and sex and marriage and all (and believe me men REALLY like fucking - to get that pissed off that they pass it up in favor of a computer game takes some serious anger) then they no longer give a damn. They don't give a damn about women, they don't give a damn about their peers, they don't give a damn about the bullshit rat-race, they don't give a damn about society, they don't give a damn about their country, they don't give a damn about the human race, they don't give a damn about *anything*. They just want to have some fun. Some woman attempting to shame them is just going to get amused looks, if that much of a response at all. Probably not even a shrug. Because she is *irrelevant* to them.

See, once you no longer give a fuck about so-called "societal norms", then you don't really give a fuck about anything. Period. Any sort of shaming attempts will just roll off your back as being complete bullshit. At least they're safe playing their computer games - they're unlikely to grab a gun and start shooting people in a movie theatre.

The more men who check out for various reasons, the more women are going to have to resign themselves to being in the sexual rotation of the guys who are still interested in fucking. Sucks, it isn't romantic being a booty-call.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

SlowPoke68 said:


> There's a lot of strawman in that article. I don't take it that seriously, but I think it's worth reading between the lines.
> 
> In my experience a lot of the complaints about the state of modern relationships get down to this: We don't really need each other as much as we once did. In many ways this is due to technology, but it's also due to the success of feminism.
> 
> ...


True. Especially the part about loneliness. I think we live in an age of "have your cake and eat it too" and everyone is under the impression that they are finally going to get everything they've always wanted out of a relationship and it aint gonna happen. I know quite a few women parrot the "I dont need a man" meme all over the place and then on the same breath are crying "where are all the good men?" Well, which the fuck is it? Either you want or you dont want. Same goes for men. I've known guys who are loving this new relationship style where you dont have to put in any real work and can get sex more freely than in the past, and then on the same breath are wondering where all the good women are that they view as relationship material. Again, which the fuck is it? It seems, both men and women are rather delusional.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Yardiff Bey said:


> See, once you no longer give a fuck about so-called "societal norms", then you don't really give a fuck about anything. Period. Any sort of shaming attempts will just roll off your back as being complete bullshit.


This.

But what of that "freedom" are we willing to surrender for a more full existence bonded with other people? Hard to find volunteers.



Yardiff Bey said:


> At least they're safe playing their computer games - they're unlikely to grab a gun and start shooting people in a movie theatre.


Well . . about that . . . .









And this guy seemed to have used video games in a pretty innovative manner:


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Breakups spiked both after the release of Twilight and the release of Skyrim. roud: Yey fantasy! 

I'm looking for one of those rare girls who rejects gender norms so I don't really pay attention to statistics. I'm looking for an outlier.


----------



## Yardiff Bey (Jun 5, 2011)

SlowPoke68 said:


> Well . . about that . . . .
> 
> View attachment 45444
> 
> ...


Exactly, for both of them. Statistical outliers though, on the whole most guys aren't going to do that kind of fucked-up shit.

Now, lets look at another possible reason for men to avoid women:

Woman uses dating site to get $1,200/month in free meals - On the Edge - Kristi Gustafson Barlette - Style Fashion Dating Blog - timesunion.com - Albany NY

You go and drop $100+ per date for 3-5 "dates" with a couple of girls like that, any rational man is suddenly going to have his "What The Fuck?" moment.

He might even tally up the cost (substantial) for the rewards (none).

Then he might think about it for a bit...

...and decide that he might as well just drop the $300+ for three encounters with a prostitute. At least it's guaranteed and there's no bullshit.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

Nice to see people turning an incredibly stupid article into an intelligent/interesting discussion.

If someone finds porn and video games work better for him than being in a relationship, power to him. Glad he's found happiness, and also glad he's not wasting the time of someone who's looking for love and connection.

I don't have a moral problem with gold-digging, if both people are clear that that's what's going on. It's no more noble to marry a woman for looking hot than it is to marry a man for being rich. Symbiotic relationship. Wouldn't work for me, but if it works for them -- cool.

A female friend of mine thinks I'm backwards and doing the whole dating thing horribly wrong by liking to split things 50/50 (unless one of us is insanely richer than the other, I suppose). The way I look at it is: I want things on my own terms. I don't want to feel like I "owe" someone anything; I just want to have fun and enjoy myself. 

Someone spending money on me doesn't prove to me that I'm valued or respected. For some women, it seems to.


----------



## Joey Couturier (Jul 20, 2012)

Hollywood want males to think that woman should be slutty bimbos and that we should like that.
Hollywood want females to think that man should be muscular, have magical bloodsucking vampire powers.


Both ways make me sick. :frustrating:

Edit: And alot of people watch TV so much and try to act like what they see. Making a generation full of girl dressed in sluts looking for perfect males, and males getting on steroids and trying to be the nicest guy when we both know he cannot be as we see on TV.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Here are my generalizations, since there were so many in the article.

Most of my college-educated female friends dislike when a man feels the need to pay for everything. Note, these women do not all identify as feminists. They merely identify as being independent, and not being able to pay is an affront to their independence. Most of my comparatively uneducated female acquaintances are the ones who complain when a guy doesn't want to pay the meal ticket bill at the end of a date, and are much more likely to be "clingy" females. 

So, what does this lead me to believe? Independent women dislike the erosion of their independence. Women who probably have codependency issues related to cultural values are more likely to want a man to pay for everything.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> Independent women dislike the erosion of their independence. Women who probably have codependency issues related to cultural values are more likely to want a man to pay for everything.


I think there's truth to that.

Of course, the female friend I mentioned above is very proud of her independence, has a Masters degree, and considers herself a feminist. So there are exceptions.

Of course, she's also more likely to get manicures and wear uncomfortable shoes for a dude. I don't do that shit.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

chimeric said:


> Of course, the female friend I mentioned above is very proud of her independence, has a Masters degree, and considers herself a feminist. So there are exceptions.


Oh, there are certainly exceptions to everything! My evidence was merely as anecdotal as that which the author of the article seems to be using.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

The problem I see is *expectation* and a feeling of* entitlement *on the behalf of some women today; which is contradictory to their feminist beliefs. And I think that men are right to be angry at this.

A woman who *expects/demands* that a man pay probably isn't the kind of woman a man wants to be with. A lady won't "expect" this but will show appreciation if he does and if she likes him, try to show him some kindness in return.

I think it's the lack of respect women are showing me by demanding that they resent. 

Women want to be romanced, but women -- you can't demand romance, it has to come from a generous and willing place otherwise it has no value and only breeds contempt.

If a man likes you, he will want to take you out and do nice things for you because he will want to show you he likes you and he will want to please you.

You in kind will do things for him; such as, if he pays for dinner, insist on paying for the hot chocolate the next place you go after dinner as a_ symbol _that you are not expecting him to pay for everything or taking him for granted. At least offer to pay for the bill and you'll find that most men won't let you  but they will appreciate that you tried and will feel like they _gave_ instead of that you _took_ -- a big difference.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Chipps said:


> True. Especially the part about loneliness. I think we live in an age of "have your cake and eat it too" and everyone is under the impression that they are finally going to get everything they've always wanted out of a relationship and it aint gonna happen. I know quite a few women parrot the "I dont need a man" meme all over the place and then on the same breath are crying "where are all the good men?" Well, which the fuck is it? Either you want or you dont want. Same goes for men. I've known guys who are loving this new relationship style where *you dont have to put in any real work and can get sex more freely than in the past*, and then on the same breath are wondering where all the good women are that they view as relationship material. Again, which the fuck is it? It seems, both men and women are rather delusional.


A number of my male associates (not me; I've already just resigned myself to fate) have this question: "Where is all this supposedly free, easily-obtainable sex coming from and how do I get it? I feel cheated; I've always been the good guy, followed the rules, been a gentleman, and never hurt anybody, but where's my reward? I'm busting my ass and I'm not going to see any payoff 'til I'm in my 30's. I've done my end of the bargain, so where's my respect, money, and lady?"

I've got a theory that unattached sex is distributed in a horribly unequal fashion. It really does seem like 15% of the single guys are having 85% of the unattached sex.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> A number of my male associates (not me) have this question: "Where is all this supposedly free, easily-obtainable sex coming from and how do I get it? I feel cheated; I've always been the good guy, followed the rules, been a gentleman, and never hurt anybody, but where's my reward? I'm busting my ass and I'm not going to see any payoff 'til I'm in my 30's. I've done my end of the bargain, so where's my respect, money, and girl?"
> 
> I've got a theory that unattached sex is distributed in a horribly unequal fashion. It really does seem like 15% of the single guys are having 85% of the unattached sex.


Boy, its not a theory. Trust me. It _is _distributed in an unequal fashion. Your male associates just havnt gotten wise to that yet. And guess what? Being a good, nice guy wont get you rewarded with shit. Its a lie. All of it is. Women dont want "nice guys" at least not in the manner that you are describing. So, if your friends want to get in on that sex, they need to let that "i've been good wheres my reward" ideology die a sad ass death. Cause its not going to get them anywhere. Look at the men that are scoring with women currently. If you pay attention, everything you need to know is right in front of you. How are they different? WHat are they doing? What are they not doing? Yea, _thats_ what women want. Dont let them tell you otherwise.

Edit: its more like 20% of men. Funny how close you were, though.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> A number of my male associates (not me) have this question: "Where is all this supposedly free, easily-obtainable sex coming from and how do I get it? I feel cheated; I've always been the good guy, followed the rules, been a gentleman, and never hurt anybody, but where's my reward? I'm busting my ass and I'm not going to see any payoff 'til I'm in my 30's. I've done my end of the bargain, so where's my respect, money, and lady?"
> 
> I've got a theory that unattached sex is distributed in a horribly unequal fashion. It really does seem like 15% of the single guys are having 85% of the unattached sex.


As if being a "good guy" entitles you to winning her love?

Yay, you score for being a decent human being so women have to love you or else there is something wrong with them?

No.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

^ See the thing I'm talking about in action. Funny, the attitudes I observed were _very_ different in Europe.



Chipps said:


> If you pay attention, everything you need to know is right in front of you. How are they different? WHat are they doing? What are they not doing? Yea, _thats_ what women want. Dont let them tell you otherwise.


Okay... so women want

* Drug Dealers
* Men with criminal convictions
* Sociopathic tendencies
* Treat women like organic semen holders.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> ^ See the thing I'm talking about in action. Funny, the attitudes I observed were _very_ different in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahem...You said it.

Like I said, look at who women are sleeping with. Its like when a woman says she likes nice guys but all her ex bfs are assholes. Her mouth says one thing and her actions say another thing. The actions always tell the story, no? if you want to know more about the topic, look more into it. You'll be surprised what you find. That article was the very very very tip of the iceberg and a shitty tip at that.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> ^ See the thing I'm talking about in action. Funny, the attitudes I observed were _very_ different in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not exactly. 

The majority of single women desire men that are as equally vain, narcissistic and vacuous as they. (Note: There is a reason they are single). The things you mentioned have a correlation but are not exclusive.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Chipps said:


> Ahem...You said it.
> 
> Like I said, look at who women are sleeping with. Its like when a woman says she likes nice guys but all her ex bfs are assholes. Her mouth says one thing and her actions say another thing. The actions always tell the story, no? if you want to know more about the topic, look more into it. You'll be surprised what you find. That article was the very very very tip of the iceberg and a shitty tip at that.


This is bullshit. Careful, what you are writing reeks of bitterness. The women I know have married good guys, with a lot of intelligence, caring and values.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

amanda32 said:


> This is bullshit. Careful, what you are writing reeks of bitterness. The women I know have married good guys, with a lot of intelligence, caring and values.


Tell me, how I could possibly be bitter, when I'm a heterosexual female? And the women you know? Yes, that little pool obviously represents all women. Listen, I dont hang out with low hanging fruit either, but does it exist? Yes. I've seen it. These women do in fact exist. Regardless if me, you or your female friends married to good guys like it or not. 

Nice try though.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

There's also a difference between "marry" and "sleep with."

If a woman's really just wanting sex (and yes, some women do), she's probably going to look for confidence, experience, and good looks. If she's looking to marry... well, hopefully she'd have different criteria.


----------



## Kyandigaru (Mar 11, 2012)

article just seems like one where the author says one thing, but means another.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

Just my 2 cents.

I've dated an unemployed guy before. I paid for everything during our date, including his taxi money. He misunderstood my generosity. He thought I did all that because I was madly in love with him.

The next thing I know, he tried to manipulate me into borrowing him money, borrowing him my stuff, and being clingy to me in general. He mess with the wrong female, of course. So after driving him home one night, I dumped him and move on to the next date mate.

But from that experience, I learn one thing: Don't lead a hungry dog if you don't want to feed him.

The same thing goes to man. How many times we see the man lead his woman and spoiling her with materialistic things? How many times we see the man bragging about his 'successful' career to the woman he date? How many times we see the man bulshitting his lady with happily-ever-after romantic promises? How many times we see the man pretending to be a gentleman in front of his lady?

It's like giving a dog the food that will only make it more starving. The more you spoil, the more it want more food. And when it realize that you have no more food for it, it will start to eat you.

Note: 
I'm not saying that all women are hungry dogs. But some of us are, just like some men are.


----------



## 626Stitch (Oct 22, 2010)

> A number of my male associates (not me; I've already just resigned myself to fate) have this question: "Where is all this supposedly free, easily-obtainable sex coming from and how do I get it? I feel cheated; I've always been the good guy, followed the rules, been a gentleman, and never hurt anybody, but where's my reward? I'm busting my ass and I'm not going to see any payoff 'til I'm in my 30's. I've done my end of the bargain, so where's my respect, money, and lady?"
> 
> I've got a theory that unattached sex is distributed in a horribly unequal fashion. It really does seem like 15% of the single guys are having 85% of the unattached sex.


You are not entitled to sex. 

Im a 20 year old virgin and part of me internalised the idea that I was a loser because of this. I figured I was intelligent, good looking and lustfull so I must be doing something wrong if I wasnt getting something I wanted. It was only after I realised that I had internalised this idea that I could deal with it. It took me a while to realise this. 

I figure I like myself, so why should I beat myself up over wether or not society validates me. 

Also I talked to a guy I knew from highschoool who told me about his experience. This guy is good looking, social (im heavily introverted) and confident (personaly I thought of him as someone who tried to hog the conversation to much and I thought his joked were lame), so you would expect him to "get some". 

Basicallly he met a girl, saw her a few times. They had sex. He ended up telling her that he "wasnt looking for a girlfreind" and she lost it at him.

I thought to myself would I want to change my choices for his. Maybe populer culture would construct him as a more succesfull man. I would hope that I would be intelligent enough to realise that a women might want more than sex if that was the case. 

Of course you might say I would still be a loser to turn down sex. But I like women so I want to make them feel good, I think that is a better concepetion of masculinity than just simply how good you are at getting laid. As a man I want to fuck but there are other aspects to myself and other aspects to my attraction to women apart from this. I think my conception of masculinty accounts for a broader understanding of who I am as a man than the PUA conception. 

Also I think this whole idea that casuel sex is readily available is overstated and just make people feel bad.


----------



## 626Stitch (Oct 22, 2010)

> I've got a theory that unattached sex is distributed in a horribly unequal fashion. It really does seem like 15% of the single guys are having 85% of the unattached sex.


*democratic access to vaginas for all!!! 

*What a great slogan.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Ok, my initial response to that article was to laugh. I'm still sporadically giggling now. The problem is that this such a selective article. I mean ok, so some women will go hunting for rich men (in which case you assess income disparity appropriately and get a pre nuptial agreement), but as @chimeric said, what's wrong with a marriage of convenience? It's not for me, but that doesn't make it wrong. Marriages were brokered for convenience long before the idea of marrying for anything other than convenience and benefit became the ideal. Anyway, if men are so upset about it, why encourage the behaviour through such organisations as "sugar daddy" websites, where a certain older, extremely wealthy man may lavish his wealth upon nubile applicants. If you hated the behaviour, why not look at how both sides handle the issue? 

Then there's this talk of sluttiness, I don't understand where the "slut" line is drawn. Never have, and realistically, prior sexual partners only concern me if they are disrupting my relationship, or if my lover has radically different viewpoints on sex. In which case, people have sex, and for so many differing reasons, it boggles my mind. You can't want to get laid then proclaim that whoever you got laid with is some filthy slut creature, mainly because that's piss poor as an action and it'll reflect terribly on you. I don't buy this "I'm a nice guy, why does no one shag me" deal either. Yes women make bad choices, but it's not like a man's dating record can't be just a chequered with bad choices. Not to mention, anyone who is friendly and polite simply because they think it'll get them laid has failed to analyse the benefits of being affable, polite and in general pleasant. 

I agree it's hard to find a life partner or even a good LTR, but 
a) who told you it was easy?
b) on what evidence did you believe them?

Worthwhile things are very rarely easy to do. It's not like you can just go to the relationship tree and pluck one down.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Yardiff Bey said:


> Now, lets look at another possible reason for men to avoid women:
> 
> Woman uses dating site to get $1,200/month in free meals - On the Edge - Kristi Gustafson Barlette - Style Fashion Dating Blog - timesunion.com - Albany NY
> 
> ...


I know a guy who is so fed up with relationships that he uses sugar-daddy type sites to find women to have sex with without attachment or any sort of relationship. He's pretty well-off, and doesn't mind "trading" sex for "gifts" (taking a girl shopping, paying her rent, car payment, etc). He doesn't give the girls money, because that would be illegal...


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

didn't read the OP
I don't hate women, but, frankly, they're not of much use to me. still, they tend to be more understand/easier to talk to. overall, I tend to dislike most of the younger women I meet (lots of them tend to be rather stuck up, entitled and seem to expect you to pay them tribute simply for being in their presence :dry: ) but I also get along great with lots of older women (older women tend to have similar personalities and interests to me for some reason. I don't really know why). this is just a generalization though, I've gotten along well with plenty of younger women and wanted to slap plenty of older women.


----------



## Kormoran (Mar 15, 2012)

Fuck you, Kay! I'm not angry or bitter! I just hate those bitches that didn't like me!



skycloud86 said:


>


Interesting phrasing in that image. It essentially says that feminism agrees that men are stupid and monolithic and unchanging and incapable, and that they have animalistic instincts and just can't help themselves from harassing and assaulting, and can only be attracted by certain qualities, can only have particular kinds of responses and can only experience the world in narrow ways.

They're also fat, bald, lazy and flatulent, and whenever they can stop harassing, assaulting, being affected by certain qualities, only having particular kinds of responses and only experiencing the world in narrow ways, they can clean the place up a bit and make some fucking sandwiches.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cormo said:


> Fuck you, Kay! I'm not angry or bitter! I just hate those bitches that didn't like me!
> 
> 
> Interesting phrasing in that image. It essentially says that feminism agrees that men are stupid and monolithic and unchanging and incapable, and that they have animalistic instincts and just can't help themselves from harassing and assaulting, and can only be attracted by certain qualities, can only have particular kinds of responses and can only experience the world in narrow ways.
> ...


How did you even come to that conclusion? It obviously says that feminism thinks far more of men than patriarchy does, that feminism considers men to be far better than patriarchy thinks they are.


----------



## Laney (Feb 20, 2012)

This thread is so unreal. Who actually lives these lives? You've got the 'Bitches ain't shit, but hoes and tricks' group and the 'Somebody please love/fuck me' group. I don't think men are fed up with women at all, because in the real world we aren't one dimensional Jersey shore ass twats. We're funny, smart, lovely creatures, just as our men are capable, quirky and loveable. If you haven't met a single respectable woman there might be something wrong with *you*.


----------



## Kormoran (Mar 15, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> How did you even come to that conclusion? It obviously says that feminism thinks far more of men than patriarchy does, that feminism considers men to be far better than patriarchy thinks they are.


Well, I was joking, but I'm a foreigner, so "no habla English".

Although I think Solanas would've agreed with me, if she was alive.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Cormo said:


> Well, I was joking, but I'm a foreigner, so "no habla English".
> 
> Although I think Solanas would've agreed with me, if she was alive.


Not being from an English-speaking country doesn't necessarily mean that you can't speak English. Besides, I thought English was a very well known language in Norway?

Solanas was very much an extremist, in my opinion.


----------



## SumSamurai (Sep 9, 2010)

OOOH.... But are women fed up with men? Before modern technology and throughout history 3 in every 100 women died from the act of child birth! A selfless act to carry down the man's name and bloodline... If she had power, land or money should she marry or 'forced to marry' she'd relinquish all her rights to him. (Era of the male gold-diggers). She'd bare him as many children as he wished, he owned her.... And she had no right to refuse sex, let alone being a house keeper and full time mother... 

On top of that, the rapes during times of war and disorder... It still occurs all over the world today. Even in the army -where it's hushed and nothing is ever done about it. Women in the army are at a greater risk than opposing forces.

I'm not blaming all men, this is an argument against this article... Women aren't all trouble. Both sexes are equally as bad as each other.. 

I'm all for equality and chivalry is something I as a woman really appreciate. Just as men will appreciate me for my feminine traits. I'll adore the endearing man who'll willingly open and hold a door for me. This article is crap.. Meh.

Oh, and I think I might add. Personally, I've found most men are uncomfortable when a women pays... I'm happy to pay when I really like a guy, but not on first dates. If a man suggests I pay or go half on a first date I see it as he didn't like me enough to make an impression and perhaps I wasn't worth the full price. 

My paying always make a man uncomfortable.. Men want to feel needed like they can provide for a woman.


----------



## Kormoran (Mar 15, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> Not being from an English-speaking country doesn't necessarily mean that you can't speak English. Besides, I thought English was a very well known language in Norway?


Nevermind...



skycloud86 said:


> Solanas was very much an extremist, in my opinion.


I agree with you. In fact, I don't think she was just extreme, I think she was insane. She tried to assassinate Andy Warhol.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Well, I figure I will just throw in my two cents into here and see what comes of it. As has been stated earlier, we are in the middle of a transitional phase where women no longer need men, and men, do not 'technically' need women. The problem occurs due to the fact that women's rights and truly being 'equal' has not been completely worked out, so we are pulling for a new era, while still trying to hold on to the values of the old. Because neither one is acting as a dominating force, you get some partial soup where women still want chivalry, some don't, independence has become more sought after, and both men and women are trying to figure out what the fuck to do. 

At the rate we are going, the end result will be an era where the entire establishment of dating and marriage has been completely abolished. There will not be binding contracts to keep people together and people will get together on their own terms which will be defined by them. When the love subsides, they will break off from one another. Dating will take a different form of simply developing those emotions between the two individuals. 

The problem that is being currently faced is that while men don't WANT to care and want to give up on the whole current system, not just our desire for sex, but our desire for an intimate relationship cries out that it just doesn't want it that way. We then become conflicted knowing that we just arn't the type of guys to get what we want, and giving up brings more strife. In the end, certain personalities lose. 

Women are left in the rut that many are slaves to society's rules that they should act, dress, and speak one way, else they be called a slut. TV then goes so far as to influence what they should go for in a guy (and their friends will affirm whether a guy is the best choice or not (thus the whole "you should meet my friends") or else the friends will deny him). At the end of the day, the woman is picking men based on society's opinion, acting based on society's opinion, and wondering why the relationship is not working. Normal guys are left in the dust as not 'qualifying as possible guys' and both sides are left with "What the fuck, when things don't work out". 

The solution is to remove marriage from the picture, rewrite the rules of dating, spam it in the media to promote it, and yell "fuck all" to the concept of chivalry. Such acts are to be done because he/she cares, not because some unspoken social regulation states he has to. 

Mind you, that is the final solution. What we should do in the meantime while the 5 generations it will take to get there, it is completely unknown. In my opinion, I may now at least have an excuse on why my generation is completely screwed.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Staffan said:


> And why is this the case all over the world and throughout history? Again, lack of variation suggests that it is something inherent in human nature.


Because patriarchal themes have existed throughout history. And in these themes, power and autonomy were systematically stripped away from women. They were generally considered to be nothing more than the property of their fathers or husbands; good for nothing but the sexual relief of men, and the propagation of the human species through their wombs. How could a highly subjugated and powerless group raise themselves up as leaders when the very definition of their "role" as a woman included being passive, and totally accepting of male dominance? And more importantly, why would their community teach, or allow them to be leaders when these women were only allowed to hold a position barely above that of a child? 

Women have not been discouraged from leadership throughout history (and even in present times) because they are naturally less capable of being a leader, but because they have been socially conditioned to be submissive, and to see men as their divinely ordained "keeper", teacher, and leader. This ancient patriarchal relationship between men and women strongly resembles the relationship between a parent and child. How many parents would allow their children to lead them? In the same way, why would such a society teach women to be leaders if women in general were socially conditioned to remain in a state of perpetual childhood in which they were taught to be submissive, obedient, and dependent upon someone else for their economic livelihood?

My point is that just because there seems to have been a trend in human history in which women were substantially kept from leadership positions at disproportionate rates than men, doesn't mean that this phenomenon was the result of some biological difference between men and women. And the fact that men and women have to _continuously be conditioned_ into their "roles" as proper males (dominate/leaders) and females (submissive/followers) from birth, shows that this gap between male and female leadership is not biological so much as it is a socially constructed characteristic that helps to maintain the false roles of so called "real men" and "real women".


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

> My point is that just because there seems to have been a trend in human history in which women were substantially kept from leadership positions at disproportionate rates than men, doesn't mean that this phenomenon was the result of some biological difference between men and women. And the fact that men and women have to _continuously be conditioned_ into their "roles" as proper males (dominate/leaders) and females (submissive/followers) from birth, shows that this gap between male and female leadership is not biological so much as it is a socially constructed characteristic that helps to maintain the false roles of so called "real men" and "real women".


You fail to explain the lack of variation. If this is not biology then what cultural force would compel all known societies throughout history to conform in this way? That's not a trend, that's a human universal. If, like you suggest, we need to be conditioned into these roles, then we should be seeing some matriarchies too.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I've got a theory that unattached sex is distributed in a horribly unequal fashion. It really does seem like 15% of the single guys are having 85% of the unattached sex.


Why in the world is sex something that has to be distributed equally? I would imagine if you're not part of that 15% (aka "guys getting laid more than you," since you just made this number up) it's because the women they're having sex with don't want to have sex with you. Why do you want to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with you? This is a very disturbing way of thinking.


Mutatio NOmenis said:


> Okay... so women want* Drug Dealers* Men with criminal convictions* Sexually Transmitted Diseases* Treat women like organic semen holders.


Hard dose of reality: These guys you're so bitter about being spurned for probably aren't spending a fair amount of time online posting on message boards about what's wrong with modern women, about how fucked up it is that women only like assholes, literally saying that women owe them sex for being nice people, and trawling for articles that reinforce all these beliefs. Most women you interact with probably don't know you're doing these specific things (for your sake I hope not, at least) but I'd be very surprised if the entitlement, bitterness and arrogance that this behavior stems from doesn't come across to them. If you're serious about finding a good person to be in a relationship with you need to drop this crap and examine your own behavior and ways to improve yourself, because even if everything you're saying about how shallow and evil and blah blah blah women are IS TRUE (it isn't) your whining about it on the internet isn't going to change anything about your personal situation. You're taking no proactive steps to change anything and instead wallowing in self-pity and narcissism because you don't want to admit that maybe the problem is you.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Shahada said:


> Why in the world is sex something that has to be distributed equally? I would imagine if you're not part of that 15% (aka "guys getting laid more than you," since you just made this number up) it's because the women they're having sex with don't want to have sex with you. Why do you want to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with you? This is a very disturbing way of thinking.Hard dose of reality: These guys you're so bitter about being spurned for probably aren't spending a fair amount of time online posting on message boards about what's wrong with modern women, about how fucked up it is that women only like assholes, literally saying that women owe them sex for being nice people, and trawling for articles that reinforce all these beliefs. Most women you interact with probably don't know you're doing these specific things (for your sake I hope not, at least) but I'd be very surprised if the entitlement, bitterness and arrogance that this behavior stems from doesn't come across to them. If you're serious about finding a good person to be in a relationship with you need to drop this crap and examine your own behavior and ways to improve yourself, because even if everything you're saying about how shallow and evil and blah blah blah women are IS TRUE (it isn't) your whining about it on the internet isn't going to change anything about your personal situation. You're taking no proactive steps to change anything and instead wallowing in self-pity and narcissism because you don't want to admit that maybe the problem is you.


*Facepalm* you aren't getting my argument. I'm talking about the *unattached hookup sex* that happens. Now sex within established relationships follows a very different mold. The same guys who hookup with randoms a lot are the kind who don't hold down steady girlfriends and most of the guys I've met who can keep a girlfriend are certainly decent men. I'm just countering the whole "there's infinite easily-accessed sex out there for guys" myth. I'm not here wallowing in self-pity. I posted the article to take a look at what others thought of it. Now post something constructive or get out.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Joey Couturier said:


> Hollywood want females to think that man should be muscular, have magical bloodsucking vampire powers.


The 'paranormal romance' genre really is booming these days. I wonder if all the normal buffy girls are going to be more prone to hooking up with loser goth guys as a result. : O 

: P Anyway I luld.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

*sigh* I stopped reading the article after a few paragraphs.

Here's the problem with that article: it's targetting shitty, bottom-of-the-barrel people.

If you find yourself saying, "Really? Because it seems to be targeting a pretty populous majority", congrats! You have come to accept the the majority is, indeed, shitty, bottom-of-the-barrel gutter trash.

anyways...

The moral of the article is "men find women obsolete because they get their entertainment from electronic media, their companionship from their bros, and their sexual release from porn, and won't stand for women and all of their cattiness, whining, and playing the princess card."

This article is perfect for high schoolers who have such a mentality...oh, wait, this article was written about 20/30 year-olds? Scumbags -_-

I'm not fed up with women. I actually ENJOY spoiling the shit out of mah chicks. Then again, I've also never dated that female stereotype. All the girls I've ever dated had some great characteristics going for them:
-College education
-A job/financial independence (sometimes they spoil me )
-Equality in the relationship
-Were less complainers and were more accepters
-totally loved sex

So, yeah, I will never get tired of women.

If you're in a relationship with a chick who, to paraphrase the article, saps you of your time, money, and energy, here's a thought: break the fuck up and raise your standards, you twat. Seriously, what kind of moron gets with one such a woman and says, "She looks just my type!"

If you're going to play that only-works-for-15-year-olds card of "Well, I thought I knew her, but 2 weeks in she changed on me", I have some advice for you: date longer. Before jumping into commitment, take your time.

For a nerdy reference (I like nerds), you can either be like Nintendo: take your time, and with patience comes excellence, innovation, and money, or you can be like Sega: just fucking dive in as soon as you can and jump from platform to platform without any recognition of the quality, and see how long you last before you find yourself wishing you were Nintendo (and possibly hopping on their nuts).

TL;DR - Fuck this article and the stupid slabs of meat called "men" who find themselves agreeing with this hogwash. You enjoy your PS3, football, and porn, I will enjoy a girl that I can hold, live with, carry with me, and, perhaps most importantly, pound deeply until the sun comes up.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

^Pure poetry, brother.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> *Facepalm* you aren't getting my argument. I'm talking about the *unattached hookup sex* that happens.


Why do you feel entitled to that unattached hook up sex then? You're the one who's complaining about an "unequal distribution of sex."


Mutatio NOmenis said:


> Now post something constructive or get out.


If you don't see "take a look at your own behavior to see why your sex life isn't going the way you want it" as constructive then you're not likely to get any constructive advice on this subject, ever.


----------



## yello (Oct 14, 2011)

20% of men get 80% of the women.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

yello said:


> 20% of men get 80% of the women.


Except that women aren't objects to "get".


----------



## yello (Oct 14, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Except that women aren't objects to "get".


I never said anything about women being objects. What I mean by 'get' is that 80% of the women out there will have sex with 20% of the men (pareto principle). That is why even 500 lb women can get decent looking men. Women are also hypergamous, so women date up while men date down. It's completely natural and it doesn't just apply to humans.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

yello said:


> I never said anything about women being objects. What I mean by 'get' is that 80% of the women out there will have sex with 20% of the men (pareto principle). That is why even 500 lb women can get decent looking men. Women are also hypergamous, so women date up while men date down. It's completely natural and it doesn't just apply to humans.


Noone is entitled to sex, and noone has to give you sex.


----------



## yello (Oct 14, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Noone is entitled to sex, and noone has to give you sex.


No one is entitled to anything, and this has nothing to do with entitlement. It has to do with sexual selection.


----------



## Enkidu (Apr 19, 2010)

Staffan said:


> You fail to explain the lack of variation. If this is not biology then what cultural force would compel all known societies throughout history to conform in this way? That's not a trend, that's a human universal. If, like you suggest, we need to be conditioned into these roles, *then we should be seeing some matriarchies too.*


Yes, there have been many egalitarian or female-dominated societies. Unfortunately, these histories have been precluded from most educational systems, or only exist as optional fluff courses at universities and colleges. 
Examples of matrilineal, egalitarian, and matriarchal cultures include: Ancient Crete, Hopi Indians, the Cherokee, Aborigines of the Trobriand Islands, Celtic cultures (Scots, Picts, Gaels), Scythians & Amazons, the Chinese Musuo ("Kingdom of Women"), most of tribal Africa, Ancient Egyptians (*!*), the Tuareg, the Chamorro, Tsimshian people, the Tlingit, the Khasi, ancient Nubians, !Kung San, Iroquois, Filipinos, Boyowan, Fore, Jews, Jaintias, and even the infamous Waorani people (a fierce Amazon tribe that was never conquered or colonized) are egalitarian. There is considerable anthropological evidence that supports the theory that there was a Fertility cult with a Snake or Mother goddess in our pre-literate, neolithic ancestry that spanned disparate cultures. The clincher is that sexual repression is often most common among warrior cultures that practiced ritual warfare. At some point in our early domestication (gathering > agrarian) our neolithic heritage was quite literally razed in empire building. 


> If this is not biology then what cultural force would compel all known societies throughout history to conform in this way?


It it as much biology as it is cultural. Most early cultures were constantly waging war with one another - easily comparable to chimpanzees having fights over territory. 'Physical violence legitimizes power' - this has been argued by Hobbes, Machiavelli, Locke, and most political theorists today. Sexual repression has directly linked to physical violence across history, across the globe, from the jungles of central America to Borneo. The only thing universal about this trend is its prevalence in the human condition. It is not, however, the _birthright_ of males. Call it a disease of our species.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Shinji Mimura said:


> *sigh* I stopped reading the article after a few paragraphs.
> 
> Here's the problem with that article: it's targetting shitty, bottom-of-the-barrel people.
> 
> ...


Quoted for truth and justice.


----------



## VictoriaB (Apr 29, 2012)

Question for the men who read the OP article...

How would you feel if a female you where interested in, but had yet to make any find of move on, asked you out on a date. Where she implied that she would be paying, driving, etc.?

The males I know wouldn't care, they probably wouldn't let her pay anyway, and would be flattered by the attempt. I really don't know anyone who would be as concerned with it as the males the author is referring too. 

And just a small side note...I don't understand where a male playing a PS3 makes a difference or that pre-adults are between 20-early 30's.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

VictoriaB said:


> How would you feel if a female you where interested in, but had yet to make any find of move on, asked you out on a date. Where she implied that she would be paying, driving, etc.?


Two things:
1. She asked me out, giving her like +30 bonus props. Girls who ask guys out first are hawt.
2. Let's see, free money, free ride, free entertainment, free love. Yeah, I will definitely sign up for that.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

There is a grain of truth to the article that people are too ready to dismiss.

All the numbers show that women are attending school in greater numbers. That's across the board, in economic class, region, ethnic group etc. This means that there are more women qualified for male dominated careers. So this is going to force a shift in society that people perhaps were not expecting. For some guys it might be too much to bear to have a girlfriend with a "better" job, a bigger check and as a result could have a better attitude and outlook while her partner may grow a bit of resent.

Moral of the story is, hold your head high no matter the situation and if your girlfriend makes more than you make her pay for dinner... then pay her back another way.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

VictoriaB said:


> Question for the men who read the OP article...
> 
> How would you feel if a female you where interested in, but had yet to make any find of move on, asked you out on a date. Where she implied that she would be paying, driving, etc.?


My rule is, if I invite you somewhere it's my treat. If she's asking me out and pays, I'm cool with that.



> And just a small side note...I don't understand where a male playing a PS3 makes a difference or that pre-adults are between 20-early 30's.


I know a lot of people who aren't fans of their partner doing anything they like without including them. Most of my friends got lucky and are with level headed people that understand space. But some people just need to be involved all the time, or they start resenting their partners friends and all the things they do without them. In other words, codependency. It's unhealthy and unattractive.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Staffan said:


> You fail to explain the lack of variation.


Before I give an answer to this, can you tell me exactly what it is that you'd like to see a variation of? Variations that show women actually having the desire for leadership throughout history? Variations that show women being allowed to take leadership positions? Or variations that show women being taught specifically to be leaders?



> If this is not biology then what cultural force would compel all known societies throughout history to conform in this way


The cultural force of "patriarchy" that was conceived (like all other hierarchal institutions) from the belief that "might makes right", and that those people who are strong enough to subject others to their lordship, have a natural right to assert their dominance over those whom they have conquered. What difference between the sexes would give men this advantage? Physical strength.



> That's not a trend, that's a human universal


You speak as though non-biological things, such as oppression (which has also existed in every society throughout history), could never be considered as universal. What are you going to tell me next? That just because misogyny has been a pervasive part of human history that it too is biological?



> If, like you suggest, we need to be conditioned into these roles, then we should be seeing some matriarchies too.


That depends what you mean when you say "matriarchy". Do you mean a society is which women held all or most of the power? Or societies that had a majority male leadership, but that still focused on the woman as being the center of everything, and a representation of nature herself (and societies who traced lineage through the maternal line)? I think the latter is both referred to as "matriarchal" and "matrifocal", depending on who you talk to. I believe there is evidence of the latter (especially within ancient Sub-Saharan African tribes). But there's no substantial evidence of the first definition of matriarchy that I provided (at least not so far). But that can be explained by this previous statement: 

"_The cultural force of "patriarchy" that was conceived (like all other hierarchal institutions) from the belief that "might makes right", which leads to the notion that those people who are strong enough to subject others to their lordship, have a natural right to assert their dominance over those whom they have conquered. What difference between the sexes would give men this advantage? Physical strength.__"
_
This would explain why there is a complete lack of (or minimal evidence) of matriarchies in which women held all, or most of the power. I mean, how could such a society form, or exists when they would have most likely been destroyed by neighboring patriarchal Nations that would have viewed a matriarchy as an affront to nature, and to the rights of men? History has repeatedly shown us that stronger Nations have pervasively destroyed weaker Nations time and time again. There's no stretch of the imagination to assume that the same thing would have happened to a Matriarchal Nation, should one have ever existed.


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

SlowPoke68 said:


> We no longer are looked as as cads or bounders for choosing not to say in relationships that we don't enjoy just to do the right thing as manly providers. Women can get by on their own and make their own choices, and thus so can we.


I was thinking that you couldn't possibly be an American, but I then I checked and you are.........


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Oh, has this become another feminism thread? Can we like... combine this one with the twenty feminism threads that already exist?  So over discussing it.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

MyName said:


> I was thinking that you couldn't possibly be an American, but I then I checked and you are.........


What's that supposed to mean? I'm intrigued; be brutally honest.


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> What's that supposed to mean? I'm intrigued; be brutally honest.


In my opinion, the statements he made are absolutely not true of America, but they might be for Europe.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

@_Ace Face_

It wasn't my intent to make a Feminism thread. However, seeing the results of all Feminism threads so far...










MyName said:


> I was thinking that you couldn't possibly be an American, but I then I checked and you are.........


What's that supposed to mean? I'm intrigued; be brutally honest.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

MyName said:


> In my opinion, the statements he made are absolutely not true of America, but they might be for Europe.


Have you been overseas and seen the women? I used to be skeptical of international dating, then I went over and won myself a piece of the action. Now I'm converted into going after European (or at least non-American women).

EDIT: Scandanavia is very feminist, but the girls there do seem to go for quieter, more balanced guys in those countries. The USA seems to have developed a very unusual dating culture.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> Have you been overseas and seen the women? I used to be skeptical of international dating, then I went over and won myself a piece of the action. Now I'm converted into going after European (or at least non-American women).


Good choice, young man. See? You're learning.
Foreign women are gorgeous.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Good choice, young man. See? You're learning.
> Foreign women are gorgeous.


So you're a convert too? Welcome to the tribe 




European Dream Connections


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

I'm not a convert--I'm practical. 

I will admit, there is a feminine grace, beauty and sensuality with European women that Americans simply do not have. I don't know what it is. Possibly the fetishist cake-face sex doll look; the synthetic fast food diet infused with subliminal trash TV, but alas. I am out of the game. 

I can barely tolerate myself most of the time, to be honest.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

That article was odd. I think the article was highlighting a divide in social expectations. Many women expect varying degrees of chivalry, while many others do not. It tried to cast it in generalizations, though, which is not the best approach. To some extent, it sounds similar to hard feminist rhetoric on the other side. It's overblown.

I can see where one could take issue on individual cases of double-standard. Equality means equality, not necessarily chivalry. Everyone I've ever dated has seen it this way; both my exes would insist on paying for things themselves, etc. However, that goes for both sides. Males can get away with a lot of things (even barbaric ones at times) just because they're "a guy". I suppose I'm just oblivious to this apparently major issue of inequality.


----------



## Subtle Murder (May 19, 2012)

Quote from the article: 



> Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure.


That's ridiculous. I want equality in all facets of my relationships -- with men or women, in the workplace or at home etc. I get uncomfortable when men hold doors open for me because I am perfectly capable of doing those things myself. I don't like men paying for me most of the time because then I feel as if I owe them something (sex, dinner, money, whatever). I prefer to split the bill or have an agreement that he pays this time, I pay the next time. I _want_ to be able to treat my date to something, and not be treated all of the time because it's 'expected'. If a guy asks me out on a date, I will always offer to pay my share. I just feel like I am taking advantage of them otherwise, and if you like someone and you want to see them more than once, I don't see why you can't put in a little bit more effort to meet them halfway and develop a _partnership_. 

This article reminds me of my mother's dating advice:

"Let the man pay!"
"Let the man do the chasing!"
"Women don't ask men out!"

:tongue:


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Well, women are women at heart. No matter what you do, they are going to be women. I'm more of a fan of the traditional role where the man works and the woman stays home. As men, we feel honor bringing home the bread. In a role reversal, "this broke mutha' f-er". Apparently you ladies feel loathing? Why do you want our roles so bad anyway? We don't want your roles, aka breast feeding babies.


----------



## nordlund63 (Jul 24, 2012)

This whole discussion reminds me of something I've noticed over the past few months. 

Whenever my friends and I head to the bar, this gang of single girls (who I really consider friends-of-friends, because I don't like any of them) will usually accompany us. These girls will then head to the bartop and just kind of hang out until they get chatted up and guys start buying them drinks. This past weekend (after I drunkenly performed a rendition of Creeds _Higher _with two of my friends), we stumbled out and they started complaining that _no one_ had boughten them any drinks. They all seemed genuinely pissed and confused, because this was the first time they have had to spend a cent at the bar in weeks. This is the same group of girls that will cockblock each other night after night out of jealously and spite. In my don't-give-a-shit state, I told them this bitchy attitude was probably why none of them could keep a boyfriend for more then a month. 

On topic, I'm all for split date bills. As a poor college student who can barely afford beer, food and rent, dinner and a movie can be damn expensive.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

nordlund63 said:


> This whole discussion reminds me of something I've noticed over the past few months.
> 
> Whenever my friends and I head to the bar, this gang of single girls (who I really consider friends-of-friends, because I don't like any of them) will usually accompany us. These girls will then head to the bartop and just kind of hang out until they get chatted up and guys start buying them drinks. This past weekend (after I drunkenly performed a rendition of Creeds _Higher _with two of my friends), we stumbled out and they started complaining that _no one_ had boughten them any drinks. They all seemed genuinely pissed and confused, because this was the first time they have had to spend a cent at the bar in weeks. This is the same group of girls that will cockblock each other night after night out of jealously and spite. In my don't-give-a-shit state, I told them this bitchy attitude was probably why none of them could keep a boyfriend for more then a month.
> 
> On topic, I'm all for split date bills. As a poor college student who can barely afford beer, food and rent, dinner and a movie can be damn expensive.


Glad to see you put beer first, son. Good to know your priorities.

Oh and if you're looking for inexpensive entertainment in these financially trying times, simply ignore women like this wholesale so then you can watch the disarray from a distance. Hell--you can even make a little game out of it. 

"Look at what I can make my dog do!" Play your cards right, and you'll be the one they buy alcohol for. Just being economical, you know?

Oh, and when you insult them for being, well..._them_, at least you can't feel guilty about it.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

VictoriaB said:


> Question for the men who read the OP article...
> 
> How would you feel if a female you where interested in, but had yet to make any find of move on, asked you out on a date. Where she implied that she would be paying, driving, etc.?
> 
> The males I know wouldn't care, they probably wouldn't let her pay anyway, and would be flattered by the attempt. I really don't know anyone who would be as concerned with it as the males the author is referring too.


It's happened and I insist on buying something on the date, even if I let her buy dinner. It might be a bottle of wine or dessert or something. I wouldn't make a very good kept man. 

My on-again/off-again interest asked me out once and the bill came to something more than she had in mind, so I covered it. She felt bad for a while but I explained that I wasn't going to let our income disparity keep me from having a good time and enjoying a good restaurant. 



VictoriaB said:


> And just a small side note...I don't understand where a male playing a PS3 makes a difference or that pre-adults are between 20-early 30's.Design Observer


That's kind of a flourish, but it's true that adolescence has been extended to at least 30, and likely beyond in many Western cultures. I see groups of 20-somethings on group dates at the frozen yogurt shop sometimes. They all seem to live at home and sit around and talk about shit I remember talking about as a 15-yr-old (petty gossip, what's on TV/YouTube that week, who is gross and who is hot, etc). Lots of people unable to find real careers out there who still live at home and have no immediate plans to move out and start families. They're essentially 25-yr old teenagers, some with master's degrees.



MyName said:


> I was thinking that you couldn't possibly be an American, but I then I checked and you are.........


I get that a lot because I am weird. I guess I am more a citizen of the world.



MyName said:


> In my opinion, the statements he made are absolutely not true of America, but they might be for Europe.


Which America do you mean, and among which age group? In a relatively cosmopolitan, large American city my statement holds true among people in their 30's to 50's who have moved beyond adolescence. Women are expected to have education and careers and to have their own friends and private lives, as are men. Most of my friends have been married and divorced or through a few LTR's. Now, in some outpost in Jesusland (basically the middle third of the country) people might live more traditionally, and among young girls there might still be some delusion that Mr. Right will pay the bills once they find him. That's just not my world.



Duck_of_Death said:


> Glad to see you put beer first, son. Good to know your priorities.
> 
> Oh and if you're looking for inexpensive entertainment in these financially trying times, simply ignore women like this wholesale so then you can watch the disarray from a distance. Hell--you can even make a little game out of it.
> 
> ...


You, Sir, are hardcore.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> Oh, has this become another feminism thread? Can we like... combine this one with the twenty feminism threads that already exist?  So over discussing it.


The subject is interesting but it attracts some sociological trolls whose strategy it is to wear out their opponents rather than make any kind of sense. Oh well, I was warned about it so I guess I have to blame myself for getting drawn in.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

SlowPoke68 said:


> That's kind of a flourish, but it's true that adolescence has been extended to at least 30, and likely beyond in many Western cultures. I see groups of 20-somethings on group dates at the frozen yogurt shop sometimes. They all seem to live at home and sit around and talk about shit I remember talking about as a 15-yr-old (petty gossip, what's on TV/YouTube that week, who is gross and who is hot, etc). Lots of people unable to find real careers out there who still live at home and have no immediate plans to move out and start families. They're essentially 25-yr old teenagers, some with master's degrees.


And this, good Sir, is why I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

For most part anyway.

You better believe they think of themselves as adults, though. You've gotta be kidding me, mundane shit if I've ever seen any. Still, they won't get it - their horizon is too limited. All you can do is hope; or drown in despair - or, what I prefer, stop caring as a whole and occasionally get the most fun of it doing it @Duck_of_Death style.

Gotta make the world one's playground to keep it fun and using the tools found within seems legit to me.

Still, this is a societal problem, and not so much one of gender issues, or men being fed up with women. That one gets me fed up quite gender unrelated is it were.

Meh, back to my PS3 it is!


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> Well, women are women at heart. No matter what you do, they are going to be women. I'm more of a fan of the traditional role where the man works and the woman stays home. As men, we feel honor bringing home the bread. In a role reversal, "this broke mutha' f-er". Apparently you ladies feel loathing? Why do you want our roles so bad anyway? We don't want your roles, aka breast feeding babies.


Because "traditionally" men can be anything. The only option women really had was "baby maker". Why should I have to stay at home and mind the kids when I'm just as capable, if not more capable to do your job?


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Niamh_Chinn_Oir said:


> Because "traditionally" men can be anything. The only option women really had was "baby maker". Why should I have to stay at home and mind the kids when I'm just as capable, if not more capable to do your job?


Does this mean I'd get to stay home and watch Oprah? Hmm, I'd also like to inherit the right to b*tch at the fact that you are never home, and I'm stuck with all this free time with no boss rules or regulations.  ADDITIONALLY lol, meals, drinks, and everything on you!! Marry me?


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

android654 said:


> There is a grain of truth to the article that people are too ready to dismiss.
> 
> All the numbers show that women are attending school in greater numbers. That's across the board, in economic class, region, ethnic group etc. This means that there are more women qualified for male dominated careers. So this is going to force a shift in society that people perhaps were not expecting. For some guys it might be too much to bear to have a girlfriend with a "better" job, a bigger check and as a result could have a better attitude and outlook while her partner may grow a bit of resent.
> 
> Moral of the story is, hold your head high no matter the situation and if your girlfriend makes more than you make her pay for dinner... then pay her back another way.


A lot of guys can't stand dating someone taller, someone who makes more money, is smarter, stronger, etc. 

A lot of men are seriously insecure. It's kind of sad. 

I love MMA. . . and I've never met a girl who could kick my ass. But if I did, it'd be hot. My last girlfriend seduced me by beating me in a debate on one of my strongest subject. 

Oo la la ;D 

I don't know about most guys, but I want to find a woman I can respect as an equal which. . . is harder to find than I'd first assumed.
@La Petite Sirène Fuck yeah.


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

Every single article I see, every damn "opinionated" person I hear communicates the same base idea: that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. If it's not the misogynistic men, it's the entitled women, or the feminists, or the "nice guys". Not everything is a history channel conspiracy...

Has anyone considered the truth to be much simpler? Perhaps we're just confused; we're all just confused. The world is changing, and fast. Normally the older generations would impart some advice to the younger generation about courtship, but we are finding that information to be outdated (as reflected in the divorce rate). The feminist movement has brought women to an equal footing with men in the first world and in the same fell swoop removed the basis for chivalry as a compromise for their second class status. We are in a sense re-writing the rules of courtship and trying to peg generalizations to something which intrinsically has no generalizations, namely the interaction between two fully functioning individuals.

As individuals we have all become liberated by our independence, but this has removed some of the main forms of human interaction which were so critical in the past. This is the subtle irony of our modern lives; that though we are free from the kinship bonds of dependence we are entrapped by a lack of bonds. (Furthermore, the internet and television have allowed some of us, in fact many of us, to delude ourselves into believing that we are bonding with the outside world). In fact, it has become odd for one person to approach another and simply converse, there's always some sense of ulterior motive (the archetypal "creeper" in the female parlance). 

"Why should a person that knows nothing about me and requires nothing of me (because we are an independent society) come and talk to me? Unless... they aren't independent and they want something of me. But I don't want to give them anything, especially not my independence, not to a person I don't know!" In this manner the expectation that males initiate contact has become obsolete, yet many of us retain this expectation without realizing the paradox. This notion is applicable to females as well, albeit to a lesser extent.
Moreover, we have come to expect the world to be individually catered to us. We almost expect other people to understand us before even uttering two words to us! This is reflected in the growing impatience of people when talking to somebody new. What's even funnier, we think we immediately know what the other person has to offer and are prompt to reject those who we think are not offering enough.

Upon reflection, I believe the thesis of my post to be this: that our society has become impotent through the unconcious aspiration of independence and the elevation of the individual. We have come to expect independence and for the world around us to be individually catered to us. We cannot resolve these expectations with those of past generations, those portrayed in mass-media, and with the reality of the situation: that we are all just confused individuals trying to find a connection. And the final irony is that we are seeking connections because we are seeking meaning for our lives. The isolated individual leaves no legacy.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

unsung truth said:


> Every single article I see, every damn "opinionated" person I hear communicates the same base idea: that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. If it's not the misogynistic men, it's the entitled women, or the feminists, or the "nice guys". Not everything is a history channel conspiracy...
> 
> Has anyone considered the truth to be much simpler? Perhaps we're just confused; we're all just confused. The world is changing, and fast. Normally the older generations would impart some advice to the younger generation about courtship, but we are finding that information to be outdated (as reflected in the divorce rate). The feminist movement has brought women to an equal footing with men in the first world and in the same fell swoop removed the basis for chivalry as a compromise for their second class status. We are in a sense re-writing the rules of courtship and trying to peg generalizations to something which intrinsically has no generalizations, namely the interaction between two fully functioning individuals.
> 
> ...


 I would agree, in a general sense, depending on where a person lives that the part where people seem confused may actually be mistaken for a very self-entitlement attitude. Some people aren't very egocentric, and do not automatically judge their interactions with others as benefiting themselves first in some way in order to build some foundation of trust or friendship. It really depends on the social environment. You make a really good point about the overall social disconnect.

I also notice how basic English grammar has changed from "You and I" to "Me and you" or "Me and my kids," "Me and my friend." Notice in the language how the sense of selfishness and my "self-importance" is above others? Seen from a social interactive perspective, even the basic language in ways of communication has placed 'the self' above and before 'others.'

I think it's more so perpetuated by the underlying social-political attitude/values of culteral conditioning based on very select lifestyles. I think not all interactions nowadays are based on self-centeredness and that there are some forms of pure altruism. Things seem confusing and hazy when people are alternatively looking for the truth in things that are superficial, conditional, and external- things that give false illusions to what's considered to be the 'truth' or gives someone very little value or worth in a meaningless life found through artificial understanding of self-worth. People are confused when they base their value on something intrinsically unattainable because they are not (ever) "good enough." I think people who see the clarity behind all this can base their interactions on pure intentions without expectations, and do not ascribe to these social norms or confusion because they don't base their worth on something external or superficial. They also aren't leery and suspecing of every kind gesture or interaction. Maybe because they don't self-project or they come from a totally different generation or mindset, but it's sad to see how what you said is also very true in a lot of postmodern civilization. Sadly. As my friend says, "People can't handle or are afraid of genuineness." This boggles me. Have we really stripped ourselves that much away from basic happiness from a humane point of view?


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> Does this mean I'd get to stay home and watch Oprah? Hmm, I'd also like to inherit the right to b*tch at the fact that you are never home, and I'm stuck with all this free time with no boss rules or regulations.  ADDITIONALLY lol, meals, drinks, and everything on you!! Marry me?


Sure. But you'll also have to cook, change nappies, breastfeed, feed kids, go through periods, pregnancy and labour, drive kids to school, collect kids from school, keep kids entertained, sweep floors, wash floors, make beds, clean rooms, clean tables, wash dishes, etc. etc. etc. and then at the end of the day you have to listen to your husband moan about work and how much easier it would be to do nothing all day like you. You don't get a wage or salary, instead you get pocket money. Then you go to bed, wake up the next morning and have to do it all over again.

Sure I'll marry you, as long as you promise to do all of that shite. :tongue:


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Niamh_Chinn_Oir said:


> Sure. But you'll also have to cook, change nappies, breastfeed, feed kids, go through periods, pregnancy and labour, drive kids to school, collect kids from school, keep kids entertained, sweep floors, wash floors, make beds, clean rooms, clean tables, wash dishes, etc. etc. etc. and then at the end of the day you have to listen to your husband moan about work and how much easier it would be to do nothing all day like you. You don't get a wage or salary, instead you get pocket money. Then you go to bed, wake up the next morning and have to do it all over again.
> 
> Sure I'll marry you, as long as you promise to do all of that shite. :tongue:


I've done all of that for months on end, all while holding down a demanding full-time job too. It's a lot easier with a woman out of the picture if all she's going to do is whine and play the victim while consuming resources.

Like I said--we don't need each other as much as we once did. This realization is starting to occur to people, and its effects haven't yet been truly felt. Some, like @unsung truth, are getting it.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I misread the title. am I fed up with women? in all honestly, a bit, at least lots of younger women and the things they think they can get away with. I've had a few younger women literally pull me aside, wink at me and say kinda "could you buy me a drink?" and I'm like "should I pay you tribute at the alter while I'm at it? you think that because you're beautiful I need to spend money on you for it to be an equal exchange? especially when _you_ are interested in _me_ and not the other way around" (her) "uh?" (me) "sorry darling, not interested"

I'm not put up with all women, probably not even the majority, but
- you do NOT touch me, much less _grab_ me if I don't know you (even if I do know you, I don't like to be grabbed)
- I'm sick and tired of these "tough girl" women who think it's cool/acceptable to be so damn aggressive. we have enough macho men in the world, we don't need women thinking it's cool too.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

SlowPoke68 said:


> I've done all of that for months on end, all while holding down a demanding full-time job too. It's a lot easier with a woman out of the picture if all she's going to do is whine and play the victim while consuming resources.
> 
> Like I said--we don't need each other as much as we once did. This realization is starting to occur to people, and its effects haven't yet been truly felt. Some, like @_unsung truth_, are getting it.


I know that's the way it is today, but I was replying based on old stereotypes and traditions. I've never been in a relationship and I don't really _need_ one. I'm more concerned with getting an education and a career. I have no problem doing the housework as well. If a relationship happens then it happens, but it's not at the top of my list. If I do end up getting married I'd like the housework and bread-winning responsibilities to be split and shared.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - I'm sick and tired of these "tough girl" women who think it's cool/acceptable to be so damn aggressive. we have enough macho men in the world, we don't need women thinking it's cool too.


Speak for yourself, that shit's sexy as fuck.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> ^ See the thing I'm talking about in action. Funny, the attitudes I observed were _very_ different in Europe.


May I ask what the attitudes were like in Europe? I'm a European (although I'm currently living on an insignificant island that prefers to shut itself off from the rest of the world  ) and it's interesting to learn how outside observers see things.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> May I ask what the attitudes were like in Europe? I'm a European (although I'm currently living on an insignificant island that prefers to shut itself off from the rest of the world  ) and it's interesting to learn how outside observers see things.


Come now, the UK isn't as bad as it could be. If anything its 'American TV stereotypes' that influence public opinion more... the UK like anywhere has become a by-product of Hollywood ideals, Disney-ified, picturesque romantic notions and a perpetrator of romantic fantasy in 'novels' (debatable as 'literary porn').


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> "tough girl" women


Yum


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Btmangan said:


> Dude, of course. If someone aggressively pursued me and I wasn't attracted to them, I might have to start throwing rocks at them


LOL Old Testament Reference :laughing:



> But (I know you don't really care about this shit, but I want to say it anyhow, more just to divert this thread's butthurt) aggressive girls are awesome. They'll challenge you intellectually, call you on your shit, propose cool plans/hangouts if you don't have any good ideas.


I can definitely understand that



> If you're secure enough for it, they're way better at telling you what needs improvement than submissives.
> And the sex. . . I can't even. . .
> Sometimes I'm feeling dominant. . . an aggressive girl really makes you earn your dominance. . . all the more fun. And if you're feeling more feminine (This happens to me. Might be the F), she'll attack you.


these parts I can relate to. I tend to be into guys with a "tough" exterior who are secretly more submissive and feminine, but they don't let on immediately that they are. something about "turning out" my partner's feminine side really gets me off more than being with a guy who is more openly feminine



> I know right. I love being a crazy fuck


I gotta admit, I did see you as more wing 7 when watching your video (Sp/Sx maybe? you remind me a lot of Batman lol)


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Enki said:


> You're welcome! I have Scytho-Siberian ancestry myself, so I completely understand the tunnel-vision of Western academia. Tragically, Medieval Orientalist thinking is still very prominent in most American and European education systems. The funny part is, that a large portion of Europeans are descendants of Northern & Central Eurasian micro-kingdoms (or Asiatic & Turkic tribes from the Russian steppes to Northern Iran/Caucuses). That is to say, they're essentially discriminating against their own heritage! *shakes head* It's frustrating. People need to know where they come from...


Ehhh. . . I don't know. Our ancestor's achievements are not our own and I shy away from the whole "our blood is superior because grandpa did X" kind of rhetoric.

My pure-blooded Italian mom probably has more Gaul, Norman, Austrian, Spanish, Byzantine, Greek, German, Moorish, etc blood than she'd care to admit 

But yeah. . . I love history in general. I just don't think there really should be any distinction between "our" and "their" history. It's all equally fascinating, and we have equally as little claim to their achievements. xD

For me, history is about triangulating the human condition. The further away the points I study (in terms of cultural differences), the close I get to pinpointing the common human condition. 



Mutatio NOmenis said:


> You don't have to tell that to me; I've been following the series since about 09.


Hits all the right chords for an introvert who feels like life is a battleground. . . and for finding those other disconnected warriors fighting their way through it. 

Love it. . . I even wrote a Claymore fanfic. ;D



Swordsman of Mana said:


> LOL Old Testament Reference :laughing:


Hahaha, I meant this lovely book. 










Oh Noez. I have stirred up teh gender warfare! 



> these parts I can relate to. I tend to be into guys with a "tough" exterior who are secretly more submissive and feminine, but they don't let on immediately that they are. something about "turning out" my partner's feminine side really gets me off more than being with a guy who is more openly feminine


Hard exterior, soft interior. . . That's always how I've seen myself and I've always wanted to find a fellow tsundere ^___^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsundere



> I gotta admit, I did see you as more wing 7 when watching your video (Sp/Sx maybe? you remind me a lot of Batman lol)


Dark Knight Rises had me sobbing many manly tears. 

I feel like it shook all that type 8ness to the core. 

I wanted to Judo throw the first guy who said "Heath Ledger" out of a window.


----------



## Enkidu (Apr 19, 2010)

fourtines said:


> While I do think *2nd wave feminism **as opposed to *3rd wave feminism** may have supposedly rendered men obsolete, we're not even living in a climate of 2nd wave feminism anymore except for older women and extremists. In my real life, I know very few women who say men are obsolete...unless it's because on the lowest possible socioeconomic level they are on welfare because the men who they reproduced with won't be fathers.
> 
> And that disgusts me. I honestly think an unintended consequence of feminism was actually to give men - not women - excessive freedom. Excessive freedom to use women for sex and deny responsibility for fatherhood. Why? Because feminism is what made casual sex and breakdown of the nuclear family easy. This is a benefit to men, in my opinion, not a benefit to women. Instead of feeling "useless" I think many men are just feeling "selfish." Why commit to a relationship when they can get easy sex? Why be a father?


And are you referring to urban African & Caucasian American populations? I think the dynamic you mention here is more complicated than that. The traditional nuclear family of Western countries is a recent invention of the past hundred years. If anything, it was formed in response to industrialization, the increase of individual rights, and the erosion of Christian morality in the public sphere. Consider for a minute the implications of increased civil rights in industrialized countries: the proportionate levels of public education do not correspond with ethical behavior in people. The issue runs much deeper- this is about levels of social, religious, and state control on the behavior of men and women. For instance, poor urban black kids grow up fatherless, developing from boyhood in an environment that lacks the hormone checks of a male figure. Instead, they are raised by hard-bitten mothers that slave to raise children, filling the roles of a mother and father. The psychology of these boys is one characterized by cock-sure, childish arrogance seen also in mainstream thugs. That is, it is a facade and a complex of masculine insecurity. Feminism is simply raising women to the same social standing as men: same wage, equal right to compete in gender roles, same access to opportunity, no enforced social expectations (outside of those that regard lawful citizenship). This "selfish" _materialism_ is the age we're living in, it's not the result of women's hard-fought suffrage. If anything, boys need to be raised with a new manifesto of Men's Rights, or to be more specific: Men's _Responsibilities_. Women's rights are universal human rights that should penetrate family life early on. 


fourtines said:


> I honestly don't feel sorry for the men any more than I feel sorry for the women. With breakdown of old patriarchal gender roles, new disturbing one's have popped up in its place: the woman who does EVERYTHING - take care of kids, take care of house, work - while her spouse only works; the perma-boy who thinks it's somehow his divine right to get free pussy and live in complete irresponsibility; the bitter "nice guy" who wanted to be a traditional man but for some bizarre reason instead of dating traditional women becomes obsessed with the career women or promiscuous women he can't haz (really? is that really the women's fault? Or is it his fault for focusing on what he hates instead of what he loves. Because last time I checked, there are still plenty of nice, traditional women); the angry woman who is tired of seeing men abandon their children, study PUA, whine about what nice guys they are and then turn around and say it's all women's fault...


In the same way, men should be expected to do EVERYTHING in the same breath. Personally, coming from a man that was raised by a strong, independent mother, I see nothing wrong with empowering women to live their own lives. The opposite always makes me cringe. Parenthood is a contract of both sexes to fill a biological role in raising balanced, empathetic children. Men aren't obsolete, they just have no example to emulate now that their partners can look them in the eyes as equals. Manhood needs to be redefined.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Btmangan said:


> Hahaha, I meant this lovely book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL




> Hard exterior, soft interior. . . That's always how I've seen myself and I've always wanted to find a fellow tsundere ^___^


interesting, you strike me more as the opposite. hard interior, soft interior (iron fist in the velvet glove). you're kind/friendly on the outside, but you give of this very sinister vibe like you could totally rip someone apart if need be 




> Dark Knight Rises had me sobbing many manly tears.
> I feel like it shook all that type 8ness to the core.
> I wanted to Judo throw the first guy who said "Heath Ledger" out of a window.


-hugs-


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> Can we at least snuggle afterwards?


Well....I've had a long day in work and you smell like talcum powder and baby vomit... so...uhhh...I might take the guest room if you don't mind....


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)

Enki said:


> You're welcome! I have Scytho-Siberian ancestry myself, so I completely understand the tunnel-vision of Western academia. Tragically, Medieval Orientalist thinking is still very prominent in most American and European education systems. The funny part is, that a large portion of Europeans are descendants of Northern & Central Eurasian micro-kingdoms (or Asiatic & Turkic tribes from the Russian steppes to Northern Iran/Caucuses). That is to say, they're essentially discriminating against their own heritage! *shakes head* It's frustrating. People need to know where they come from...


Hehe, my brother. :tongue:


And exactly. It's so frustrating to have our history successfully omitted. :frustrating:


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

VictoriaB said:


> How would you feel if a female you where interested in, but had yet to make any find of move on, asked you out on a date. Where she implied that she would be paying, driving, etc.?


I'll be honest I would love it, I think there is a lot of pressure for men to do everything when it comes to courting and dating it would be nice to know that someone genuinely liked me enough to tell me that they found be attractive and wanted to date me. Personally I would want to split everything, I do that with my female friends anyway. Or at least they will pay for gas, popcorn and/or the tip and I will pay for the meal or the movie tickets. Simply because I would want to do that. I wouldn't want to make someone pay for everything and just mooch. I'm like that even when I go out with my guys. I have a problem with infringing myself on people and making myself a burden to them. This may have to do with things I have learned from the women in my family though, where a man is expected to pay for everything or at least that a man isn't supposed to take advantage of another person by ordering extravagantly. If the girl said that they were paying for me I would probably end up ordering one of the cheaper things on the menu, like a burger or some kind of chicken. I certainly wouldn't order the steak an appetizer or dessert. 



fourtines said:


> And that disgusts me. I honestly think an unintended consequence of feminism was actually to give men - not women - excessive freedom. Excessive freedom to use women for sex and deny responsibility for fatherhood. Why? Because feminism is what made casual sex and breakdown of the nuclear family easy. This is a benefit to men, in my opinion, not a benefit to women. Instead of feeling "useless" I think many men are just feeling "selfish." Why commit to a relationship when they can get easy sex? Why be a father?


I think this is presumptive on many levels, I do agree with you that feminism destroyed the necular family not because men stopped wanting to be fathers but because women stopped wanting to be wives and stopped wanting to be mothers. Feminism and women in the work force made it possible for women to become focused on their career and their own independence which had benefits but also costs. Now that women were no longer dependent on the man for financial reasons you ended up having women who worked more, put off marriage longer or not get married at all and also have chosen to have kids later or to not have them at all. This was all possible because women became independent in their own right and there was no need for them to marry. When women had less opportunities they had to settle, they had to get married, they couldn't go to work and so that led to choices of marriage and children. Now you have women who have more agency and who are more preoccupied with their career and who have the child completely out of wedlock, but you also have women who are too busy with getting up the corperate latter that they don't want kids or a man. 

Is this a bad thing? It's debatable. But it's what happened. I don't think men are necessarily happier not having responsibilities or being eternal Peter Pan's as that is an incredibly lonely existence that most men don't value going into their late 30's and beyond. They obviously want meaning to their lives and that is paramount to family, kids and the next generation and legacy that the man wants to leave behind. 



> the bitter "nice guy" who wanted to be a traditional man but for some bizarre reason instead of dating traditional women becomes obsessed with the career women or promiscuous women he can't haz (really? is that really the women's fault? Or is it his fault for focusing on what he hates instead of what he loves. Because last time I checked, there are still plenty of nice, traditional women);


I also think you are misinformed here as well. I think most nice guys are upset and angry about the fact that they are not in anyway valued by the women in their lives on any level. Again, Nice guys are bred by women and indoctrinated to treat women well only to find out that women don't respond to that kind of treatment in a real relationship. You have men who were taught to put women on a pedestal and shower them with affection and attention only to be thrusted into a reality where the women they interact with only date, sleep with or want to have a relationship with men who mistreat or abuse them and by that point those guys don't want to do that so they end up single and alone.

I would say the anger you are referencing is probably just inner pain and impotent rage because they cannot change their circumstances in due to societies constraints because they haven't been prepared for reality. They recognize that there is no place for them in the dating pool until the woman grows up and recognizes that they don't want their tenth relationship in a row to be one where they are unequal and by that point in time 10-20 years has passed where the Nice Guy has been told that he is not wanted, needed, constantly belittled or invalidated by the very women he seeks to court. 

Women will always be valued in the dating world as a woman is always valued in some way by men in the dating world. The man by this same measure is not as valued or desired in the same way. 



> Feminism IN ITS MOST EXTREME FORM has caused some problems for both sexes, I agree, but real feminism is simply about equal rights to choose.


I think in theory this is the way it's _supposed_ to be. But in actual practice I haven't seen it presented this way, usually it's presented as an empowerment and increase of prominence and importance of general females at any cost. It's very rarely acknowledged as the the empowerment of _equality_ for all which is what it is supposed to encompass and represent but surprisingly doesn't which is why you get people confusing feminism with reverse feminism, difference feminism, gender polarity and misandry.



> You can't judge women all by one measuring stick any more than you can judge all men.


Then how can you say all men are being obnoxious, immature, selfish and entitled?


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I think this is presumptive on many levels, I do agree with you that feminism destroyed the necular family not because men stopped wanting to be fathers but because women stopped wanting to be wives and stopped wanting to be mothers. Feminism and women in the work force made it possible for women to become focused on their career and their own independence which had benefits but also costs. Now that women were no longer dependent on the man for financial reasons you ended up having women who worked more, put off marriage longer or not get married at all and also have chosen to have kids later or to not have them at all. This was all possible because women became independent in their own right and there was no need for them to marry. When women had less opportunities they had to settle, they had to get married, they couldn't go to work and so that led to choices of marriage and children. Now you have women who have more agency and who are more preoccupied with their career and who have the child completely out of wedlock, but you also have women who are too busy with getting up the corperate latter that they don't want kids or a man.


Ain't greed wonderful?



> Is this a bad thing? It's debatable. But it's what happened. I don't think men are necessarily happier not having responsibilities or being eternal Peter Pan's as that is an incredibly lonely existence that most men don't value going into their late 30's and beyond. They obviously want meaning to their lives and that is paramount to family, kids and the next generation and legacy that the man wants to leave behind.


So? No one cares. You're, like, supposed to make money and become a conformist toolbag to impress women, bro.




> I also think you are misinformed here as well. I think most nice guys are upset and angry about the fact that they are not in anyway valued by the women in their lives on any level. Again, Nice guys are bred by women and indoctrinated to treat women well only to find out that women don't respond to that kind of treatment in a real relationship. You have men who were taught to put women on a pedestal and shower them with affection and attention only to be thrusted into a reality where the women they interact with only date, sleep with or want to have a relationship with men who mistreat or abuse them and by that point those guys don't want to do that so they end up single and alone.


So? Why would women care? This doesn't affect them.
There will always be a chump who'll willingly sacrifice everything he has to keep the Princess happy.

These guys find out the hard way. Consider yourself lucky.



> I would say the anger you are referencing is probably just inner pain and impotent rage because they cannot change their circumstances in due to societies constraints because they haven't been prepared for reality. They recognize that there is no place for them in the dating pool until the woman grows up and recognizes that they don't want their tenth relationship in a row to be one where they are unequal and by that point in time 10-20 years has passed where the Nice Guy has been told that he is not wanted, needed, constantly belittled or invalidated by the very women he seeks to court.


Pay for a high-end prostitute. Same thing and at least a lay is guaranteed.
They're also much more skilled and younger and hotter.




> I think in theory this is the way it's _supposed_ to be. But in actual practice I haven't seen it presented this way, usually it's presented as an empowerment and increase of prominence and importance of general females at any cost. It's very rarely acknowledged as the the empowerment of _equality_ for all which is what it is supposed to encompass and represent but surprisingly doesn't which is why you get people confusing feminism with reverse feminism, difference feminism, gender polarity and misandry.


Interest groups are a haven for unstable clueless rejects with toxic personalities. 
Projection-filled "theories" spill out at the rate of exploding diarrhea to hide the source of the stench.

Women had a chance to become as skilled, valued and just as men at the height of their power. 
That failed. 

Says a lot about the human condition, don't it?



> Then how can you say all men are being obnoxious, immature, selfish and entitled?


Because they are.
Nonetheless, women certainly aren't any better.


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)

Btmangan said:


> Ehhh. . . I don't know. Our ancestor's achievements are not our own and I shy away from the whole "our blood is superior because grandpa did X" kind of rhetoric.
> 
> My pure-blooded Italian mom probably has more Gaul, Norman, Austrian, Spanish, Byzantine, Greek, German, Moorish, etc blood than she'd care to admit
> 
> ...


I'll have to agree with this. Distinct cultures from all over the world are wonderful, and should all be celebrated.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

donkeybals said:


> Why do you want our roles so bad anyway? We don't want your roles, aka breast feeding babies.


There's no such thing as gender roles. And when I say that, I mean in the sense that there is no biologically determined gender role. If a woman decides to be a stay at home parent, she should do so because this is what lies in her heart's desire. She shouldn't be a homemaker simply because she feels obligated to fulfill a false gender role. And if a man's desire is to be a stay at home dad, then he should be free to do so without other people invalidating his worth, or accusing him of not fulfilling his role as a man.

Now if you're wondering why in God's name any woman would want to have a career and make her own money, then I feel compelled to ask you why any man would ever want to have a career and make his own money? Once you answer that question then I'll tell you why many women love having careers, and making their own money.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Staffan said:


> The subject is interesting but it attracts some sociological trolls whose strategy it is to wear out their opponents rather than make any kind of sense. Oh well, I was warned about it so I guess I have to blame myself for getting drawn in.


Saying that your opponents' opinions don't make any sense is meaningless unless you actually *show* that their posts don't make any sense. And being passive aggressive about it doesn't make your accusations any more accurate.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> There's no such thing as roles. If a woman decides to be a stay at home parent, she should do so because this is what lies in her heart's desire. She shouldn't be a homemaker simply because she feels obligated to fulfill a false gender role. And if a man's desire is to be a stay at home dad, then *(1)he should be free to do so without other people invalidating his worth, or accusing him of not fulfilling his role as a man.*
> 
> Now if you're wondering why in God's name any woman would want to have a career and make her own money, then I feel compelled to ask you *(2)why any men would ever want to have a career and make his own money?* Once you answer that question then I'll tell you why many women love having careers, and making their own money.


(1) Keyword: Should.

(2) Because _*nobody*_ else is going to take care of us. We *have* to have a career.
Do you know what that's like? Nope!


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> ^ See the thing I'm talking about in action. Funny, the attitudes I observed were _very_ different in Europe.


My German friends came to visit me last week in Beijing and yes, they said that a man doesn't pay because they have different attitudes. But Germany is not _all _of Europe . 



Okay... so women want

* Drug Dealers
* Men with criminal convictions
* Sociopathic tendencies
* Treat women like organic semen holders. [/QUOTE]


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Arrow said:


> Then how can you say all men are being obnoxious, immature, selfish and entitled?


I didn't. I never said this ever. I said this of the men who talk about preferring Playstation and porn to having a girlfriend or wife, or the guys who write these PUA/angry men articles, and almost any proponent of the absurd concept of "men's rights."

Of course, I know men have issues, and I'm not denying that. I have sympathy for plenty of men, especially truly nice guys. 

On the other hand, if you merely can't get a date with the hot girl you like, or you don't feel like your ego is being stroked properly, that's not even in the same ballpark as violent abuse and subjugation, being denied basic rights like owning property and controlling one's own money. That's why I think Men's Rights is about the silliest thing I've ever heard of, and sometimes I even find it _morally offensive _that sheltered, middle-class Western men would actually compare their personal problems with things that women endured as a matter-of-fact fifty years ago (less in some cases, especially in small towns or the South, and STILL in countries in Asia and Africa).

That's why I'm like...yeah, you guys get some real problems, let me know. I have complete sympathy for you if you want to be a stay-at-home dad, or you want paternal rights to your child, but the bulk of the Men's Rights movement largely strikes me as childish First World Whine.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

amanda32 said:


> My German friends came to visit me last week in Beijing and yes, they said that a man doesn't pay because they have different attitudes. But Germany is not _all _of Europe .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read my other posts. *Facepalm*

My goal was to talk about hookups and casual sex as I've observed. It is very different from sex that occurs in established relationships between lovers. I attempted to say that who a woman chooses for a one night stand is often quite different from someone she would take on as a romantic prospect. Sorry about the confusion.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> There's no such thing as gender roles. And when I say that, I mean in the sense that there is no biologically determined gender role. If a woman decides to be a stay at home parent, she should do so because this is what lies in her heart's desire. She shouldn't be a homemaker simply because she feels obligated to fulfill a false gender role. And if a man's desire is to be a stay at home dad, then he should be free to do so without other people invalidating his worth, or accusing him of not fulfilling his role as a man.
> 
> Now if you're wondering why in God's name any woman would want to have a career and make her own money, then I feel compelled to ask you why any man would ever want to have a career and make his own money? Once you answer that question then I'll tell you why many women love having careers, and making their own money.


You completely missed my point. And species, including humans have biological roles and natural instincts.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

@Enki and @Arrow I will reply to your posts later, it's all a bit long and heavy at the moment, don't think I'm ignoring you.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Chipps said:


> Tell me, how I could possibly be bitter, when I'm a heterosexual female? And the women you know? Yes, that little pool obviously represents all women. Listen, I dont hang out with low hanging fruit either, but does it exist? Yes. I've seen it. These women do in fact exist. Regardless if me, you or your female friends married to good guys like it or not.
> 
> Nice try though.


I don't know you're a closet lesbian or you're jealous that these men want to sleep with other women instead of you? There are two guesses.

So the "little pool" I know is of lesser value than the "vast" pool you know -- obviously vast because you are a super intellectual with loads of life experience in comparison to me (or anyone who disagrees with you).

What women exist? Women that want drug dealers and 'bad boys?'" Uh...yeah -- they exist and they're idiots just like the guys they are F*cking. The idiots hook up with one another that doesn't mean the majority of women want to be treated badly or want the assholes.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Some realities about "men's rights."


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

^ Do be advised that the SPLC seems to classify everyone who wouldn't get glowing marks from a PC-gone-raving-mad college as a hate group+/domestic terror thread.

I don't side with the MRA's because despite what they say, for ever good point they make, they make a good twenty-nine which are just pure sexist nonsense.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

amanda32 said:


> I don't know you're a closet lesbian or you're jealous that these men want to sleep with other women instead of you? There are two guesses.
> 
> So the "little pool" I know is of lesser value than the "vast" pool you know -- obviously vast because you are a super intellectual with loads of life experience in comparison to me (or anyone who disagrees with you).
> 
> What women exist? Women that want drug dealers and 'bad boys?'" Uh...yeah -- they exist and they're idiots just like the guys they are F*cking. The idiots hook up with one another that doesn't mean the majority of women want to be treated badly or want the assholes.


I was gonna write a longer post. But, I decided you werent worth the time. Keep batting strong for team women though.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Chipps said:


> I was gonna write a longer post. But, I decided your silly ass wasnt worth the time. Keep batting strong for team women though.



*I'm crushed*


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

amanda32 said:


> *I'm crushed*


Don't quote me again.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

I was wondering how long it would take before this thread would descend into this.

Disgruntled feminists, loser Men's Right Activists who can't get laid, runaway hecklers with a giant chip on their shoulder, cat fights and bystanders splashed with blood, oh my!

Idiocracy was right, man. De-evolution is very much a real thing.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Chipps said:


> Don't quote me again.



Press the *Ignore* button so I don't have to see your posts, genius.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

amanda32 said:


> Press the *Ignore* button so I don't have to see your posts, genius.


No. 

I asked to stop quoting me, so stop quoting me. Its as simple as that. 

Surely you can comprehend that much.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Chipps said:


> No.
> 
> I asked to stop quoting me, so stop quoting me. Its as simple as that.
> 
> Surely you can comprehend that much.


*rolls eyes* 
My absolute pleasure.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I didn't. I never said this ever.


You said this about the men you admitted to being disgusted with:



> I see men being immature, irresponsible, and self-absorbed and trying to use women as a scapegoat for their own moral or character failings.




And then later said this:



> You can't judge women all by one measuring stick any more than you can judge all men.




My aim was merely to show that your judgement seemed largely off base by labeling all of those men into one group of people. 



> That's why I think Men's Rights is about the silliest thing I've ever heard of, and sometimes I even find it _morally offensive _


I don't know how I feel about the concept of men's rights I do feel that there are some issues that men should be able to bring up and assert rights over but I have not invested that much time in thinking over them. I just know that I hate that my problems are belittled all the time when engaging in a "feminist debate" with a person simply because I don't have a vagina. That doesn't strike me as being founded in an equality based discussion and I never got that. There always seems to be a debate or someone asserting a view that one's problem (usually the woman's) is more pertinent and valid then the others instead of acknowledgement of both issues and reconciling and noticing them equally. 



> but the bulk of the Men's Rights movement largely strikes me as childish First World Whine.


There are aspects of "feministic" thinking that does this as well though. Most of these lines of thought are just complaints and unfairness within the world system and within our societies and cultures. It goes back and forth which is why I don't think any grievances are more or less valid than one another.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

amanda32 said:


> *rolls eyes*
> My absolute pleasure.


Try growing up instead of rolling your eyes.:wink:


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)




----------



## Subtle Murder (May 19, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Some realities about "men's rights."


Since when did rape and physical violence become a pissing contest? :\

We are all human beings. We are raping and physically attacking one another as human beings. This is what it comes down to. Statistical prevalence doesn't account for the men who don't come forward out of shame, due to societal conditioning. But regardless of that, this shouldn't be about gender division. This is a horror we are inflicting upon one another as _human beings_. That is what bothers me first and foremost.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I said this of the men who talk about preferring Playstation and porn to having a girlfriend or wife [...]"


Actually, if that is what they choose, they are the opposite of what you claim.

Surely, it's most likely the minority *willingly* and *consciously* putting those over the latter, but when they do, it is a sign of maturity and responsibility. One doesn't haven't to put with every shit show life has to offer, passing on some seems rather smart.

In fact, given the previously discussed matter at hand, such as society shifting towards complete self-sufficiency / independency for *everyone* (gender alike) your value system becomes outdated, or more precisely obsolete as well. By value system I'm referring to "having a girlfriend or wife" instead of alternatives.

Of course that may come at the cost of loneliness, for as long as they won't whine about it at least when not doing anything proactive to counter it, it's a perfectly valid choice these days. People make use of what they're offered. If anything, that is the smart thing to do. 

Families as such have lost their value and place in society - an obsolete, outdated structure. Last but not least because society itself does nothing for a healthy family life anyway. Being a family and raising kids doesn't only require financial funds, but actually *time*. The latter everyone lacks, though.

Simply put, yes: I do not have the time to crave to someone else's need, or have someone else infiltrate my life. Life is too short for that. I'm already giving away a good 3rd of my life span to some boss - well, not only that, but also make him rich in the progress merely to make a living for myself as a result.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

I dont think all men are fed up with women, just the ones that are constantly dismissed, overlooked, or mistreated by women.
*
Men that have a natural and general love for women have no problem respecting a woman AND paying for dinner.
*
As for the women that want their cake, and the right to eat it too:* They should be allowed to have it their way.
*
The same applies to men. If YOU want a submissive housewife, that's is 100% OK. And if a woman wants a man to open doors for her, and respect her as an equal, thats OK too. Should these types of men and women date each other? No, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for wanting something specific.

I think women are constantly being fed BS about how they should act around and respond to men. A large number of women are NOT being themselves fully when dating men. *Most dating self help books are directed toward single women*. Ive read quite a few of them (Im a self-help junkie) and the advice is always "Make him *chase you*. *Dont have sex on the first date*. Dont kiss on the first ate. *Make him* open doors for you. ". 
*
The saddest part is that applying that advice is the fastest way for a regular woman to lose focus and distance herself from available men.
*
Its not a woman's fault if she is constantly being targeted. 

Men dont have the pressure a woman has to get married. If a woman doesn get married she is considered unwanted and useless, but if a man is still single at 35 he is a hot bachelor stud. *This is the reason why so many women cling to romantic inequality; because sexually they are considered less valuable by society. *
*
Do you blame society, or the women that choose to be influenced by popular opinions?*


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Well if there's any truth in that post, the problem resides with men.

You see the solution to being treated that way when interacting with anyone really, is to suck it up and be above it rather than giving-in to it, or "playing the game".

If I ever have another relationship, I'll have zero tolerance for the bullshit I put up with in my last relationship... My first-go, I was naive and had very silly notions about how a guy should behave. While it's not necessarily wrong the way I behaved, what was wrong is that she did not act adequately in the context of our relationship.

This is where guys screw up... when the girl doesn't meet muster, dump her instead of overlooking it. Then there's no bitterness or bad-feelings on our end because it was our decision and under our control.

Being a good, honest, and mature person is standing up for what you believe at the cost of what you'll lose in doing so... even if that means losing the person you love the most in the world.


----------



## Subtle Murder (May 19, 2012)

TWN said:


> Men dont have the pressure a woman has to get married. If a woman doesn get married she is considered unwanted and useless, but if a man is still single at 35 he is a hot bachelor stud. *This is the reason why so many women cling to romantic inequality; because sexually they are considered less valuable by society. *


My brother is 35 and single, and he is most definitely _not_ seen as some "hot bachelor stud" or whatever. That is such a false image to attribute to men of such circumstances. And it's not for lack of trying to find a date on his part, but because he doesn't have a job, doesn't have a specific type of income, is studying to become a video game designer (which, in my opinion, is pretty darn cool!), and lives at home while he is studying, he's deemed just as "unwanted and useless". 

There's just as much pressure put on men as there is put on women.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

OMG, so "nice guys" are now complaining that they can't get a one-night stand or casual sex? I thought they were complaining that they can't find a long-term partner.
If it's a one-night stand you are looking for, that's easy. Go to any bar, party etc or read the classifieds and you're guaranteed to find _someone_ for a one-night stand. What???? Some woman you picked up in a seedy bar is too ugly/ desperate or crazy for you? What are you complaining about? It's only a one-night stand. If it ain't good enough for you, try a date with Mr Hand.

Seriously, those "nice guys" need to be clear about what they want. Let's say there are roughly 3 groups of women:

1. Those who want only one-night stands/ casual sex 
2. Those who want casual sex but are open to the idea of having a long-term relationship
3. Those who want only a long-term relationship and no casual sex

Now, what do you want Mr "Nice Guy"? If you want #3 then you can't complain about other men having more 'success' with #1.
If you want only #1 and you want it with women who care more about appearance than character.... well, the solution is obvious... go to the gym, get a tan, get your hair done, get some cool clothes and they'll only go by your looks and won't even care whether you're "nice" or a PUA.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Arrow said:


> You said this about the men you admitted to being disgusted with:
> 
> 
> 
> And then later said this:


Yeah and I don't measure all men by the men I admit to being utterly disgusted with. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I don't really think you have one. I never said all men were one way, and I also said women are not all one way. 

The title of this thread is "Are Men Fed Up With Women?" I mean come on, people could have said that 40 years about the misogynist Archie Bunker and his long-suffering doormat of a wife Edith. He was fed up with dumb broads, and it was because he was a male chauvinist. Being fed up with women doesn't imply that women as a whole are responsible for any thing - it may just be a sub-section of women - in which case the title should be "Are Such and Such Men Fed Up With Such and Such Women." 

Or in some cases, like I said, it's not even "women" but the men themselves in some cases, being misogynists or being immature or selfish. 





> My aim was merely to show that your judgement seemed largely off base by labeling all of those men into one group of people.


????

What?





> I don't know how I feel about the concept of men's rights I do feel that there are some issues that men should be able to bring up and assert rights over but I have not invested that much time in thinking over them. I just know that I hate that my problems are belittled all the time when engaging in a "feminist debate" with a person simply because I don't have a vagina. That doesn't strike me as being founded in an equality based discussion and I never got that. There always seems to be a debate or someone asserting a view that one's problem (usually the woman's) is more pertinent and valid then the others instead of acknowledgement of both issues and reconciling and noticing them equally.


Some men's complaints are valid. Homeless men. Working class men in coal mines. Poor men drafted into war. Typically these are CLASS ISSUES, which are already covered under CLASS ISSUES. 

Paternity rights and the right to be a stay at home dad are gender neutral issues, also covered under third wave feminism and human rights issues. 

Most of the "men's rights" issues are flooring. I mean I've read things written by men's activists where I can see why these men are alone and bitter, because essentially they hate women, want to use them, and claim that women *owe them* something, in terms of sex or whatever, it's very very weird. To me I might as well be reading Slave Owner's Rights complaints in 1865, that's how absurd it comes across to me. 







> There are aspects of "feministic" thinking that does this as well though. Most of these lines of thought are just complaints and unfairness within the world system and within our societies and cultures. It goes back and forth which is why I don't think any grievances are more or less valid than one another.


Actually most feminist issues are based in real survival level issues, like rape, violence, ability to earn fair wages, ability to work without being sexually harassed, etc. 

However, gender role expectations may feel members of both genders hampered for whatever reason.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

La Petite Sirène said:


> Since when did rape and physical violence become a pissing contest? :\
> 
> We are all human beings. We are raping and physically attacking one another as human beings. This is what it comes down to. Statistical prevalence doesn't account for the men who don't come forward out of shame, due to societal conditioning. But regardless of that, this shouldn't be about gender division. This is a horror we are inflicting upon one another as _human beings_. That is what bothers me first and foremost.


Maybe your Te is poorly developed at this point, but this is quantitative RISK and ACTUAL HARM which is significant, not a "pissing contest."


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Razare said:


> You see the solution to being treated that way when interacting with anyone really, is to suck it up and be above it rather than giving-in to it, or "playing the game".


Did you read the article? That's exactly what they are doing. Taking themselves out of the game because they don't want to deal with the bullshit of all women. They are dealing with the situation by monitoring their lives with entertainment, food, the forever bachelor life decisions, porn and one night stands. That is their way of opting out of the dating game where they feel they are being treated unfairly. 



TWN said:


> As for the women that want their cake, and the right to eat it too:* They should be allowed to have it their way.*


I disagree, especially if there is no reciprocation or alignment with what they want. I have no problem opening a door for a woman, paying for the date, helping her move her stuff around and in general helping her do what society deems as "manly" things, but by that same association she has to do "womanly" things as well to live up to her part of the bargain which means in some aspect doing the cooking, cleaning and some form housework/homemaker stuff. She doesn't get to opt out of "womanly things" and expect me to do all the "manly things" she wants and expects me to do with no reciprocation on her part. 

At that same token if she wants to be equal I have no problem sharing duties equally with her. But she doesn't get to send mixed messages and opt out of things she doesn't want to do simply because she wants to adhere to certain standards and not others. That is basically not adhering to her own personal standards and being grossly inconsistent with what she wants and her own inner expectations. That is pretty much what the entire article talks about women saying one then but then doing a completely separate action that is inconsistent/illogical/irrational. 

Straddling the line between "traditional" and "modern" doesn't work and if it's solely used for the purpose of manipulation it shouldn't be tolerated in any form. If you want to kill gender roles then kill them completely not half way so you can leave the door open and drag the corpse threw and then try to revive it when it's convenient. 



> Men dont have the pressure a woman has to get married. If a woman doesn get married she is considered unwanted and useless, but if a man is still single at 35 he is a hot bachelor stud. *This is the reason why so many women cling to romantic inequality; because sexually they are considered less valuable by society. *


A man's worth is directly correlated to how successful he is financially, so you aren't completely right there. If he is financially sound then yes he is deemed a hot bachelor stud, because he has money, is independent and has the stability of a job and funds. However if a man doesn't have any of that he is immediately perceived to be a less valuable human being for it. It's also incorrect to say that women in general are always perceived to be less valuable, women are always considered to be valuable because they control sexual relations and procreation of children. They will always be valuable in society for that reason in terms of base line importance. For that reason alone women aren't considered to be less valuable to society, they are actually considered to be _more_ valuable in society for being able to bear children and for their vital role in sexual relationships.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Actually, if that is what they choose, they are the opposite of what you claim.
> 
> Surely, it's most likely the minority *willingly* and *consciously* putting those over the latter, but when they do, it is a sign of maturity and responsibility. One doesn't haven't to put with every shit show life has to offer, passing on some seems rather smart.
> 
> ...


Okay I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying...if you don't want a wife or girlfriend, I'm not judging you in the slightest. That would be crazy for me to even care if you choose to be gay or celibate or whatever.

There have always been people who wanted to live alone, priests, nuns, intellectuals, hermits, etc. 

That's fine. Good for you. I agree that is mature.

What is not mature is saying I want Playstation and porno, and I am going to publicly cry about it and blame women and be misogynist...that's not the same thing as making an individualistic decision to simply live alone and refrain from marriage, relationships, or breeding.


----------

