# Women hating Nice Guys, the end of civilization?



## BigBadWolf

Saw this blog while doing a search on similar topics.

On this forum we focus on micro level these things, in relationships between a man and woman.

On macro level, is there truth to some of the social wide implications of these phenomena? :scratchhead:

I am eager to hear other's thoughts and opinions on these things. 

Whiskey's Place: Why Women Hate Nice Guys (and the Implications)



> Why Women Hate Nice Guys (and the Implications)
> From Instapundit comes the link of 12 Reasons Women Can't Stand Nice Guys. Well, duh, nice guys are beta males. Which is another way of saying "un-sexy." American and Western society is completely and totally focused on providing the maximum of sexy men to most women. The only problem with this is that it provides no way to produce all the nice things women want, along with sexy men. A safe and secure environment? Nope. An expanding, growing economy? Nope. Ever advancing technology that makes food better and safer and cheaper, medical practices more life saving and life-enhancing, living better in every way? Nope.
> 
> 
> Providing "sexy men" merely produces a fairly rapid fall into chaos, poverty, and violence. One need only look at how the Black community, which went from (per Juan Williams 2005 WSJ Father's Day op-ed) 24% illegitimacy in the early 1960's, to over 90% in the urban core and over 70% nationwide today. New Orleans in particular carries the shadow of former Black society. Building after building that housed Black Benevolent societies, Black associations of doctors, lawyers, accountants, and the like. New Orleans in Jelly Roll Morton's and Louis Armstrong's day (just listen to the former's Library of Congress Recordings, likely available at your public library and definitely on Amazon, they have been re-released, or the latter's painfully typed out, non-ghostwritten autobiography) had a Black society that worked. True, it was far more violent and chaotic than the matching White one, but it did function. Armstrong may have been placed in an orphanage when his drug and drink addicted mother could no longer care for him, and given a trumpet of a boy who died of tuberculosis (something Armstrong never forgot). But at least Armstrong was not on the streets, the orphanage and everything else run by Blacks for Blacks. White people provided nothing.
> 
> Today of course, all that is gone. And the White rates are estimated to be around 20% for the White middle class, and 40% for the White working class (below 4% for all Whites in the early 1960's). The Hispanic rate according to Heather McDonald at City Journal is over 50%.
> 
> Sexy men mean illegitimate children. They mean single motherhood, because the bad-boy things that make men sexy, make them totally uninterested and unable to provide for a single women (they are more interested in having the next sweet young thing, and can get them too!) Single motherhood of course, is a poverty factory. Maybe not if you're as good looking (and the son of a famous father) as Freddy Prinze Jr. Or the daughter of a College Professor, whose brothers are all lawyers and doctors (Eliza Dushku). But for those not on the upper one half of one percent of attractiveness or intelligence or both, or with the talent and physique of LeBron James, life as the child of a single mother is poor, violent, and hard. No matter how much welfare is thrown at the mothers and children.
> 
> Recently, Mike Huckabee criticized Natalee Portman's Oscar acceptance speech for glamorizing single motherhood. James Carville on CNN made the comment that in Huckabee's apology, he at least "realized" that government support is necessary for single mothers to avoid starvation and poverty. Carville of course did not get it, literally living in 1965.
> 
> A few single mothers can be amply and ably supported by a social welfare system that is not under financial pressure, from an ample middle class. A social welfare system under huge pressure from a Black underclass, an exodus of poor Mexicans (and significantly, their descendants), and a growing White working-underclass, is unsustainable.
> 
> Hispanic girls tend to start having kids at age 16, having nino after nino, until age 40 or so, with various bad boys. It might be very sexy. But it is not sustainable, because there just are not enough White middle class taxpayers able (much less willing) to pick up the tab. White (to some extent Asian, varying by community/culture/ethnic group) parents generally (mostly, not always) have kids they can afford. White women for the most part still (particularly in the middle class) have only the kids they can afford to have. Asking them, and even worse, their male counterparts to subsidize the family formation of Hispanic girls chasing bad boys at age 16 (and having kids they cannot afford) is simply impossible. There are too many single mothers needing subsidies, and too few taxpayers able to pay for them.
> 
> From the article on 12 Reasons Women Can't Stand Nice Guys, the consists of the following reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice guys are too nice (translation: not sexy!
> 
> Nice guys don't take control and demand "respect" (translation: Are Not Socially Dominant A-holes with lots of other women
> 
> Nice guys are predictable (translation: not SEXY!
> 
> Nice guys don't need saving (translation: NOT SEXY!
> 
> Nice guys don't need to be fixed (translation: NOT NOT NOT! Sexy
> 
> Nice guys are genetically inferior and their sperm is unworthy (translation: Very, very, very, very, very un-sexy
> 
> Fear of intimacy (translation: NOT! Sexy!
> 
> Low self-esteem (translation: Not … sexy dammit!
> 
> Sex -- nice guys are not sexy! (no translation needed)
> 
> Charm, nice guys are not smooth talkers (translation: or, nice guys are not sexy!
> 
> Protection, bad boys are better protection because they are better fighters, doing it so much (translation: a guy beating the crap out of someone else, even a woman (see Rihanna) is sexy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article concludes:
> 
> 
> Life is about balance. Most men fall into either the bad boy or the nice guy category. The ideal man is neither, but walks that fine line between the two. Until men learn how to do this, more often than not, women will choose the bad boy, until they realize that his bad qualities outweigh his good ones.
> 
> 
> Or, perhaps we can turn that around:
> 
> 
> Life is about balance. Most women fall into either the sexy stripper or the nice virginal girl category. The ideal woman is neither, but walks that fine line between the two. Until women learn how to do this, more often than not, men will choose (if they are sexy) to screw as many women as possible until they reach their late fifties at which point they'll marry their own Catherine Zeta-Jones, the rest will have occasional sex but find in the main, a used-up cougar to be inferior to a porn subscription. Regardless, women won't get quality men to marry them. And will be left with dregs whom if they do marry, they will resent as "kitchen *****es" and beta males.
> 
> 
> There, all fixed!
> 
> The problem is that most women, even those of average attractiveness, can have sex with an Alpha male. Tiger Woods women, that of Jessie James, those of John Edwards, and so on, are not exactly Helen of Troy. Women over-estimate their beauty, and their beauty's duration, because they can be just another meaningless play-mate for an Alpha male with little discrimination.
> 
> Women find themselves getting old at 29:
> 
> 
> Women consider themselves old at 29 – half the age of men who don’t feel over the hill until they are 58, according to a study.
> 
> A quarter of women say they felt old as soon as they spotted their first grey hairs.
> 
> In contrast men tend to think they are still young until they can no longer perform in the bedroom.
> 
> 
> This is just another expression of desire for sexy men. Only the prettiest women can command the attention of the top sexiest men in any social setting. For most women, their looks start to fade fast in their twenties, and the fact of the hottest, bad boy men no longer noticing them can be a shock. Still, women tend to over-estimate how long they can play the field, and underestimate their chances of losing out by not making the best available choice sooner.
> 
> If the Duke F-List girl was at all representative, 13 partners in two years is not an extreme outlier. Needless to say, a girl with too many partners, all those bad boys, is a poor prospect for a wife, and any woman in her thirties is going to be fairly undesirable for any man with any options at all (this includes porn). [Women generally don't understand this, I explain below for them.]
> 
> 
> Why is so many partners, and particularly bad boys, such a bad thing for a woman searching for a husband? Because the 90% of men who are not Alpha males (the sexy bad boys who can have almost any woman in their social circle) know fairly well that the most intense bonds, shared experiences, sexual pleasure, and memories will be with other men. At best, they are mere shadows of what was, and remains, in a woman's heart, at that age. Even the most beautiful woman in her thirties is less desirable therefore than a fairly inexperienced, un-baggage ridden average looking girl in her early twenties, or late teens. All the Botox, Pilates, Jillian Michaels workout videos, and Nautilus toned body won't change that fact. Only the most desperate, clueless, and lonely men will respond.
> 
> This is true even for widows and divorced women. The absent husband, no matter how badly he left, will always be the dominant man in the woman's heart and memories. Porn has the massive ability to substitute for what amounts to indifferent sex (even the most beautiful woman in her thirties loses her appeal, and lets face it Jane Average is not Jennifer Aniston at age 32) and emotionless coupling.
> 
> All the "man up" exhortations by writers like Kay Hymowitz can't force men to commit to women after they've chased their share of bad boys. Women can chase the bad boys all they want, but like everything, there is a cost.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is true, about 90% of all middle class White guys are beta males. They are not sexy and exciting. They are neither bad boys in the mold of Russell Brand, nor George Clooney. News flash: About 90% of all Middle Class White women are not Jennifer Aniston, at age 40. Let alone beauties like Mila Kunis, or Brittany Snow. Asking about 90% of men to be something they are not is akin to asking 90% of all middle class White women to as beautiful as say, either ****** Greene or Brittany Snow (to pick at random two Maxim cover-girls). Women's desire for sexy men is an unreasonable as men's desire for most women to look like Maxim cover-girls.
> 
> But women can make it, because they unlike most men have the asymmetric ability to sleep with the male equivalent of Brittany Snow (that would be the Russell Brands of the world). They just can't get those bad boys to marry them and support them.
> 
> The dynamic is complicated by both gender and racial spoils politics. A good part of the female demand for sexy men is the Hispanic/Mexican girls desire and willingness to start having kids at age 16 with bad boys who cannot support them. Thus inducing a massive welfare burden. A full 83% of Santa Ana Unified School District students receive subsidized/free meals. Obviously about 83%, or so, of SAUSD parents cannot afford to pay for their kids meals. Requiring federal subsidies.
> 
> In this, both White women, and non-Whites, are generally aligned in interests. Their interests are in extracting the maximum amount of money from taxpayers, to fuel children (family as defined as single mom plus kids by various sexy bad boys) and family formation. The catch is that a very significant portion (most of them, in fact) of Middle Class White women are also taxpayers, and don't like the money going to people not like them. Welfare for Hispanic/Mexican single mothers, means ultimately no subsidies for NPR (and jobs there), or federally supported foundations, or paper-pushing "studies" busywork in education, the environment, and so on. All the money increasingly needs to be poured into either K-12 or welfare spent on Mexican/Hispanic single mothers.
> 
> So what are the implications of the widespread female demand that most men be sexy (clearly most Mexican men are "sexy" to their female peers, mostly by an uber-macho, combative set of behaviors, particularly including gang membership and criminal violence)?
> 
> The first is obviously, a decline in technological advancement. Clearly, outsourcing, in-sourcing, and the export of American manufacturing to China and elsewhere has destroyed American innovation. But in part, this has been abetted by the total demand for sexiness. While nearly all of Aaron Sorkin's "the Social Network" was outright fabrication, what rang true was the total lack of desire (then and now) for billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. Particularly for women with their own money, and earning power, a man must be sexy beyond mere wealth. Wealth alone will not cut it, hence the lack of desire expressed for beta males like Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, no matter how much power and influence they wield. Neither has the smidgen of sex appeal of say, Lamar Odom or Chris Brown. [Good Morning America wants Chris Brown back, despite his temper tantrum of ripping off his shirt and throwing a chair through a window, and trashing his dressing room there. Because their female audience finds him sexy, no matter the beat-down he gave then girlfriend Rihanna. He's a BAD BOY. That means, sexy. For women, in general, all is forgiven as long as a man is sexy. Sexy, sexy, sexy.]
> 
> Facebook is not anything new. Its merely a Friendster or MySpace that works. With a few more features. It is not game-changing technology. Steve Sailer wondered, recently, where all the innovation went? "Where are my flying cars?" Well, they went the way of nuclear families formed by pocket protector wearing geeks. Those with that bent had few or no children, as women demanded sexy bad boys who are great in the sack, but cannot produce game-changing technology (like say, a cure for cancer or artificial organs that work, or electric car batteries with the power and weight ratio and range of the internal combustion engine, with comparable refill times). Add to it, the lack of incentive to strive. Those with the current bent for technology not only face a bleak outsourcing, in-sourcing H1-B visa environment, they face a life of sexless monkdom. No wonder they are slackers.
> 
> Innovation and change is rarely produced by some great idea borne out by a single genius. Most of the time, it requires an idea, that was fascinating, that was dropped, and then developed a bit later, by someone else, and then someone else and other people put it and other bits together to form a new whole. Something impossible without all the other bits around, done by other people, often in concert.
> 
> Sexy men means stagnant or reversing technology. People unable to build or maintain things they were fifty years ago. In 1969, America reached the moon. America has now abandoned even low Earth orbit. Not the least of which is that we lack the technology to make even that happen any more.
> 
> Sexy men also means a race to the bottom for sexiness. Women's demand for sexy men does not happen in a vacuum. Men tend to respond. The easiest way to be sexy, as noted by author Lucia, is to thug it up. Be dangerous, fight a lot, smack people around (even your girlfriend, see Chris Brown, or Charlie Sheen). The more violent and dangerous a man is, the more women will want him. Even if he's ugly, or is accused of murdering some other woman. Joran Van Der Sloot cut a wide swath among women in Asia, drawn by his infamy in the Natalee Holloway case (Van Der Sloot has all but confessed to murdering Holloway). Of course, Van Der Sloot killed a young woman in Peru, who unwisely went to his hotel room, drawn by his fame no doubt.
> 
> One need only look at the Ghetto and Barrio to see this in action. "Senseless" killings are not, merely the dark side of female sexuality. Since women find bad boys to be sexy, Ghetto and Barrio men make themselves bad boys by ultra-violence. When some little kid, or grandmother, or infant is shot in a drive-by, be assured that somewhere, a gang banger is having sex (if he's not arrested). As Roissy points out, even adjusting for race, criminals have more kids than non-criminals. In other words, comparing White guys to White guys, and Black guys to Black guys, and so on, those locked up or who have been locked up have more kids than those who were never locked up. Despite being, well, locked up for some non insignificant amount of time.
> 
> As Roissy points out, Chicks Dig Jerks. And as more and more men become aware of this, they will do their level best to turn themselves into the biggest jerk they can. Bet on it. And once they know it, it is almost impossible to turn them back.
> 
> Look at Black Rappers. They make all that money. All that fame and fortune. Or say, Michael Vick, at the time possessing a $130 million contract. Why risk all that money for stupid violence, a shooting in a club, dog fighting rings, etc? Because acting like a violent thug all their life has gotten them the hottest, most desirable women. And more women than they can even remember. Sexual rewards will work on the White middle class, and its men, just as much as they did on Black men in the Ghetto. Or Mexican men in the Barrio.
> 
> No, it won't happen overnight. Significant social conditioning, rewards, and so on make middle class White guys more resistant to violence. But certainly, the kids of single mothers will know exactly what turned their moms on: violent, dangerous bad boys. They'll copy those guys, and even provide some "improvements."
> 
> The idea that White guys are inherently non-violent and shrink from confrontation (which would have shocked Black and Hispanic men of Louis Armstrong's age) particularly with non-Whites, is going to go out the window. In some respect this will be long overdue, but the cost is basically a nation comprised entirely of Scots-Irish "hillbilly" types. Which simply cannot run a modern economy and will look for fights the way Black and Hispanic men do, because it gets them sex!
> 
> So the social implications of sexy men demanded by White women along with Black and Hispanic women, is a very rapid movement, towards decline and violence. Making the wealth struggles to cut the welfare pie off an America with declining innovation and technological power, a declining White middle class, and so on, even more desperate. As the take shrinks, the usual response is to deal people out. Vote them off the Island, so to speak.
> 
> All prosperous societies, such as Japan, South Korea, Finland, Switzerland, and Coastal China, tend to suppress sexy men. They tend to limit, in various ways, the ability for Bad Boys to dominate all the desirable women. And on the other hand, limit women's choices. A woman must generally choose fairly early, if she wants a husband (Japan and South Korea's and China's low birth rates currently likely stem from their women rejecting the unsexy men they have on offer). Japan and South Korea, at least, are declining from massive and probably unsustainable population peaks with a well educated and prosperous workforce, with first-class infrastructure for the most part. [China is not so lucky on either front.]
> 
> But those societies throughout history and now, that allow sexy men, the dominant bad boys, and women to run things, are typically very violent, and primitive. Male cooperation goes entirely out the window. Why cooperate when you get better sex and reproductive opportunities by constant fighting? The female sexual utopia looks a lot like Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. And in some ways that is America's, and the West's, future.
> 
> Everything has its price, and the price for Sexy Men for Western women is basically the end as we know it, of Western civilization. With something approaching Dark Ages kingdoms or Mad Max as its replacement.
> 
> But at least the men will be sexy!



Whiskey's Place: Why Women Hate Nice Guys (and the Implications)


----------



## Runs like Dog

Maybe women hate nice guys because they can. Maybe that's their factory setting.


----------



## Enchantment

Yah - I don't even know where to start with this. What is the definition of sexy? Perhaps it is like beauty, all in the eye of the beholder. To me, the issue isn't one of 'sexiness', it's one that deals with the total transgression and dereliction of duty - boiling down to how selfish we are in leaving our families and children hanging out to dry instead of raising them properly. To me it's not about what is sexy. That's only a poor by-product of our transgression.

What I find sexy: 

"If there be any truer measure of a man than by what he does, it must be by what he gives." ~ R. South

Therefore, I will do my darndest to give and raise my sons to be nice guys - wholesome, whole men who are confident, proud, and loving. Because I don't see anything wrong with that at all, and everybody else is all ****-eyed screwy if they don't get that. :crazy:


----------



## Syrum

There are sooo many things wrong with this blog/ post I don't even know where to begin. At first I laughed at the utter ridiculousness of it, and absolutely unbelievable screwed up insinuations that have no basis nor foundation what so ever, however then I was just sadened that there might be a whole lot of people not able to see this kind of rubbish for what it is.

I will be back to explain why.

OK Im back
Why Women Hate Nice Guys (and the Implications)


> From Instapundit comes the link of 12 Reasons Women Can't Stand Nice Guys. Well, duh, nice guys are beta males. Which is another way of saying "un-sexy." American and Western society is completely and totally focused on providing the maximum of sexy men to most women. The only problem with this is that it provides no way to produce all the nice things women want, along with sexy men. A safe and secure environment? Nope. An expanding, growing economy? Nope. Ever advancing technology that makes food better and safer and cheaper, medical practices more life saving and life-enhancing, living better in every way? Nope.


For the record, I believe only a few women find A holes sexy or attractive and very very few find them sexy or attractive long term.
There is a big difference between 1) men who get walked all over, 2) men who stand up for them selves and what they know is right, and 3) men who treat women like crappolla. 
Women can also be walked all over and treated badly by men, I see an equal amount of it on this board, However they aren't blaming the ills of the whole world on the fact that some men seem to go for the wrong women.



> Providing "sexy men" merely produces a fairly rapid fall into chaos, poverty, and violence. One need only look at how the Black community, which went from (per Juan Williams 2005 WSJ Father's Day op-ed) 24% illegitimacy in the early 1960's, to over 90% in the urban core and over 70% nationwide today. New Orleans in particular carries the shadow of former Black society. Building after building that housed Black Benevolent societies, Black associations of doctors, lawyers, accountants, and the like. New Orleans in Jelly Roll Morton's and Louis Armstrong's day (just listen to the former's Library of Congress Recordings, likely available at your public library and definitely on Amazon, they have been re-released, or the latter's painfully typed out, non-ghostwritten autobiography) had a Black society that worked. True, it was far more violent and chaotic than the matching White one, but it did function. Armstrong may have been placed in an orphanage when his drug and drink addicted mother could no longer care for him, and given a trumpet of a boy who died of tuberculosis (something Armstrong never forgot). But at least Armstrong was not on the streets, the orphanage and everything else run by Blacks for Blacks. White people provided nothing.


Oh my, there are so many things wrong with this paragraph. What a load of racist mumbo jumbo garbage.
The black community does not have issues because of sexy men. Society does not have issues because of sexy men. Society has many issues due to selfishness and greed, ill thought out social policies, white privilege, unequal power, racism, sexism, not enough empathy etc. The media also has a lot to answer for, as what is promoted as valuable is money, sexual promiscuity and men and women who are valued in the media are not the type of people I want my children to be modeling themselves after. And do you know who runs and owns the media? Well its not for the most part women, it is in fact men.



> Today of course, all that is gone. And the White rates are estimated to be around 20% for the White middle class, and 40% for the White working class (below 4% for all Whites in the early 1960's). The Hispanic rate according to Heather McDonald at City Journal is over 50%.
> 
> Sexy men mean illegitimate children. They mean single motherhood, because the bad-boy things that make men sexy, make them totally uninterested and unable to provide for a single women (they are more interested in having the next sweet young thing, and can get them too!) Single motherhood of course, is a poverty factory. Maybe not if you're as good looking (and the son of a famous father) as Freddy Prinze Jr. Or the daughter of a College Professor, whose brothers are all lawyers and doctors (Eliza Dushku). But for those not on the upper one half of one percent of attractiveness or intelligence or both, or with the talent and physique of LeBron James, life as the child of a single mother is poor, violent, and hard. No matter how much welfare is thrown at the mothers and children.


I think the misrepresentation of women in the media and the demonization of single mothers has a lot to answer for with regards to this ridiculous statement. Statistically speaking most single mothers are women ewho have been married and divorced, and just like most people on here I am sure when they maried, they married for love and had all the hopes and dreams and desires of everyone else. Moreover for every single mother and child there is also a man who fathered that child. 

I think its very telling that the finger is being pointed at women. How surprising.


> Recently, Mike Huckabee criticized Natalee Portman's Oscar acceptance speech for glamorizing single motherhood. James Carville on CNN made the comment that in Huckabee's apology, he at least "realized" that government support is necessary for single mothers to avoid starvation and poverty. Carville of course did not get it, literally living in 1965.
> 
> A few single mothers can be amply and ably supported by a social welfare system that is not under financial pressure, from an ample middle class. A social welfare system under huge pressure from a Black underclass, an exodus of poor Mexicans (and significantly, their descendants), and a growing White working-underclass, is unsustainable.


And here's a mention of "the underclass" I think I'm going to be ill really. 
The fact is that statistically women are the poorest the world over and even in western countries suffer extreme disadvantage. Moreover most single mothers do work and pay taxes, and that most middle class and rich people tend to forget that poor people work hard and pay taxes too, in fact without poorer' people western countries wouldn't function.

The incline in single mothers is not because of women being attracted to bad guys, it is because they have other options and don't have to stay with bad guys, they can divorce and can work etc, this doesn't mean its an easy option.

The stuff mentioned here doesnt even begin to to touch on the real economical and sociological reasons why people are disadvantaged. 

This is a very ill thought out racist, prejudiced load of poop.



> Hispanic girls tend to start having kids at age 16, having nino after nino, until age 40 or so, with various bad boys. It might be very sexy. But it is not sustainable, because there just are not enough White middle class taxpayers able (much less willing) to pick up the tab. White (to some extent Asian, varying by community/culture/ethnic group) parents generally (mostly, not always) have kids they can afford. White women for the most part still (particularly in the middle class) have only the kids they can afford to have. Asking them, and even worse, their male counterparts to subsidize the family formation of Hispanic girls chasing bad boys at age 16 (and having kids they cannot afford) is simply impossible. There are too many single mothers needing subsidies, and too few taxpayers able to pay for them.


Perhaps there are just too many men not encouraged to take their responsibilities seriously.



> From the article on 12 Reasons Women Can't Stand Nice Guys, the consists of the following reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice guys are too nice (translation: not sexy!
> 
> Nice guys don't take control and demand "respect" (translation: Are Not Socially Dominant A-holes with lots of other women
> 
> Nice guys are predictable (translation: not SEXY!
> 
> Nice guys don't need saving (translation: NOT SEXY!
> 
> Nice guys don't need to be fixed (translation: NOT NOT NOT! Sexy
> 
> Nice guys are genetically inferior and their sperm is unworthy (translation: Very, very, very, very, very un-sexy
> 
> Fear of intimacy (translation: NOT! Sexy!
> 
> Low self-esteem (translation: Not … sexy dammit!
> 
> Sex -- nice guys are not sexy! (no translation needed)
> 
> Charm, nice guys are not smooth talkers (translation: or, nice guys are not sexy!
> 
> Protection, bad boys are better protection because they are better fighters, doing it so much (translation: a guy beating the crap out of someone else, even a woman (see Rihanna) is sexy!



There are plenty of women who are treated badly by men and women treated badly by men, it happens to everyone, some people do not set good boundaries and some men and women take advantage of that, its not a gendered issue. All people should raise their children to be good and kind, but to also have good self esteem and not be walked all over.



> The article concludes:
> 
> 
> Life is about balance. Most men fall into either the bad boy or the nice guy category. The ideal man is neither, but walks that fine line between the two. Until men learn how to do this, more often than not, women will choose the bad boy, until they realize that his bad qualities outweigh his good ones.


Wrong most women do go out with someone not good for them and some stay with these guys, but most move on and look for someone who will love them and who they can raise a family with.



> Or, perhaps we can turn that around:
> 
> 
> Life is about balance. Most women fall into either the sexy stripper or the nice virginal girl category. The ideal woman is neither, but walks that fine line between the two. Until women learn how to do this, more often than not, men will choose (if they are sexy) to screw as many women as possible until they reach their late fifties at which point they'll marry their own Catherine Zeta-Jones, the rest will have occasional sex but find in the main, a used-up cougar to be inferior to a porn subscription. Regardless, women won't get quality men to marry them. And will be left with dregs whom if they do marry, they will resent as "kitchen *****es" and beta males.


Id love to see some stats on this, and while I agree that women are socially conditioned often into the above described behaviour, I have not seen that many men who can have sex with who ever they want and then settle down ion their 50's. Just doesn't happen, and if these boards are anything to go by men want to be in long term committed relationships too.

I wouldn't call a man who cant commit and thinks porn is better then a real woman a quality man. I'd call him someone with huge baggage , who is very shallow and will never be happy.



> There, all fixed!
> 
> The problem is that most women, even those of average attractiveness, can have sex with an Alpha male. Tiger Woods women, that of Jessie James, those of John Edwards, and so on, are not exactly Helen of Troy. Women over-estimate their beauty, and their beauty's duration, because they can be just another meaningless play-mate for an Alpha male with little discrimination.
> 
> Women find themselves getting old at 29:
> 
> 
> Women consider themselves old at 29 – half the age of men who don’t feel over the hill until they are 58, according to a study.


I would say this is because of the portrayal of women in the media as being beautiful only while they are young, not to mention the porn industry. However almost as many women as men have affairs so this rracist sexist ramble seems to be forgetting that women don't seem to have trouble finding men who want them.



> A quarter of women say they felt old as soon as they spotted their first grey hairs.
> 
> In contrast men tend to think they are still young until they can no longer perform in the bedroom.
> 
> 
> This is just another expression of desire for sexy men. Only the prettiest women can command the attention of the top sexiest men in any social setting. For most women, their looks start to fade fast in their twenties, and the fact of the hottest, bad boy men no longer noticing them can be a shock. Still, women tend to over-estimate how long they can play the field, and underestimate their chances of losing out by not making the best available choice sooner.
> 
> If the Duke F-List girl was at all representative, 13 partners in two years is not an extreme outlier. Needless to say, a girl with too many partners, all those bad boys, is a poor prospect for a wife, and any woman in her thirties is going to be fairly undesirable for any man with any options at all (this includes porn). [Women generally don't understand this, I explain below for them.]


I am astounded at the links made here and the clear miss understanding about social conditioning and what leads to social patterns. I would like to see the data that shows that most women in their thirties are alone and miserable. 



> Why is so many partners, and particularly bad boys, such a bad thing for a woman searching for a husband? Because the 90% of men who are not Alpha males (the sexy bad boys who can have almost any woman in their social circle) know fairly well that the most intense bonds, shared experiences, sexual pleasure, and memories will be with other men. At best, they are mere shadows of what was, and remains, in a woman's heart, at that age. Even the most beautiful woman in her thirties is less desirable therefore than a fairly inexperienced, un-baggage ridden average looking girl in her early twenties, or late teens. All the Botox, Pilates, Jillian Michaels workout videos, and Nautilus toned body won't change that fact. Only the most desperate, clueless, and lonely men will respond.


Gobsmacked by the obvious bitterness and twisted writings of this blogger/ poster.


> This is true even for widows and divorced women. The absent husband, no matter how badly he left, will always be the dominant man in the woman's heart and memories. Porn has the massive ability to substitute for what amounts to indifferent sex (even the most beautiful woman in her thirties loses her appeal, and lets face it Jane Average is not Jennifer Aniston at age 32) and emotionless coupling.


if men would choose porn over real women, then men are the ones with huge problems and it shows that its not in fact women liking bad boys thats the problem it is in fact mens inibility to relate to and love the r4eal women in their lives. How sad.



> All the "man up" exhortations by writers like Kay Hymowitz can't force men to commit to women after they've chased their share of bad boys. Women can chase the bad boys all they want, but like everything, there is a cost.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is true, about 90% of all middle class White guys are beta males. They are not sexy and exciting. They are neither bad boys in the mold of Russell Brand, nor George Clooney. News flash: About 90% of all Middle Class White women are not Jennifer Aniston, at age 40. Let alone beauties like Mila Kunis, or Brittany Snow. Asking about 90% of men to be something they are not is akin to asking 90% of all middle class White women to as beautiful as say, either ****** Greene or Brittany Snow (to pick at random two Maxim cover-girls). Women's desire for sexy men is an unreasonable as men's desire for most women to look like Maxim cover-girls.


telling men they shouldnt be doormats is not quite the same as expecting women to be perfect never changing beauty queens. men and women have the ability to change their behaviours and do things that will benafit them. 


> But women can make it, because they unlike most men have the asymmetric ability to sleep with the male equivalent of Brittany Snow (that would be the Russell Brands of the world). They just can't get those bad boys to marry them and support them.
> 
> The dynamic is complicated by both gender and racial spoils politics. A good part of the female demand for sexy men is the Hispanic/Mexican girls desire and willingness to start having kids at age 16 with bad boys who cannot support them. Thus inducing a massive welfare burden. A full 83% of Santa Ana Unified School District students receive subsidized/free meals. Obviously about 83%, or so, of SAUSD parents cannot afford to pay for their kids meals. Requiring federal subsidies.


Yep all the women's fault, nothing to do with society and social conditioning, opportunity, poverty or in fact the men involved. If you have a vagina you clearly deluded, and the ills of the world fall on your shoulders, oh whoops I forgot to add if you are black or Hispanic or poor you also contributed some too.

Those white guys are the innocent victims of vaginas and poor people gone mad.



> In this, both White women, and non-Whites, are generally aligned in interests. Their interests are in extracting the maximum amount of money from taxpayers, to fuel children (family as defined as single mom plus kids by various sexy bad boys) and family formation. The catch is that a very significant portion (most of them, in fact) of Middle Class White women are also taxpayers, and don't like the money going to people not like them. Welfare for Hispanic/Mexican single mothers, means ultimately no subsidies for NPR (and jobs there), or federally supported foundations, or paper-pushing "studies" busywork in education, the environment, and so on. All the money increasingly needs to be poured into either K-12 or welfare spent on Mexican/Hispanic single mothers.
> 
> So what are the implications of the widespread female demand that most men be sexy (clearly most Mexican men are "sexy" to their female peers, mostly by an uber-macho, combative set of behaviors, particularly including gang membership and criminal violence)?
> 
> The first is obviously, a decline in technological advancement. Clearly, outsourcing, in-sourcing, and the export of American manufacturing to China and elsewhere has destroyed American innovation. But in part, this has been abetted by the total demand for sexiness. While nearly all of Aaron Sorkin's "the Social Network" was outright fabrication, what rang true was the total lack of desire (then and now) for billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. Particularly for women with their own money, and earning power, a man must be sexy beyond mere wealth. Wealth alone will not cut it, hence the lack of desire expressed for beta males like Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, no matter how much power and influence they wield. Neither has the smidgen of sex appeal of say, Lamar Odom or Chris Brown. [Good Morning America wants Chris Brown back, despite his temper tantrum of ripping off his shirt and throwing a chair through a window, and trashing his dressing room there. Because their female audience finds him sexy, no matter the beat-down he gave then girlfriend Rihanna. He's a BAD BOY. That means, sexy. For women, in general, all is forgiven as long as a man is sexy. Sexy, sexy, sexy.]
> 
> Facebook is not anything new. Its merely a Friendster or MySpace that works. With a few more features. It is not game-changing technology. Steve Sailer wondered, recently, where all the innovation went? "Where are my flying cars?" Well, they went the way of nuclear families formed by pocket protector wearing geeks. Those with that bent had few or no children, as women demanded sexy bad boys who are great in the sack, but cannot produce game-changing technology (like say, a cure for cancer or artificial organs that work, or electric car batteries with the power and weight ratio and range of the internal combustion engine, with comparable refill times). Add to it, the lack of incentive to strive. Those with the current bent for technology not only face a bleak outsourcing, in-sourcing H1-B visa environment, they face a life of sexless monkdom. No wonder they are slackers.
> 
> Innovation and change is rarely produced by some great idea borne out by a single genius. Most of the time, it requires an idea, that was fascinating, that was dropped, and then developed a bit later, by someone else, and then someone else and other people put it and other bits together to form a new whole. Something impossible without all the other bits around, done by other people, often in concert.
> 
> Sexy men means stagnant or reversing technology. People unable to build or maintain things they were fifty years ago. In 1969, America reached the moon. America has now abandoned even low Earth orbit. Not the least of which is that we lack the technology to make even that happen any more.
> 
> Sexy men also means a race to the bottom for sexiness. Women's demand for sexy men does not happen in a vacuum. Men tend to respond. The easiest way to be sexy, as noted by author Lucia, is to thug it up. Be dangerous, fight a lot, smack people around (even your girlfriend, see Chris Brown, or Charlie Sheen). The more violent and dangerous a man is, the more women will want him. Even if he's ugly, or is accused of murdering some other woman. Joran Van Der Sloot cut a wide swath among women in Asia, drawn by his infamy in the Natalee Holloway case (Van Der Sloot has all but confessed to murdering Holloway). Of course, Van Der Sloot killed a young woman in Peru, who unwisely went to his hotel room, drawn by his fame no doubt.
> 
> One need only look at the Ghetto and Barrio to see this in action. "Senseless" killings are not, merely the dark side of female sexuality. Since women find bad boys to be sexy, Ghetto and Barrio men make themselves bad boys by ultra-violence. When some little kid, or grandmother, or infant is shot in a drive-by, be assured that somewhere, a gang banger is having sex (if he's not arrested). As Roissy points out, even adjusting for race, criminals have more kids than non-criminals. In other words, comparing White guys to White guys, and Black guys to Black guys, and so on, those locked up or who have been locked up have more kids than those who were never locked up. Despite being, well, locked up for some non insignificant amount of time.
> 
> As Roissy points out, Chicks Dig Jerks. And as more and more men become aware of this, they will do their level best to turn themselves into the biggest jerk they can. Bet on it. And once they know it, it is almost impossible to turn them back.
> 
> Look at Black Rappers. They make all that money. All that fame and fortune. Or say, Michael Vick, at the time possessing a $130 million contract. Why risk all that money for stupid violence, a shooting in a club, dog fighting rings, etc? Because acting like a violent thug all their life has gotten them the hottest, most desirable women. And more women than they can even remember. Sexual rewards will work on the White middle class, and its men, just as much as they did on Black men in the Ghetto. Or Mexican men in the Barrio.
> 
> No, it won't happen overnight. Significant social conditioning, rewards, and so on make middle class White guys more resistant to violence. But certainly, the kids of single mothers will know exactly what turned their moms on: violent, dangerous bad boys. They'll copy those guys, and even provide some "improvements."
> 
> The idea that White guys are inherently non-violent and shrink from confrontation (which would have shocked Black and Hispanic men of Louis Armstrong's age) particularly with non-Whites, is going to go out the window. In some respect this will be long overdue, but the cost is basically a nation comprised entirely of Scots-Irish "hillbilly" types. Which simply cannot run a modern economy and will look for fights the way Black and Hispanic men do, because it gets them sex!
> 
> So the social implications of sexy men demanded by White women along with Black and Hispanic women, is a very rapid movement, towards decline and violence. Making the wealth struggles to cut the welfare pie off an America with declining innovation and technological power, a declining White middle class, and so on, even more desperate. As the take shrinks, the usual response is to deal people out. Vote them off the Island, so to speak.
> 
> All prosperous societies, such as Japan, South Korea, Finland, Switzerland, and Coastal China, tend to suppress sexy men. They tend to limit, in various ways, the ability for Bad Boys to dominate all the desirable women. And on the other hand, limit women's choices. A woman must generally choose fairly early, if she wants a husband (Japan and South Korea's and China's low birth rates currently likely stem from their women rejecting the unsexy men they have on offer). Japan and South Korea, at least, are declining from massive and probably unsustainable population peaks with a well educated and prosperous workforce, with first-class infrastructure for the most part. [China is not so lucky on either front.]
> 
> But those societies throughout history and now, that allow sexy men, the dominant bad boys, and women to run things, are typically very violent, and primitive. Male cooperation goes entirely out the window. Why cooperate when you get better sex and reproductive opportunities by constant fighting? The female sexual utopia looks a lot like Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. And in some ways that is America's, and the West's, future.
> 
> Everything has its price, and the price for Sexy Men for Western women is basically the end as we know it, of Western civilization. With something approaching Dark Ages kingdoms or Mad Max as its replacement.
> 
> But at least the men will be sexy!


The bitter, racist, prejudice misguided ramblings of a crazy, deluded, person who has no understanding of social systems and relationships.

They will probably continue to write such utter hate filled nonsense and no sane woman will them because they are loony tunes thus fueling further their beliefs and crazy ramblings.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Love it Enchantment, Love it ! As for me, I seriously prefer the Nice MUSHY guy over any alpha stud bad boy - so long as he has 2 things - he is physically good looking and he LOVES sex!  

I am an alpha female and for the life of me, there is something to this .... I have always liked men with bare chests (usually means less testosterone = less aggression) & always had a thing for SHY guys. I married exactly this and it works beautifully for us. Pretty much for most of our marriage, although we had some things we learned along the way , don't we all. 

And the crazy thing about him is --he likes aggressive women! A bad boy may be good in bed, but beyond that, I think we would kill each other. I am perfectly matched with my husband, the more I read on this forum, the more I realize this. 

He is the introvert, I am the extrovert. Where I bring the Oooompph , he brings the calm, he humors me where I cause some playful conflict. Not all women are the same, not all men are the same. 

Yes, we all need a nice balance, but even if the scales are tipped a little more one way or the other (His more Beta, mine more alpha), it does not make him less of a good man or me less of a good woman. So long as we can appreciate & celebrate the best in one another, and oh we do -this is life giving.


----------



## 827Aug

It's hard for my ADD brain to absorb all of that blog. However, I do find parts of it interesting. Now that I'm a single woman, I'm finding this to be very true though. A recent thread, http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/26653-question-ladies-beards.html, on this forum really illustrated this point. Most women really go for that "bad boy" look. I feel I am in the minority. I can't stand that look (or male type)! Yet, that's who's hitting on me here at my age. 

I've yet to figure how this works, so this discussion should be enlightening.


----------



## MisguidedMiscreant

Wow, this post actually brought me back, this blog has said what I've been suspecting all along. Think he's wrong? Take a look at the men in the "Coping With Infidelity" section and ask them why their wives suddenly hate them after all these years. 

The only things I found wrong is the things that he said about "Nice Guys." I know nice guys that will beat the **** out of you, me especially, we just try not to due to the hassle it brings because we think about what will happen afterwards. 

Another thing that I believe is that women don't really like "thugs/bad boys" because those are the guys in prison for things like assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, murder. Getting popped for possession of weed does not make you a tough guy. 

You know what's to blame for this, right? Feminism.


----------



## Enchantment

MisguidedMiscreant said:


> You know what's to blame for this, right? Feminism.


Really? You mean there really aren't any good, upstanding, confident men who can stand up for what they believe, what they know, is right? They really are whipped then, which I guess according to this article means they aren't sexy after all.

You know what is to blame - lack of personal responsibility and integrity. People should not go blaming everybody else or issues or topics of the day for their troubles. Look within yourself. No one has to swim along with all of the other fish.


----------



## Catherine602

I don't think it true. I think it is a media contrivance to sell paper and increase viewership. 

I don't know of any women who likes so called bad boys in fact, women try to detect these men and avoid them. It is sensational to report a few women making stupid choices but it is not the norm in my opinion. Normal women are too boring to turn into a news report.

I'm married to a nice man, he does not drink, take drugs, go out every Sat night drinking, he does not abuse me, he is very salicitous of me and our kids, he is predictable. He is dominant but in a good way because that is what I need. I am no fool, why would I not love him like my own life. 

woman with low self esteem like abusive men and they need help not labeling and shamming. They are a product of childhood abuse. That in itself should garner a desire to help not blaming feminism. Blaming feminism misdirects efforts to prevent child abuse and treatmen of there women.


----------



## Catherine602

Misguided how do you explain male cheating and suddenly hating their wives. It it because men hate good women? Thongs have changed I agree. Women are cheating almost as frequently as men. They have as much access to members of the opposite sex. 

That's why they cheat just like men. It is a human malady, a cruelty that men and women are equaly as capable of. Until recently I believed that only men cheat but I now realize by reading the post by men in pain that women are as capable of deceit and selfishness and lack of love as men. I thought men were by nature incapable of love. If men are then women are too. I know women are capable of love and I now know that men are equaly as capable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MisguidedMiscreant

Enchantment said:


> Really? You mean there really aren't any good, upstanding, confident men who can stand up for what they believe, what they know, is right? They really are whipped then, which I guess according to this article means they aren't sexy after all.


Yes, there are men out there like that but they get demonized by feminists and hammered down by their enforcing thugs also known as the government until the man has become a mangina faithfully serving the whims of his gynocratic masters. Feminists want men to have all of the responsiblity and none of the authority, that's called being a pawn and the manginas that allow this to happen to themselves especially with believing this Alpha/Beta Male bull**** are nothing more than fodder. I used to be like this, I was caught in feminism's "matrix" until I found my "red pill" in the Coping With Infidelity Section. What's wrong with being a nice person? What's wrong with looking out for my fellow human being? That's what a good man is does, a man protects and provides like the men that fought for civil rights or fought against Hitler. Women think they can change those bad boys but they never will, those guys don't want to be husbands and fathers but good men do. They say this stupid **** like an "alpha male" looks like he can take care of his children and a "beta male" doesn't. The truth is that a man is designed to take care of his kids which is why the average single man doesn't look like he can because he doesn't have children. Men tend to become physically stronger when they have children, where I'm from it's called "Daddy Strong." But it's those good men that get cheated on and the woman files a "No Fault Divorce" and takes half his ****. If he has kids, even if they aren't his like her having a child with the OM, he'll be enslaved to pay child support with the court knowing full well that the child isn't his. You people keep talking about boundaries that can't be kept in a relationship by a man because men have little to no rights in the family courts today. What about other things like the fact that there are just as many "false rape" allegations as there are actual rapes if not more thanks to feminists? It doesn't really matter since these bogus "rape shield" laws that are extremely unconstitutional as well as child support and alimony make it nigh impossible for a man to prove his innocence in court since he can't face his accuser. 

I believe in love, as Leonard Cohen sang, "Love is the only engine of survival" but feminism has ruined the sanctity of marriage far more than anything today seeing as it makes women believe that they can have it all and just quit the marriage if they don't while still enslaving their unwitting husbands to alimony and child support and it's crushed by dreams of raising a family in the near future, if that's your idea of equality for women then bravo. Any of you men out there that would like to hear about any of the things I've said, PM me and I'll give you some links to a lot of great websites.



> You know what is to blame - lack of personal responsibility and integrity. People should not go blaming everybody else or issues or topics of the day for their troubles. Look within yourself. No one has to swim along with all of the other fish.



You're right, there is a lot of lack of personal responsiblity in women today. If a man marries a woman, he loves and trusts her, he looks to her for support when he goes out and tries to do what's best for the both of them and instead she ****s around while he's out then blames him. I'm tired of everytime someone gets cheated on in the Infidelity thread, they're told to take a look at what they did, they were the ones that got cheated on, why should they be changing? If a woman wants a bad boy then go after bad boys, don't go after a good man that's trusting just to **** up his life like you did yours. You're right again, there is no reason to swim along with all of the other fish, that's why I'm walking my own way away from this moral leper colony that feminism has turned western culture into.



Catherine602 said:


> Misguided how do you explain male cheating and suddenly hating their wives. It it because men hate good women? Thongs have changed I agree. Women are cheating almost as frequently as men. They have as much access to members of the opposite sex.
> 
> That's why they cheat just like men. It is a human malady, a cruelty that men and women are equaly as capable of. Until recently I believed that only men cheat but I now realize by reading the post by men in pain that women are as capable of deceit and selfishness and lack of love as men. I thought men were by nature incapable of love. If men are then women are too. I know women are capable of love and I now know that men are equaly as capable.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Don't misunderstand, there are ****ed up men out there too but, when a man does it, the man gets sent to the gallows, when a woman does it, the man gets pushed to the front of the line for the gallows. Women have the government and family courts backing them up whether they're right or wrong, that's the biggist issue. 

Also, if you're marriage is good, do everything in your power to keep it that way.


----------



## greenpearl

I am confused by all these too! 

I think my husband is a nice man, and I love him dearly. 

He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink much alcohol, he doesn't take drugs, he doesn't like parties, he avoids men who do these things, he avoids men who talk big. He is gentle to me, he is affectionate to me, he babies me! He is also flirty and humorous. He has a normal job, makes modest salary, I don't see that as a problem. 

The only thing he doesn't do is he doesn't spoil me, he confronts me when I am being unreasonable. He doesn't avoid conflicts caused by me. 

If nice guy means " Yes Yes Madam", then I probably agree!


By the way, I didn't think I was old when I was 29! I actually felt that I started to blossom when I was 29, my most beautiful age was from 29 to 38. Now I am 38, I start to notice that my face is not as shiny as before, my skin is not as good as before. But my husband has told me that my brain has become much more beautiful inside, don't need to feel bad for the appearance loss. A 20-year-old might have a better face, a better body, but not a better brain.

Men who are just after bodies and faces are not the type of men mature women want!


----------



## Catherine602

Misguided I don't think that the LS is blamed for the WS. The advice is consistently tge the WS 100% the blame for cheating. 

I do notice that men are far more likely to assume the blame for a wife cheating before recognizing the role of their wives. I think it is because, as you say, normal men feel responsible for the safety and happiness of their wives. They are accustomed to sacrificing to provide for the family - it is a drive of a man when he commits. They continue this trend when their wives cheat because the commitment is so strong. Their post illicits immediate advice for these men to drop their sacrificial and protective role and take charge to save their family from ruin.

I don't think the advice to Man Up is because they are too good, they are good men who need to be guided into a new approach to meet the challeges that face them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

Misguided believe me I know how lucky I am. My needs are amply satisfied. I am married to a family man and I am a professional and work full time but I relax into my role as a caretaker when I am at home. I can handle the stress of 24/7 executive attitude. That just me. But I think many women are like me, they want to be led, not all but many. 

Women are different and i believe it is our hormonal influences. I think we should celebrate those differences. I do believe that in our zeal to have it all, we may forget to be feminine. But I think you can find a lot of liturature about this being a mistake. 

I think it is changing for young married couples today. We realize the mistakes of our families before us. Don't fall into a lack of hope and blindness to this reality. If you do, you will experience what you believe. Avoid blogs that are negative, look for blogs and reports that advise and report positive change in relationship. That's what you will draw to you. 

Try to calm down, it is not as bad as you think. Reading negative things only fuels your anger. My therapist gave me that advice so i pass it on to you. There is so much good in the world, why should you not emerse yourself in it? 

I know many good women, I can't be unusual. They are out there and if you stay positive, you will meet not one but many if you are at the point of looking. You may not be ready to allow your anger to dissipate. Do what you can to hassen your progress so that you will again see tge good side of women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon

I do realize that blog seems to be steeped in racism, and analyzes a few generalizations a little too far, but as a nice guy who has been loving and failing a hormonal and self-guided wife, it definitely hits very close for me, as she just left my sorry white @$$ to go after some sweet-talking gangsta fakers - I've seen the pics and they're not even what most would call "hot" (just happen to have the sexier skin color in my wife's eyes, and have enough come-on for her to associate with confidence/swagger).


----------



## MisguidedMiscreant

Catherine602 said:


> Misguided believe me I know how lucky I am. My needs are amply satisfied. I am married to a family man and I am a professional and work full time but I relax into my role as a caretaker when I am at home. I can handle the stress of 24/7 executive attitude. That just me. But I think many women are like me, they want to be led, not all but many.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is changing for young married couples today. We realize the mistakes of our families before us. Don't fall into a lack of hope and blindness to this reality. If you do, you will experience what you believe. Avoid blogs that are negative, look for blogs and reports that advise and report positive change in relationship. That's what you will draw to you.
> 
> Try to calm down, it is not as bad as you think. Reading negative things only fuels your anger. My therapist gave me that advice so i pass it on to you. There is so much good in the world, why should you not emerse yourself in it?
> 
> I know many good women, I can't be unusual. They are out there and if you stay positive, you will meet not one but many if you are at the point of looking. You may not be ready to allow your anger to dissipate. Do what you can to hassen your progress so that you will again see tge good side of women.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm not angry at women per se, I'm angry at feminists. Feminists are *NOT* women, they're just breasts trying to be men and getting frustrated when they can't be and then get angry at men when men don't behave like men and do it for them. What they don't realize is that they're whole ideology is predicated on emasculating men. They get upset that men aren't chivalrous any more when their "Anything you can do I can do better" thinking ended chivalry. If you're my equal, don't expect me to break my back for you, I don't hold open doors for able bodied men because they're my equal and can do it themselves. I hold the door for children, the elderly, and women that act like women.


What a feminist doesn't understand is that nature is abolute, there's a reason that the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman and that's because he's built to be the one to do the "heavy lifting" so they should stop trying to compete in a competition that really shouldn't exist that was never designed for them anyway. What a woman should do is support the man when he's doing the leg work and stop undermining him at every turn. Feminist have to also realize that what they've done has caused a counter-culture to develop, I won't say it's name in front of women so I'll call it Ma-Ge-Ti-Oo-Wu. Men are slowly but surely starting to catch on the horrors of what we've been subjected to by feminists, the government and the family court system and refusing to put up with it anymore, that means plenty of what's now called by some mangina on a website "High Value Men" formerly known as eligible bachelors are refusing to marry, take George Clooney as an example. 

I understand what you're saying about good woman and I understand I may sound angry but I'm actually one of the nicer ones I keep telling my brothers that not all women are like that yet. Women are usually good until you put that ring on their finger then the Devil appears, I hold out hope for salvation from this mess but the future often seems grim and I try to figure out ways to keep women from becoming like that but their doesn't seem to be anyway as western culture often overtakes every woman and that ****ed up sense of entitlement rears it's ugly head which inevitably leads to the end of the relationship. 

It's not really the blog that gets me, it's reality, I see it everyday. If you can find it, there were previous threads of mine where I was seeking advice on a female friend of mine that I was in love with. She just wanted to be friends with me despite how much I loved her and how much **** she went through with her boyfriend because "she'd just end up hurting me" like I'm some sort of emotional child that can't deal, I still love her as a friend and she's my best friend but I've dealt with the fact that a relationship between us will never be and I don't think I'd want it now thinking back although she does have first crack if I do decide that I want to be in one period if she wants the opportunity but I don't think I'd choose her ultimately since she seems to be a typical woman today. I was also speaking about another woman that I was interested in, I invited her to my house and discovered that she was engaged the day before she was supposed to come over. Now, that's my friend who wanted to **** around with *******s and use me as an emotional tampon which is a dynamic that I've since put an end to and another woman that may have cheated on her fiance with me if I hadn't put the kabash on it. Then there are the single mothers who wouldn't have taken a second look at me 5 or 10 years ago but see me, a college educated 26 year old that's single and does alright for himself, now and well, you get the picture. 

Also, your therapist is right, I tend to surround myself in the bad when I'm trying to do some good because the bad places are where good is needed the most. You can't do any good if it's there already, it is taxing on my mind and soul but it's how I do things and I can't tell you that it would change. 

I have a question if you don't mind my asking, how old are you?


----------



## Syrum

MisguidedMiscreant said:


> I'm not angry at women per se, I'm angry at feminists. Feminists are *NOT* women, they're just breasts trying to be men and getting frustrated when they can't be and then get angry at men when men don't behave like men and do it for them. What they don't realize is that they're whole ideology is predicated on emasculating men. They get upset that men aren't chivalrous any more when their "Anything you can do I can do better" thinking ended chivalry. If you're my equal, don't expect me to break my back for you, I don't hold open doors for able bodied men because they're my equal and can do it themselves. I hold the door for children, the elderly, and women that act like women.


I think you misunderstand feminists and the feminist movement.

Unless you really believe women shouldnt have any real choices in life, and it should be Ok to beat them etc.

I in fact think its mens take on feminism that has pit women against men, they have said You want the same rights as men, then you must do the same stuff as men" and everything is still valued from a masculine standpoint, rather then a feminine one.

The reality is that if men and women were not competing against each other (and no pointing fingers as to why, however it strikes me as odd that men are crying foul, when stats show men still own the majority of the worlds wealth, have most of the worlds power, have far more life chances and opportunities, are less likely to live in poverty etc, yet women cause all of the worlds ills -Puh-lease, men even control the worlds media and how women and men are portrayed.) and women were truly valued and feminine traits valued just as much as manly ones, then women wouldn't have to compete to be valued, or to earn enough to feed their families etc. 



> What a feminist doesn't understand is that nature is abolute, there's a reason that the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman and that's because he's built to be the one to do the "heavy lifting" so they should stop trying to compete in a competition that really shouldn't exist that was never designed for them anyway. What a woman should do is support the man when he's doing the leg work and stop undermining him at every turn. Feminist have to also realize that what they've done has caused a counter-culture to develop, I won't say it's name in front of women so I'll call it Ma-Ge-Ti-Oo-Wu. Men are slowly but surely starting to catch on the horrors of what we've been subjected to by feminists, the government and the family court system and refusing to put up with it anymore, that means plenty of what's now called by some mangina on a website "High Value Men" formerly known as eligible bachelors are refusing to marry, take George Clooney as an example.


The horrors they have been subjected to by feminists. Really?

Again if you want to look at the stats and break it down women are still far worse off then men in almost every single area, in fact women still do not receive equal pay. 

Women are terribly undervalued.

If you want women women to stop competing with men, then value them for who they are and what they can do and what they can bring, to the work force, to home lives etc.



> I understand what you're saying about good woman and I understand I may sound angry but I'm actually one of the nicer ones I keep telling my brothers that not all women are like that yet. Women are usually good until you put that ring on their finger then the Devil appears, I hold out hope for salvation from this mess but the future often seems grim and I try to figure out ways to keep women from becoming like that but their doesn't seem to be anyway as western culture often overtakes every woman and that ****ed up sense of entitlement rears it's ugly head which inevitably leads to the end of the relationship.


My goodness you certainly do seem to have a skewed view of things. Just as many women ahve been let down or mistreated by men as men have of women.

I am glad that i choose not to view all men in the way I view those that have done me wrong and harmed me.



> It's not really the blog that gets me, it's reality, I see it everyday. If you can find it, there were previous threads of mine where I was seeking advice on a female friend of mine that I was in love with. She just wanted to be friends with me despite how much I loved her and how much **** she went through with her boyfriend because "she'd just end up hurting me" like I'm some sort of emotional child that can't deal, I still love her as a friend and she's my best friend but I've dealt with the fact that a relationship between us will never be and I don't think I'd want it now thinking back although she does have first crack if I do decide that I want to be in one period if she wants the opportunity but I don't think I'd choose her ultimately since she seems to be a typical woman today. I was also speaking about another woman that I was interested in, I invited her to my house and discovered that she was engaged the day before she was supposed to come over. Now, that's my friend who wanted to **** around with *******s and use me as an emotional tampon which is a dynamic that I've since put an end to and another woman that may have cheated on her fiance with me if I hadn't put the kabash on it. Then there are the single mothers who wouldn't have taken a second look at me 5 or 10 years ago but see me, a college educated 26 year old that's single and does alright for himself, now and well, you get the picture.


You just sound very bitter and twisted really. Many women and men get rejected and find those who they love do not love them, again it is not a gendered problem.

I am very sorry you feel that way.

As for the single mother comment, there are many women on this site who are now single mothers due to their husbands cheating or other such terrible behaviour.

Are you saying that a woman has no value just because she is a mother? If that's the case I'm very sorry for you, and you are limiting your self based on prejudice and stereotypes that you have bought into.

The problem is not women, poverty, bad boys, or any of that other stuff, its your personal attitude and glass half empty attitude. We all can have an attitude like that, becase lets face it we have all been wronged, or we can choose to believe the good in people and try to be fair and have empathy for others, even if we are women and they are *ghasp* males and vice versa.


----------



## MEM2020

Enchanted, You are spot on. 
Quoted for truth. 

Nice guy = weak person

Strong guy = strong person. Whether he chooses to express that strength as Al Capone or as Steve Jobs is up to him.

Weak is INHERENTLY BAD for an adult male. 

Strong by itself is meaningless UNTIL you combine it with other traits: kindness, consideration, compassion or alternatively: lack of loyalty, selfishness and a desire to win at all costs.





Enchantment said:


> Really? You mean there really aren't any good, upstanding, confident men who can stand up for what they believe, what they know, is right? They really are whipped then, which I guess according to this article means they aren't sexy after all.
> 
> You know what is to blame - lack of personal responsibility and integrity. People should not go blaming everybody else or issues or topics of the day for their troubles. Look within yourself. No one has to swim along with all of the other fish.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Big Bad Wolf, you love to stir the pot! You sure got Misguided caught in a whirlwind here. 

I really didn't read this whole article when I posted earlier, it was sooooo long, I only got as far as reading the slandering of the nice men being unsexy and it ruffled my feathers. This always will. 

I personally hate anything that tries to paint a concept ALL black or ALL white in every instance. It makes me want to defend the freaks, makes some of us want to get our claws out. 

What really is the point of this article? To insult EVERY Man, claiming he is either the SEXY playboy -easily spreading his seed to endless willing open legged women falling under his sexual spell -who he will abandon & the Governement has to pick up the tab, OR he is a BORING unexciting unsexy nice guy who gets the lovers leftovers. This not only insults all men, it also insults ALL women! 

I read that part about Zuckerberg & Bill Gates, I really had to laugh, cause I swear, those are the type of men I LIKE, I would choose them over every example given in this article of a SEXY bad boy.

I have never at all understand what Sandra Bullok seen in Jesse, I find him physically ugly, I think my jaw dropped the 1st time I seen the man in a magazine & read he was the one to cheat, she is so much HOTTER than him! I do, however, have an appreciation for his "in your face attitude" a little. I seriously find Bill Gates more sexually appealing. And Zuckerberg- I kid you not, I have even said it out loud, why does he have so much trouble with [email protected]#$% I think he is HOT. I would seek someone like him out, even with being socially awkward, he would not even have to be rich! Chris Brown does nothing for me, nor Clooney, not even Brad Pitt or the Harrison Ford type. 


I seen a glimpse of this article played out tonight - went to a party, met a lady who is having a baby to likely one of these roaming worthless sexy bad boys spreading his seed types - she was holding her 1st baby , unmarried -learned it was his 5th baby, he abandoned her for a whole year after the birth, then I watched her cussing & swearing at him over the phone a little later, it was a real scene to behold. Yeah, falling for these types = total destruction for many women, and the poor children that result. 

But her story is not the norm by any means! It is still the minority -at least where I live ! Many many GOOD women who love & adore & DESIRE their NICE husbands-and these men in turn love with a passion that is not boring or unsexy to these wives. 


The most successful marraiges are when each has a love so strong, to cherish, to please, appreciating each other, having a need for each other, as they slowly grow old together, they will forever see that young man or that young woman who they fell hopelessly in love with all those years before, being bonded SO TIGHTLY, they are not looking for another and would never want another. This is what to teach our children about love. 

Warn them of these pitfalls, how sexual attraction can be the destruction to many lives, but us as parents, be that example to follow, against what artcles like this -spew to us.


----------



## Catherine602

Misguided I'm 30. 

Although your willingness to work among people most in need is admirable, people who are in the light are just as in need of positive strong men. 

You experience with this women was with one woman. I'll tell you what happened to me, I just turned 15 and a man seduced me. I thought I met the love of my life. I never knew He was married with kids and 36 yr old. I was a sheltered Catholic girl easy to manipulate and believed in fairy tales. . I hated "old" men after that. My husband was one of the neighborhood boys. We became friends and I told him what happened. 

We grew up together, and started dating when we were 18. He helped me see the positive side of relationships and saved me from a lifetime of hating men. 

If I can recover from that, you can do the same. I had the misfortune of meeting a bad person like that women you met. You can let her control you or you can assume that the experience says nothing about. Surround yourself with positive men who have had positive experiences with women, get with a good women and invite the beoch to your wedding. There is a good book "Leraned optimism" by martin seligman it is excellent because it explains how we chose how we think and how happy they are. . 

Why do other men meet good women who fall in love with them? You are not so special that you are singled out for a bad experience. you have as much of a chance for a happy relationship as any man 

My husband is a good man. I don't see good men as doormats but God sent, at lest my good guy is. I have cousins and friends just like me. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MisguidedMiscreant

Syrum said:


> I think you misunderstand feminists and the feminist movement.
> 
> Unless you really believe women shouldnt have any real choices in life, and it should be Ok to beat them etc.


I didn't say that women shouldn't have choices, I'm all for women having choices. They just need to learn how to live with those choices and stop acting like it's other people's fault when they make the wrong decisions, this is the life they've chosen now live it. Also, men don't beat women at the rate that they'd have you believe. In my 26 years, I may have only seen one case of domestic violence when the man was the the aggressor and I was around 5 so it's kinda hazy. Any other time, it was the woman being the aggressor and the man merely trying to avoid a bad situation or defending himself.



> I in fact think its mens take on feminism that has pit women against men, they have said You want the same rights as men, then you must do the same stuff as men" and everything is still valued from a masculine standpoint, rather then a feminine one.


That's not a masculine standpoint, that's a common sense standpoint. Responsibility = authority, whenever I've refused one to any degree in my life, I understood it to be a refusal of the other no matter the case to the same degree.



> The reality is that if men and women were not competing against each other (and no pointing fingers as to why, however it strikes me as odd that men are crying foul, when stats show men still own the majority of the worlds wealth, have most of the worlds power, have far more life chances and opportunities, are less likely to live in poverty etc, yet women cause all of the worlds ills -Puh-lease, men even control the worlds media and how women and men are portrayed.) and women were truly valued and feminine traits valued just as much as manly ones, then women wouldn't have to compete to be valued, or to earn enough to feed their families etc.


First of all, have you seen any of the media lately? Women are always portrayed as more capable than men, check out 24, Family Guy, any Angelina Jolie movie. Men are usually bumbling fools or evil men and it's up to the woman to fix everything. Angelina Jolie is rail thin but she can always defeat 10 men that are bigger and stronger in a fist fight, she has no magical powers or genetic alterations to explain why she can beat them she just can and we're forced to accept how illogical that is because she's a "kick ass female". Men are always the abusers and molestors of children when that number is actually quite low when compared to abuse from women.(Casey Anthony in the house.)




> The horrors they have been subjected to by feminists. Really?
> 
> Again if you want to look at the stats and break it down women are still far worse off then men in almost every single area, in fact women still do not receive equal pay.
> 
> Women are terribly undervalued.
> 
> If you want women women to stop competing with men, then value them for who they are and what they can do and what they can bring, to the work force, to home lives etc.


If a woman makes less then a man, it's because they do less work. This is proven, men take less time off from work so they make more during the week and you can't promote someone that doesn't come to work. Women get paid the same rate if not more at first since there are generally less of them in the workplace putting them at a premium but men usually outwork the women once it's time to get started. Also, men perform more dangerous jobs and die more often in the workplace than women. 

In regards to value, you've shown yourself to be ingrained in feminism. You mistake types of value with amount of value, in my family, I'm the only son and the first born. My family is an old school family and my value as the first born and only son is that, upon coming of age, I'm the new second in the family behind my father surpassing my mother. Admittedly, that may make it seem and sound as if I'm more valuable than my three younger sisters but do you think my parents would cry for them any less than they would for me if one of them were to die? No, they'd cry just the same. 




> My goodness you certainly do seem to have a skewed view of things. Just as many women ahve been let down or mistreated by men as men have of women.
> 
> I am glad that i choose not to view all men in the way I view those that have done me wrong and harmed me.


What did I say? I said Feminists and I even drew a distinction between the two, fyi, a feminst can be a "man" too. Feminists are trash, pure and simple. If you can behave like a woman than I'd welcome you in with open arms but, if you behave like the serpents that inhabit the world today, I'll have no part of you. 





> You just sound very bitter and twisted really. Many women and men get rejected and find those who they love do not love them, again it is not a gendered problem.
> 
> I am very sorry you feel that way.


So now we're name calling? I don't need your pity, I'm a man, I CAN DEAL. Also, that wasn't about me being rejected, hell I rejected the one since she may have cheated with me. She knew that she was engaged and she knew what I had on my mind since I invited her to my apartment to be alone and I don't play checkers. The other, my friend, was more of a commentary of how women make bad relationship choices. I understood that she may have well hurt me and I had a new found respect for her to have the forsight to see that she may **** up something as good as our friendship but that doesn't mean she wasn't making a mistake at the same time by rejecting the guy that would've done anything for her for some big stupid jackass. 



> As for the single mother comment, there are many women on this site who are now single mothers due to their husbands cheating or other such terrible behaviour.
> 
> Are you saying that a woman has no value just because she is a mother? If that's the case I'm very sorry for you, and you are limiting your self based on prejudice and stereotypes that you have bought into.


I'm not talking about those women, **** happens. I'm talking about those women that bed down with unscrupulous men then get pregnant by those louts and expect to raise their bastard children on another man's dime? You made your bed then slept with a jackass in it and had a baby with him, now lie in it but don't be surprised if you're sleeping alone. 

I'm not saying a woman has no value just because she is a mother, being a *REAL* mother is one of the coolest things a woman can do in my estimation don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that 5-10 years ago, I wasn't worthy but, now that Mr. Alpha ****in' Male skipped town on your stupid ass, I'm some sort of white knight that's come to your rescue? To quote Syrum, "Puh-lease," I may be crazy but I'm not a fool especially since I can be forced by family courts to pay child support if that child forms any sort of "attachment" to me. 



> The problem is not women, poverty, bad boys, or any of that other stuff, its your personal attitude and glass half empty attitude. We all can have an attitude like that, becase lets face it we have all been wronged, or we can choose to believe the good in people and try to be fair and have empathy for others, even if we are women and they are *ghasp* males and vice versa.


Listen, I'm as postive as can be, I'd appreciate it if you'd read my posts before responding. I told Catherine602 that, among my circles, I'm the one that's holding out hope whereas a lot of men have had it altogether with this ****. Why don't you take your shaming tactics down the street to some other jackass that will let you talk him into being your boy because my ears are for winners.

Also, since you're so into stats:

Divorce and Fatherhood Statistics



Catherine602 said:


> Misguided I'm 30.
> 
> Although your willingness to work among people most in need is admirable, people who are in the light are just as in need of positive strong men.
> 
> You experience with this women was with one woman. I'll tell you what happened to me, I just turned 15 and a man seduced me. I thought I met the love of my life. I never knew He was married with kids and 36 yr old. I was a sheltered Catholic girl easy to manipulate and believed in fairy tales. . I hated "old" men after that. My husband was one of the neighborhood boys. We became friends and I told him what happened.
> 
> We grew up together, and started dating when we were 18. He helped me see the positive side of relationships and saved me from a lifetime of hating men.
> 
> If I can recover from that, you can do the same. I had the misfortune of meeting a bad person like that women you met. You can let her control you or you can assume that the experience says nothing about. Surround yourself with positive men who have had positive experiences with women, get with a good women and invite the beoch to your wedding. There is a good book "Leraned optimism" by martin seligman it is excellent because it explains how we chose how we think and how happy they are. .
> 
> Why do other men meet good women who fall in love with them? You are not so special that you are singled out for a bad experience. you have as much of a chance for a happy relationship as any man
> 
> My husband is a good man. I don't see good men as doormats but God sent, at lest my good guy is. I have cousins and friends just like me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Okay, you being 30 does give what you're saying a bit more weight, I keep having to tell my parents that they aren't 26 today like I am and things are incredibly different than when they were young and my parents aren't really that old relatively speaking. They were 26 when people still had character. That is ****ed up what happened when you were 15 but, for every piece of trash like that, there are 10 good men out there. 

It's not just that one woman, it's just about every other woman as well. I just chose her because she seemed different but her true colors came through eventually. I try to surround myself with people with positive outlooks but, just because we're both looking at the world with rose tinted glasses doesn't mean that we're looking at the same things.


----------



## dannyboyk

Wow Misguided Miscreant those divorce statistics are pretty horrible.

I don't think anything is wrong with feminism, so long as it entails a nice FEMININE woman. 

The problem is, that's not what it entails. It is a hate group that talks about murdering an identifiable minority (men). Here's a link to one of the principle documents that Syrum and other hate filled lunatics support and promote:
SCUM Manifesto - Valerie Solanas
The woman who wrote this killed a man and tried to kill another, and was helped to escape justice by the president of the National Organization for Women, who described the murderess as "one of the greatest heroes of women's rights". 

So, they can bleat about "equality" in mixed company all they want. They don't seem to care too much about men when it comes down to it. They are not about equality, they are about supremacy and mass murder, just like the nazis and the KKK.


----------



## dannyboyk

Catherine602 said:


> You experience with this women was with one woman.


When one woman can go into court and enlist a hate filled, bigoted feminist judge to gleefully kidnap a man's children and put him out on the street, destroying everything he worked years for, then one woman is enough.

But of course, it isn't just one woman. It is every man in my family, and probably every man in Misguided Miscreant's family, and most of the men we know who got chumped into marrying a woman, who used and abused him. This happened to my own dad, which is why I will never marry any woman in this society either. All the dozens of stories I've read in the past week on this board back that up too.

No way in Hell I would let a woman into my life for anything more than sex. What is both sad and funny is that I get sex several times a week, as any single man does. Another thing this forum has taught me is that once a man gets married, he doesn't have sex for five or ten years at a time.

The original posting was true. We don't have the strength or technology to do what we did in 1960, before the poison of feminism ruined the USA. Well, count me as one who doesn't care too much. I am getting mine, and I am going to do as little as possible in the coming years for this society which counts me as the enemy.

The funny irony is, that men live great without wives, but women age very quickly. The bad boys lose all interest in a woman after she hits 30 or so. By then, the nice guys that women think will marry them rarely do. The 30 year old man doesn't want damaged goods, and by then they have the resources to hit it with 20 year olds. Men win every time.


----------



## Syrum

MisguidedMiscreant said:


> I didn't say that women shouldn't have choices, I'm all for women having choices. They just need to learn how to live with those choices and stop acting like it's other people's fault when they make the wrong decisions, this is the life they've chosen now live it. Also, men don't beat women at the rate that they'd have you believe. In my 26 years, I may have only seen one case of domestic violence when the man was the the aggressor and I was around 5 so it's kinda hazy. Any other time, it was the woman being the aggressor and the man merely trying to avoid a bad situation or defending himself.


Ok, well abuse stats tell a different story, and having been in a domestic violence situation myself, I can tell you i was in fear for my life, however I really doubt any man has ever been afraid I would do him real physical harm. I am not saying that men cant be abused, but don't try and down play violence against women to suit your self.
I really don't understand your point about the decision making, no one in society has free choice we are all constrained by society, however men are more free then women. They have greater access to many things that women do not and this is a fact.





> That's not a masculine standpoint, that's a common sense standpoint. Responsibility = authority, whenever I've refused one to any degree in my life, I understood it to be a refusal of the other no matter the case to the same degree.


No it isn't and again, its not valuing women and what they bring. if society says they value women equally but prove over and over again that they don't by making women compete in a masculine arena with an unfair advantage skewed to men and masculinity, then that is unfair, and does not help women have equal opportunity in life.



> First of all, have you seen any of the media lately? Women are always portrayed as more capable than men, check out 24, Family Guy, any Angelina Jolie movie. Men are usually bumbling fools or evil men and it's up to the woman to fix everything. Angelina Jolie is rail thin but she can always defeat 10 men that are bigger and stronger in a fist fight, she has no magical powers or genetic alterations to explain why she can beat them she just can and we're forced to accept how illogical that is because she's a "kick ass female". Men are always the abusers and molestors of children when that number is actually quite low when compared to abuse from women.(Casey Anthony in the house.)


firstly you say men are portrayed as bumbling fools, but on the other hand say men go for the bad boy that's everywhere, which is it? I can think of many different examples on men in the media.






> If a woman makes less then a man, it's because they do less work. This is proven, men take less time off from work so they make more during the week and you can't promote someone that doesn't come to work. Women get paid the same rate if not more at first since there are generally less of them in the workplace putting them at a premium but men usually outwork the women once it's time to get started. Also, men perform more dangerous jobs and die more often in the workplace than women.


The stats on pay were posted on the site not long ago, proving that for a woman, who had worked in for example a company with the same qualifications, for the same amount of time, at the same job as a man that she would earn less. it was across the board with just about every single profession that men still earn more.

In fact once again it is a clear example of society not valuing women, and women are often expected to do the majority of work at home, plus also work. Society should be smart enough to realise that women should be valued for this and not penalized, and any man who has a family or a mother should realise that these women are doing society a huge favour by taking on dual roles.



> In regards to value, you've shown yourself to be ingrained in feminism. You mistake types of value with amount of value, in my family, I'm the only son and the first born. My family is an old school family and my value as the first born and only son is that, upon coming of age, I'm the new second in the family behind my father surpassing my mother. Admittedly, that may make it seem and sound as if I'm more valuable than my three younger sisters but do you think my parents would cry for them any less than they would for me if one of them were to die? No, they'd cry just the same.


:scratchhead:
I dont think you really understand any thing I'm posting or saying, because i happen to really like and believe in more traditional type of relationship, and in fact like my fiance to be the one to take charge etc. I like that I can be more feminine and i want him to look after me, protect me, be the head of our household. However I am also well aware that I have a good man who values me as much as I value him and the unique traits we both can bring to a relationship. 

Valuing women does not include telling them they must think and act like men and participate in society like men, or else go back to the way things used to be. Valuing women would be recognizing that things weren't good for women and that if you value them and their roles as women and start to value feminine things as well as masculine in the workplace and home that more women will see being feminine as an attractive thing.




> What did I say? I said Feminists and I even drew a distinction between the two, fyi, a feminst can be a "man" too. Feminists are trash, pure and simple. If you can behave like a woman than I'd welcome you in with open arms but, if you behave like the serpents that inhabit the world today, I'll have no part of you.


OK, I honestly cant even address this with a straight face.
I think you need to understand that feminists are as diverse as any body and also many groups of people with vested interests in keeping women with less rights have bad mouthed feminists and feminism to the point that most people have no idea what it is even about.



> So now we're name calling? I don't need your pity, I'm a man, I CAN DEAL. Also, that wasn't about me being rejected, hell I rejected the one since she may have cheated with me. She knew that she was engaged and she knew what I had on my mind since I invited her to my apartment to be alone and I don't play checkers. The other, my friend, was more of a commentary of how women make bad relationship choices. I understood that she may have well hurt me and I had a new found respect for her to have the forsight to see that she may **** up something as good as our friendship but that doesn't mean she wasn't making a mistake at the same time by rejecting the guy that would've done anything for her for some big stupid jackass.


Again this kind of thing happens to men and women, and you do come across as very bitter, and one sided, which is not an attractive quality.


> I'm not talking about those women, **** happens. I'm talking about those women that bed down with unscrupulous men then get pregnant by those louts and expect to raise their bastard children on another man's dime? You made your bed then slept with a jackass in it and had a baby with him, now lie in it but don't be surprised if you're sleeping alone.


Stats show that most single mothers are divorced women with several children to the one man, and there can be any number of reasons why those relationships break down. I think you have been hanging out with the wrong people or watching too much Jerry springer. But it does take two people to make a child, and women are sexual beings too, men have pornified women and then they are shocked when (some) women behave in a manner that Iwould agree is not good for them. However those men are also behaving in the same manner and if a child arises out of it, its very archiac to point the finger at the women and sl#t shame her. 



> I'm not saying a woman has no value just because she is a mother, being a *REAL* mother is one of the coolest things a woman can do in my estimation don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that 5-10 years ago, I wasn't worthy but, now that Mr. Alpha ****in' Male skipped town on your stupid ass, I'm some sort of white knight that's come to your rescue? To quote Syrum, "Puh-lease," I may be crazy but I'm not a fool especially since I can be forced by family courts to pay child support if that child forms any sort of "attachment" to me.


Well men and women have bad relationships and make bad judgements. Should I assume that my fiance is not worthy of me because he has children to another woman and made the mistake of having a relationship with her.

People are naive, they fall in love and want to see the good in people. This happens to MEN and WOMEN. And just because they may have children and things don't work out doesn't make them less of a person. Only someone with terrible prejudice and closed heart would feel that way.




> Listen, I'm as postive as can be, I'd appreciate it if you'd read my posts before responding. I told Catherine602 that, among my circles, I'm the one that's holding out hope whereas a lot of men have had it altogether with this ****. Why don't you take your shaming tactics down the street to some other jackass that will let you talk him into being your boy because my ears are for winners.
> 
> Also, since you're so into stats:
> 
> Divorce and Fatherhood Statistics


I obviously have read what you have posted and responded. I do think your attitude is sad.

What exactly are you trying to prove with those stats. Could pull some out of the list and let me know?

Your ears are for winners? lol

I also dont need a boy, I'm engaged to a very good man.



I think you are hanging it in the wrong circles.

As for your love life, you are acting like a teenage boy, because some women who you were not in a relationship with rejected you for someone else. Really you need to move on, it shouldn't cause such woman hating in you.

The fact that you thought you were somehow entitled to a relationship with her tells me a lot, you seem to be blaming women for the fact that you cant meet someone, all the while saying vile prejudice things about women and demonstrating IMO great immaturity in dealing with the opposite sex.


----------



## dannyboyk

Syrum said:


> I think you are hanging it in the wrong circles.
> 
> As for your love life, you are acting like a teenage boy, because some women who you were not in a relationship with rejected you for someone else. Really you need to move on, it shouldn't cause such woman hating in you.
> 
> The fact that you thought you were somehow entitled to a relationship with her tells me a lot, you seem to be blaming women for the fact that you cant meet someone, all the while saying vile prejudice things about women and demonstrating IMO great immaturity in dealing with the opposite sex.


The usual feminist shaming garbage, used when a feminist doesn't have a rational argument to counter hard facts. That whole response, pages and pages long, was just nonsense that sought to personally shame and attack MM's masculinity.

Noted with amusement that you didn't answer the real issue. As a proud feminist, you surely want to spread your doctrines here. I will help.

It is a hate group that talks about murdering an identifiable minority (men). Here's a link to one of the principle documents that Syrum and other hate filled lunatics support and promote:

SCUM Manifesto - Valerie Solanas

As a feminist, Valerie Solanas killed a man and tried to kill another, and was helped to escape justice by the president of the National Organization for Women, who described the murderess as "one of the greatest heroes of women's rights". 

So, Syrum here can bleat about "equality" in mixed company all she wants. She cares nothing about equality, but is actually all about supremacy and mass murder, just like the nazis and the KKK.

Keep speaking out for equality against hate-filled bigots like this, Misguided Miscreant. It's heartening to see at least one man with some balls.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Syrum said:


> What a load of racist mumbo jumbo garbage.
> The black community does not have issues because of sexy men.


I saw this video a long time ago, and came to my mind lately.

Heartbreaking to see an idealistic young man explain getting shot down for being "too nice", and how it affected his attitudes toward women as he grew older.

(WARNING: Foul language, not safe for work!)

YouTube - ‪Tupac on female relations‬‏


----------



## Ayrun

I didn't read the OP, just the title. The term "nice guy" is really vague, but most "nice guys" don't do well because they can be push-overs. The female animal innately wants to feel safe and protected, so the guy has to have a bit of a backbone. In my experience, women want you to be in the gray area between ******* and nice. Essentially, a masculine, assertive male that treats her well.


----------



## Syrum

dannyboyk said:


> The usual feminist shaming garbage, used when a feminist doesn't have a rational argument to counter hard facts. That whole response, pages and pages long, was just nonsense that sought to personally shame and attack MM's masculinity.


Yeah OK. That's me masculine hater *insert sarcasm*. Proving you didn't really read or understand what I have written.



> Noted with amusement that you didn't answer the real issue. As a proud feminist, you surely want to spread your doctrines here. I will help.


I could easily share with you a group of men who hurt women and claim that's what you males are all about, 
Or perhaps I wouldn't do that because I am not into spreading hysteria, and talking nonsense. If you want to believe everything you read, that however is up to you.



> It is a hate group that talks about murdering an identifiable minority (men). Here's a link to one of the principle documents that Syrum and other hate filled lunatics support and promote:
> 
> SCUM Manifesto - Valerie Solanas


And again plenty of men in the world who hurt women, Im not really sure what your point is.:scratchhead:



> As a feminist, Valerie Solanas killed a man and tried to kill another, and was helped to escape justice by the president of the National Organization for Women, who described the murderess as "one of the greatest heroes of women's rights".


Sometimes christian people murder others and bomb people , does that make them real christians or representative of all christians?



> So, Syrum here can bleat about "equality" in mixed company all she wants. She cares nothing about equality, but is actually all about supremacy and mass murder, just like the nazis and the KKK.


Yep you got me Im just like a Nazi. Shame on me for thinking women should be just as valued as men.

Although I never remember posting about whether or not I identified with current ideals on feminism or not.



> Keep speaking out for equality against hate-filled bigots like this, Misguided Miscreant. It's heartening to see at least one man with some balls.


Any one who thinks that I am a man hater hasn't been reading what I have written. I in fact love men, I am even engaged to one of them, who i love and I have a son. 

The only hate I have seen is in the misguided postings and ramblings by a few other posters in this thread. 

If you read my posts on here, you would know I actually prefer traditional relationships and like manly men. I consider my self to be feminine and would prefer my husband to be the leader in our household. But don't let the truth get in the way of what you would like to say.

cheers.


----------



## Syrum

BigBadWolf said:


> I saw this video a long time ago, and came to my mind lately.
> 
> Heartbreaking to see an idealistic young man explain getting shot down for being "too nice", and how it affected his attitudes toward women as he grew older.
> 
> (WARNING: Foul language, not safe for work!)
> 
> YouTube - ‪Tupac on female relations‬‏


Any man or women who taints the whole gender because of bad experience needs to get some help.

And how many women claim all men are bad due to bad experiences. Oh but that's her fault for choosing wrong man.. right?

Funny double standards you all have eh?


----------



## BigBadWolf

SimplyAmorous said:


> Big Bad Wolf, you love to stir the pot! You sure got Misguided caught in a whirlwind here.


I'm not interested in merely stirring any pot.

But, the writing is on the wall in some circles I travel in.

Notice what I wrote in my OP, not necessarily on the micro level as we often address on this forum, but on the grander scheme, what is the consequences of some of these social trends being observed?



> I really didn't read this whole article when I posted earlier, it was sooooo long, I only got as far as reading the slandering of the nice men being unsexy and it ruffled my feathers. This always will.
> 
> I personally hate anything that tries to paint a concept ALL black or ALL white in every instance. It makes me want to defend the freaks, makes some of us want to get our claws out.
> 
> What really is the point of this article? To insult EVERY Man, claiming he is either the SEXY playboy -easily spreading his seed to endless willing open legged women falling under his sexual spell -who he will abandon & the Governement has to pick up the tab, OR he is a BORING unexciting unsexy nice guy who gets the lovers leftovers.  This not only insults all men, it also insults ALL women!



Try to put aside to judge the merits of the article, myself I agree with only some parts of it.

The point, whether right or wrong, is this attitude, in my opinion, is growing mightily among men. 

A few years ago, such things were a small minority.

Now even basic searching on the internet for sexual issues between men and women, I see this type of attitude becoming very common.

And in that, I would agree it is practically inevitable.

My personal opinion, feminism is the scapegoat to allow a hypergamous sexual social structure to dominate.

A hypergamous sexual social structure, is simply going to produce "harems", or versions of harems. A very few men at the top of social structures will have access to the majority of sexually eligible ladies.

Historically, this sexual structure swings as a pendullum, the few men at top enjoy reproductive rights to majority of women (hypergamy), eventually the majority of the rest of the men in frustration band together, overthrow the top men, and reinstitute sexual expectations to monogamy. This usually in form of religious institutions or social institutions or government institutions (regardless, it is always structured and from such structure and within such structure is what we understand as civiliations).

THe sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s is producing such hypergamy today. Oh how did the men cheer on such sexual liberation, thinking it would be easy sex for all, only to realize the majority of girls all going for the few top "jocks" or "misunderstood artists" or "bad boys", and leaving majority of them, well intentioned "nice guys" out in the cold. For example even today, the Duke "Fu(k list" girl typifies much attitudes I discuss from my own college age son and his observations at his university.

So try this experiment.

Google "Marriage strike" and see, at the last time I checked, over 80 million search results.

marriage strike - Google Search


This is, in my opinion, the backlash of feminism, the bitter crops from seeds of gender mistrust and dishonesty sown just a generation or two earlier, and like a quiet wave in the ocean, I am wondering if it will indeed be a tsunami in dismantling and restructuring our future sexual social structures to a level we may not even realize. :scratchhead:


----------



## greenpearl

SimplyAmorous said:


> The most successful marraiges are when each has a love so strong, to cherish, to please, appreciating each other, having a need for each other, as they slowly grow old together, they will forever see that young man or that young woman who they fell hopelessly in love with all those years before, being bonded SO TIGHTLY, they are not looking for another and would never want another. This is what to teach our children about love.
> 
> Warn them of these pitfalls, how sexual attraction can be the destruction to many lives, but us as parents, be that example to follow, against what artcles like this -spew to us.


My feeling and it is something I want my son to be able to have too! 

My ex was a conflict avoider, he let me do whatever I liked to do, he didn't win my respect after each fight we had. My husband is not a conflict avoider, he dealt all of our fights beautifully, firm but not angry, strong but not macho, I remember every time after a fight, my love and respect for him strengthened. 

I am concerned that my son is a conflict avoider since his father is, I have asked my husband to guide my son about that. 

Men can't let their women push them around. If they let that happen, they are creating monsters.

For other good qualities beta males have, nice, faithful, responsible, affectionate, considerate, all the good qualities good men have, I want my son to have too! I am teaching him these! I am teaching him to be a good man, I don't want him to become a " bad boy " young women are infatuated about. " Bad Boy" can't find true love. They can get a lot of sex without love, that's it!


----------



## Syrum

I am not trying to be rude, but this whole thing is like conspiracy theory against women.

Do you guys also wear tin foil hats?

Just askin.. 

Again any complaint men seem to make against seemingly the majority of women, - jilted women could make the same claims about men. 

I would tell both sexes to stop being ridiculous, and if all you are looking for is thorns, well you wont see any roses that's for sure.


----------



## Syrum

greenpearl said:


> My feeling and it is something I want my son to be able to have too!
> 
> My ex was a conflict avoider, he let me do whatever I liked to do, he didn't win my respect after each fight we had. My husband is not an conflict avoider, he dealt all of our fights beautifully, I remember every time after a fight, my love and respect for him strengthened.
> 
> I am concerned that my son is a conflict avoider since his father is, I have asked my husband to guide my son about that.
> 
> Men can't let their women push them around. If they let that happen, they are creating monsters.


:iagree: Being a conflict avoider is a bad idea. Men need to be reasonable but not get walked all over, and on important matters stand their ground. This does lead a woman to respect her husband.


----------



## greenpearl

Syrum said:


> :iagree: Being a conflict avoider is a bad idea. Men need to be reasonable but not get walked all over, and on important matters stand their ground. This does lead a woman to respect her husband.


You can understand this because you speak with experience! 

I do think that us women are not that easy to deal with, we are complicated emotional creatures, few men can win our hearts!  For the ones who do understand us and know how to play our violin, BRAVO to them!


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

I realized I had an issue with nice-guy aversion, and went to therapy to overcome it. Then I dated and married a nice guy and it turned out it was all an act on his part. I am married to a very nasty person. He turned into someone completely different than how he acted prior to marriage.

Now I fantasize about nice guys. 

I have some nice guy acquaintances and they are really nice, respectful of a marriage that I respect and put boundaries around even though there is no basis to respect it other than I made a vow and don't want to cheat or even have an EA, I'd rather be lonely or pay a therapist to deal proactively with the issues of living in an abusive relationship.

I read the article and wonder why my H went to great extremes to pursue me if he was just going to be an A** to me after the dating and commitment and marriage. Am I a washed-up cougar? That's not the impression I get from the way that other men treat me (acquaintainces, men in the community, friends I don't keep in touch with due to being married, co-workers, former clients, guys at the gym, even people I meet in passing or at social occasions...) I do not wear a ring so I'm fairly certain the respect I get is not based on that. My H wears his ring but only after he told me that married men have an easier time with picking up women. I guess it convinces the dumb innocents that he is 'nice' enough to be married, and that his wife doesn't appreciate him, poor baby!!!!! And that the flirting is innocent or whatever because he is 'married'. (Yes, legally I suppose that is true.)

I've had better luck adopting dogs and cats from shelters!!!!

Women might end up with bad boys because bad boys are master manipulators. What is that saying, wolf in sheep's clothing? I think it is a game for some bad boys, going out to destroy nice women just because they can, like a competitive game. I think women do prefer nice guys, and bad boys now this, and learn to camoflauge themselves for the conquest and domination.


----------



## greenpearl

Homemaker_Numero_Uno said:


> What is that saying, wolf in sheep's clothing? I think it is a game for some bad boys, going out to destroy nice women just because they can, like a competitive game. I think women do prefer nice guys, and bad boys now this, and learn to camoflauge themselves for the conquest and domination.


I think that makes perfect sense. 

A lot of men pretend to be somebody they are not when they are dating! 

They are sweet and gentle before they get married, they buy flowers and gifts, they dress up for their girlfriends and they are always on time. 

After he gets married, he takes off his mask and shows his true self, and it is not the one who the girl fell in love with. 

A lot of girls are tricked this way. Just like men say that a lot of men are tricked by their girls after the rings on the fingers. 

I think men and women shouldn't pretend to be somebody else when they are dating. 

If you are not a flower man, don't buy flowers before you get married. If you buy flowers before marriage, buy flowers after marriage too.


----------



## AFEH

BigBadWolf said:


> This is, in my opinion, the backlash of feminism, the bitter crops from seeds of gender mistrust and dishonesty sown just a generation or two earlier, and like a quiet wave in the ocean, I am wondering if it will indeed be a tsunami in dismantling and restructuring our future sexual social structures to a level we may not even realize. :scratchhead:


Men will need their boundaries and know how to protect them more than ever they have before. And the good man must know what his true values are and never ever undersell himself.


----------



## greenpearl

AFEH said:


> Men will need their boundaries and know how to protect them more than ever they have before. And the good man must know what his true values are and never ever undersell himself.


Bob, 

Good men now have to do a lot to understand and deal with complicated women. 

But good women have to do a lot to protect themselves too! They are forced to be strong! 

Look at the cheaters and abusers! 

Sometimes I see some female posters defend their peers, I really want to tell them, when men are cheating, they are cheating with women. You are here hating men and pro women, but who slept with the men? Are those women innocent? Do those feminists defend these women?

This society has become complicated, you seldom see simplicity now. Male and female relationship is not one article can cover!


----------



## Conrad

AFEH said:


> Men will need their boundaries and know how to protect them more than ever they have before. And the good man must know what his true values are and never ever undersell himself.


This is worthy of a frame.


----------



## Halien

By marrying my wife, I was involved with what seemed to be a recipe for disaster with her extended family. My wife's mother and both sisters went to distinguished women's college on the east coast, and were strong feminists. My wife's mother was the only one of the three still married, and the other two had been divorced for many years.

I was known in the neighborhood as a brawler, mostly hanging out with a gang of anti-drug guys who tried to clean our neighborhood, and was trying to make myself into a nice guy. The aunts HATED me. The biggest thing was the assumption that most men are pretty stupid. Hey, their words, and not mine. They told my wife that she would eventually get tired of the nice a$$, and realize that she should have to find a guy with brains. Later, when she could stand up to them, she told them that I went to college on a literary scholarship.

What I learned was that so much of their anger was about their father, a sexual pervert who had abused them. Add to that, it seems that the college seemed to push a radical type of feminism that shuns even women who embrace their sexuality. For me, it seems that the self-defense mechanism from a male dominated society caused a reaction, but in the earlier days, or in some segments, it wasn't one that focused on a plan to merge back into a mutually respecting society, or accepted those who have a different view of feminism (think attractive republican congresswomen who are made fun of by the press). 

Although one of the aunts still seems to hate me, I became extremely close to my wife's mother and one of the aunts. They still make jokes about the a$$, though, even though I'm 45.


----------



## magnoliagal

Unbeknownst to me I was raised to be a man. I was taught that being feminine was weak and that all men were controlling. I then set out to beat men at their own game. After a few rounds with bad boys I came to my senses and trained myself to be attracted to a nice guy. Ended up marrying him. Total bad move. See I forgot one key element in my plan. I forgot to work on being feminine if I wanted to change the balance of things in my life.

I see now there can really only be one man in the marriage and for years I wanted it to be me. That does not work. Makes me want to go kick my dad's ass for selling me on that idea. What was he thinking?


----------



## Conrad

magnoliagal said:


> Unbeknownst to me I was raised to be a man. I was taught that being feminine was weak and that all men were controlling. I then set out to beat men at their own game. After a few rounds with bad boys I came to my senses and trained myself to be attracted to a nice guy. Ended up marrying him. Total bad move. See I forgot one key element in my plan. I forgot to work on being feminine if I wanted to change the balance of things in my life.
> 
> I see now there can really only be one man in the marriage and for years I wanted it to be me. That does not work. Makes me want to go kick my dad's ass for selling me on that idea. What was he thinking?


My Dad was a conflict avoider.

Always felt like things would "blow over"

They don't.

They fester until resolved.


----------



## Undertheradar

magnoliagal said:


> Unbeknownst to me I was raised to be a man. I was taught that being feminine was weak and that all men were controlling. I then set out to beat men at their own game. After a few rounds with bad boys I came to my senses and trained myself to be attracted to a nice guy. Ended up marrying him. Total bad move. See I forgot one key element in my plan. I forgot to work on being feminine if I wanted to change the balance of things in my life.
> 
> I see now there can really only be one man in the marriage and for years I wanted it to be me. That does not work. Makes me want to go kick my dad's ass for selling me on that idea. What was he thinking?


This is very interesting. 
I see a change in my wife where her beauty, is now blended with a new hardass toughness about her. She got this new job. It's a far cry from a stay at home mom, and involves cutting boxes of goods, and lots of "manly-type" work. It makes me wonder if her job took away some of her femininity. She doesn't like the nice guy in me anymore, and the funny thing is.... I used to be a hardass, with an attitude, and she softened me up.
When she wanted out, I became a mush, and it got me nowhere.
Time to take a hardline again.


----------



## MisguidedMiscreant

Syrum said:


> Ok, well abuse stats tell a different story, and having been in a domestic violence situation myself, I can tell you i was in fear for my life, however I really doubt any man has ever been afraid I would do him real physical harm. I am not saying that men cant be abused, but don't try and down play violence against women to suit your self.
> I really don't understand your point about the decision making, no one in society has free choice we are all constrained by society, however men are more free then women. They have greater access to many things that women do not and this is a fact.


It doesn't really matter if I thought you could hurt me does it? All that matters is that you were trying to, that's why attempted murder is a crime. That's another feminist line of thinking. Everyone in society has choices, isn't that what the *MEN* in the Middle East are fighting for? 





> No it isn't and again, its not valuing women and what they bring. if society says they value women equally but prove over and over again that they don't by making women compete in a masculine arena with an unfair advantage skewed to men and masculinity, then that is unfair, and does not help women have equal opportunity in life.


If a woman doesn't want to complete with men then don't compete in those areas. If you place a woman in the NFL, would you say that it's unfair because the rules are skewed to the advantages of men? You wouldn't because the rules in the NFL are the rules, some people can compete and others can't. It wouldn't matter since a feminist will soon start to cry about how unfair it is to the commisioner of the league and, with the sense of fairness and honor that men have and feminists always say we don't, they'll start to change the rules so that she can compete. It's the same with men, not all men can compete in the same areas, it's why combat sports like boxing and mixed martial arts have weight classes. A fighter that weighs in at 150lbs may be the best fighter in the world but he still couldn't do anything with a fighter that weigsh in at 200+ lbs. 




> firstly you say men are portrayed as bumbling fools, but on the other hand say men go for the bad boy that's everywhere, which is it? I can think of many different examples on men in the media.


I said either/or, if a man isn't played as inept while the woman saves the day, he's played as an insidious figure that, for some reason, only targets women. I'd like to hear those examples. 







> The stats on pay were posted on the site not long ago, proving that for a woman, who had worked in for example a company with the same qualifications, for the same amount of time, at the same job as a man that she would earn less. it was across the board with just about every single profession that men still earn more.


Just because two people have worked at the same job for the same amount of time doesn't mean that they've done the same amount of work. Did it take into account things like time taken off for the myriad reasons that women give to take time off? There's even talk of giving women time off for "menstrual reasons" ever month, how unfair is that? Eventually, it comes to a point where the man is just at work more than the woman is and the company has to make a decision on who to pay and who to promote. 



> In fact once again it is a clear example of society not valuing women, and women are often expected to do the majority of work at home, plus also work. Society should be smart enough to realise that women should be valued for this and not penalized, and any man who has a family or a mother should realise that these women are doing society a huge favour by taking on dual roles.


No, women are not, they're doing the government a favor with the increased tax revenue but they're still doing a disservice to their family which is a disservice society since the family unit, that feminism has destroyed also, is the backbone of society. The more a woman is at work, the less time she spends with her children if she has any which messes children up as they're missing out on the time in their lives when they need their mothers the most. Most fathers begins to spend meaningful time with their children when they reach their teens since he's the one that's been out in the world the most and has to teach them about what they're going to face, it was the same with my father. He worked most of the time when I was younger until I got to high school then he started to give me guidance before that, I spent more time with my mother. 




> :scratchhead:
> I dont think you really understand any thing I'm posting or saying, because i happen to really like and believe in more traditional type of relationship, and in fact like my fiance to be the one to take charge etc. I like that I can be more feminine and i want him to look after me, protect me, be the head of our household. However I am also well aware that I have a good man who values me as much as I value him and the unique traits we both can bring to a relationship.


If it's good now, let's see you in a few years.



> Valuing women does not include telling them they must think and act like men and participate in society like men, or else go back to the way things used to be. Valuing women would be recognizing that things weren't good for women and that if you value them and their roles as women and start to value feminine things as well as masculine in the workplace and home that more women will see being feminine as an attractive thing.


At what point were things not so good for women? You ever hear about chivalry? Men have always put their lives on the line for women throughout the ages so please tell me how things were bad for women on the Titanic when they and the children were put on the lifeboats first. Tell me how things were bad for the women that stayed in the U.S. during WWII while the men were shipped out to die. 





> OK, I honestly cant even address this with a straight face.
> I think you need to understand that feminists are as diverse as any body and also many groups of people with vested interests in keeping women with less rights have bad mouthed feminists and feminism to the point that most people have no idea what it is even about.


No one's saying that women shouldn't have rights, I'm saying that the rights are unbalanced and unfair favoring women over men. 





> Again this kind of thing happens to men and women, and you do come across as very bitter, and one sided, which is not an attractive quality.


You don't have to take my word for it, check out the Coping With Infedility section and read the threads of people like jar, disbelief, Marksaysay, and Notanymore100. 



> Stats show that most single mothers are divorced women with several children to the one man, and there can be any number of reasons why those relationships break down. I think you have been hanging out with the wrong people or watching too much Jerry springer. But it does take two people to make a child, and women are sexual beings too, men have pornified women and then they are shocked when (some) women behave in a manner that Iwould agree is not good for them. However those men are also behaving in the same manner and if a child arises out of it, its very archiac to point the finger at the women and sl#t shame her.


Yes, I'm shaming women that have children out of wedlock with fake gangsters and then try to pawn the child off on the next righteous man that comes by. Why not make the actual father take care of his child? Also, in regards to divorced women, **** happens but it still says a lot that she chose that guy in the first place even if it's his fault that they're divorce.




> Well men and women have bad relationships and make bad judgements. Should I assume that my fiance is not worthy of me because he has children to another woman and made the mistake of having a relationship with her.


I wouldn't blame you if you did, I'd do the same thing. 



> People are naive, they fall in love and want to see the good in people. This happens to MEN and WOMEN. And just because they may have children and things don't work out doesn't make them less of a person. Only someone with terrible prejudice and closed heart would feel that way.


I didn't say that it makes them less of a person for having a child, I said the women that have these bastard children and then try to ensnare an unwitting man for his wallet are less than a person. If a woman has a child and takes care of it herself, that's cool, let the next guy that comes along make the decision to get involved and don't get angry when he doesn't want to due to your past trangressions because he can do better for himself seeing as he's free.





> I obviously have read what you have posted and responded. I do think your attitude is sad.
> 
> What exactly are you trying to prove with those stats. Could pull some out of the list and let me know?
> 
> Your ears are for winners? lol
> 
> I also dont need a boy, I'm engaged to a very good man.


Sad? Why, because I'm hip to what's going on? I wasn't trying to prove anything, I proved that there are a lot of misandrist lies spewed about men in society today and those stats are the truth. 

Yes, my ears are for winners. 

He's a man now, again, let's see you in a few years.





> I think you are hanging it in the wrong circles.
> 
> As for your love life, you are acting like a teenage boy, because some women who you were not in a relationship with rejected you for someone else. Really you need to move on, it shouldn't cause such woman hating in you.
> 
> The fact that you thought you were somehow entitled to a relationship with her tells me a lot, you seem to be blaming women for the fact that you cant meet someone, all the while saying vile prejudice things about women and demonstrating IMO great immaturity in dealing with the opposite sex.


Again with the name calling and why do you keep talking about me when I'm not talking about you? Let's keep things no the issue at hand.

I'm not entitled to a relationship with anyone, that's a feminist line of thinking. I said that I was a much better choice and she went the other way since she has choices that you said she didn't earlier.


----------



## magnoliagal

One more thing on nice guys. I believe they are gems. I also believe before you try to date or marry one you need to learn all that you can about them. I think they do (in the beginning) try to lead, deal with problems, tell you what they want, etc. but it's quiet and passive almost as a whisper. Most women who marry men like this don't listen. They assume because this type of man isn't in your face arguing he's just peachy about whatever it is you do. This is simply not true. They have a language all their own and you need a translator to live with one. 

They are great catches, great dads, awesome lovers but only if they have loving, admiring, gentle wives. I now think it takes a special woman to truly appreciate and care for a genuine nice guy.


----------



## magnoliagal

Undertheradar said:


> This is very interesting.
> I see a change in my wife where her beauty, is now blended with a new hardass toughness about her. She got this new job. It's a far cry from a stay at home mom, and involves cutting boxes of goods, and lots of "manly-type" work. It makes me wonder if her job took away some of her femininity. She doesn't like the nice guy in me anymore, and the funny thing is.... I used to be a hardass, with an attitude, and she softened me up.
> When she wanted out, I became a mush, and it got me nowhere.
> Time to take a hardline again.


I was feminine enough to catch my husband at age 25. By age 28 I got my first male dominated CPA job. It was then that I began to morph into an aggressive man. I can laugh now at how I fell into that trap. I cut my hair super short, wore harsh looking suits and became a man hater. I was the breadwinner, my husband became soft, did most of the cooking and cleaning and we did a total role reversal.

If I do go back to work it will most definately be something completely feminine. I've learned my lesson.


----------



## greenpearl

magnoliagal said:


> One more thing on nice guys. I believe they are gems. I also believe before you try to date or marry one you need to learn all that you can about them. I think they do (in the beginning) try to lead, deal with problems, tell you what they want, etc. but it's quiet and passive almost as a whisper. Most women who marry men like this don't listen. They assume because this type of man isn't in your face arguing he's just peachy about whatever it is you do. This is simply not true. They have a language all their own and you need a translator to live with one.
> 
> They are great catches, great dads, awesome lovers but only if they have loving, admiring, gentle wives. I now think it takes a special woman to truly appreciate and care for a genuine nice guy.


Heartfelt agree!

With cheating so common now, a man who is faithful deserves our appreciation and respect! 

I think us women have to understand the importance not driving nice guys into extinction!


----------



## dannyboyk

MisguidedMiscreant said:


> Again with the name calling and why do you keep talking about me when I'm not talking about you? Let's keep things no the issue at hand.


Uh, you are expecting courtesy from a member of a hate group? That's like a Jewish guy asking the Nazis to play nice.

She wants you dead. By her own admission she is a feminist. Dead, got it? She isn't going to be nice to you. She doesn't consider you human. She's fantasizing about building death camps and final solutions.

SCUM Manifesto - Valerie Solanas

This is what she believes. The woman who wrote the manifesto killed a man, and afterward was hailed by the National Organization for Women as "one of the greatest heroes of women's rights". 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Man with tits here. Wow there is alot of hatred and enormous generalizations being stated. If women are expired at 30, prone to pawning off bastard children, worthy of being humped and dumped and the root of all men's ills, then please wear a sign stating that. That way, the single ladies know to stay wide and clear. 
It's like women simply cannot win. Some men want a needy/clingy/dependent woman and others can't stand that. Some men want a woman to stay at home and raise his children but then does not feel the need to pay alimony in the event of a divorce, some men want a woman to work but then complains that the children are being raised by somebody else, some men want a vocal woman who speaks her mind and others tell her to harness her voice. Some men want to go out and play the field but god forbid if the woman does, then they complain that she doesn't do certain things or doesn't know how to. Some men complain that their women don't dress up and others complain that she dresses to skimpy. 
It's really a no win situation. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If my marriage doesn't work out, I'll just stay alone. No way would I put myself out there and expose myself to this level of vitriol.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

dannyboyk said:


> Uh, you are expecting courtesy from a member of a hate group? That's like a Jewish guy asking the Nazis to play nice.
> 
> She wants you dead. By her own admission she is a feminist. Dead, got it? She isn't going to be nice to you. She doesn't consider you human. She's fantasizing about building death camps and final solutions.
> 
> SCUM Manifesto - Valerie Solanas
> 
> This is what she believes. The woman who wrote the manifesto killed a man, and afterward was hailed by the National Organization for Women as "one of the greatest heroes of women's rights".
> 
> Hope this helps.


Bye, bye. :banhim:


----------



## seeking sanity

Wow lot's of heated feelings here.

I have a question: Is it stronger to live by your own convictions and beliefs, while allowing others to have different beliefs, without feeling the need to persuade them to your view?

OR

Is it is stronger to use your convictions to "lead" people towards the belief system you have because you know it is right?

Here's why I ask. Many of the views are of a "society is going to h#ll and here is why we should change". People of have been saying that through out history. "H#ll" is only "h#ll" because it's different than what we want. Which is about imposing one set of values on others to keep the congruence. 

I believe while these generalizations are interesting, they aren't anywhere near what's true. And while it's nice to think of the good old days as better, don't forget the rampant racism, sexism, repression, conformity, religious dogma, intolerance, and suppression of personal freedom that went along with that.

"Bad boys" sex appeal doesn't strike me as the lynch pin in societies woes. Nor does feminism.


----------



## dannyboyk

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Bye, bye. :banhim:


That's all members of a violent hate group can do, is forcibly silence the opposition. You have no arguments, and that was already proven.

Pathetic.


----------



## Entropy3000

magnoliagal said:


> One more thing on nice guys. I believe they are gems. I also believe before you try to date or marry one you need to learn all that you can about them. I think they do (in the beginning) try to lead, deal with problems, tell you what they want, etc. but it's quiet and passive almost as a whisper. Most women who marry men like this don't listen. *They assume because this type of man isn't in your face arguing he's just peachy about whatever it is you do. This is simply not true. *They have a language all their own and you need a translator to live with one.
> 
> They are great catches, great dads, awesome lovers but only if they have loving, admiring, gentle wives. I now think it takes a special woman to truly appreciate and care for a genuine nice guy.


Interesting observation. I think men like this assume a lot about women. They probably put the woman on a pedastel and assume they can be trusted and so on. They are amazed that their wife could do or would do such and such. She is somehow different.


----------



## BigBadWolf

seeking sanity said:


> "Bad boys" sex appeal doesn't strike me as the lynch pin in societies woes. Nor does feminism.


What if the lynch pin is the breakdown of marriage and family structures?

What if this breakdown is primarily due to dishonesty and misguided actions and behavior that replaces respect and sexual attraction with resentment and mistrust, between men and women?


----------



## dannyboyk

seeking sanity said:


> "Bad boys" sex appeal doesn't strike me as the lynch pin in societies woes. Nor does feminism.


A civilization is built on surplus value. That's a term Karl Marx coined for the extra wealth that is created when people work.

Why did America have the wealth to do a series of moon landings in the 1960s? It's because all those nice guys were busting their butts supporting wives and kids, and that surplus value was what was used.

Now look at America. The roads are falling to pieces. Why is this? It's because guys like me work as little as possible, get sex from hook ups, and enjoy life rather than building society. Why on earth would I or any of my friends marry a woman? Our needs are met, and marriage is a one way ticket to slavery, jail, and death.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

dannyboyk said:


> Why on earth would I or any of my friends marry a woman? Our needs are met, and marriage is a one way ticket to slavery, jail, and death.


So why are you here then? This is a marriage website, ya know.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

BigBadWolf said:


> What if the lynch pin is the breakdown of marriage and family structures?
> 
> What if this breakdown is primarily due to dishonesty and misguided actions and behavior that replaces respect and sexual attraction with resentment and mistrust, between men and women?


So when did this start? Dishonesty and misguided actions have been around since the dawn of time. It wasn't a single event that caused this. What am I missing here? :scratchhead:


----------



## dannyboyk

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So why are you here then? This is a marriage website, ya know.


I'm here to "talk about marriage". Did you not read the banner in big red letters up top? That's what I'm doing, too.


----------



## Deejo

Passionate debate is just fine.

Name calling, and incitement is not ...

That is all.


----------



## Syrum

I am embarassed that I ever participated in this thread. 

There is no point conversing with people who froth at the mouth because you have a vagina and an opinion. I think it's obvious that some men have such hatred of women that their warped ideas become self full filling prophesies through their own actions and inability to see the trees for the forest.

Good luck with misery.

I will go about my business believing you are trolls because no sane person would sprout such nonsense. Plus I like to be able to sleep well at night and think most people are good inside.

ETA calling women Ho's etc is really not acceptable. I don't believe there is an equal name that could be used to put men down in the same way, however if there was I can assure you that none of the female posters here would use such a name.


----------



## MisguidedMiscreant

dannyboyk said:


> Uh, you are expecting courtesy from a member of a hate group? That's like a Jewish guy asking the Nazis to play nice.
> 
> She wants you dead. By her own admission she is a feminist. Dead, got it? She isn't going to be nice to you. She doesn't consider you human. She's fantasizing about building death camps and final solutions.
> 
> SCUM Manifesto - Valerie Solanas
> 
> This is what she believes. The woman who wrote the manifesto killed a man, and afterward was hailed by the National Organization for Women as "one of the greatest heroes of women's rights".
> 
> Hope this helps.


****ed up is what that is. 

I wish she would leave me out of it, this is a debate of ideology. I wish they'd stop trying to ban you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MisguidedMiscreant

Syrum said:


> I am embarassed that I ever participated in this thread.
> 
> There is no point conversing with people who froth at the mouth because you have a vagina and an opinion. I think it's obvious that some men have such hatred of women that their warped ideas become self full filling prophesies through their own actions and inability to see the trees for the forest.
> 
> Good luck with misery.
> 
> I will go about my business believing you are trolls because no sane person would sprout such nonsense. Plus I like to be able to sleep well at night and think most people are good inside.


Quitter, it's no surprise though because this thread is for winners who are willing to prove their point but there's no shame in tapping out.

I didn't say that I hate women, how can I with a mother and three sisters? Feminists just make loving women a bad life choice more and more.

Also, I'm not miserable. I'm a man and we're designed to be alone, I'm just happy that I've been able to realize it recently. It's women who say they don't need a man while desperately looking for their vibrator.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Oh to stir a pot of filth and pretend it will cook up a healthy debate...


----------



## Conrad

One thing I always wondered about (but don't anymore) is the old fashioned practice of a father paying a dowry to the groom.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MisguidedMiscreant said:


> Quitter, it's no surprise though because this thread is for winners who are willing to prove their point but there's no shame in tapping out.
> 
> I didn't say that I hate women, how can I with a mother and three sisters? Feminists just make loving women a bad life choice more and more.
> 
> Also, I'm not miserable. I'm a man and we're designed to be alone, I'm just happy that I've been able to realize it recently. It's women who say they don't need a man while desperately looking for their vibrator.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She was proving her point just fine. Being likened to a murderer and a Nazi was way over the line. Calling her a quitter for not wanting to subject herself to that is also over the line. 
In a hilarious turn of events though, you just reduced men down to an appliance.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad said:


> One thing I always wondered about (but don't anymore) is the old fashioned practice of a father paying a dowry to the groom.


As in it's a good thing?

Eh, most weddings are paid for by the brides family so that could be considered a dowry of sorts.


----------



## BigBadWolf

PLease, let us continue a lively and emotionally charged, sure, discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

Deejo was very courteous, but also very clear. 

I will attempt to repeat my initial line of questioning from my OP to hopefully keep discussions on track:

Is there a large, macro-level social impact to these ideas and notions that a civilization's progress and stability hinge on women's sexual appetites and choices?

And if so, what would it look like?

And, is this "Marriage Strike" I personally keep noticing more and more over last 2 years or so a tremor of a larger quake?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=marriage+strike&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=


----------



## Trenton

BigBadWolf said:


> PLease, let us continue a lively and emotionally charged, sure, discussion without resorting to personal attacks.
> 
> Deejo was very courteous, but also very clear.
> 
> I will attempt to repeat my initial line of questioning from my OP to hopefully keep discussions on track:
> 
> Is there a large, macro-level social impact to these ideas and notions that a civilization's progress and stability hinge on women's sexual appetites and choices?


That's what you got from the blog you posted? Perhaps you should have written it yourself because all I got was spit up of opinion with zero facts or sources.

It is all on a pendulum and about balance. It can't possibly rest in the hands of women alone. The fem movement most recently pushed things in one direction, perhaps too far, but with just cause. Men will push back, hopefully not too far so that balance is re-established. It happens over and over and over.


HTML:


----------



## seeking sanity

What if the lynch pin is...

...socialism, rise of the banking industry, Wall street and the stock market's "profit at all costs" mentality, crippling debt, over regulation, globalization... Etc.

I'm not trying to dismiss this argument, however, there are a LOT of factors creating the society we live in now. Personal freedoms and rise of feminism may have contributed to more "nice guys", but if you look at how people are wired psychologically, most of us seek out sameness. That's why franchises have grown to dominate the retail economy over the past 60 years. In the 40's there weren't National franchises, McDonalds, the Gap, and the homogonized culture that exists now.

Given that business thrives by meeting the needs of consumers, then it's reasonable that these companies grew because they met a deep seated need for security in the population. Sameness wins exactly because it is predictable. I believe we are wired towards it.

You could argue that a "nice guy" is in most of us as it is a security-seeking paradigm, but suppressed over the many centuries because there wasn't the luxury of being nice when focused on survival.


----------



## Conrad

Wolf and SS,

I always saw women as the "civilizers" among us. My mother referred to my father as a "mountain man".

What this article says to me is that women have largely stopped seeing "civilizing" men as their role. The ramparts of militant feminism have encouraged women to be more like men.

I don't think that's a positive development.


----------



## AFEH

Unfortunately BBW I don’t reckon you’re going to get much mileage with your debate other than wheel spinning and antagonism. There’s a few reasons for that. First is the feminists that join the debate are blind to any downside associated with feminism. They are absolutely blind to any downside. Secondly they take things personally, as though their very life were at stake. Thirdly it’s Man that’s the “great philosopher” and what you are talking about is philosophical, it’s “in the future”. It’s Man that takes stock of history and current situations and starts trying to predict the future based on where humanity is now.

And it will be probably be Man that writes the history books of the future looking back on these times in a few hundred years.

The “detached, philosophical debate” you want is never going to happen with feminists.

Feminists are taking western culture to different places, they have changed the direction of change. Just that they haven’t got a clue of what the end game is. The pity is they don’t seem to care.

I’d love to be proven wrong. For example a book, recommended reading for men like me about the future 100 years of western society associated with feminism and most importantly a book written by a woman.

Bob


----------



## SimplyAmorous

magnoliagal said:


> One more thing on nice guys. I believe they are gems. I also believe before you try to date or marry one you need to learn all that you can about them. I think they do (in the beginning) try to lead, deal with problems, tell you what they want, etc. but it's quiet and passive almost as a whisper. Most women who marry men like this don't listen. They assume because this type of man isn't in your face arguing he's just peachy about whatever it is you do. This is simply not true. They have a language all their own and you need a translator to live with one.
> 
> They are great catches, great dads, awesome lovers but only if they have loving, admiring, gentle wives. I now think it takes a special woman to truly appreciate and care for a genuine nice guy.


Absolutely Gems! I agree with every word. I have gotten "gentler" over the years with mine. He is praised by all of my female friends, some telling me -if only they could have a clone. 

I mentioned feminism to my oldest college bound son, he told me this is overflowing on the Campuses today, he told me to Google "Vagina Monologues". The Feminists he knows seem to praise this play and it's intended meanings for women. ??? 

This is likely an extreme view (I only clicked on 2 links) -I know very little about this, so please pick it apart -explain it. This is one man's view of what it is all leading too in our society. 

savethemales.ca - Feminism's Dead End: "The Vagina Monologues"


----------



## seeking sanity

For goodness sakes, The Vagina Monologues are not a recruiting device into "lesbianism" anymore than Harry Potter is a recruitment tool of "Satan". Crazy people see craziness everywhere. Society has been going "downhill" since the dawn of time, except each decade gets a little better. 

Sexual frustration from men aside, what good do we have now at we didn't have in 50's?:

- Amazing medical advances
- A culture that is tolerant of difference
- Religious freedom (not just Christian freedom)
- Growing safeguards to protect our environment
- A young generation who has values around tolerance, sustainability and personal responsibility

It's so easy to focus on the negative, what else has happened that is positive?


----------



## seeking sanity

Another thought: If we're trying to diagnose societies "problem" then look at two things: Food and purpose. 

You fill people with crap food, chemicals, and garbage and what kind of behaviour can you expect? Any parent can tell you that a day of McDonalds, candy bars, and soda = a bad parent day. There is huge healthy food deficit in much of North America, with many families subsiding on fast and packaged food.

Two, you have massive companies that control most of the production of what we eat and consume, who make more money by selling crap than by selling things that benefit the human body AND erode local economies by funnelling money to the uber-rich stock holders, and you get weak regional economies and bunch of out of work people, who's self esteem is in the toilet and who's bodies are weakened by the crap they are filled with.

Really, what can you expect other than a population that is secuity seeking because they are terrified they'll be unemployed, and that is fat, weak, sick, and depressed.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

AFEH said:


> Unfortunately BBW I don’t reckon you’re going to get much mileage with your debate other than wheel spinning and antagonism. There’s a few reasons for that. First is the feminists that join the debate are blind to any downside associated with feminism. They are absolutely blind to any downside. Secondly they take things personally, as though their very life were at stake. Thirdly it’s Man that’s the “great philosopher” and what you are talking about is philosophical, it’s “in the future”. It’s Man that takes stock of history and current situations and starts trying to predict the future based on where humanity is now.
> 
> And it will be probably be Man that writes the history books of the future looking back on these times in a few hundred years.
> 
> The “detached, philosophical debate” you want is never going to happen with feminists.
> 
> Feminists are taking western culture to different places, they have changed the direction of change. Just that they haven’t got a clue of what the end game is. The pity is they don’t seem to care.
> 
> I’d love to be proven wrong. For example a book, recommended reading for men like me about the future 100 years of western society associated with feminism and most importantly a book written by a woman.
> 
> Bob


You and I should really have a cup of coffee sometime. Portugal in July sounds lovely! I am a feminist and I have never said that their wasn't a down side to it. There are plenty of downsides. 

Being a full time mother was revered and they were the backbone of the family. The advent of the revolution if you will, made it no longer okay to be a mother. You were viewed as unskilled or worse, stupid. One of the most important jobs in history got reduced down to pariah like status. It was women who did this, not men.

Another aspect of parenting came about in the courts. Women lobbied to have primary custody of the children in the event of a divorce. It was naturally assumed that women somehow made a better parent and fathers were largely excluded from their childrens lives. This has had terrible consequences and the assumption that men cannot be caregivers is just wrong. 

Affirmative action. In it's purest form, this made sense. A woman should have just as much right to higher education and jobs as a man. It morphed in to a quota system though. Women were being hired to fill a check box and that is just insulting. 

Then you have chivalry. A man was raised to be respectful and courteous. He would walk on the "outside" of her and hold her hand while crossing streets, opening up doors, pull out her chair. He showed respect and in turn, the woman showed her appreciation. Post revolution, this was viewed by women as controlling and any man who did this was trying to belittle her. 

Today, you have women who stay at home raising children viewed as less than. Men in divorce seeing their children 2 weekends a month, my son who had to work above and beyond to get a partial college scholarship and opening a door for a woman is seen as him trying to get a look at her butt. 

Those are the downsides to feminism.


----------



## Conrad

I worry more about the consequences associated with viewing a stay at home mom as a pariah and/or "stupid" - because that view was not only brought on by women, but it has spread across the culture.

I don't think we raise better well-adjusted people as a result.

Those "less well-adjusted" people are far more likely to prefer a "sexy" partner to a sound one - and far less likely to discern the difference.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

seeking sanity said:


> For goodness sakes, The Vagina Monologues are not a recruiting device into "lesbianism" anymore than Harry Potter is a recruitment tool of "Satan". Crazy people see craziness everywhere. Society has been going "downhill" since the dawn of time, except each decade gets a little better.


I thought that link sounded EXTREME. You are right, radicals everywhere, I never heard of this before, being that locked in stay at Home mom, I am living under a rock somewhere, not as educated. But I like to learn. Here is a better link from the accual website -Press reviews to give a more balanced view .

The Vagina Monologues » Press Reviews


----------



## Entropy3000

Conrad said:


> Wolf and SS,
> 
> I always saw women as the "civilizers" among us. My mother referred to my father as a "mountain man".
> 
> What this article says to me is that women have largely stopped seeing "civilizing" men as their role. The ramparts of militant feminism have encouraged women to be more like men.
> 
> I don't think that's a positive development.


I don't like men that much really. I want to be married to a woman.


----------



## Catherine602

In my opinion the organizations identifying themselves as feminist are out of touch with the issues of society. They address issues of high-salaried working executive women. Some posters are referring to the organizations as they are today, some as they were 40 yrs ago and some a personal philosophy that identity. 

Predicting the course that relationships between men and women will take in the future has to account for uncertainty. Who could have predicted the trajectory that technology would take and tge major affect on social norms? In short all of the dire prediction are wrong because uncertainty has not been factored in. 

We have to remember who the people are who are posting - we are a community of people with relationship problems trying to make sense of what has happened. Part of the process of understanding and recovery is dispair, anger, depression, projecting and when all of these emotions are played out, acceptance and hope follows. We are all on different areas of that continuum. Thus some are very angry and say angry hurtful things some are in despair and make dire predictions of the future. 

No one is right nor wrong - we see reality through the prism of our experiences in life. If you read carefully, you can tell what is going on in a persons life based on what they post. 

I dont think this thread is a real debate of issues of male and female relationships. It is more like paroxysms of rage and anger at a temporary life situation. It is more a anvenue for venting and saying things that would be destructive to say in real life. It's all good, i think it is better to express it here than to rage against the source of pain and get arrested or committed to a mantel institution in real life. 

The important thing is not to stay in a dark place but to recover and move on to bigger and better things. Just remember who we all are and where we are in life. Don't take this too seriously. Life is never so relentlessly evil and bad. We are venting in our darkest moments - unloading the junk. We will all move on once our burden is lightened. 

That's how I see it. But holy molly people, some of this sh)it is hellish!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad said:


> I worry more about the consequences associated with viewing a stay at home mom as a pariah and/or "stupid" - because that view was not only brought on by women, but it has spread across the culture.
> 
> I don't think we raise better well-adjusted people as a result.
> 
> Those "less well-adjusted" people are far more likely to prefer a "sexy" partner to a sound one - and far less likely to discern the difference.


I totally agree. I will never forget the day my father visited our apartment and at that time I was a SAHM and proud to be one. He said to me and I quote: "When are you ever going to make something of yourself?". 

It wasn't just women who viewed being a mother with disgust. Take a look at how society views women now who stay at home: bon bon eating slackers who don't earn a paycheck and sit back on their laurels and spend their husbands money. It is viewed as easy and lazy.


----------



## Trenton

SimplyAmorous said:


> Absolutely Gems! I agree with every word. I have gotten "gentler" over the years with mine. He is praised by all of my female friends, some telling me -if only they could have a clone.
> 
> I mentioned feminism to my oldest college bound son, he told me this is overflowing on the Campuses today, he told me to Google "Vagina Monologues". The Feminists he knows seem to praise this play and it's intended meanings for women. ???
> 
> This is likely an extreme view (I only clicked on 2 links) -I know very little about this, so please pick it apart -explain it. This is one man's view of what it is all leading too in our society.
> 
> savethemales.ca - Feminism's Dead End: "The Vagina Monologues"


I saw Vagina Monologues on Broadway with my sister, aunt, mom and grandmother years ago. Eve Ensler is a huge role model to me and has been growing up. She is a survivor of physical and sexual abuse and a champion for the cause to end abuse to women both in the U.S. and everywhere. It all began through her poignant, beautiful writing about her experiences as a woman. If I listed all the good she (and her organization has done) it would take me years.

She is the one who wrote the poem most recently Embrace Your Inner Girl...

Eve Ensler: Embrace your inner girl | Video on TED.com

Please watch her. I have posted this previously as I printed out the poem she wrote and gave it to my girlfriends at a small party I hosted.

For men and women, when you are secure in your own skin feminism will not scare, threaten or annoy you. 

I am not a lesbian and I am very in touch with my own femininity. My husband and I have a passionate relationship and are mastering the dance between us. The differences between us because of our personalities as well as our genders is what makes us heavenly to one another.

My husband is not afraid of my beliefs or fighting alongside me for whatever it is I feel passionately about. In regards to feminism, we both went to NYC recently to support a woman's rally against the rape and abuse of women in Darfur.

I don't label it. I do what feels right. Fighting for the rights of women feels right and so does holding my husband's hand.


----------



## Catherine602

Thank you Trenton. Extremely good post. Feminism has become a curse thrown about to stifle any hint of support of women in this troubled world. I feel like I have to dance around issues and bend over backwards to distance myself from any female positive statements least some man call me a feminist = ugly, fat, lesbian, man-hating, ball- busting hag. Ha ha. The term means nothing. 

I agree with you about labels - avoid them and do what you do and think what you think based on your principals, experiences and understanding. Labels encourages intellectual laziness instead of thinking, you can say "what ever he/she says that what I say too". 

I don't feel the same way about male- female relationship as I did just 4 months ago. I would hate to be pigeon-holed into to some ideology so that I could not grow and change. I am so happy my eyes have been opened in very positive ways to appreciate men in general and that good guy who is my husband in particular. I can say that 12 months ago I did not understand him at all. 

Why is it man bashing when women say anything negative about men but there is no similar term for women-hating men?? Just like ****s, hoes and shanks I guess same behavior but different gender. The woman-hating men are kind of scary, wouldn't want to be around one. . 

The men who are sex starved and trying to figure out why their wives lose interest should read some of these post- they contain number of statement that women hear that are orchestrated to play to a woman's fear- women pass 20 are headed for the garbage dump, age 30 makes them old and unlovable, women age more quickly than men, sex is something men get from women *twirl mustache* it a notch in their masculinity belt nothing more, men want to trade in the old hag for a hot 20 yr old when the wifey hits 30.

. In essence, women are useful for sex until they are about 27 yr old then they are a stone around a man's neck because he can't dump her and the kids without a fanatical hit, he is there by prevented from moving on to the next hot 20 yr waiting to throw her legs around his neck like a porn star.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Catherine602 said:


> The men who are sex starved and trying to figure out why their wives lose interest should read some of these post- they contain number of statement that women hear that are orchestrated to play to a woman's fear- women pass 20 are headed for the garbage dump, age 30 makes them old and unlovable, women age more quickly than men, sex is something men get from women *twirl mustache* it a notch in their masculinity belt nothing more, men want to trade in the old hag for a hot 20 yr old when the wifey hits 30.
> 
> . In essence, women are useful for sex until they are about 27 yr old then they are a stone around a man's neck because he can't dump her and the kids without a fanatical hit, he is there by prevented from moving on to the next hot 20 yr waiting to throw her legs around his neck like a porn star.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What is not talked about and what is confusing to me is that some people cannot see the benefits of the feminist movement and the continued need for it. Prior to it and the many other movements of the 60's, sex was taboo. Education about the sexual pleasure of women was an unheard of topic of conversation with men pretty much being able to figure out how to orgasm on their own. Most women were having more than a couple of children and were over burdened by wifely duties, child rearing and figuring out where their "I" stood among it all.

Ignorance was bliss for men 50 years ago and cheating on women that remained at home in care of the children was common place. Perhaps they thought simple penetration would make their woman shudder with orgasmic pleasure but once women began talking, it was clear this was not the case. Is not a man in love interested in finding out this reality to change it and truly create shudders of pleasure for his woman? 

This idea that women are useless after 30 is ridiculous and any woman who knows her sexuality is sure of this. I am a better lover today at 36 than I was even two years ago. The fact that I've only been with one man for the past 17 years and we have explored our sexuality together is pure magic for us. It binds us in a way that is longstanding. It allows me to behave in ways with him that I don't believe would have even been considered fifty years ago and this is to the pleasure of both of us.

This fuels a deep symbiotic relationship between two people and in age there is only more memories to celebrate and cherish together. I've gotten to the point where I think...how lucky are we to be here and to continue like this?

So that takes work and sacrifice and standing up for one's self. It doesn't much matter if you are the man or woman. You have to find that person you love and put in the effort to get to that and, for me, it does have to be authentic, equal and mutual. I don't believe this was possible 50 years ago. Too little honesty and too much expectation.

Today women are still sexually and physically abused and I would think it positive for men and women to be given a chance to stand up for women & girls (protective) and say this is not good enough.

A good man, a man who loves you, would not flinch at offering what you wanted to you if it was what you wanted and you knew how to express it clearly nor would he stray if sexually satisfied, respected and admired within the relationship. He'd be by your side just as you'd be by his as he was going after his wants/desires and needs.

The key is to be willing to put in the effort and stop believing boundaries/divorce/individuality is the key to personal happiness. None of us humans prefer to walk alone, connections are key.

Seeking Sanity talked about positivism and changing perspective. I agree that this is key. Work to change what you don't like and celebrate what you do.


----------



## RandomDude

To summarise:

Nice guy: I wanna spend as much time as I can with her! 24/7 if possible! I 'love' her so much! (Selfish)
Bad boy: Meh, who gives a crap about her, I got my own life to live (Selfish)
Real man: I cherish her but I respect her space

Nice guy: I am a doormat, she walks all over me because I let her (Selfish - he ignores her natural desires)
Bad boy: She's the doormat, I walk all over her easily (Selfish)
Real man: I am nice, but firm. She deserves a man, not a boy.

So pretty much: Selflessness.


----------



## Trenton

RandomDude said:


> To summarise:
> 
> Nice guy: I wanna spend as much time as I can with her! 24/7 if possible! I 'love' her so much! (Selfish)
> Bad boy: Meh, who gives a crap about her, I got my own life to live (Selfish)
> Real man: I cherish her but I respect her space
> 
> Nice guy: I am a doormat, she walks all over me because I let her (Selfish - he ignores her natural desires)
> Bad boy: She's the doormat, I walk all over her easily (Selfish)
> Real man: I am nice, but firm. She deserves a man, not a boy.
> 
> So pretty much: Selflessness.


I couldn't agree with you more...except...
it's not selflessness because a man wouldn't feel that way (neither would a woman) if they didn't receive the same in return.


----------



## greenpearl

RandomDude said:


> To summarise:
> 
> Nice guy: I wanna spend as much time as I can with her! 24/7 if possible! I 'love' her so much! (Selfish)
> Bad boy: Meh, who gives a crap about her, I got my own life to live (Selfish)
> Real man: I cherish her but I respect her space
> 
> Nice guy: I am a doormat, she walks all over me because I let her (Selfish - he ignores her natural desires)
> Bad boy: She's the doormat, I walk all over her easily (Selfish)
> Real man: I am nice, but firm. She deserves a man, not a boy.
> 
> So pretty much: Selflessness.


I respect you a lot for saying that! 

A lot of people are traumatized by the way they grow up, when they are adults, they have a lot of their baggage! 

Give a good man a bad woman, their life is ruined! 

Give a good woman a bad man, their life is ruined. 

And how many men and women are good start from the beginning? How many men and women are not poisoned by the way they grew up? 

So let's calculate, what's the rate of happy marriages?


----------



## MisguidedMiscreant

Trenton said:


> What is not talked about and what is confusing to me is that some people cannot see the benefits of the feminist movement and the continued need for it. Prior to it and the many other movements of the 60's, sex was taboo. Education about the sexual pleasure of women was an unheard of topic of conversation with men pretty much being able to figure out how to orgasm on their own. Most women were having more than a couple of children and were over burdened by wifely duties, child rearing and figuring out where their "I" stood among it all.


Like most of the institutions in society today, feminism had great intentions but was quickly distorted by those who would bend it to their their will. I'm all for women having choices, this is supposed to be a free society. The issue is that feminists tend to not want to live with their choices and blame things on men. Yes, women should have an orgasm whenever they have sex but that doesn't mean that they should run out there and bed every jackass that walks around like he's a tough guy. If they do, then deal with the consequences of what comes with those life choices. 



> Ignorance was bliss for men 50 years ago and cheating on women that remained at home in care of the children was common place. Perhaps they thought simple penetration would make their woman shudder with orgasmic pleasure but once women began talking, it was clear this was not the case. Is not a man in love interested in finding out this reality to change it and truly create shudders of pleasure for his woman?


It wasn't as common place as they'd have you believe just like the myth that men today are all abusers and molesters. Case in point, how do you explain the term "Nice Guy?" Men have always had a sense of decency and any man that sleeps around probably wasn't that good of a guy to begin with and the women that choose these men then and now can see that from the beginning but they just gotta have their bad boy. 



> This idea that women are useless after 30 is ridiculous and any woman who knows her sexuality is sure of this. I am a better lover today at 36 than I was even two years ago. The fact that I've only been with one man for the past 17 years and we have explored our sexuality together is pure magic for us. It binds us in a way that is longstanding. It allows me to behave in ways with him that I don't believe would have even been considered fifty years ago and this is to the pleasure of both of us.
> 
> This fuels a deep symbiotic relationship between two people and in age there is only more memories to celebrate and cherish together. I've gotten to the point where I think...how lucky are we to be here and to continue like this?
> 
> So that takes work and sacrifice and standing up for one's self. It doesn't much matter if you are the man or woman. You have to find that person you love and put in the effort to get to that and, for me, it does have to be authentic, equal and mutual. I don't believe this was possible 50 years ago. Too little honesty and too much expectation.


No one is saying that women are useless after 30, she's plenty useful to her husband but shouldn't expect to play the field after 30. Harsh but it's the truth. I think it's beautiful that you've only been with your husband for 17 years, that's how it should be. I always say that bedding down with person after person can show you a lot of tricks to sex but you won't learn the magic of making love...okay, I don't always say that, I always wanted to though. 



> Today women are still sexually and physically abused and I would think it positive for men and women to be given a chance to stand up for women & girls (protective) and say this is not good enough.


Abuse is horrible but it's not men that do it only and not as much as they say. Any good man wants to protect the weak, it's how we're built, feminism wants the world to believe that all men do these things and that just not the truth. Well, actually, if feminists keep expanding the definitions of what abuse is, it will. They're now trying to say that a man that kisses his wife in her sleep is a rapist. What about all the false rape claims that imprison a lot of innocent men who are thusly raped themselves when they're incarcerated? Why doesn't anyone talk about them?



> A good man, a man who loves you, would not flinch at offering what you wanted to you if it was what you wanted and you knew how to express it clearly nor would he stray if sexually satisfied, respected and admired within the relationship. He'd be by your side just as you'd be by his as he was going after his wants/desires and needs.


I agree, the problem is that women today can't decipher what a good man is anymore and then become angry when they make the incorrect choices. Most of this is due to feminism breaking down the family unit by excluding the father because they spread the incorrect notion that the father is unnecessary. A father is needed to show his son what a man is supposed to be and show his daughter what she's supposed to look for. 



> The key is to be willing to put in the effort and stop believing boundaries/divorce/individuality is the key to personal happiness. None of us humans prefer to walk alone, connections are key.


I agree and don't agree with this but that more of a personal issue with me. 



> Seeking Sanity talked about positivism and changing perspective. I agree that this is key. Work to change what you don't like and celebrate what you do.


I agree.


----------



## AFEH

From: http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/amazonsociety/feminism.html
Different Types of Feminism

Conservative Feminism 
Conservative feminism criticizes the feminism which "adopts a male model of careerism and public achievement as female goals, thereby denying women's need for intimacy, family, and children." They fear that "equality means death to the family." They oft en reject the popular feminist epigram, "the personal is political." 

Liberal Feminism 
Liberal feminism sees all people as equal, therefore there should be equality for all. They see sexism as dysfunctional because it deprives society of one-half of it's creative work force. Oppression exists because of our socialization process. 

Radical Feminism
Radical Feminism sees the oppression of women as fundamental and the most basic form of oppression. All other forms of oppression stem from male dominance. The purpose of this oppression is to obtain psychological ego satisfaction, and strength and self-esteem. 

Socialist Feminism
Socialist Feminism links women's oppression to the class structure. Sexism is a way of rewarding the working class male; it gives them control over women. Women's work is less valued because it does not produce exchangeable goods.



From: Stereotypes about Feminism: Myths About Those Bra-Burning Feminists Rebuked | Suite101.com

Stereotypes about Feminism
Myths About Those Bra-Burning Feminists Rebuked
For many people, the term feminism has a negative connotation. People imagine a stereotypical image of an angry, man-hating, unattractive woman with hairy armpits screaming irrationally about imagined insults. As a result, women find themselves prefacing statements about the need for equality and civil rights for women with the caveat, "I'm not a feminist, but..."

This is a shame, because feminism as a philosophy has a good deal to offer both men and women. Here are some of the stereotypical myths about feminists that simply aren't true.
Feminists are All the Same
Some people assume that feminism is doctrine with a set of rules that all feminists must follow, lest they be thrown out of the club. In reality, there are many different types of feminism and feminists, and people who call themselves feminists disagree with each other on key issues. For most feminists, these simple "rules" are their common ground-- and after that, many different views prevail.
Women and men should be equal before the law and valued equally by society.
Changes in the law and in society need to be made to ensure a better life for women.
Violence and repression against women worldwide needs to end.
Women need to support each other's decisions and cultural differences, and stand together as sisters.

Feminists Hate Men
Some feminists hate men. Some women who don't call themselves feminists hate men too. And some men hate women. But most feminists don't hate men. Feminism is about equality and better lives for women, not about female dominance. Many feminists are married and in long-term relationships with men, and many men call themselves feminists too.

Feminists are Angry
Everyone is angry sometimes, especially when you're dealing with injustice. It's natural to feel angry when you're being discriminated against or repressed in some way, no matter what group you belong to. When dealing with women's issues, it's natural to feel angry some of the time. After all, women in the United States make only 75 cents for every dollar a man makes. Worldwide, about 1 in 4 women can expect to be raped during their lifetime.

Nonetheless, most people realize that a permanent state of anger isn't very productive. Like everyone else, most feminists do not walk around angry all the time. That's exhausting.

Feminists are Unattractive
The myth prevails that women become feminists because they're too ugly to get a man. Since there's so much pressure in society to meet rigid beauty standards, this myth prevents many women from wanting to identify themselves as feminists. If you think it's unattractive to have a mind of your own, question some of society's norms, and work to make a better life for women-- then yes, to you, feminists may be unattractive. But if not, take a look around you, and you'll notice that feminists vary in appearance and pretty much look like everyone else in society.

Feminists are Whiny
Ever notice that whenever a woman complains about anything, she's called high-maintenance, a nag, or whiny? Women are "supposed" to be agreeable and eager to compromise, so it's no surprise that women who express discontent with societal norms are labelled as whiny. But look at it this way: thanks to "whiny" women around the world, women in most places can now vote, own property, work in any profession they wish, and prosecute men who sexually harass or discriminate against her.

Feminists Hate Sex
Most feminists do not hate sex. In fact, they love sex enough that they fight to break down the double-standard that women who like sex are ****s. Over the years, feminists also have fought for better access to birth control. What feminists don't like is the idea that women's bodies are objects to be enjoyed by men and nothing else.

Feminists are All Lesbians
Some feminists are lesbians. Most heterosexual women who call themselves feminists are very supportive of lesbian rights. Unfortunately, this myth that "all feminists are lesbians" plays upon homophobia and prevents some women from calling themselves feminists.

Feminists are All Pro-Choice
Most women who identify as feminists are pro-choice, and some feminists do feel that this is a prerequisite for being a feminist. But not all feminists feel this way, and not all feminists are pro-choice. In fact, pro-choice and pro-life feminists have quite a bit of common ground, as they all believe that society needs to offer much more support for women who choose to have a baby.

Feminists are Bra-Burners
Bra burning was a fad in the 1970s, but not a very common one. Most women with decent sized breasts appreciate the support of a bra, regardless of their opinions on feminism! And yes, most feminists do shave their legs and armpits too, at least in cultures where this is the social norm.

Feminists Don't Respect Stay-at-Home Moms
Some feminists don't respect stay-at-home-moms, and some women who don't call themselves feminists don't respect them either. But feminism is about choice. Most feminists not only believe that staying home with a child is an admirable choice, but they also believe that the economy needs to change so that more women (and men) can have the option to make this choice. And many stay-at-home-moms are feminists.

"I'm Not a Feminist, But..."
Have you ever said this? If so, put the stereotypes aside and ask yourself why not. There's nothing ugly, irrational, or wrong than wanting a world where women are truly equals-- so don't be afraid to call yourself a feminist!



From: Types of Feminism: Liberal, Socialist, Third Wave, and Other Feminist Philosophies | Suite101.com
Types of Feminism
Here's a brief summary of some of the many different kinds of feminism. 
Feminism is not a simple or unified philosophy. Many different women (and men) call themselves feminists, and the beliefs of these groups of people vary quite a bit. Here's a quick primer on some of the different kinds of feminism.

Liberal Feminism
Liberal feminism is characterized by an individualistic emphasis on equality. According to this philosophy, society itself does not need a major overhaul, but rather laws need to be changed and opportunities have to be opened up to allow women to become equals in society. To a liberal feminist, evidence of progress is seen largely by the numbers of women in positions previous occupied by men, especially powerful positions. In the United States and much of the Western world, liberal feminism is the most mainstream form of feminism.

Socialist Feminism
Socialist feminism (sometimes known as Marxist feminism) is different than liberal feminism in that it emphasizes that true equality will not be achieved without major overhauls within society-- particularly economic overhauls. Socialist feminists argue that there are fundamental inequalities built in to a capitalist society because power and capital are distributed unevenly. Thus, it's not enough for women to individually work to rise to powerful positions in society; rather, power needs to be redistributed throughout society. Liberal feminists focus on individual empowerment, while socialist feminists focus on collective change and empowerment.

Radical Feminism
Radical feminism is similar to socialist feminism in that it emphasizes the need for dramatic social change in order to achieve genuine equality for women (and sometimes these two philosophies are grouped together). Radical feminists believe that society is extremely patriarchal, and until patriarchy is transformed on all levels, the system will remain unjust. A minority of radical feminists are separatist feminists, who believe that men and women need to maintain separate institutions and relationships.

Third Wave Feminism
Third Wave feminism is popular among younger women, many of whom are children of feminists from the 1970s (who are referred to as Second Wave Feminists). Similar to liberal feminism, Third Wave feminism is very individualistic. Although it does not reject political activism, Third Wave feminism is focused more on personal empowerment as a starting place for social change. Third Wave feminism celebrates the construction of individual identities in a complex, postmodern world, and invites women to define themselves as they wish from the smorgasbord of possibilities. (Read more about Third Wave feminism.)

Ecofeminism
Ecofeminisim draws from and links together both the women's movement and the environmental movement. Ecofeminism draws parallels between the domination and exploitation of both women and nature.

Feminist or Equalist 

Black Feminism
Black Feminism posits that sexism and racism are inextricably linked, and that sexism will never be overcome while the system is still so fundamentally racist. This movement grew out of the discontent of African Americans women during the Women's Liberation Movement in the 1970s, who felt their particular needs as minority women were not being addressed. The term "Black feminism" is often used to encompass the needs of all women of color.


----------



## AFEH

Feminist or Equalist
The Absense of Equality in Feminism

A brief history of first, second, and third wave feminism which leads into a controversy between the equality that feminists advocate for and the word feminist itself. 

Prior to the examination of hypocracy in feminism it is necessary to look at the history of the movement.

First Wave (1909-1960)
Early feminism focused on the promotion of equal contract and property rights for women and the opposition to chattel marriage (a form of marriage in which the husband owned his wife in a legal relationship similar to that of slavery) and ownership of married women (and their children) by their husbands. By the end of the nineteenth century, activism focused primarily on gaining political power, particularly the right of women's suffrage (the civil right to vote).

Second Wave (1960-1980)
Second-wave feminists saw women's cultural and political inequalities as inextricably linked and encouraged women to understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply politicized and as reflecting sexist power structures. Associated with Second Wave is the phrase "Women's Liberation" first used in 1964. By 1968, it was starting to refer to the whole women's movement. Bra-burning also became associated with the movement. Due in large part to the media during the time feminists were viewed as women who typified clothing like brassiers as patriarchal, reducing women to the status of sex objects.

Third Wave (1990-present)
Beginning in the early 1990s, third wave feminism arose as a response to perceived failures of the second wave and also as a response to the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the second wave. Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for females.

The basic tenet of feminism since the beginning has been equality between the genders. The early suffragettes achieved legal equality by acquiring women the same right to vote as men. While the second wave champions moved mountains in terms of sexual equality it is unfortunately due to their intense efforts and the manipulation of these activities by the media that the term “feminist” often refers to a man-hating extremist. As with any subject matter, it is the select few who take the cause to the outer limits of its boundaries that appear in the media and are used to form the public and historical opinion of the entire group. With that said the current wave of feminism is attempting to undo the so-called damage that their earlier counterparts evoked.

Exclusion of Men
While equality is at the heart of feminism, the term is a contradiction in and of itself. Current feminism takes pride in welcoming men into the scene and in fact, some men even advocate for the cause and similarly refer to themselves as feminists. While most men are ready to advocate for equality between the genders, they are not ready to be called feminists. In the wise rhetorical questioning of the classmate: “if we want equality, why do we need a genre, discourse, term that on its very surface, excludes men?” Upon taking a more educated look at feminist theory, art, and the definition of the word itself, feminism is clearly inclusive of the male gender, but on its exterior, in the basic linguistic association of the word – it is not. Truly believing in that equality makes the term feminist, hypocritical. With that said, a term which encompasses the true nature of equality is - equalist.

From Feminist or Equalist: The Absense of Equality in Feminism | Suite101.com


----------



## AFEH

There are many “High Level Concepts and Religions” in the Feminist Movement.

Most of the time, when talking about Feminism people are talking with cross purposes. For example one person is thinking and talking Social Feminism and the person they’re talking to is talking Radical Feminism and everyone gets confused, angry and upset.

It’s a complete and utter madness.

For this thread concerned with the family unit and it’s impact on the future of society as a whole, the word Feminism is most definitely the wrong word to use.

The word to use is Equalist.
_While equality is at the heart of feminism, the term is a contradiction in and of itself. Current feminism takes pride in welcoming men into the scene and in fact, some men even advocate for the cause and similarly refer to themselves as feminists. While most men are ready to advocate for equality between the genders, they are not ready to be called feminists. In the wise rhetorical questioning of the classmate: “if we want equality, why do we need a genre, discourse, term that on its very surface, excludes men?” Upon taking a more educated look at feminist theory, art, and the definition of the word itself, feminism is clearly inclusive of the male gender, but on its exterior, in the basic linguistic association of the word – it is not. Truly believing in that equality makes the term feminist, hypocritical. With that said, a term which encompasses the true nature of equality is - equalist._


----------



## Trenton

MisguidedMiscreant said:


> Like most of the institutions in society today, feminism had great intentions but was quickly distorted by those who would bend it to their their will. I'm all for women having choices, this is supposed to be a free society. *The issue is that feminists tend to not want to live with their choices and blame things on men. Yes, women should have an orgasm whenever they have sex but that doesn't mean that they should run out there and bed every jackass that walks around like he's a tough guy. If they do, then deal with the consequences of what comes with those life choices*.
> 
> 
> 
> *It wasn't as common place as they'd have you believe just like the myth that men today are all abusers and molesters. *Case in point, how do you explain the term "Nice Guy?" Men have always had a sense of decency and any man that sleeps around probably wasn't that good of a guy to begin with and the women that choose these men then and now can see that from the beginning but they just gotta have their bad boy.
> 
> 
> 
> *No one is saying that women are useless after 30, she's plenty useful to her husband but shouldn't expect to play the field after 30. Harsh but it's the truth.* I think it's beautiful that you've only been with your husband for 17 years, that's how it should be. I always say that bedding down with person after person can show you a lot of tricks to sex but you won't learn the magic of making love...okay, I don't always say that, I always wanted to though.
> 
> 
> 
> Abuse is horrible but it's not men that do it only and not as much as they say. Any good man wants to protect the weak, it's how we're built, feminism wants the world to believe that all men do these things and that just not the truth. Well, actually, if feminists keep expanding the definitions of what abuse is, it will. They're now trying to say that a man that kisses his wife in her sleep is a rapist. What about all the false rape claims that imprison a lot of innocent men who are thusly raped themselves when they're incarcerated? Why doesn't anyone talk about them?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the problem is that women today can't decipher what a good man is anymore and then become angry when they make the incorrect choices. * Most of this is due to feminism breaking down the family unit by excluding the father because they spread the incorrect notion that the father is unnecessary. A father is needed to show his son what a man is supposed to be and show his daughter what she's supposed to look for.*
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and don't agree with this but that more of a personal issue with me.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.


I disagree that women after 30 are not able to play the field. We must come from very different communities. I'm fairly certain that if I were to leave my husband I would not have a problem playing the field. Of course, I'm a very social person and I'm involved in a lot of things so I think focusing on joint connection to form surface relationships wouldn't be difficult at all. I'm also more confident in what I have to offer.

If anything, in modern times, with the likes of match.com and whatnot, playing the field is even easier than ever before for all age ranges.

I am happy to live with my choices. I suggest to other women to be happy with their choices as well. The mistake is thinking that because I am pro-woman that I am anti-man and this is truly not the case. Most of the pro-woman work I've done as a volunteer has been with org's like Girls Inc., V-Day and GEMS. Since I've worked with these org's I've had my eyes open to the atrocities done unto women and propagated often by man or by woman for man's favor (such as cultural sexual mutilation or the child sex slave trade). 

If you read about equal pay/equal work you will see that inequalities still exist here but it is far more than that. Women in the US do have basic rights and laws to uphold these rights and I'm far more pro child than pro woman in regard to the US and my focus of volunteer work because what I've seen in foster care is that both boys and girls are in horrible need and I would never, ever support or ignore abuse to men/boys and understand that it certainly does exist.

I honestly can't understand how any society could believe that the father is unnecessary. I never get this from any groups I volunteer with, ever. All groups tat I've volunteered with believe that good men and women in safe and happy families are the goal. Men who are abusive to women are treated as they should be, with disgust. *The mistake is men actually believing that means all men, even very good men, are ostracized or condemned by the movement.*


----------



## justausername

MisguidedMiscreant said:


> Yes, there are men out there like that but they get demonized by feminists and hammered down by their enforcing thugs also known as the government until the man has become a mangina faithfully serving the whims of his gynocratic masters. Feminists want men to have all of the responsiblity and none of the authority, that's called being a pawn and the manginas that allow this to happen to themselves especially with believing this Alpha/Beta Male bull**** are nothing more than fodder. I used to be like this, I was caught in feminism's "matrix" until I found my "red pill" in the Coping With Infidelity Section. What's wrong with being a nice person? What's wrong with looking out for my fellow human being? That's what a good man is does, a man protects and provides like the men that fought for civil rights or fought against Hitler. Women think they can change those bad boys but they never will, those guys don't want to be husbands and fathers but good men do. They say this stupid **** like an "alpha male" looks like he can take care of his children and a "beta male" doesn't. The truth is that a man is designed to take care of his kids which is why the average single man doesn't look like he can because he doesn't have children. Men tend to become physically stronger when they have children, where I'm from it's called "Daddy Strong." But it's those good men that get cheated on and the woman files a "No Fault Divorce" and takes half his ****. If he has kids, even if they aren't his like her having a child with the OM, he'll be enslaved to pay child support with the court knowing full well that the child isn't his. You people keep talking about boundaries that can't be kept in a relationship by a man because men have little to no rights in the family courts today. What about other things like the fact that there are just as many "false rape" allegations as there are actual rapes if not more thanks to feminists? It doesn't really matter since these bogus "rape shield" laws that are extremely unconstitutional as well as child support and alimony make it nigh impossible for a man to prove his innocence in court since he can't face his accuser.
> 
> I believe in love, as Leonard Cohen sang, "Love is the only engine of survival" but feminism has ruined the sanctity of marriage far more than anything today seeing as it makes women believe that they can have it all and just quit the marriage if they don't while still enslaving their unwitting husbands to alimony and child support and it's crushed by dreams of raising a family in the near future, if that's your idea of equality for women then bravo. Any of you men out there that would like to hear about any of the things I've said, PM me and I'll give you some links to a lot of great websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, there is a lot of lack of personal responsiblity in women today. If a man marries a woman, he loves and trusts her, he looks to her for support when he goes out and tries to do what's best for the both of them and instead she ****s around while he's out then blames him. I'm tired of everytime someone gets cheated on in the Infidelity thread, they're told to take a look at what they did, they were the ones that got cheated on, why should they be changing? If a woman wants a bad boy then go after bad boys, don't go after a good man that's trusting just to **** up his life like you did yours. You're right again, there is no reason to swim along with all of the other fish, that's why I'm walking my own way away from this moral leper colony that feminism has turned western culture into.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't misunderstand, there are ****ed up men out there too but, when a man does it, the man gets sent to the gallows, when a woman does it, the man gets pushed to the front of the line for the gallows. Women have the government and family courts backing them up whether they're right or wrong, that's the biggist issue.
> 
> Also, if you're marriage is good, do everything in your power to keep it that way.


Misguided, I agree and this is why I live the MGTOW life.:smthumbup:

I won't play the game which is much worse than russian roulette.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton,

Given that you're a "firecracker", it's likely you could still get high quality male attention from men looking for redemption after a failed first marriage.

Yet, as the kids get older and their demands increase... let's go 7 more years down the road.....

The picture changes dramatically.

Lots of guys available for a roll in the hay.

Not many in the market to take the entire thing on.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Conrad said:


> Trenton,
> 
> Given that you're a "firecracker", it's likely you could still get high quality male attention from men looking for redemption after a failed first marriage.
> 
> Yet, as the kids get older and their demands increase... let's go 7 more years down the road.....
> 
> The picture changes dramatically.
> 
> Lots of guys available for a roll in the hay.
> 
> Not many in the market to take the entire thing on.


My eldest is 18, his demands have decreased and I would have no problem finding someone who would want more than a one hit wonder, that is if I wanted one.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Trenton,
> 
> Given that you're a "firecracker", it's likely you could still get high quality male attention from men looking for redemption after a failed first marriage.
> 
> Yet, as the kids get older and their demands increase... let's go 7 more years down the road.....
> 
> The picture changes dramatically.
> 
> Lots of guys available for a roll in the hay.
> 
> Not many in the market to take the entire thing on.


Hmmm...only dudes coming out of failed marriages, eh?
*makes note in notebook*


I don't believe in limitations at any age and that goes for all things but since I don't at any point plan on having to look for other men that I would be happy in a relationship with I'm not too worried. I think I just recently resolved that what I have is good and worth keeping/working at for both my husband and I.

What does worry me is this false idea that women are not able to find *true* love after 30-something, here, I'm reading 30 which is really ridiculous to me. It's untrue and I've seen it dis-proven time and time again.

What is high quality male attention anyway? I'm just curious. A mistake is believing that your definition of high quality and my own are the same.

Seven years down the line...oh I can't wait for the amazing things I plan on accomplishing! I'll be 42 with a 12, 18 and 21 year old and allowed to blame some of my quirks on a mid-life crisis finally.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Women don't hate guys. Period. They just hate you.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton,

"High quality" male attention defined:

A woman able to attract numerous candidates who combine all the positive qualities she's looking for in a life partner.

Demography and other factors indicate this is exceedingly difficult close to age 45 with 2 or more children still in the home - no matter how good looking you happen to be.


----------



## magnoliagal

Conrad my sister is a 40 year old divorcee with 1 kid at home. She's hot when she wants to be. She's had no trouble finding a man to be with. Pretty high quality ones too. Too bad she keeps running them off. Sigh but that's for another thread right?


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Trenton,
> 
> "High quality" male attention defined:
> 
> A woman able to attract numerous candidates who combine all the positive qualities she's looking for in a life partner.
> 
> Demography and other factors indicate this is exceedingly difficult close to age 45 with 2 or more children still in the home - no matter how good looking you happen to be.


I can agree with your definition.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> I can agree with your definition.


Is there a lunar eclipse or something?


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Is there a lunar eclipse or something?


I know. It was a scary experience for me.


----------



## RandomDude

> Don't misunderstand, there are ****ed up men out there too but, when a man does it, the man gets sent to the gallows, when a woman does it, the man gets pushed to the front of the line for the gallows. Women have the government and family courts backing them up whether they're right or wrong, that's the biggist issue.


Heh, classic tales of 'we gave women power, but we forgot to teach them how to be responsible with that power!'

Meh, I don't like feminism at times, but then again, I don't like how modern society is still pretty much masochist either despite the movements. I don't like this 'one must be ladylike' thing; subordinate to men. Hell I think my views are kinda weird.

Perhaps I'm just an anti-sexist; to hell with 'men are like this' 'women are like this' stuff


----------



## Syrum

Some marriages break down, but women should hold on to the bad ones for dear life and be very very afraid, because once they come out men won't want them and they won't be able to find a high quality male.

The maths on this stuff doesn't add up. If a couple divorces that leaves one single man and one single woman. If the men can so easily find "high quality" women and move on, why do they try to scare women with all this talk of how many young sexy women they can get at the snap of their fingers.

Many men don't want very young women, for so many reasons, and IMO both young men and women are both being taught to look for the wrong things in others, there seems to be a lot valuing the wrong things in life. I wouldn't say younger = better looking or higher quality.

Not mention there is a percentage of young men who really dig older women, and there are quite a few women who like that too.

Women are not out of options by any means, and I certainly don't feel that I would be, were my relationship to end at the ripe old age of 35. I am with my fiance not out of fear, but out of love, and I believe I'm as high quality as they come, because I have self worth and know what is really valuable in life.


----------



## unbelievable

Syrum,

The math adds up perfectly when one realizes that men don't usually marry for security but primarily for sex/affection/nurturing.
Women do primarily marry for security pretty much everywhere in the world. The suitable husband pool is much smaller than the suitable wife pool. I can find a woman to suit my needs in any corner of the planet. Very few men on earth can earn enough money to support the typical American woman. Virtually any woman on earth is capable of providing nurturing, caring, love, and sex.


----------



## Catherine602

I don't know why so many men take pains to devalue women when they divorce - they value their wives when they want sex but she suddenly becomes damaged goods when he ready to divorce . No wonder women lose interest in sex, if men are just making do with the old wife, why bother, right. 

Seriously ladies - these men are living in a universe of their own making. This has been my real life experience:
* 2 aunts divorced in their late 40's met men their age within a year after divorce, married within 3 years. One to a lawyer and one retired army and an accountant; they had kids in their teens and 20's. They are two fiery, fun ladies, thin and elegant.

* My mother was 59 when my father died, my fathers divorced friends were there to "help" her adjust and cheer her up. She has no desire to have anything to do with men after my father and sent them packing in her sweet way. We kids thought it was a hoot, she was so upset that these men were hanging around, she never expected it. She is so sweet I wish she was interested I think should would make some man happy. 
* my brother is divorced lives in a large city, professional 40s. He dates but can not find a mature woman who is interested in more than sort term fun! Male cousin late 30s same thing. They are looking for committed long term relationships believe it or not. 

Would you believe that some divorced women are very happy to be man-free and are not looking. Some believe their husbands who are cruel in telling them tgat they are not loved and no one else will. These men may justify leaving by devaluing the wife. Some are grossly overweight and unhealty. Age can not be altered but attitude, confidence the joy of living and weight substacially alters a woman. 

Ladies please let's not buy into the magnification of our imperfections. If women pointed out the distinct and common prblems of aging men, they would be accused of being vicious, man hating ******. We don't call these men bitter hateful closet homosexual. We seem to be hard wired to protect the male ego, even while they beat us down. That will probably change in the future - women are getting more like men so we will probably adapt that male behavior as well. I don't think men will be able to take what they dish out though.

. We woman are easy targets - beset as we are by fears of aging and not being lovable. It's not surprising that men pump themselves up and devalue women. but, it is no reason for women to believe them. The problem with these bitter diatribes is that they confirm the secret fears of women in marriage - they magnify their imperfections to such a degree that they are certain their husbands don't value them.

Just read the post from husbands who deeply love their wives women are far from 20 yrs old and perfect. that is real life. and the real capacity of men to love not in keeping with the media portrayal. . 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

I felt the earth shift then I noticed that the siesmic shift was Trenton agreeing with Conrad. :•}
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Syrum

Catherine602 said:


> I don't know why so many men take pains to devalue women when they divorce - they value their wives when they want sex but she suddenly becomes damaged goods when he ready to divorce . No wonder women lose interest in sex, if men are just making do with the old wife, why bother, right.
> 
> Seriously ladies - these men are living in a universe of their own making. This has been my real life experience:
> * 2 aunts divorced in their late 40's met men their age within a year after divorce, married within 3 years. One to a lawyer and one retired army and an accountant; they had kids in their teens and 20's. They are two fiery, fun ladies, thin and elegant.
> 
> * My mother was 59 when my father died, my fathers divorced friends were there to "help" her adjust and cheer her up. She has no desire to have anything to do with men after my father and sent them packing in her sweet way. We kids thought it was a hoot, she was so upset that these men were hanging around, she never expected it. She is so sweet I wish she was interested I think should would make some man happy.
> * my brother is divorced lives in a large city, professional 40s. He dates but can not find a mature woman who is interested in more than sort term fun! Male cousin late 30s same thing. They are looking for committed long term relationships believe it or not.
> 
> Would you believe that some divorced women are very happy to be man-free and are not looking. Some believe their husbands who are cruel in telling them tgat they are not loved and no one else will. These men may justify leaving by devaluing the wife. Some are grossly overweight and unhealty. Age can not be altered but attitude, confidence the joy of living and weight substacially alters a woman.
> 
> Ladies please let's not buy into the magnification of our imperfections. If women pointed out the distinct and common prblems of aging men, they would be accused of being vicious, man hating ******. We don't call these men bitter hateful closet homosexual. We seem to be hard wired to protect the male ego, even while they beat us down. That will probably change in the future - women are getting more like men so we will probably adapt that male behavior as well. I don't think men will be able to take what they dish out though.
> 
> . We woman are easy targets - beset as we are by fears of aging and not being lovable. It's not surprising that men pump themselves up and devalue women. but, it is no reason for women to believe them. The problem with these bitter diatribes is that they confirm the secret fears of women in marriage - they magnify their imperfections to such a degree that they are certain their husbands don't value them.
> 
> Just read the post from husbands who deeply love their wives women are far from 20 yrs old and perfect. that is real life. and the real capacity of men to love not in keeping with the media portrayal. .
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Perfectly said Catherine. If what these men were sprouting was true, they would all be off to the next best thing and they would be perfectly happy instead of trying to devalue women aged over 35. I think it's fear talking.

From my knowledge of divorced women, all of them bar one has remarried and seems very happy. The one not married has had plenty of interest but does not wish to remarry. 

Besides most people I know, have not married based on income, in fact many married young before either had established careers or any money. Perhaps these men should be worried that the quality smart divorcees will not look twice at them and only women who want their income will be interested. Which by the way will be significantly reduced by child support and spousal support


----------



## Conrad

Catherine602 said:


> I felt the earth shift then I noticed that the siesmic shift was Trenton agreeing with Conrad. :•}
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It was quite the moment, wasn't it?


----------

