Geishawhelk Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 No. You have completely misunderstood. I have not said men are completely obsolete. Don't put words in my mouth. What I have said is that society, Industry and commerce have put men in positions they are ill-equipped to function in, and that they are being socially and morally castrated. It is completely wrong. The skills you mention are valid. But please try to understand. men should never feel they have to function alone, or that indeed they can do everything without the input of women. This is incorrect. Just as it's incorrect to state the opposite. Like it or not, as human beings, members of one race, we need each other. And for one gender to lord it supreme over the other is completely counter-productive. It was counter-productive when men did it to women, and it is completely counter-productive when women attest they can now do it to men.
calazhage Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 No. Like it or not, as human beings, members of one race, we need each other. And for one gender to lord it supreme over the other is completely counter-productive. It was counter-productive when men did it to women, and it is completely counter-productive when women attest they can now do it to men. Complete BS. Men were not "lording over you". That was just the system that worked the best for everyone. What types of jobs did you want to do 100 500 years ago? Men were the ones treated like worker animals in horrible conditions. Or expendable fighters with meaningless lives. It is like saying children are being oppressed today, because they cannot work in a coal mine! All these men lording over children!
JamesM Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Look at all the silly threads you start. I gotta comment on this. I agree...you do make up many interesting...and some silly...threads. BUT the one thing I notice, no matter the topic, no matter the forum...you get many responses and many who disagree. I swear...we all see Chris250, and we cannot help ourselves. I think you could start a thread about how you have too much sunshine, and you would end up with a long thread. Woggle, how much infrastructure have women built? Physically built? Roads? Skyscrapers? Buildings? How many bricks have the laid? How much oil have they drilled for? How many power plans did they build? How much coal have they mined? The question is...how important are those things? How do they rank without families? And how in the world would a man have ever made it to the point of doing all that without...his mother? Chris, In my infinite wisdom , let me tell you what I think women want the most. A companion and friend who is willing to commit to building a family. All of the other things can be obtained later, and if the guy cannot do it, she will help him. As always, I seem to bring up my wife. And I don't apologize for it either. She had the choice of me...with no house, no boat, and a beginning job in management and an old car...or a guy who had a house on the lake, nice car, a boat, and a great job making lots of money. She chose me. Besides the obvious thing that she loved me and we were best friends, her comment was: "He doesn't need me. He has everything already." So maybe being poor and still being a friend, intimate partner, and supporter can win over material goods. I would like to think that women still are the same.
movingonandon Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Aww, the requisite weekly war of the sexes thread, always such a joy to read . I disagee with any of the writing on inferiority of women for the most part, with the possible exception of some particular jobs, they're doing just fine. With that said, I agree that there is a serious entitlement problem and douple standards in a sense of what is expected of whom in relationships. For example, while men are expected to be responsible providers, who are also emotionally available, help with the housework, and provide excitement, what is given in return is typically "being cute" . Thank you very much - I'll get a hooker for that. Many women are still offended when put in the spot and questioned about how come they don't contriute more financially to the household, how come they don't put more effort to establish emotional comfort in the family, how come their husband, not them, cooks after coming back at work, etc., etc., etc. It's basically affirmative action for women - decent guys overpay (and don't receive anything in return), for crimes they haven't commited :) So, gender equality is great - *IFF* both ends of the bargain live up to their part of the contract. Unless this changes, my prognosis is that marriage will continue to deteriorate - from guy's point of view, these days it is 100%, 0% benefit. So I'll stick with asian girls for now:).
lino Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 thinking back to when I first joined this message board, I don't remember there being such a male vs female mentality. It was actually quite interesting to read these boards. Since probably 6 months ago it seems to me that many topics turn into this type of argument and it's quite boring to always read the same thing. What's the point? Both genders need each other! I only wish that I understood women more so I wouldn't be in the position I'm in now.
dreamergrl Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Check this out.. wow... women inventors.. several that go back to the 1800s. http://www.asme.org/Communities/History/Resources/Patents_Held_by_Women.cfm http://inventors.about.com/library/blwomeninventors.htm http://www.women-inventors.com/ Some of my favorites.. The windshield wiper was invented by Mary Anderson in 1903 to help streetcars operate safely in the rain. In 1905 she patented her invention, which allowed the car operator to control the external, swinging arm wipers from within the car. Windshield wipers became standard equipment on cars a decade later. Anderson was from Alabama, USA. The Apgar scale is a standardized scale that is used to determine the physical status of an infant at birth. This simple, easy-to-perform test was devised in 1953 by Dr. Virginia Apgar (1909-1974), a professor of anesthesia at the New York Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center. The Apgar scale is administered to a newborn at one minute after birth and five minutes after birth. It scores the baby's heart rate, respiration, muscle tone, reflex response, and color. This test quickly alerts medical personnel that the newborn needs assistance. Gertrude Belle Elion (January 23, 1918 - February 21, 1999) was a Nobel Prize winning biochemist who invented many life-saving drugs, including 6-mercaptopurine (Purinethol) and 6-thioguanine (which fight leukemia), Imuran, Zovirax, and many others. Elion worked at Burroughs-Wellcome (now called Glaxo Wellcome) for decades (beginning in 1944) with George Hitchings and Sir James Black, with whom she shared the Nobel Prize. She is named on 45 patents for drugs and her work has saved the lives of thousands of people. Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (1906 - 1992) was a US naval officer and mathematician who invented the computer compiler (called the A-O) in 1952. Her compiler revolutionized computer programming, automatically translating high-level instructions (easier to understand by people) into machine code (the cryptic, native language of the central processing unit). Hopper and a team developed the first user-friendly business programming language, COBOL (COmmon Business-Oriented Language). There is an unconfirmed story that Hopper determined than an error in the early Mark II computer was caused by a moth that was trapped in it; she then coined the term "computer bug." Bessie Blount, was a physical therapist who worked with soldiers injured in W.W.II. Bessie Blount's war service inspired her to patent a device, in 1951, that allowed amputees to feed themselves.The electrical device allowed a tube to deliver one mouthful of food at a time to a patient in a wheelchair or in a bed whenever he or she bit down on the tube. She later invented a portable receptacle support that was a simpler and smaller version of the same, designed to be worn around a patient's neck.
calazhage Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Aww, the requisite weekly war of the sexes thread, always such a joy to read . I disagee with any of the writing on inferiority of women for the most part, with the possible exception of some particular jobs, they're doing just fine. With that said, I agree that there is a serious entitlement problem and douple standards in a sense of what is expected of whom in relationships. For example, while men are expected to be responsible providers, who are also emotionally available, help with the housework, and provide excitement, what is given in return is typically "being cute" . Thank you very much - I'll get a hooker for that. Many women are still offended when put in the spot and questioned about how come they don't contriute more financially to the household, how come they don't put more effort to establish emotional comfort in the family, how come their husband, not them, cooks after coming back at work, etc., etc., etc. It's basically affirmative action for women - decent guys overpay (and don't receive anything in return), for crimes they haven't commited :) So, gender equality is great - *IFF* both ends of the bargain live up to their part of the contract. Unless this changes, my prognosis is that marriage will continue to deteriorate - from guy's point of view, these days it is 100%, 0% benefit. So I'll stick with asian girls for now:). Sorry. When women try to compete with men they ARE inferior. When men try to compete with women at things women are better at, they are ALSO inferior. And exactly.. American women have priced themselves out of a job when it comes to marriage. Similar to greedy unions who have wages and standards raised, but then cannot compete, so they lose their job altogether.
calazhage Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Dreamer, that's cute... I think if we listed male inventions we would need 500,000 pages..
xrhannyx Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Now there's nothing wrong with women wanting perfection in a guy. Why not just come out and say "I am looking for a guy who never argues with me, always agrees with me, will do whatever I want when I want it?" ..........i wud just lyk to say i love arguin wi my man...(wen i have one) that banter is part of a healthy relationship haha!!! it all depends on a womans state of mind but i must admitt girls standards can b pretty high depending on wht they have been through in life! xxx
Geishawhelk Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Complete BS. Men were not "lording over you". That was just the system that worked the best for everyone. What types of jobs did you want to do 100 500 years ago? Men were the ones treated like worker animals in horrible conditions. Or expendable fighters with meaningless lives. It is like saying children are being oppressed today, because they cannot work in a coal mine! All these men lording over children! Ah. I see where we are now. Blah blah blah. Whatever you say dearest, I expect you're right. Pop kettle on, there's a good lad. yet another 9-year-old male talking out of his 5-year-old posterior. At least Woggle is capable of logical coherent discussion.
dreamergrl Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Geisha, lol... But just think.. Science is also close to inventing an "artificial womb".. If that ever happened, what would the role of women be? Basically look pretty and be for enjoyment. Men are the inventors and have the cerebral qualities necessary. Not women, sorry. Women still are not the builders, inventors, and innovators. Women are STILL NOT CAPABLE of doing so many of the jobs men do. On the other hand, men can do any job that women can do.. Who protects you? Male police and armed forces. And you forget. Who will take care of these artificially inseminated women? The govt? In the future, (and already) women are becoming merely sex objects to pay half the bills..great progress! Dreamer, that's cute... I think if we listed male inventions we would need 500,000 pages.. Was it a man that sat in the front of the bus, to start equal rights for African Americans? Nooo Try this site.. http://www.historyswomen.com/earlyamerica.html Women have done so many amazing things in time. So have men. There is a need for both. The point I am making by showing these amazing accomplishments by women, is that they are more then just sitting around looking pretty.
calazhage Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Geisha, pay your taxes, go buy things with your money to stimulate the economy, acquire some debt to make banks rich, and pay your boyfriend to sleep with you, or split the bills with him. You are so lucky.. Now you have a boss, bank, and the govt lording over you, lol.
Taramere Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Science is also close to inventing an "artificial womb".. If that ever happened, what would the role of women be? Well, I'm already planning for that eventuality. I'm going to be a counsellor. So when you're feeling resentful, frustrated and filled with injustice about your role, you'll know who to come to for sympathy, guidance and a peptalk. I'll be extremely supportive in reminding you that sweeping lab floors for a living is good, honest employment.
Woggle Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I think that movingonandon is right. If modern feminists truly were interested in an equal society there would be no problem but they aren't. They want a man to bend to their will and if a man doesn't know how to read their ever changing mind they blame the man for ignoring their emotional needs and that justifies any wrong they do. Just look at that thread about getting over an affair where some women see nothing wrong with cheating because their husbands aren't some magical man from a fairy tale. Feminism has made it so that men are always wrong and women are always right no matter what and you just can't have a happy relationship with a woman who has that mentality.
clv0116 Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 After 35 years of feminists trying to neuter men .... besides looks these women have very little to offer. Well with the expanding waistlines of the last 40 years that's even less appealing in most cases. So I'll stick with asian girls for now:). Where in Asia? If you have a hidden treasure trove of cute women you owe it to the rest of us to cough up a treasure map.
PinkKittyKat Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I think that movingonandon is right. If modern feminists truly were interested in an equal society there would be no problem but they aren't. They want a man to bend to their will and if a man doesn't know how to read their ever changing mind they blame the man for ignoring their emotional needs and that justifies any wrong they do. Just look at that thread about getting over an affair where some women see nothing wrong with cheating because their husbands aren't some magical man from a fairy tale. Feminism has made it so that men are always wrong and women are always right no matter what and you just can't have a happy relationship with a woman who has that mentality. You can't just say "modern feminists". I am one, and I don't agree with any of that. There will always be people who use a sociopolitical movement as an excuse for bad behaviour. I don't blame feminism, I blame "stupid b|tches" who hide behind the label feminism while using their warped view of feminism to act like complete twatnozzles. Feminism is merely the idea or ideal of gender equity in society, with a focus on issues pertaining to women. That's all. I get pissed off every time I hear a woman telling me "Oh, I believe in equal pay..but I'm not, like... a FEMINIST." Pronouncing the word in this horrible 'I just said a naughty word' way. That's what a feminist IS. And the girls wandering around saying that "men just have to understand that women can cheat if the man makes her sad" are NOT feminists. That's not equality, it's just douchebaggery. It's like saying all Christians are nasty, spiteful, abortion clinic bombing ass0les and it's all Christianity's fault the way the world is today. It's patently not true, and anyone who does those things is not exactly holding to the tenets of the religion anyhow. It leaves true, honest, sweet Xians going, "Um..I'm not like that, that's not even what Christianity IS!"
The Collector Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Asian girls are hot, but no more submissive than any other race. Don't fall for the act!
clv0116 Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 Asian girls are hot, but no more submissive than any other race. Don't fall for the act! One of the girls I'm dating now is Asian, and in her words (shaking tiny fist) "I'm small but TERRIBLE!" and I believe her. Cute too.
movingonandon Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 One of the girls I'm dating now is Asian, and in her words (shaking tiny fist) "I'm small but TERRIBLE!" and I believe her. Cute too. They're devious, no doubt. But the attractive quality in them, based on my admittedly limited exposure, is that they're more likely to consider the rellationship as a whole as a priority, and act accordingly (rather than simply follow their fluctuating moods without much thinking). I don't think they're submissive (unless they're literally fresh off the boat...), but what gives this impression seems to be the fact that they "pick their fights" to a greater extent than any american girl I've interacted with - i.e. they would not raise a stink about something unless they're sure that it actually negatively affects the relationship the way they see it. American girls - even the decent ones - for the most part have an "in your face"/"deal with it" attitude, while asian women are a lot more well... feminine in their behavior - treat them well, and they'll return the favor with no drama by being sweet and quiet and caring, treat them bad - and you're screwed. Which, as many said already, does not translate in submissiveness, just in doing a better job at being a *woman*, rather than a confused child :love:. And with american girls it is - treat them well, and you're probably still screwed; treat them bad, you're also screwed, (though not always ). (So, stereotypes are unfair, but they surely are fun to discuss at length )
Passionate Gent Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 Have you seen the recent stats for children born outside of marriage? I contend that any perceived standards of the majority of women for a relationship have actually taken a dive in the last 10 to 15 years. I've lived in several States and can attest to an overall disposition of frustration/loneliness among my female friends/acquaintances, many of which have flipped through men like a poker dealer dealing cards seeking to find Mr. Right. If you're under the impression present cultural dynamics in your area limits the possibility of finding a mate, try dating sites that cater to men/women living abroad. I wish you well
Woggle Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 I wouldn't say that all American women are like that and I have heard some horror stories from Britain and Canada so this is a worldwide thing. It just seems that women these days will end up resenting you and hating you no matter how well you treat them. Of course nobody should put up with being abused, betrayed or treated like a doormat but there is simply no reward whatsoever for treating a woman well. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't with them and if that is the case than I will be the biggest jerk I can be. That seems to be the only thing many women respect. It's a shame that things are like this but that is the society we live in today.
kashmir Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 As far as women being thinkers and inventors... Why are all of my physics classes filled with guys? Why have I never had the pleasure of discussing challenging scientific topics with a girl? They fill the psychology, sociology, anthropology, and maybe even biology departments (for those who claim to be pre-med). You could argue that they're stronger in those "sciences"...but compared to REAL sciences, ones that actually involve math, girls are harder to find than a needle and a haystack. So yeah, men have and always will have the strength and passion in science, invention, and engineering. Don't try to argue otherwise.
Surfer Dude Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 They're devious, no doubt. But the attractive quality in them, based on my admittedly limited exposure, is that they're more likely to consider the rellationship as a whole as a priority, and act accordingly (rather than simply follow their fluctuating moods without much thinking). I don't think they're submissive (unless they're literally fresh off the boat...), but what gives this impression seems to be the fact that they "pick their fights" to a greater extent than any american girl I've interacted with - i.e. they would not raise a stink about something unless they're sure that it actually negatively affects the relationship the way they see it. American girls - even the decent ones - for the most part have an "in your face"/"deal with it" attitude, while asian women are a lot more well... feminine in their behavior - treat them well, and they'll return the favor with no drama by being sweet and quiet and caring, treat them bad - and you're screwed. Which, as many said already, does not translate in submissiveness, just in doing a better job at being a *woman*, rather than a confused child :love:. And with american girls it is - treat them well, and you're probably still screwed; treat them bad, you're also screwed, (though not always ). (So, stereotypes are unfair, but they surely are fun to discuss at length ) Stereotypes are unfair indeed. During my time in Japan and time spent with Japanese girls, I've come to realize that they're not all that different from western girls. The most notable differences are that Japanese (can't tell about other Asians) will almost always avoid confrontation and they do indeed act feminine. They often do things for their men, and I've yet to see a girl there who won't split the bill on a date. Sometimes they even pay for the man. On the other hand, they are usually very practical and almost lack empathy when they are pursuing their agenda (cultural thing), where western girls tend to be more compassionate. Some traits are defined by culture, and some are developed. Selfish, histrionic and narcissistic women exist everywhere, at least that is not culturally defined. In that respect, generalizations are unfair.
movingonandon Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 On the other hand, they are usually very practical and almost lack empathy when they are pursuing their agenda (cultural thing), where western girls tend to be more compassionate. I think you're right, but you know what? I think that's ok. What i need in a life partner is exactly pragmatic commitment to making it work. My last relationship was with an incredibly compassionate girl, but what good is compassion if it is accompanied with emotional instability an entitlement attitude (in this case - me taking major responsibility for *her* emotional needs). So at least for me the importance of more or less compassion is debatable, unless we are talking about total robots, which most women, even asian ones, aren't (although one of my friends dates one such robot).
Author chris250 Posted February 6, 2009 Author Posted February 6, 2009 I have the opposite standards.... I want a guy who isn't afraid of intimacy and might want to get married/live with me. That's the IMPORTANT one. All of the top listed? Negotiable. No matter how good looking a guy is or how much money he makes, what good is having a relationship with him if he can't commit? You hand me a clean-cut guy who has a fancy car, money, fixes things around the house while he holds the door open for me. Okay, that's all very nice, but he wants to act like he's single and says I'm being picky if I ask him if we can maybe move in together? Hahaha, hell no. I'd rather date a devoted, loving scruffy metalhead who adores me and doesn't know beans about fixing anything and has to take public transit cause he can't drive. As long as he's open to the relationship going somewhere and has no intimacy issues. Your question seems like a no brainer. "Why on earth are these dizzy dames rejecting all my shallow surface qualities!? Why would they give a crap about intimacy and getting married/cohabiting?" So what if a man is willing to commit to you in marriage and is eager to jump on the opportunity to be sexually intimate if he doesn't exercise manners and class while going out on the dates and if he doesn't keep his car neatly cleaned? From what you are telling me you just want a guy to have high interest level in you regardless of what other qualities he's lacking. I don't think it's enough to want to commit to a girl.
Recommended Posts