Why men go for airheads

[torranceshipman]

Well said. Very well said. And all too often the "oppressors", the enemy, are pegged as the men in their lives.

 

I've literally told some of these women "I am not competing with you. I am not your enemy...". Avoid the hassle and go for the airheads.

 

Why don't you pitch for the middle ground instead, why go for extremes?

[Taramere]

For once I disagree somewhat:eek: (Out relationship is being tested !). Woogle's idiosyncrasies aside, there is a huge difference between being soft and feminine yet firm when necessary, and being loud and obnoxious about it ("I'm a woman, hear me roar":rolleyes:). It is probably not apparent to you since you're of the rare instances of a pro (laywer, I gather??) yet being perfectly mellow and compassionate in interactions with others (source - posts at LS:laugh:).

 

My gf fits the stereotype of totally cute and submissive and passive, but she certainly isn't going to tolerate bad treatment.

 

Then I'll be sure to contact her to let her know about this three way thing you're conducting with us. Let's see what she has to say about that.

 

Seriously though, I don't think it's at all unusual for a woman to be professionally qualified and also be fairly mellow/compassionate. My doctor, for instance, thinks nothing of hugging her patients - especially some of the elderly ones, for whom hugs might be in short supply. I was talking about that to her in an appointment recently. Basically saying that I liked her style. She agreed that that's the way she likes to work, and she doesn't really care whether it fits into the "professional" or "appropriate" stereotype. In terms of being warm, human people, there's no marked difference between the professional and non professional women I know. Some are warmer than others, but it's down to personality rather than the job they do.

 

Whatever you might think of my brain (and thank you for the comments) the usual initial perception of me in real life has generally been along the lines of nice, but lacking in confidence, a bit of a dreamer and not likely to be very academic. Getting a decent set of professional qualifications was partly about being able to do a job that would be something more than mindless 9-5 soul-killing drudgery. It was also about not spending my life being continually held back by the assumptions other people had about me because I've got kind eyes, blonde hair or whatever else. It was about being able to spend more of my time with the kind of people who would recognise that I had a brain, and appreciate me for it.

 

As probably the majority of people reading this thread know, when you do a degree, the exams are marked by people who don't know you. What you achieve, you achieve purely by merit and not by the confidence trickery that can help people get what they want in other scenarios (the workplace, romantic life etc). I think that for anyone who has a brain, but who lacks confidence, further education helps them to believe in themselves.

 

I can understand people becoming irritated if that self belief transforms into some kind of narcissistic self importance. However, I think the latter relates to a character flaw rather than being the result of education. Like so many things, it's often present most strongly in those who perceive it very readily in other people....and my impression of some of the male posters on LS (not you, sweetie) who criticise professional women for being arrogant, narcissistic etc is that they're projecting big time.

 

Maybe the Internet just brings out a lot of negativity and anger in men who don't know how to express their feelings effectively, and therefore let it all build up until it comes out in a rant. I've no idea.

 

My reaction would be totally different to someone proclaiming with no provocation left and right "I won't tolerate crap" (Bitch, please )

 

I think "I won't tolerate crap" is a meaningless and inflammatory statement. Saying you won't tolerate it, doesn't mean that you'll do anything effective about it in reality. Basically, such statements just encourage other people to test you out.

 

The practice of not tolerating crap is a bit different, and a lot more difficult than simply claiming not to tolerate it. It's laying out boundaries, as you go along, about what you're okay with, and what you find unnecessarily upsetting or stressful from someone you're in a relationship - any kind of relationship - with. Far easier to talk about not taking crap, than to put it into practice effectively.

[Sam Spade]

Well there you go, we're singing from the same hymn sheets - we're talking aobut misandrists, not feminists. If a misandrist teaches women's studies and women stupidly buy into the man hating crap, then yes, you are completely right.

 

But if a liberal feminist is teaching that class, then you will get healthy debates and classes about what being female means, about female identity, etc. (and by liberal feminist, I mean a true liberal feminist, not a pseudo-intellectual misandrist who claims the title, in error, of liberal feminist, through misunderstanding the term)

 

By definition a liberal feminist thinks that men and women are equal, so are respectful of that fact. Any man hating you see is misandry (possibly also militant feminism, the crazy extreme of the regular moderate liberal feminism-liberal feminists would despise this approach).

 

I trust that, but you've got to acknowledge that feminism has the same problem islam has - I don't give a rat's ass that there are "moderate" muslims considering the disasters their "extremist" brethren have inflicted on the world.

At the end of the day, all the different currents of Islam are based on the same book, and taking the risk that someone will choose a 'mellow' interpretation is simply not worth it. Moreover, if muslims want to be respected, they should be the first ones to root out the extremists once and for all.

Similarly, if feminists like to be respected, they also should be the one to root out the hateful pseudo-intellectuals that call themselves the same name. (Until then - quilty until proven innocent .)

[Woggle]

Well said. Very well said. And all too often the "oppressors", the enemy, are pegged as the men in their lives.

 

I've literally told some of these women "I am not competing with you. I am not your enemy...". Avoid the hassle and go for the airheads.

 

Very true. I have seen too often a man trying to prove to one of these women that he is a good man and one of the good ones only to eventually be the target of a woman's rage. When feminists marry their husbands become the punching bag every time they are angry about gender issues.

[Sam Spade]

Seriously though, I don't think it's at all unusual for a woman to be professionally qualified and also be fairly mellow/compassionate. My doctor, for instance, thinks nothing of hugging her patients - especially some of the elderly ones, for whom hugs might be in short supply. I was talking about that to her in an appointment recently. Basically saying that I liked her style. She agreed that that's the way she likes to work, and she doesn't really care whether it fits into the "professional" or "appropriate" stereotype. In terms of being warm, human people, there's no marked difference between the professional and non professional women I know. Some are warmer than others, but it's down to personality rather than the job they do.

 

Whatever you might think of my brain (and thank you for the comments) the usual initial perception of me in real life has generally been along the lines of nice, but lacking in confidence, a bit of a dreamer and not likely to be very academic. Getting a decent set of professional qualifications was partly about being able to do a job that would be something more than mindless 9-5 soul-killing drudgery. It was also about not spending my life being continually held back by the assumptions other people had about me because I've got kind eyes, blonde hair or whatever else. It was about being able to spend more of my time with the kind of people who would recognise that I had a brain, and appreciate me for it.

 

As probably the majority of people reading this thread know, when you do a degree, the exams are marked by people who don't know you. What you achieve, you achieve purely by merit and not by the confidence trickery that can help people get what they want in other scenarios (the workplace, romantic life etc). I think that for anyone who has a brain, but who lacks confidence, further education helps them to believe in themselves.

 

I can understand people becoming irritated if that self belief transforms into some kind of narcissistic self importance. However, I think the latter relates to a character flaw rather than being the result of education. Like so many things, it's often present most strongly in those who perceive it very readily in other people....and my impression of some of the male posters on LS (not you, sweetie) who criticise professional women for being arrogant, narcissistic etc is that they're projecting big time.

 

Maybe the Internet just brings out a lot of negativity and anger in men who don't know how to express their feelings effectively, and therefore let it all build up until it comes out in a rant. I've no idea.

 

 

 

I think "I won't tolerate crap" is a meaningless and inflammatory statement. Saying you won't tolerate it, doesn't mean that you'll do anything effective about it in reality. Basically, such statements just encourage other people to test you out.

 

The practice of not tolerating crap is a bit different, and a lot more difficult than simply claiming not to tolerate it. It's laying out boundaries, as you go along, about what you're okay with, and what you find unnecessarily upsetting or stressful from someone you're in a relationship - any kind of relationship - with. Far easier to talk about not taking crap, than to put it into practice effectively.

 

Interesting, particularly the I won't tolerate crap bit. It would make sense that people who feel compelled to proclaim that perhaps do not feel able to lay boundaries and thus end up resenting themselves and others for that, ending up in a vicious circle.

 

So, yes, it boils down to character. I don't think anybody had the intention (or so I hope) that education and accomplishment CAUSE women (people ) to become bitchezz, but it is not inconceivable that it is a moderating variable: for example, people who have no business or any real interest in getting an education may still do so to feed their need for approval/domination whatever. They wouldn't be a good relationship material to begin with, but attaining some semblance of success would only make these traits worse.

 

The perceived antagonism between education/accomplishment and "femininity" will be reduced as soon as this becomes the norm.

Strangely, and sadly, the US is THE most backwards country when it comes to that. When I was growing up back across the pond I don't ever remember women having careers and being successful ever being a problem. It was given that all women would go on to having both careers and families and nobody ever made any big deal of it. Women were scientists, engineers, and high-level public officials, and nobody has ever been surprised by that.

 

In the US, men are still surprised that women show up in the work place, and much worse - women expect to be patted on the back for merely doing their job:rolleyes:. I see it every day in my work. ("We HAVE to hire a woman".)

So, all the conditions for ongoing antagonism. US may be one of the most advanced nations in the world, but as far as gender relationships are concerned, it exhibits a combination of the worst from the 19th century combined with the worst from the 1970s.

[Woggle]

Also feminists might claim to want equality but let's see how much they really mean it when men fight for our rights in family or divorce court or when male victims of domestic violence lobby to be taken seriously. All that equality talk is just lip service to me when they keep fighting men every inch of the way. I actually respect the hardcore misandrists who come right out and say they hate men more because they have the guts to lay their cards right on the table. A man knows what he is dealing with when it comes to them but too many women appear nice only to have the dormant misandry rear it's head later on.

[torranceshipman]

Also feminists might claim to want equality but let's see how much they really mean it when men fight for our rights in family or divorce court or when male victims of domestic violence lobby to be taken seriously. All that equality talk is just lip service to me when they keep fighting men every inch of the way. I actually respect the hardcore misandrists who come right out and say they hate men more because they have the guts to lay their cards right on the table. A man knows what he is dealing with when it comes to them but too many women appear nice only to have the dormant misandry rear it's head later on.

 

This sounds very dark ages. When women fought for equality that meant having the right to vote - basics like that. How would you feel if you weren't about to vote, or have a job, or play sport, because people said you were too incapable, too stupid, etc, just because of your gender? Of course women should have fought for those basic human rights.

 

If you don't think women have the right to be equal in society then you are definitely a misogynist. If you are referring to lots of other societal problems like domestic violence, then yes I agree, they are serious and important topics that exist in their own right and that throw up serious issues for each gender, but are separate to an equality debate.

 

I abhor misogny, miandry, racism, homophobia and anything else that denies people a right to do anything simply because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Throwing out a 'all this talk of equality' speech is dangerous as it is the type of talk that is used to undermine social groups fighting for equality, insinuating that they don't deserve it, or are too stupid to have it. We should be building each other up, and taking each person as an individual instead of subjecting them to damaging and hurtful generalizations and stereotypes before we've even got to know them.

 

Also, you keep mentioning misandry. Again, a feminist isn't a misandrist. If you have a bad habit of associating yourself with misandrists then this is something that might be sorted out in therapy - it is the male version of the female that keeps seeking out the player/commitment phobe/bad guy who will always make her miserable.

[Taramere]

Interesting, particularly the I won't tolerate crap bit. It would make sense that people who feel compelled to proclaim that perhaps do not feel able to lay boundaries and thus end up resenting themselves and others for that, ending up in a vicious circle.

 

I tend to lump it alongside all those other "here's who I am statements". It tells you everything about how a person wants to be perceived, but doesn't necessarily tell you very much about who they are. You have to watch their actions for that, and match up whether their actions are consistent with their statements.

 

So, yes, it boils down to character. I don't think anybody had the intention (or so I hope) that education and accomplishment CAUSE women (people ) to become bitchezz, but it is not inconceivable that it is a moderating variable: for example, people who have no business or any real interest in getting an education may still do so to feed their need for approval/domination whatever. They wouldn't be a good relationship material to begin with, but attaining some semblance of success would only make these traits worse.

 

Depending on the area they're studying, they might actually be confronted head on with those problems. For instance, say they're studying to be a counsellor, social worker or a clinical psychologist. These are areas people with "issues" will often gravitate towards, in the belief that struggling with those issues makes them better positioned to understand the client group.

 

The reality of people like that going into practice - if they haven't addressed their issues head on - might be that they collude with clients in an unhealthy way, make muddled, poor or unprofessional decisions that are affected by their emotional response to certain situations, etc. In some cases, further education might force people to confront those issues as part of preparing them to behave professionally. In other cases, of course, you'll get someone like that going into a profession that as you say they have no business being in. A good example....the person who has a vexatious litigant style personality going into law. Disastrous on all levels, but it happens unfortunately.

 

That said, people who go into particular professions for all the wrong reasons are fairly well represented in both genders.

 

 

The perceived antagonism between education/accomplishment and "femininity" will be reduced as soon as this becomes the norm.

Strangely, and sadly, the US is THE most backwards country when it comes to that. When I was growing up back across the pond I don't ever remember women having careers and being successful ever being a problem. It was given that all women would go on to having both careers and families and nobody ever made any big deal of it. Women were scientists, engineers, and high-level public officials, and nobody has ever been surprised by that.

 

In the US, men are still surprised that women show up in the work place, and much worse - women expect to be patted on the back for merely doing their job:rolleyes:. I see it every day in my work. ("We HAVE to hire a woman".)

 

So, all the conditions for ongoing antagonism. US may be one of the most advanced nations in the world, but as far as gender relationships are concerned, it exhibits a combination of the worst from the 19th century combined with the worst from the 1970s.

 

That's very peculiar. I don't really know what to say about it, but yes - I've gleaned from LS more than any other place that there is a lot of male antagonism towards women in the US. American women cop the blame for being American women....but from what I can see, American women aren't so different from women anywhere else in the world. So where this hostility comes from I don't know. I can speculate, but it wouldn't do much good.

[Jersey Shortie]

Torranceshipman:

 

A truly intellectual woman will never think that someone is inferior to them just because they have a degree, or whatever. They will have the humility that comes with a really good education to understand and appreciate different points of view, the value of different types of life experience, the futility of judging and stereotyping others, and so forth. At the same time, however, she might in a very realistic way understand what she needs in a man for them both to be happy, and that might (or might not) include an analytic mind and high IQ. She wouldn't be judging people without that as below her, not at all, she'd simply know what would work well for her as a compatible partner.

 

Secondly, there seems to be some misunderstandings about feminism on here. A blonde head cheerleader who struggles to pass her GED is just as capable of being a feminist as a physics professor, and at the same time, neither might be a feminist-it just depends on what their world view is.

 

Feminism is also a very wide field and some feminists staunchly disagree with each other, e.g. militant and liberal feminists. Liberal Feminism is a great thing to have in a girlfriend as it generally means she respects men and women as equals.

 

Any woman that spouts off about how clever she is and tries to make you feel inferior, etc, is, in my view just a pseudo-intellectual (annoying)-that's the type of person in my view that is rubbing the OP up the wrong way.

 

That was a really great post and I am in 110% agreement.

 

 

FilthyMerchant:

 

At the end of the day, a man would rather a less intellectually intelligent (but more socially intelligent and aesthetically pleasing) woman who knows her rights AND responsibilities in life and in a relationship, than the more intellectually intelligent (but often less socially intelligent and aesthetically pleasing) woman who inflates her rights and refuses her responsibilities.

 

But who are you to judge what another's rights and responsiblities should be anymore then judge what you preceive to be an "over-inflation of someone elses rights"? It's pretty arrogant to deem yourself the judge of what other's rights are. Whether it's man or woman.

 

In this thread, instead of focusing on the men that have made some pretty careless and defamatory comments about what level of intelligence women should reach, or not reach, to be deemed attractive, I am going to give kudos to the men that stood up for perceptions of "intelligent" ladies and pointed out the flawed logic of others. Carhill, Tony, IrishCarBomb and I know there were a few others, Thanks.

[calizaggy]

This sounds very dark ages. When women fought for equality that meant having the right to vote - basics like that. How would you feel if you weren't about to vote, or have a job, or play sport, because people said you were too incapable, too stupid, etc, just because of your gender? Of course women should have fought for those basic human rights.

 

 

.

 

 

HAHA..

 

Look, 2 points.. back in the day, what jobs did women really want to have? Keep in mind we did not have this many nice office jobs where you sit around, chat on yahoo, and look pretty.. Coal miner? Steel milll? Build roads and bridges? NAH..

 

Secondly, in 19th century England women did work ouside of the home. As life progressed, the womens movement fought to NOT work, which is an obvious improvement. Now you are taught you are doing some amazing new thing called working, and you slave away your life paying bills and interest.. Congrats. So many women act like they deserve a medal for simply paying their own bills.

 

As for voting, what was there to vote for? Since you weren't working, or fighting in wars, not much. Often times only land owners voted, which means most men did not vote either.

 

Instead of looking at the past like "These courageous and strong men did horrible jobs in slave conditions to put food on the table", the feminist views it like "OHHH We werent allowed to work. Those men oppressed us!!!"..Completely silly and small minded considering the times.

 

But since women are easy to manipulate the mass media tricks them into being wage slaves working to pay the banks interest, the govt taxes, and consume more junk. . How many women trully love working? Not many that I have met.

 

All feminism has accomplished is that it has FORCED women to work.. In this day and age with everyone working, it is far more difficult for a woman to be a free thinking stay at home mom. Everything is twice as expensive.

 

Now women are trapped in a different societal box with many bosses. A boss, landlord, bank, etc. No wonder millions turn to anti depressants, food,other drugs, or alcohol. Except in return they get a little money instead of love.

 

And in reality, it was powerful women that "held you down" Queen Victoria:

 

"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection"

Edited December 12, 2009 by calizaggy

[doushenka]

There is a difference between wanting to truly BE equal, and feel equal.

 

Agreed.

 

I've never planned on anyone's support but my own, when I am finally well enough to leave home. If I marry or cohabit, he will have his own income and we will pay into a household kitty while maintaining our own accounts, thanks very much. Love is wonderful, but each partner must have the means to leave the relationship if the relationship becomes unhealthy. Also, in time, one or both parties might come to resent the imbalance -- do I want to set myself up for that?

 

Why be a ball and chain when I know I can contribute?

 

But by that token, why marry a ball and chain? I don't know about other women, but I find self-sufficiency quite attractive; he doesn't need to make more than he needs to live, but by gods he'd better be able to support himself. I'm nobody's sugar mama. Unpredictable circumstances aside (illness, disability), yes, planning for a future where both partners contribute makes sense to me.

 

And for pity's sake, no pushing to live above mutual means, either. I don't need a house in the 'burbs, a flashy SUV, or a pony. I can be happy with a flat, as long as it meets our needs.

 

So, calizaggy, is that equality, or am I just another misandrist?

[Sam Spade]

HAHA..

 

Look, 2 points.. back in the day, what jobs did women really want to have? Keep in mind we did not have this many nice office jobs where you sit around, chat on yahoo, and look pretty.. Coal miner? Steel milll? Build roads and bridges? NAH..

 

Secondly, in 19th century England women did work ouside of the home. As life progressed, the womens movement fought to NOT work, which is an obvious improvement. Now you are taught you are doing some amazing new thing called working, and you slave away your life paying bills and interest.. Congrats. So many women act like they deserve a medal for simply paying their own bills.

 

As for voting, what was there to vote for? Since you weren't working, or fighting in wars, not much. Often times only land owners voted, which means most men did not vote either.

 

Instead of looking at the past like "These courageous and strong men did horrible jobs in slave conditions to put food on the table", the feminist views it like "OHHH We werent allowed to work. Those men oppressed us!!!"..Completely silly and small minded considering the times.

 

But since women are easy to manipulate the mass media tricks them into being wage slaves working to pay the banks interest, the govt taxes, and consume more junk. . How many women trully love working? Not many that I have met.

 

All feminism has accomplished is that it has FORCED women to work.. In this day and age with everyone working, it is far more difficult for a woman to be a free thinking stay at home mom. Everything is twice as expensive.

 

Now women are trapped in a different societal box with many bosses. A boss, landlord, bank, etc. No wonder millions turn to anti depressants, food,other drugs, or alcohol. Except in return they get a little money instead of love.

 

And in reality, it was powerful women that "held you down" Queen Victoria:

 

"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection"

 

 

Good points...

It is hard to picture the dirty, tired farmer or the railroad worker as "the oppressor"

 

Related, my theory is that at least one of the reasons US is so backwards as far as gender relationships are concerned is simply the unprecedented post WWII prosperity. Simply put, and the reason the women's movement becamse so agressive in the us is not that it is particularly enlightened (), but because women understandably decided they want a "piece of that". Which is fine as long as we understand that we're talking about a period of time of 2-3 decades tops. No need to rationalize it with horror stories of the "centuries of opression: .

 

And yes, in the end the result was simply increasing the demand (and prices) for goods, so while I applaud that US women are *finally* getting to work (seriously - it was time!), it is debatable how much better off the society as a whole is, and the true motivations are even more debatable.

 

Other developed or developing countries have seen women working alongside men for the entirety of the 20th century, but at least they don't have the angst of "losing" the cushy post WWII existence that the americans got to enjoy for a few brief decades (which made it possible to afford the SAHM for a short while; the important thing is to remember that we're talking about a single generation here).

[threebyfate]

In this thread, instead of focusing on the men that have made some pretty careless and defamatory comments about what level of intelligence women should reach, or not reach, to be deemed attractive, I am going to give kudos to the men that stood up for perceptions of "intelligent" ladies and pointed out the flawed logic of others. Carhill, Tony, IrishCarBomb and I know there were a few others, Thanks.

I'm with you on this!

 

Why defend against blatant untruths? That's the nature of this thread, to take the offensive and yes, I do mean offensive in both ways.

[thegreatmoose]

More often than not, a female who had not spent an extra 8-12 years in college will still retain more of the traits that make her a female that men desire.

 

What higher education typically indoctrinates women with is putting in their heads that they need to be independent, and they were oppressed.

 

If she does get a high earning job, then "equal" means finding a man that makes more or equal to her. Since many of these high earning men might be players, or do not need her second income at all, they go for women they actually like. This leads women to crying "men are intimidated by me!"

 

As for voting, what was there to vote for? Since you weren't working, or fighting in wars, not much. Often times only land owners voted, which means most men did not vote either.

 

But since women are easy to manipulate the mass media tricks them into being wage slaves working to pay the banks interest, the govt taxes, and consume more junk. . How many women trully love working? Not many that I have met.

 

All feminism has accomplished is that it has FORCED women to work.. In this day and age with everyone working, it is far more difficult for a woman to be a free thinking stay at home mom. Everything is twice as expensive.

 

Now women are trapped in a different societal box with many bosses. A boss, landlord, bank, etc. No wonder millions turn to anti depressants, food,other drugs, or alcohol. Except in return they get a little money instead of love.

As another user posted, you are stuck in 1910. Actually it's even worse than that. If you were around 100 years ago, you probably would have fought against a woman's right to vote.

 

It's almost 2010 and I can't believe there are still men who don't want women getting a higher education or working and don't even want them voting. Where do you want women? In the bedroom and kitchen only? Your posts speak for themselves.

 

I don't think there are many men who would agree with you. I certainly don't agree with anything in your posts. A smart successful woman is a turn on for me. Yes, these women are every bit as feminine as women from 50 or 100 years ago.

 

You clearly are afraid of and intimidated by smart successful women.

Edited December 12, 2009 by thegreatmoose

[calizaggy]

Intelligence is related to ones ability to reason, or comprehend. It is measured by an IQ test. Any airhead these days can get a masters while still having low intelligence. When will many of you realize college is largely a money making business?

 

So I would take an intelligent woman any day over one that spent years in college being indoctrinated, then passing that off as "intelligence"

 

 

I do not get the feeling that feminists are trying to bring men and women together. If so, they would say something like "Men worked to support you and your families for centuries. They are your natural ally and counterpart. Now it is your turn to work and help them in a loving marriage"

 

Instead, they have a very hateful agenda.. "Men oppressed you! Now you can be independent! You don't need a man"

[torranceshipman]

I think that some good points have been made here, but some people are showing themselves to be woman haters, which is a sad thing to see (as it would be sad to see man haters, too).

 

It'd be a happy day when people stop trying to be haters and hurt, demean and insult others simply because they are female, male, black white, gay, straight, etc, and instead, recognize the right for everyone to be treated wih equal respect and dignity. Seems like such a simple concept, yet the human race seems to have an almighty problem with achieving it.

[Jersey Shortie]

Calizggy, what is your educational backround? high school, college, masters? What is your view point on intelligence in men and their educational backrounds?

[jw90063]

First of all let me say that I don't believe too many people are stupid and incapable of learning unless their name is Sarah Palin.

 

The women that other women deem as airheads tend to be much nicer and much less complicated. Life is hard enough without adding more difficulty to it so why would a man want to make his love life harder then it has to be. Many of these so called intellectual women with a bunch of degrees are very elitist and feel that every man is below them. They have a very snooty vibe to them and for all their book smarts they know very little about human relationships. They seem to thrive off of drama and have little to no regard for a man's feelings. If their emotions tell them to cheat they will do it and not feel the least bit of remorse about it. They will then intellectualize it.

 

Airheads might be simple but they usually have a heart of gold and love treating a man well. In many ways they know more about life than women with a bunch of degrees. Life and love is so much easier with them and with most of them you can actually teach them about the world and show them new experiences.

 

The moral of the story is that no matter how well educated a woman is or how independent or smart she is if she is not an easy to get along with person and does not care about treating a man well none of that matters. Men are not repulsed by independent and smart women but so many of them lack the basics that attract a man in the first place. If a woman has the basics everything else will fall into place.

 

In my opinion, this post doesn't even make sense. How are airheads the ones who have a heart of gold and love a treating a man well?

 

From my knowledge, it seems may air-headed type women, are ones who don't take relationships serious and sure as heck don't love treating their men well. Heart of gold?! Maybe my definition of an air-head is different.

[norajane]

I trust that, but you've got to acknowledge that feminism has the same problem islam has - I don't give a rat's ass that there are "moderate" muslims considering the disasters their "extremist" brethren have inflicted on the world.

At the end of the day, all the different currents of Islam are based on the same book, and taking the risk that someone will choose a 'mellow' interpretation is simply not worth it. Moreover, if muslims want to be respected, they should be the first ones to root out the extremists once and for all.

Similarly, if feminists like to be respected, they also should be the one to root out the hateful pseudo-intellectuals that call themselves the same name. (Until then - quilty until proven innocent .)

 

And how exactly do we do that? It's not like women are a monolithic force with structure and organization and the ability to banish the factions we don't agree with. Not that could or would, since the fundamental basics of our country are free thought and free speech.

 

It's interesting to me that some of the men in this thread post as though they are constantly embattled with and bombarded by militant feminists and misandrists, yet I cannot recall meeting anyone like that in my recent and not-so-recent experience. In the same way that I don't really run into men who express some of the views expressed in this thread. Extremism is such a non-issue in my life, so I honestly don't understand the level of anger and enmity expressed here.

[IrishCarBomb]

Similarly, if feminists like to be respected, they also should be the one to root out the hateful pseudo-intellectuals that call themselves the same name.

 

So... you mean that moderates should not be respected because you cannot differentiate a reasonable moderate from a hateful pseudo-intellectual extremist?

[Taramere]

It's interesting to me that some of the men in this thread post as though they are constantly embattled with and bombarded by militant feminists and misandrists, yet I cannot recall meeting anyone like that in my recent and not-so-recent experience. In the same way that I don't really run into men who express some of the views expressed in this thread. Extremism is such a non-issue in my life, so I honestly don't understand the level of anger and enmity expressed here.

 

In real life I've occasionally encountered people who like to rant like this, but I either change the subject - or get away ASAP. There's generally a lack of social awareness about them that makes other people exchange eye contact and look for ways to change the subject or get out of their company.

 

It's one thing to read an anonymous "here's how much I hate smartass women who think their **** don't stink" rant on the Internet, and laugh. When it has a face and a voice to it, it becomes a tad more blood curdlingly. This for instance, has a terrifyingly plaintive feel about it. I feel as though tonight, the face of this man will loom into my dreams and inform me that "The collection of body parts under my bed comfort me. If there's got to be a monster under my bed, I want to know that I made it".

 

Years ago when I was travelling, I was cornered in a station by a man like that. Fortunately his problem didn't relate directly to feminism. The difficulty was that he'd amassed a collection of penpals. Far more than he knew what to do with - and he was looking for a solution to the problem. The penpal problem was obviously serious enough for him to become quite angry and ranting about it.

 

Rather than show how weirded out I was, I behaved as though being accosted by a lunatic about something like this this was an everyday event for me. I provided him with what I hoped was sensible and professional sounding advice on how to deal with the problem of surplus penpals. Maybe something along the lines of "gradually cut down on contact with the ones you don't really want, but always remember there's really no need to kill these people." I don't recall. I felt sure he'd probably been in an institution before, so I aimed to sound authoritative/clinical in my response - as far as that was possible, while I was sitting on a backpack in the middle of a bus station. Fortunately an employee of the station eventually appeared and moved him along.

 

That guy in the vid, though. If I were accosted by him, wanting to rant the night away in a quiet train station, I don't know. I think I wouldn't hold out for a guard to rescue me. I'd probably just start foaming at the mouth, rolling my eyes, muttering bizarre obscenities and generally acting like I was even crazier than he was, in the hope that it would freak him out and make him run away.

 

In conclusion, one of the advantages to women of undergoing a professional training is this. While it might not automatically render you more appealingly demure and feminine in the eyes of gentlemen, it can sometimes assist you in coping relatively calmly or knowledgeably with those unexpected situations crazy gentlemen sometimes feel moved to inflict upon unchaperoned ladies.

[sally4sara]

I think the fact that I've never seen a thread about how educated or intelligent a man should or shouldn't be for a woman to find a successful relationship with him says it all.

 

I can tell if a man is a "natural ally" when I meet one and hear his words, or see his actions. There certainly are not many to be found here.......

[Woggle]

This sounds very dark ages. When women fought for equality that meant having the right to vote - basics like that. How would you feel if you weren't about to vote, or have a job, or play sport, because people said you were too incapable, too stupid, etc, just because of your gender? Of course women should have fought for those basic human rights.

 

If you don't think women have the right to be equal in society then you are definitely a misogynist. If you are referring to lots of other societal problems like domestic violence, then yes I agree, they are serious and important topics that exist in their own right and that throw up serious issues for each gender, but are separate to an equality debate.

 

I abhor misogny, miandry, racism, homophobia and anything else that denies people a right to do anything simply because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Throwing out a 'all this talk of equality' speech is dangerous as it is the type of talk that is used to undermine social groups fighting for equality, insinuating that they don't deserve it, or are too stupid to have it. We should be building each other up, and taking each person as an individual instead of subjecting them to damaging and hurtful generalizations and stereotypes before we've even got to know them.

 

Also, you keep mentioning misandry. Again, a feminist isn't a misandrist. If you have a bad habit of associating yourself with misandrists then this is something that might be sorted out in therapy - it is the male version of the female that keeps seeking out the player/commitment phobe/bad guy who will always make her miserable.

 

I never said that equality is bad but if feminists truly believed in it they would not fight men every inch of the way when we want to address issues that affect us. What feminists want is to be the new oppressors and for men to be the oppressed which was not equality last time I looked.

[Woggle]

And how exactly do we do that? It's not like women are a monolithic force with structure and organization and the ability to banish the factions we don't agree with. Not that could or would, since the fundamental basics of our country are free thought and free speech.

 

It's interesting to me that some of the men in this thread post as though they are constantly embattled with and bombarded by militant feminists and misandrists, yet I cannot recall meeting anyone like that in my recent and not-so-recent experience. In the same way that I don't really run into men who express some of the views expressed in this thread. Extremism is such a non-issue in my life, so I honestly don't understand the level of anger and enmity expressed here.

 

Like I said before it is not the loudmouth who gos around shouting about how she hates men that is the problem. It is the woman who seems nice on the surface but lets the inner misandrist come out down the line that men really need to worry about. I think that the majority of women fall into the latter group.

[calizaggy]

Women pretty much follow anything they are told to do by society. They pretty much like what other women like. They didnt form some huge movement, it was formed for them. What have any of you women done for the "feminist movement"? nothing.. You are born, go to school, people tell you to go to college which parents pay for or they take out loans for, then you work and go on about how you are independent.

 

My point is not to argue with the feminist girl, as she simply does not know any better. It is more or less for people to realize the big game that wants to create more taxable assets, and this infiltrates the media, schools, etc. It is a hateful agenda that pits man vs woman, and makes a large percentage of women useless as a wife or mother.