How many women here will admit they are a misandrist?

[Mary3]

Woggle : Is that what you got : A Mail Order Bride ?

[carhill]

I've done it, many years ago, so know how it works. I never paid an agency fee. Never bought a woman. Met regular people just like at home. Agencies existed then, some grassroots and some established. It was already well-known which ones were crooked and which ones weren't. It wasn't rocket science. It still isn't. I could Skype a few friends in Eastern Europe and visit next week if I wanted to, and likely meet some more regular people. It's no big deal.

 

I'm pretty sure the LS ladies I'm talking about haven't been bought by or bought their boyfriends. They sound pretty normal and their postings reflect it.

 

The point is that making blatant statements about men 'buying' women in foreign countries just feeds into more of the same sentiments being debated on this thread. If a wealthy man or woman wants to hire a matchmaker to find an appropriate spouse here in the US, more power to him or her. If he/she wants to pay a subscription to an online dating service, that's all good. If he/she wants to pay an agency fee to meet a potential spouse in another country, that's his/her prerogative. I chose to pay a fee to an online dating service, 12 years ago. I did again, just recently. I'm good with that.

Edited January 10, 2010 by carhill

[meerkat stew]

You're blaming feminism for creating the sense that male interest in women is restricted to having sex with them, when there are entire men's rights/anti-feminist forums out there advocating exactly that mindset to men. And something tells me you have probably posted on some of those sites in the past, so I feel sure you know the type of forum I mean.

 

Nope, never posted to those, have read some of the PUA sites as an omnivore, there, on those sites, you see lots of true misogynism and unjust stereotyping admittedly. I don't need the techniques on those sites, though some are arguably good seduction techniques. Brings up an interesting question, though, if the disgruntled posters here want to preach to the choir and have their preconceptions "authenticated," why are they (we) posting here and not there? Sosuave and donjuan are just a mouseclick away after all.

 

Let's focus on this forum and our discussions here, shall we? rather than bringing some other venues into it. Why are you intent on doing that btw? Rhetorical. I know the answer. You like your men tall, blond, and made of straw

 

I'm really blaming the left for factionalizing gender relations as a political tool, not feminism. I don't like to use "feminism" much any more (but do use "feminized") because as someone who believes in the core tenets of what is called "feminism" very strongly, I believe that word, like "misogyny," and "misandry," has been marginalized for political gain.

 

But I'm not "blaming" anyone other than -you- for starting your analysis with a straw man, that men are purely sexually motivated in all their endeavors, that the men who grouse here are merely grousing from the crotch. And since you seem to want to discuss it directly, will just state that the reason I make so much of that particular straw man is that it is the first, convenient step on the path to marginalizing men and our issues. (and for other reasons I will save for the big finale)

 

As I understand feminism, one of its aim was to free people from the pressure to adhere to socially prescribed roles that they weren't personally suited to....and that that applied to men as well as to women. There are some men who welcome that philosophy, and others who it seems to drive into a state of confusion. Some people do seem to need stereotypical notions of who and what they're supposed to be, in order to feel they have an identity.

 

Would rather not get into the semantic discussion of what feminism is, can we agree that at it's core, it entails social and legal steps to ensure that women are treated equally to men under the law and socially generally? I disagree that men find this confusing. Most want it fervently. I previously claimed that men have been equally responsible for the ascension of women to equality via the social phenomena of technology, the industrial revolution, the post WW2 economic boom, the cold war, and capitalism, all phenomena helmed by men. And that this contradicts the existence of some patriarchy, or at least a patriarchy malevolent to women. These social forces and events, moreso than any "battle for equality," brought women's issues to the fore.

 

Go over to a predominantly male board,

 

Hey, lady, {waves at taramere} I'm right here, not on some other board. It disappoints me that you won't address the points I make right here in this thread, but want to drag us off to some "men's forum" somewhere (most of which are populated by a majority of teenage boys). "THE MAN" (the white waspy oppressive slave master of the patriarchy) is sitting right here across from you, why not engage me!

 

So going onto your sense of embittered men wanting acceptance from women, what do you see that acceptance looking like? What is it that you are asking women to accept that you believe we aren't accepting?

 

OK, fair enough. I want you to accept that in a climate where women have been favored politically, economically and socially for the last 40 years ( e.g. I have a good small business idea, where's -my- grant?), 1) the existence of persistent double standards in socializing and dating is obnoxious to many men (I am not going to discuss specifics here, don't even try, it's tangential to -this- line of discussion and for another discussion), 2) The political manipulation of women has resulted in very real dollars and cents consequences to all of us, men most of all, 3) Same political manipulation, beginning with the marginalization of the guy being led around by his d*ck and other such, has polarized women and men to the point that if a man raises the question about the vanity of height selection by women, he is shouted down as the typical c*ck-waving, bad attitude misogyny case.

 

Begin by acknowledging the existence of those (and other) issues in general gender relations. Then we can have a meaningful dialogue. Until then, we are in the land of my signature, and the whinging from men is going to continue to increase in volumes as the marriage rate drops, the single parent phenomenon increases, and we continue to slide further into a crisis of gender relations.

 

You can cite all the "happy guys" going along their merry way and presumably content all you want, that the malcontents are tiny minority, it's an illusion. The mass of men are getting pissed off, and the tip of that iceberg is the ranting and whining seen more and more on the internet.

 

In what sense are women unaccountable for their social behaviour? What social behaviour are you talking about? If a man doesn't like the way a particular woman behaves, is he not capable of telling her that - and walking away if there's no likelihood of her changing? Why must a personal gripe be transformed into some kind of social manifesto?

 

Not going to open that entire can of worms, because I know if I do, you and others, will seize on specifics instead of talking about the overarching points made. Will give one example, and will not comment or reply on it further. Suzy has three different children by three different men. What portion of the socio-economic political discussion of the resulting state of affairs will center on Suzy's poor life choices? OTOH, what portion of the discussion of this state of affairs will center on the fathers' behavior. Isn't it the case that Suzy will be perceived as the victim of these bad, irresponsible men (deadbeat dads), more often than not, and not held accountable -in the least- for her choices and contributions to this socially undesirable state of affairs? It's because all those deadbeat dads just can't keep their d*cks in their pants and won't accept their responsibilities, right? and has nothing to do with the fact that Suzy walks around with a mattress strapped to her back and a flashing neon "Vacancy" sign pointing to her vagina. Right? Suzy will be most likely pitied as a disadvantaged victim, right? Feminized, politicized society just does not hold women responsible for their social actions to the extent that it holds men responsible.

 

Hell's bells, Meerkat...you really are the ideal lawyer for a vexatious litigant to go to. Unfortunately what you evidently lack is an ability to detach emotionally and look at an issue from both sides, and that's a serious failing in any lawyer. I honestly can't imagine how you cope in practice if you get this embroiled in "society as persecutor, man as victim" thinking.

 

Blustering ad hominem ignored.

 

What is this ass-reaming of which you speak? Are you talking about child support measures? Laws preventing men from having sex with 14 year old girls? Laws protecting people from sexual harassment in the workplace?

 

Straw man ignored. Where's my business grant? I can make a whole post of these, that's really what you want so you can try to move the debate further out of the context of men's issues, ala grogster's "Hannibal Lecter" post, and back into received dogma land where you are comfortable.

 

I wouldn't generally bother contemplating the statement. Probably like most women, I tend to shrug off most of the generalisations that are dispensed about women....because there are so many.

 

How much real money and freedom do those generalizations cost you? Will give one example. Do you believe that an epidemic of perverted internet male predators is threatening the well-being of our children? Goes right to the "d*ck in hand" straw man I'm calling you out on. Is it more likely that the government is really concerned about this predation, or does someone out there want to restrict, and more importantly tax, the internet? Which is more likely counselor?

 

Do you see how the "men are all about sex" assumption plays into that? Do you see lots of men buying this "predator" line of government argument? or more women? Who is being manipulated, which gender, using what stereotypes? Sure you have the luxury of ignoring stereotypes, the ones applied to you don't have long, sharp teeth. The ones applied to men do.

 

And in this vein of sexual predation, what % of "sexual predators" out there in the countryside are purely a result of domestic lawyering tactics? Counselor? Would you like to go around your neighborhood and declare your hideous sexual proclivities to your neighbors, despite the complete nonexistence of those proclivities merely because your wife hired a scorched earth litigator in the divorce? Who speaks for these men? No one. But that is changing. Once again, the stereotypes applied to us have very sharp political teeth with legal consequences. Those applied to you do not. Why is that?

 

As an example - the popularly mentioned stupid father in the sitcom. Big whoop. There's also the interfering mother-in-law, the dopey blonde daughter, the nagging wife....all manner of insulting stereotypes. Yet for some reason, men seem to think this dopey dad stereotype is some great social ill that must be addressed. It's laughable.

 

No argument, lots of stereotypes in the media affecting all groups. What % of villains are white middle-aged white males, though? 70? 90%? what % of corporations ever do anything good? 0? 5%? Who is perceived to run corporations in the U.S.? White males 99%?

 

Do you really want to get into a "who gets the short end of the media portrayal stick" argument with a white Southern male? Well we got good ole Andy Griffith and Barney cowering on one side of the aisle across from a host of thousands of klansmen, neo-nazis, pedophiles, bigots, abusers, rapists, hicks, illiterates, con men and religious zealots. And the treatment of white males generally, from all areas of the U.S., unless they are hot and young or leading men, is similarly obnoxious. Stop on this sub-topic while you are behind.

 

I think I'd need a tin hat for this conversation.

 

Ad hominem ignored, yet men have been asked to swallow more "tin-hattier" postulating as a matter of course for the last 40 years. (see "Glass Ceiling", for example). But I get it, your issues are -real-, mine are just paranoid babbling. Fair enough. Enjoy the backlash. It's real and happening right now, and you don't need a tin hat to see it.

 

 

What's the foundation for my prejudice against whiners on message boards who blame women and society for all their problems? The question answers itself really.

 

Sorry, no, I asked the foundation for your prejudice that an analysis of men whining on forums necessarily starts with that they are having trouble getting laid, that for men that's all that matters, that we are just led around by our d*cks. I seized on this because besides being one of the foundational planks of the big lies of the left (I hate the right too, don't bother going there)... wait for it...

 

it also happens to be the foundation of the misandrist position that Woggle claims is pervasive among modern women (and some gullible men).

 

Woggle is right.

[lord alfred douglas]

So Carhill are you specifically looking only for foreign women?

 

If so why?

[Taramere]

Nope, never posted to those, have read some of the PUA sites as an omnivore, there, on those sites, you see lots of true misogynism and unjust stereotyping admittedly. I don't need the techniques on those sites, though some are arguably good seduction techniques. Brings up an interesting question, though, if the disgruntled posters here want to preach to the choir and have their preconceptions "authenticated," why are they (we) posting here and not there? Sosuave and donjuan are just a mouseclick away after all.

 

There are posters here who use both sites, and who feel that their presence is required here in order to rescue less enlightened men who can be converted to The Way.

 

Let's focus on this forum and our discussions here, shall we? rather than bringing some other venues into it. Why are you intent on doing that btw? Rhetorical. I know the answer. You like your men tall, blond, and made of straw

 

You seem rather fond of them yourself, given the endless references.

 

I'm really blaming the left for factionalizing gender relations as a political tool, not feminism. I don't like to use "feminism" much any more (but do use "feminized") because as someone who believes in the core tenets of what is called "feminism" very strongly, I believe that word, like "misogyny," and "misandry," has been marginalized for political gain.

 

But I'm not "blaming" anyone other than -you- for starting your analysis with a straw man, that men are purely sexually motivated in all their endeavors, that the men who grouse here are merely grousing from the crotch. And since you seem to want to discuss it directly, will just state that the reason I make so much of that particular straw man is that it is the first, convenient step on the path to marginalizing men and our issues. (and for other reasons I will save for the big finale)

 

Too much time in the cells doing document review must be hurting your comprehension skills. I didn't say that men are sexually motivated in all their endeavours. Go back and read again - and bad luck on the wasted typing effort there.

 

 

Would rather not get into the semantic discussion of what feminism is, can we agree that at it's core, it entails social and legal steps to ensure that women are treated equally to men under the law and socially generally? I disagree that men find this confusing. Most want it fervently. I previously claimed that men have been equally responsible for the ascension of women to equality via the social phenomena of technology, the industrial revolution, the post WW2 economic boom, the cold war, and capitalism, all phenomena helmed by men. And that this contradicts the existence of some patriarchy, or at least a patriarchy malevolent to women. These social forces and events, moreso than any "battle for equality," brought women's issues to the fore.

 

So your position is that men are fine with feminism and that the grouching is about something else.

 

 

Hey, lady, {waves at taramere} I'm right here, not on some other board. It disappoints me that you won't address the points I make right here in this thread, but want to drag us off to some "men's forum" somewhere (most of which are populated by a majority of teenage boys). "THE MAN" (the white waspy oppressive slave master of the patriarchy) is sitting right here across from you, why not engage me!

 

I rather think you've had your quota, but I'm indulging you here. You have my undivided attention sweetie...what was it you wanted to say? now?

 

 

OK, fair enough. I want you to accept that in a climate where women have been favored politically, economically and socially for the last 40 years ( e.g. I have a good small business idea, where's -my- grant?), 1) the existence of persistent double standards in socializing and dating is obnoxious to many men (I am not going to discuss specifics here, don't even try, it's tangential to -this- line of discussion and for another discussion), 2) The political manipulation of women has resulted in very real dollars and cents consequences to all of us, men most of all, 3) Same political manipulation, beginning with the marginalization of the guy being led around by his d*ck and other such, has polarized women and men to the point that if a man raises the question about the vanity of height selection by women, he is shouted down as the typical c*ck-waving, bad attitude misogyny case.

 

So it's a generalised rant. Quite a lengthy one, but you don't have time to get into specifics of what you mean by this obnoxious social behaviour.

 

What it seems to boil down to is that you feel women are financially and socially favoured in the current climate. I'm guessing that you have a problem with social expectations of the man paying for dates. My advice there would be to simply not do it.

 

Raising the issue of height selection by women resulting in rantings about misogyny: Are you sure that it's the issue itself that elicits these reactions, or is it the way in which it's raised? As a lawyer you should of course be examining the various possibilities rather than leaping to the assumption that women don't like to have their preferences questioned in any shape or form.

 

Begin by acknowledging the existence of those (and other) issues in general gender relations. Then we can have a meaningful dialogue. Until then, we are in the land of my signature, and the whinging from men is going to continue to increase in volumes as the marriage rate drops, the single parent phenomenon increases, and we continue to slide further into a crisis of gender relations.

 

Would you like me to campaign for laws preventing women from specifying preferences? You're presenting this in some kind of "social ills that must be addressed" manner. I don't live in your country, so I can't comment on some of the specifics - eg women but not men getting small business grants. This would certainly not be permissible where I live as it would breach equality legislation. I would have thought the appropriate action would involve raising a test case on behalf of a man seeking a business grant.

 

As far as dating behaviour goes, it's not within the scope of lawyers and politicians to dictate this. It's for the individuals themselves to establish what is and isn't acceptable to them. You simply can't legislate against those preferences. It's also difficult for me to comment on the whole "men paying" thing, because where I live it's far more common for a first date to consist of going to the bar where both people take turns to buy drinks.

 

There isn't a tab that's picked up at the end of the night. It's very simple. In the US, you seem to have this more formal dating process which appears to give rise to many resentments from what I read on the Internet.

 

You can cite all the "happy guys" going along their merry way and presumably content all you want, that the malcontents are tiny minority, it's an illusion. The mass of men are getting pissed off, and the tip of that iceberg is the ranting and whining seen more and more on the internet.

 

I think you're seeing it that way because you're immersed in it.

 

 

Not going to open that entire can of worms, because I know if I do, you and others, will seize on specifics instead of talking about the overarching points made. Will give one example, and will not comment or reply on it further. Suzy has three different children by three different men. What portion of the socio-economic political discussion of the resulting state of affairs will center on Suzy's poor life choices? OTOH, what portion of the discussion of this state of affairs will center on the fathers' behavior. Isn't it the case that Suzy will be perceived as the victim of these bad, irresponsible men (deadbeat dads), more often than not, and not held accountable -in the least- for her choices and contributions to this socially undesirable state of affairs? It's because all those deadbeat dads just can't keep their d*cks in their pants and won't accept their responsibilities, right? and has nothing to do with the fact that Suzy walks around with a mattress strapped to her back and a flashing neon "Vacancy" sign pointing to her vagina. Right? Suzy will be most likely pitied as a disadvantaged victim, right? Feminized, politicized society just does not hold women responsible for their social actions to the extent that it holds men responsible.

 

 

What context is this socio-economic discussion taking place in? If it's a message board discussion - I'm not in the habit of taking a ruler to threads to measure public opinion, but usually in these discussions both the single mother and the absent fathers are criticised.

 

Straw man ignored. Where's my business grant? I can make a whole post of these, that's really what you want so you can try to move the debate further out of the context of men's issues, ala grogster's "Hannibal Lecter" post, and back into received dogma land where you are comfortable.

 

You're off on an adventure of your own here. None of this is relevant to the post I made.

 

 

How much real money and freedom do those generalizations cost you? Will give one example. Do you believe that an epidemic of perverted internet male predators is threatening the well-being of our children? Goes right to the "d*ck in hand" straw man I'm calling you out on. Is it more likely that the government is really concerned about this predation, or does someone out there want to restrict, and more importantly tax, the internet? Which is more likely counselor?

 

If you're trying a calling out here, you're failing pretty badly. Where's all this "Internet male predators threatening the well-being of our children" coming from. Again, this has no bearing on my post.

 

Do you see how the "men are all about sex" assumption plays into that? Do you see lots of men buying this "predator" line of government argument? or more women? Who is being manipulated, which gender, using what stereotypes? Sure you have the luxury of ignoring stereotypes, the ones applied to you don't have long, sharp teeth. The ones applied to men do.

 

You're very attached to this whole "men are all about sex" thing. My statement to, I believe, Sam Spade was that a lot of the Internet whining about women comes from men who aren't interested in them for anything other than sexual reasons. These would be the same men who constantly advise eachother to stay in the friendzone, there's no need to be friends with women etc etc. Somehow this has expanded in your mind into an assertion that all men are driven in everything they do by sex.

 

And in this vein of sexual predation, what % of "sexual predators" out there in the countryside are purely a result of domestic lawyering tactics? Counselor? Would you like to go around your neighborhood and declare your hideous sexual proclivities to your neighbors, despite the complete nonexistence of those proclivities merely because your wife hired a scorched earth litigator in the divorce? Who speaks for these men? No one. But that is changing. Once again, the stereotypes applied to us have very sharp political teeth with legal consequences. Those applied to you do not. Why is that?

 

You're not really a lawyer, are you? This is absolute nonsense. Rambling, emotionally charged nonsense. You seem to have a variety of pet issues that you're using my post as a springboard for.

 

Do you really want to get into a "who gets the short end of the media portrayal stick" argument with a white Southern male? Well we got good ole Andy Griffith and Barney cowering on one side of the aisle across from a host of thousands of klansmen, neo-nazis, pedophiles, bigots, abusers, rapists, hicks, illiterates, con men and religious zealots. And the treatment of white males generally, from all areas of the U.S., unless they are hot and young or leading men, is similarly obnoxious. Stop on this sub-topic while you are behind.

 

Oh for Christ's sake. I think I made it clear that I couldn't care less about stereotypical media portrayals. Only an idiot feels oppressed by a few stereotypes in a sitcom.

 

 

 

Ad hominem ignored, yet men have been asked to swallow more "tin-hattier" postulating as a matter of course for the last 40 years. (see "Glass Ceiling", for example). But I get it, your issues are -real-, mine are just paranoid babbling. Fair enough. Enjoy the backlash. It's real and happening right now, and you don't need a tin hat to see it.

 

I don't have issues of note that I need to bring into this discussion. The only relevant issue I have is that I find Internet whiners irritating. Oh, and I suppose issue number two: That with your posts you have brought enormous embarrassment onto the legal profession. I can't imagine what your colleagues must make of this kind of thing....but perhaps it's normal in the South. I've got a friend practising there. I must ask him.

 

Sorry, no, I asked the foundation for your prejudice that an analysis of men whining on forums necessarily starts with that they are having trouble getting laid, that for men that's all that matters, that we are just led around by our d*cks. I seized on this because besides being one of the foundational planks of the big lies of the left (I hate the right too, don't bother going there)... wait for it...

 

it also happens to be the foundation of the misandrist position that Woggle claims is pervasive among modern women (and some gullible men).

 

Woggle is right.

 

Oh I see. Well that's simple. The prejudice comes from the dozens of threads I've seen on here from furious men who are furious about...*wait for it*....not getting laid.

 

Now that's your quota. I've already had more than my share of querulous time-wasters to deal with - and been paid for it to boot. No more for you.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Taramere

[lord alfred douglas]

Whats with all the condescending language from everyone?

[Rhythmic]

 

Oh I see. Well that's simple. The prejudice comes from the dozens of threads I've seen on here from furious men who are furious about...*wait for it*....not getting laid.

 

 

And I guess that is where the difference lies.

I don't see it so much as they just want to get laid. But that they are furious about...*wait for it*......being apparently unlovable.

 

That was why I jumped into all the pua forums. It was why it seemed like a large chunk of men did it as well. That seems to be the main thing in my eyes of all the previous groups I mentioned in my past post. It seemed to be the main issue even with George sodini.

 

Being apparently unlovable and not really understanding why. You don't have to believe that is the case and I have a feeling you won't and with that I think we all just hit a dead end.

[lord alfred douglas]

And I guess that is where the difference lies.

I don't see it so much as they just want to get laid. But that they are furious about...*wait for it*......being apparently unlovable.

 

That was why I jumped into all the pua forums. It was why it seemed like a large chunk of men did it as well. That seems to be the main thing in my eyes of all the previous groups I mentioned in my past post. It seemed to be the main issue even with George sodini.

 

Being apparently unlovable and not really understanding why. You don't have to believe that is the case and I have a feeling you won't and with that I think we all just hit a dead end.

Well if youre unattractive you just have to deal with it I guess but its catharctic to lash out a bit too

 

George Sodini was a big coward though. And apparently stupid. I mean he shot unarmed women. How did that change anything?

 

I do think part of Meerkat's point that maybe made a bit of sense was that the media has made unattractive older white men a bit sinister...like theres an implication that they must be so desperate and lonley that they are capable of all kinds of unspeakable evils

 

Of course its not based on nothing as most serial killers and child molestors seem to be white males, but its unfair that that suspicion is held above all middle aged white mens heads

[grogster]

And I guess that is where the difference lies.

I don't see it so much as they just want to get laid. But that they are furious about...*wait for it*......being apparently unlovable.

 

That was why I jumped into all the pua forums. It was why it seemed like a large chunk of men did it as well. That seems to be the main thing in my eyes of all the previous groups I mentioned in my past post. It seemed to be the main issue even with George sodini.

 

Being apparently unlovable and not really understanding why. You don't have to believe that is the case and I have a feeling you won't and with that I think we all just hit a dead end.

 

That's true. According to meercat men in divorce proceedings become sexual predators because the wife's lawyer is mean.

 

What we have here is the Final Solution of the Gender Wars, which I call the Sodini Solution.

 

If the bit#h doesn't love me, she has no right to live: Feeling unloved as a license to kill.

 

Arguments can't stop bullets.

[Woggle]

So as a whole , you think most women hate men ?

 

What happened to you as a child ? Most women don't feel this way...

 

I can clarify that I love men. Their strong bodies , their smile , their presence , their strength and their * equipment *...The only thing I don't like about ( some ) men is that they are close minded when it comes to talking about how they feel. I know they are hardwired to not reveal their true feelings...Its just a Venus and Mars difference...

 

Yes I do. I think deep down most women are misandrists.

[meerkat stew]

Whats with all the condescending language from everyone?

 

We're lawyers, occupational hazard. Stay tuned for more.

[tami-chan]

Wow, Taramere...can't you argue without commenting on his profession...why do you feel the need to go there? It has no bearing to the topic. It is true, when someone is losing the debate, they start calling you names, commenting on things that are personal about...you...like"stupid", "dumb", etc....

 

Anyway, interesting discussion, minus the personal attacks. But staying tuned....it's entertaining after all...lol

Edited January 11, 2010 by tami-chan

[threebyfate]

Wow, Taramere...can't you argue without commenting on his profession...why do you feel the need to go there? It has no bearing to the topic. It is true, when someone is losing the debate, they start calling you names, commenting on things that are personal about...you...like"stupid", "dumb", etc....

 

Anyway, interesting discussion, minus the personal attacks.

tami-chan, considering the nature of the vast majority of posts from yourself and Meerkat, don't you think this is a bit hypocritical of you?

[Taramere]

And I guess that is where the difference lies.

I don't see it so much as they just want to get laid. But that they are furious about...*wait for it*......being apparently unlovable.

 

That was why I jumped into all the pua forums. It was why it seemed like a large chunk of men did it as well. That seems to be the main thing in my eyes of all the previous groups I mentioned in my past post. It seemed to be the main issue even with George sodini.

 

Being apparently unlovable and not really understanding why. You don't have to believe that is the case and I have a feeling you won't and with that I think we all just hit a dead end.

 

I can appreciate that underneath all the bravado and anger, a fear of being fundamentally unlovable lies.

 

I don't know the answer to that. Love happens because two people meet and connect. It's not something one can demand, or scream for or insist on. It's not something one should shoot people for failing to deliver to you....or even berate them for. All you can do, if you fall in love, is hope that the other person feels the same way back.

 

If it's not a case of having fallen in love with a particular person.....simply a case of wanting to be loved, then that's tricky. Just as men want to be special to a person, so do women. You want the person to fall in love with you, rather than to just step into a vacancy for "someone who will love me".

[meerkat stew]

According to meercat men in divorce proceedings become sexual predators because the wife's lawyer is mean.

 

It happens. Lots. And to add insult to injury, because of the "d*ck in hand" fallacy, as I will call it going forward, because it is acceptable to think of men as impulsive pigs and dogs sexually (we can't help but cheat), and to even SAY it, such men are generally guilty until proven innocent. You never hear about it you say? Wonder why that is?

 

As far as George Sondini goes, it's so incredibly disingenuous to bring that into this thread, whoever first did it gets an A+ for calling plays straight from the "book" whenever men's issues are raised.

 

Hannibal Lecter is out there somewhere eating up female livers with fava beans and a nice chianti, right? He's a very bad man. Lock your doors.

 

It borders on misandry in and of itself that men who raise any kind of issue or fuss about the gender climate are shouted down based on what psychopaths do.

[lord alfred douglas]

OK back to the original question about misandry

 

I don't see widespread misandry, but I think women are more cautious about men than men are about women because of men's history of having a propensity for violence

 

Is it possible that this caution is what is being mistaken for misandry

 

This has nothing to do with women's heightened sense of entitlement in our society (which has been totally created by men) but I think thats a spereate issue

[Rhythmic]

Well if youre unattractive you just have to deal with it I guess but its catharctic to lash out a bit too

 

George Sodini was a big coward though. And apparently stupid. I mean he shot unarmed women. How did that change anything?

 

 

 

It didn't change anything. But I keep going back to him because I have seen way too many men who have blogs that sound like a complete copy of the blog sodini kept. Who make post that sound like the same issues he had. It doesn't seem like many are bothering to see a connection and view it as taramere does. Just random men crying about not getting laid no connection nothing to worry about.

 

I guess I shouldn't really worry about it considering if any of those guys go on to do what he did me being a guy don't have to worry about being one of their targets.

[threebyfate]

OK back to the original question about misandry

 

I don't see widespread misandry, but I think women are more cautious about men than men are about women because of men's history of having a propensity for violence

 

Is it possible that this caution is what is being mistaken for misandry

 

This has nothing to do with women's heightened sense of entitlement in our society (which has been totally created by men) but I think thats a spereate issue

Fight or flight is a valid instinctual response. When it comes to a dust up of physical strength, pound for pound, men are stronger.

 

It's also natural selection that women will only allow the mate of her choice, close to her. Just take a look at mammals within the animal kingdom and more times than not, the female selects, by refusing unwelcome suitors. In the case of big cats, the female refuses suitors with the use of her claws and teeth.

 

I don't think either is an example of misandry. Mate rejection is a part of nature.

[tami-chan]

tami-chan, considering the nature of the vast majority of posts from yourself and Meerkat, don't you think this is a bit hypocritical of you?

 

huh? I didn't even know he is lawyer, how can I bring in his profession in the mix? I think most of our exchanges are fun and light banter....did you mean with somebody else?

 

Quote me, please, so I can apologize. Otherwise, I forgive you for the mistake in advance.

[Woggle]

What drives me is simply observing the world around me. Believe it or not I was not a misogynist at all until my first marriage imploded. At first it was just a feeling of being tired with women but then as I observed the world around me and I started noticing things and becoming angrier and angrier. I am not as angry anymore even though people will find that hard to believe but I will never let a woman use or abuse me ever again.

 

Most women don't go around trashing men but you see how they really feel in their actions. You see it when they high five other women who cheat. You see it when they call my wife a stepford wife because she is faithful. You see it when violent women like Mary Winkler, Lorena Bobbit and Ailene Wuernos are turned into folk heros because they commit violence against men. You see the misandry in these subtle things that most people do not notice but are clear as day to me. If Tiger Woods or Mark Sanford were female they would be feminist heros as well for giving men a taste of our own medicine.

 

I have a great relationship with my wife because she is one of those women who are brave to not go along with the misandrist crowd. They brave the accusations of being a stepford wife or a slave to the patriarchy or cotowing to men in order to do the right thing. They are the women who have my love and respect but there are not enough of them.

[Taramere]

Wow, Taramere...can't you argue without commenting on his profession...why do you feel the need to go there? It has no bearing to the topic. It is true, when someone is losing the debate, they start calling you names, commenting on things that are personal about...you...like"stupid", "dumb", etc....

 

Anyway, interesting discussion, minus the personal attacks. But staying tuned....it's entertaining after all...lol

 

He lacks objectivity and his debating skills are poor. I wouldn't comment, were it not for the fact that he's made such a song and dance on this forum about being a lawyer. If he is a lawyer, he should be able to argue in a more measured, less emotional way. And he shouldn't need a little girl diving in to rescue him either.

[allina]

I would not, because I am not a misandrist.

 

While I would not put myself down or degrade myself for a man, I would also not treat a man in a cruel, manipulative way.

 

Seeing these threads on LS makes me wonder if negative feelings about the opposite sex as a whole are the result of bad experience, or if it's something more.

[Woggle]

I would not, because I am not a misandrist.

 

While I would not put myself down or degrade myself for a man, I would also not treat a man in a cruel, manipulative way.

 

Seeing these threads on LS makes me wonder if negative feelings about the opposite sex as a whole are the result of bad experience, or if it's something more.

 

Most of it is bad experience. My take is that no man just wakes up one day and decides that he hates women. It is constantly being treated like garbage that embitters him. Every misogynist I know has a story that mad him that way.

[lord alfred douglas]

Most of it is bad experience. My take is that no man just wakes up one day and decides that he hates women. It is constantly being treated like garbage that embitters him. Every misogynist I know has a story that mad him that way.

Tell me how women have treated you like garbage Woggle?

 

Most of the time Ive felt bitter about women its because Ive wanted what I cant have, but I think you have some other experiences with your mother and an ex wife or something

[threebyfate]

or if it's something more.

Based on the extremists, I would say that it's something more. With both misogyny and misandry, they're neither sane or balanced concepts.