Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People have different ideas of what constitutes decent. A lot of it is shaped by your environment. If all your friends have met great guys who are tall, good looking, make 6 figures, etc., then you'll feel like you deserve a guy who's just as great, if not better. So if you hear a woman (or man) say they can't meet anyone decent, the first thing to ask is what they consider decent and where they got their ideas.
You would think that mentality would go away after high school
Oh good grief. Not another "it's all the feminists' fault" post.
As usual, Denny seems to miss the big picture.
It's not that feminists told women to go for the types that they do. Early on, they told them to look for men who were "better" than the men women married in the 50s and earlier. They even gave good examples of what to look for. It's not that men from that era were so bad but they had rigid sex roles in that era and it was difficult for most men to break out of this. To some extent, this was understandable because men had the full responsibility for bringing home the bacon then and this often left little room to maneuver.
At that time, many young people read this material and resolved to do better. If they listened to their mothers at all, they should have had a good idea where to start. I certainly did!
Guys who were not among the top 10% of most desirable (the guys who have no need to change) often attempted to completely change their approach to women and meeting their asperations. This was not always easy, since they had been drilled with many contrary ideas from an early age. However they initially tried. Did it work? Rarely.
Why? Well the young women were also reading this stuff and the message that they usually got was that they just deserved better. They looked at their own family for an example of what not to do and what they usually saw was a middle age father with a paunch, living in an average suburban bungalow. Life was boring.
"Better" didn't mean finding a man with more modern attitudes but instead involved finding a good looking guy with family money, if possible. If not, they could always use their new found right to earn a living to support a guy who at least looked the part.
Sure, there have always been gold diggers but the 15 years before the AIDS era, were the golden years for such guys. Things still aren't that bad, either, since women often think that if a guy looks good, he is good. Undesirable men probably have STDs.
Marriage and relationships have been in decline and divorce rates have soared ever since.
is it just me or doesn't the women goen all "there aren't any good men" make up the womens equivalent of the "niceguys" goen "why don't women like me?"
maybe these 2 kinds of people should be paired together?
You would think that mentality would go away after high school
Actually, it strongly persists until about age 30 (sometimes it ends earlier, if they can't pull it off).
Then there is about 10 years of being willing to settle for a guy with a decent income. If he's not to their liking, at least they will be financially compensated.
Then they will be happy with a guy who listens to them! No good advice will be appreciated, however.
I never said feminism told women to go for Mr. Perfect. And that's my point!!!!! That's the unintended consequence of feminism!!! Women never intended [and never did] to let go of the prince and provider dream! That's why feminists are so bitter. Their constituency never gave up the traditional social role dream. And women who went for the prize of masculine gender roles got to the finish line and went "ah..&uck, I want what suzie teacher has....", proverbially speaking. That's the irony and ultimate idiocy of women going: "ugh, there's like NO decent men left...oh that guy? ooooh no, he's not good enough...ugh, like nooo decent men left..uh, what you want to go out with me? in that car?! and you work in the lfloor below ME? I deserve better than that!... ugh......anyways, NO decent men left ugh"
That whole "men can't handle accomplished women" is just garbage. Women can't handle the fact that they too give up certain social roles in order to become providers and free wheelin' career chasers. That's not men feeling threatened by it, that's just men recognizing that's not compatible with what they [men] want. Lower your standards, right? Lower it right up for accomplished women too. IT IS an unintended consequence of feminism. They are bitter because it stings like hell to suggest a woman who is open to subordinate gender roles (ergo an inferior woman, in the career woman's mind)is more statistically adept to attaining a man in the rung of the ladder that said career woman asserts as her only acceptable strata from which to date. It stings her to high hell. I know plenty of those in the engineering field. Bypassed for the "nurse dolts" that went and got the Mrs degree instead of the engineering degree. You can't have it all.
As a career man I'm not threatened by a career woman. I just recognize her vocational pursuits are not compatible with mine. We'd be tugging back and forth and either career would be affected. And the reason I know viscerally that such is an unintended consequence of feminism is because it is the accomplished women up in here, not the traditional gender role ones, raising hell about not finding a "good man". They're [good men] out there, they're just marrying the homemaker or the cute part-time or secondary income school teacher, again as an archetype. They get miffed, because they work with these men and can't stomach for one second they go for what these women consider "less accomplished". So they turn into emasculating their male peers and attack these "traditional role model" women who they do not consider part of their peer group.
..But yeah, it's the male peer's fault for not sacking up and getting hitched to bossy McBosserton over here. Gimme a break. These women want it all, they want the new sense of freedom and independence and they want it for no cost. They cannot possibly stomach the bitter irony of screaming and kicking their way to equal participation in the labor force just to realize, damn, as a woman they were being disingenuous; they craved the traditional female gender role no less than their economic freedom and birth control. What a bitter irony. That is in effect the unintended consequence of feminism.
Unintended consequences aren't the same thing as unforeseen consequences. I doubt the women who spent their 20s and 30s climbing the corporate ladder expected to arrive in their 40s to find that all the good men were still available. Feminism didn't tell women they could have it all. It said they could have more choices. But with each choice you make, there's a price to be paid. You can choose to become a schoolteacher and have lots of time to meet Mr. Right, but the cost of that is you won't make a lot of money. Or you can become a high-powered attorney, work your way up to partner, and get your name on the door only to discover that you won't have time for a social life. I've yet to meet any man or woman who didn't understand and expect to have to pay this kind of price. And why should a woman who's accomplished so much have to lower her standards? Do you see men doing that? If a guy goes to college, med school, becomes a surgeon only now he has a mountain of debt and no hair on his head, don't you think he'd be voicing the exact same complaint? Don't you think he'd be saying "I can't find a decent woman."
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhyShouldIWorry
As usual, Denny seems to miss the big picture.
It's not that feminists told women to go for the types that they do. Early on, they told them to look for men who were "better" than the men women married in the 50s and earlier. They even gave good examples of what to look for. It's not that men from that era were so bad but they had rigid sex roles in that era and it was difficult for most men to break out of this. To some extent, this was understandable because men had the full responsibility for bringing home the bacon then and this often left little room to maneuver.
At that time, many young people read this material and resolved to do better. If they listened to their mothers at all, they should have had a good idea where to start. I certainly did!
Guys who were not among the top 10% of most desirable (the guys who have no need to change) often attempted to completely change their approach to women and meeting their asperations. This was not always easy, since they had been drilled with many contrary ideas from an early age. However they initially tried. Did it work? Rarely.
Why? Well the young women were also reading this stuff and the message that they usually got was that they just deserved better. They looked at their own family for an example of what not to do and what they usually saw was a middle age father with a paunch, living in an average suburban bungalow. Life was boring.
"Better" didn't mean finding a man with more modern attitudes but instead involved finding a good looking guy with family money, if possible. If not, they could always use their new found right to earn a living to support a guy who at least looked the part.
As usual, WhyShouldIWorry misrepresents what feminism is about. Feminists didn't tell women that they should hold out for Mr. Perfect. They simply told them to stop settling for the kind of men women might've settled for in the 50s. Back then, a man could use his income to make up for his looks and personality. And I bet a lot of women married such men thinking "well he's not great looking and he's kinda boring, but I'm not getting any younger and I can't keep living with mom and dad. This guy'll be able to provide me and our kids with a nice home." Flash forward 10-15 years and she's stuck in a dull marriage with an overweight man she doesn't love and has no say in how money is spent. She wants to leave, but since he's the breadwinner, she can't support herself and her kids on her own. Now that women are independent, they realize they don't have to settle. And I think a lot of men are upset about that because now they can't use their jobs or their money to make up for their looks or personality the way they might've done in the past.
If no men are good for these women, then they're not looking for men, they're look for some kinda fictional dream-prince who's got way better options(i.e. more attractive, younger women) and wouldn't consider them anyway.
Funny how women always "deserve better" men for some reason [what do they do to deserve better? complain about the lack of better choices?] while men shouldn't think they deserve anyone unless they're among the before mentioned upper 10% desireable ones...(i.e. those who have good enough options to skip these women).
See the catch 22 here?
Women get told they deserve such a perfect über-man all the time that their tolerance for flaws are virtually non-existant.
Lot's of guys I know will settle for any fairly good deal, while most women I do say something in the style of "he doesn't have to be perfect, he just needs to be [long description of a person that in the end can not be anything else than perfect].
I did an experiment on this with a few friends(male and female)
Took a standard size paper, and asked a couple of guys to rip off as big a portion of the paper as they though was equivalent to the relative mass of chicks they eliminate with each demand, same with some female friends about guys.
I specifically told them to only go for the minimum demands.
The result was basically that the girls had trouble tearing the tiny spec of paper they had left at the end and some say they weren't done with their demands yet, while the guys were basicly holding between a fifth and a third of a paper....you get the idea.
another thing;
Quote:
And I bet a lot of women married such men thinking "well he's not great looking and he's kinda boring, but I'm not getting any younger and I can't keep living with mom and dad. This guy'll be able to provide me and our kids with a nice home." Flash forward 10-15 years and she's stuck in a dull marriage with an overweight man she doesn't love and has no say in how money is spent. She wants to leave, but since he's the breadwinner, she can't support herself and her kids on her own. Now that women are independent, they realize they don't have to settle. And I think a lot of men are upset about that because now they can't use their jobs or their money to make up for their looks or personality the way they might've done in the past.
Yeah, but the men were also pressured to get a wife, a house, a car and start making babies, do you suppose all the guys wives were prices themselves? Or that It was fun for him to stay married forever with some woman he had to marry to follow the norm(like she did).
Bottom line is we can speculate all we want and have whatever opinion we wnat about how and why which system is better, but in the end if we look at it people around us do not seem happy right now, and probably weren't then either so who cares? Maybe we got too much options to handle now or maybe we need to get even more free with what we do.
Last edited by SwedishViking; 05-04-2011 at 03:46 PM..
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,076,059 times
Reputation: 11862
Supply and demand, I suppose. I think women are wired to be picky .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
