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.
I guess I can sum up my point with "agree to disagree". If a man/woman doesn't like expectations based on gender, that's their prerogative, it doesn't make them a bad person or "less of" something. And if they DO believe in those expectations, that in and of itself doesn't make them sexist or chauvinistic.
For those who say "well I don't target men who believe...": throw me a bone. Read some of the threads where we talk about men paying for dates, or making the first move or what not. Look at the way women, and other men, talk about these men. Can you deny that a lot of people DO target these men? How would you feel about a man, or woman, who targetted women that reject certain roles? Would that be sexist or misogynistic?
I don't think the frustration with feminists and gender roles and the perceived hypocrisy is really that hard to understand. I think it would be very apparent to women were the shoe on the other foot. So to write men off as bitter or misogynistic for pointing it out lacks empathy in my opinion.
I have a great deal of empathy for those that I think deserve it. I don't have empathy for men that equate all women with hookers and gold diggers. Nor do I have empathy for women that only date a-holes and therefore think that all men are a-holes.
I must have grown up in a very backward, chauvinistic environment, it was a while ago, but I could count on one hand the number of mothers that had a job. Fathers paid and mothers took care of the house and the cooking and the kids. It was understood that the men paid the bills. And it should be no different today, even in a dating situation. When I was a kid we were lucky to scrape together a five dollar bill for a big Saturday night. Except for the son of the neighborhood bookie who'd sometimes show up with a roll, if the old man had a good week, and he'd treat us all. For me, the finances are simple. Whoever has it spends it.
And this is the great point....men are whining that they still have to do the pursuing and the pay...well, the fact is, most of the time, you want it more in any given situation.
That has *nothing* to do with equality. If a woman really, really, really wanted you, you wouldn't have to fork over a dime.
You're out to lunch on the first paragraph. That just reinforces the idea that dating IS a Quid pro quo. Ergo "i want my barbie %uck doll, so I better be prepared to pay for it, and they [women] know the score and capitalize on it". I don't think so....Homey don't play that.
As to the second paragraph, you shacked it dead center. Men need to understand that women are just as human and fallible. They are just as willing to drop the stuck up act and indignify themselves in order to garner the attention and pleasing of the man they want to park themselves next to. These are the true successful relationships. The rest are just dope manginas playing the part of grateful house n*****, happy to rejoice in the trophy the pay through the nose for.
As we can see, very few couples are actually of the former flavor, as most women have been socialized to recognize that if in effect their physical attributes are being sought after, they need to monetize that position to the max extent possible before the window closes. Such monetization is not always exclusively economic, but most of the time it certainly is. Feminism has only come into this discussion because it is doubly insulting to men to witness women continue to embrace the socialization of yesteryear, which focuses on men's remuneration of women's company and vagina, when at least from the male peer's point of view, they now have access to gainful employment and would not NEED to extort men anymore for companionship. The fact they choose to conveniently retain the position of monetizing on their vagina is a staple of POST-FEMINISM. This is insulting to men in post-feminism, as it wreaks of "wanting the cake and eat it too". Thence, a man who in light of this new dynamic turns around and demands to be sought after for his physical qualities and companionship, no longer for his contribution to a woman's marginal material standard of living, is then marginalized and accused of being aloof or bitter, or of dreaming of an outcome that will never happen, if women have anything to say about it.
This is the double standard most on the thread are talking about. It has nothing to do with equating voting rights with the right to exercise traditional gender roles. Essentially, women outgrew the need to monetize their vagina to make it in this world, with the advent of feminism. But ,they continue to choose to retain that option today. <<-- That is an ugly quality the post-feminist woman retains, which is what causes this thread to exist. It is an ugly, ugly quality of the modern woman. Nothing traditional or innocent about it. Very ugly. The tides are turning though. Marriage (as an economic contract) is becoming obsolete. And with good reason. There will always be the dope mangina willing to sacrifice his economic solvency for a paid trophy. But men of moderate means and education are slowly disavowing the contract. And that wasn't them setting the pace either. This is another dynamic of women's making.
The choice to either work or be a stay at home parent. I guess we men do too, but it's frowned upon by employers and society at large for a man to be a SAHD. A man is expected to work, work, work, like we're machines. Personally, I hate working and would rather be a SAHD for a few yrs while the kid is still a baby and then re-enter the workforce, much like women get to do.
You're out to lunch on the first paragraph. That just reinforces the idea that dating IS a Quid pro quo. Ergo "i want my barbie %uck doll, so I better be prepared to pay for it, and they [women] know the score and capitalize on it". I don't think so....Homey don't play that.
As to the second paragraph, you shacked it dead center. Men need to understand that women are just as human and fallible. They are just as willing to drop the stuck up act and indignify themselves in order to garner the attention and pleasing of the man they want to park themselves next to. These are the true successful relationships. The rest are just dope manginas playing the part of grateful house n*****, happy to rejoice in the trophy the pay through the nose for.
As we can see, very few couples are actually of the former flavor, as most women have been socialized to recognize that if in effect their physical attributes are being sought after, they need to monetize that position to the max extent possible before the window closes. Such monetization is not always exclusively economic, but most of the time it certainly is. Feminism has only come into this discussion because it is doubly insulting to men to witness women continue to embrace the socialization of yesteryear, which focuses on men's remuneration of women's company and vagina, when at least from the male peer's point of view, they now have access to gainful employment and would not NEED to extort men anymore for companionship. The fact they choose to conveniently retain the position of monetizing on their vagina is a staple of POST-FEMINISM. This is insulting to men in post-feminism, as it wreaks of "wanting the cake and eat it too". Thence, a man who in light of this new dynamic turns around and demands to be sought after for his physical qualities and companionship, no longer for his contribution to a woman's marginal material standard of living, is then marginalized and accused of being aloof or bitter, or of dreaming of an outcome that will never happen, if women have anything to say about it.
This is the double standard most on the thread are talking about. It has nothing to do with equating voting rights with the right to exercise traditional gender roles. Essentially, women outgrew the need to monetize their vagina to make it in this world, with the advent of feminism. But ,they continue to choose to retain that option today. <<-- That is an ugly quality the post-feminist woman retains, which is what causes this thread to exist. It is an ugly, ugly quality of the modern woman. Nothing traditional or innocent about it. Very ugly. The tides are turning though. Marriage (as an economic contract) is becoming obsolete. And with good reason. There will always be the dope mangina willing to sacrifice his economic solvency for a paid trophy. But men of moderate means and education are slowly disavowing the contract. And that wasn't them setting the pace either. This is another dynamic of women's making.
Man you really need some therapy to deal with hideous bitterness that seeps through every single post you make.
The choice to either work or be a stay at home parent. I guess we men do too, but it's frowned upon by employers and society at large for a man to be a SAHD. A man is expected to work, work, work, like we're machines. Personally, I hate working and would rather be a SAHD for a few yrs while the kid is still a baby and then re-enter the workforce, much like women get to do.
Who cares what society thinks? Nowadays, SAHM's are looked down upon, too. I have friends that are SAHD's and they love it. My whole point is that people should do what makes them happy. We live in a society where that is possible. Stop blaming others and live your lives the way that works best for you!
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.
