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.
You can't even acknowledge a simple and obvious truth, because a man asked you to.
As I always say, women have huge egos, too. Men are overdue to point this out to them.
This makes little sense to me. Or maybe too much which is the scarier still. I have already told you why I don't agree with your, that the simple and obvious truth according to you is simply not that. Politeness seems to require I agree with something simply because you agreed with something first. Thinking does not work like that.
We had the unfortunate experience recently of discussing what child support would look like recently. (We have since patched up our differences and don't need to have that conversation further, whew!) But one thing that made (makes?) our partnership workable is that we are both responsible. We are BOTH parents to our children. Child support would have been unlikely in our case since neither of us would seek anything but full 50/50 custody, though I would have to pay spousal and child support while he continues to look for a job. This is exactly as it would have been back when WE chose that it was best for our children for me to stay home with them. Had we broken up then, he would have paid for my upkeep and that of the kids until I was back on my feet. It's called parenting.
I guess part of my point is that the folks complaining about how awful women are are trying to achieve something that at its core is not worth having, acquiring a female of old school contractual engagement that once caught has no recourse. So partnership, commitment, effort are not necessary or desirable once the acquisition is accomplished. That ship has sailed. I know some folks don't like it. I am not one of those folks.
Why is this man married to a woman who loves the snot out of him? Who puts him first? Why would this man immediately attract another mate should our relationship fail? It is not his great income. I mentioned that at the moment, he has none. He is pretty good looking, but no Adonis. But he is an awesome PERSON. When he speaks to other people, including female people, he is speaking to another PERSON. He is very strong in his confidence and masculinity. He does not need to prove it by putting women it their place. He IS it. Should we have parted, he would not have looked at child support as paying ME, he'd have looked at it as taking care of his children whether I could provide for them myself or not.
The one area that I agree that men get the shaft is family court in some places in the US. Not here thankfully. I know SAHDs who received spousal and child support as they got their feet back under them the same as SAHMs. But in other places, it is still assumed that the kids are the Mom's job. And Dad is just supposed to pay. This, of course, is wrong. Which is why I am active in supporting those groups who combat this legal travesty.
So should men go their own way? Of course they should. Everyone should. Should they join a group in which they can discuss this stuff? Sure why not. I have a friend who is part of a lesbian technology group. I am not sure how being a lesbian and a programmer interacts. But if that is the group she wants, she can rock it. But to come on a board about relationships and spew hate about 1/2 the population is likely to get disagreement. Woman are evil to be sure - not ALL women... just seemingly enough to make a decision based on this supposed commonality.
I have 2 kids, one boy, one girl. Because they are being raised by an awesome Dad, they have a very powerful advantage in confidence and mental health. So yah, that is what I see these guys' hate being, total lack of mental health. It simply is not healthy to hold on to hate. And the only one who is going to suffer for it is themselves. You want to go your own way? Rock it. No one cares.
Quote:
The last word is yours, of course. I am so done with you.
I have no particular problem with that. The way of a coward. I don't get the acquiescence I want from a lowly female. I'm going to take my ball and go home. Time to fetch my love coffee in bed.
Prehapes it is just time to stop using the term for those who do not follow the radical and fanatic "he man women hater" variety and just call them "men's rights"
It's pretty apparent the original intent has been lost and turned in to something that denotes hostility and negativity to the general population looking for its meaning as it exist now.
I truly confess to not reading the material I saw online. The website by the same acronym is so childish in its presentation that it was worse than fingernails on a chalkboard. But I can read what is posted here. I am all for men's rights. As I mentioned, the one place that it seems to still be an issue is in custody disputes in some states. That is wrong. And we have the obligation to do what we can to right that. But what other men's rights are being violated, I just don't see.
I am a product of feminism. My Dad was the strongest one of the bunch. His sons and daughters all did chores, all the chores, from housework to wood cutting and splitting. What this radical and extreme feminism that I am supposed to be seeing in the media, I just don't see. There were 2 somewhat recent news reports having anything to do with gender. One was someone asking Sanders about HC's dress designer. Sander's answer was awesome. No one asks me about my suit designer. When you ask me a serious question about HC, I will answer it.
The other was on pay inequality. I can't think of what is radical or extreme about getting paid differently because of the genitals you are sporting. The interesting remedy that was put forward was to teach people (not just women because men were found to be no better at this) to negotiate at hire time, the time when they have leverage. My Daddy taught me that when I was 12.
When I look at this board, I don't see a lot of categorization of what men are. They are not put in a box with a label describing what they are and how bad that makes them. Women are. Once upon a time, women had to live in the box. The box of weakness, emotiveness, ineffectuality, requiring a man to guide and lead. I have never fit in that box. And thankfully, I don't have to. And there are men who see the change and say, yeah they really never needed a box. They are people with their own characteristics, just like anyone, subject to their nature, their rearing.
There is really only one reason to try to keep a group in a box. So that you can continue to hate and vilify them, blame them for how THEY are responsible for whatever perceived problems that someone is having. Trump is VERY effective at this. Immigrants live in the box of ruining our economy. **** if you want those jobs, more power to you. And I would challenge someone to make the tax suck defense stick my actually looking at the federal budget. But Trump does not need facts when he has them in a box. We can fear the category in the box. He does it equally effectively with the evil Muslims. Forget the fact that in this country, terrorism is hugely home grown and is more likely to be the result of christian extremism than Muslim, it does not matter. The Muslims are in the box, where we are safe to hate and fear them.
To the degree that the Trump's of the world can affect actual policy, the box is scary. To the sad dudes who have women in their mental box, less so since they don't have the power to change anything on any scale. All they have the power to do is hate people locally and usually ineffectively. Their hate hurts no one but themselves.
When I look at this board, I don't see a lot of categorization of what men are. They are not put in a box with a label describing what they are and how bad that makes them. Women are. Once upon a time, women had to live in the box. The box of weakness, emotiveness, ineffectuality, requiring a man to guide and lead. I have never fit in that box. And thankfully, I don't have to. And there are men who see the change and say, yeah they really never needed a box. They are people with their own characteristics, just like anyone, subject to their nature, their rearing.
.
Men are regularly put in the "provider" box by women thats silly. Thats why in general a man's desirability is most related to his income. Hell look at some of the angry responses on this thread. When the charade is exposed people get seriously angry and call MGTOWs gay. "What youre not out impregnating and paying for your kids by working 100 hours a week in 3 jobs you hate!? Youre gay, you ever get laid?" Child custody laws as you've admitted can be really biased against men in many areas. And what about the problem with paternity fraud, or a man being forced to pay for child support for kids that werent his because he was married (yes this happens)? Then there is the insane campus rape hysterias, bias in domestic abuse courts, alimony bias (noone here is arguing temporarily it shoudnt exist but it can last for decades or life sometimes which is insane). The laws need to be changed to stop the bias and in some of them like child custody and alimony they are getting better. In others like praternity fraud and abuse, and college expellments of inmocent men, theyre getting worse if anything.
Men are regularly put in the "provider" box by women thats silly. Thats why in general a man's desirability is most related to his income.
The ONLY people I see saying that on this or any other place is guys who use that as an excuse for why they cannot find someone. Resoundingly the women state that they just want an independent person who is not a mooch or a bottom feeder.
Quote:
Hell look at some of the angry responses on this thread. When the charade is exposed people get seriously angry and call MGTOWs gay. "What youre not out impregnating and paying for your kids by working 100 hours a week in 3 jobs you hate!? Youre gay, you ever get laid?" Child custody laws as you've admitted can be really biased against men in many areas. And what about the problem with paternity fraud, or a man being forced to pay for child support for kids that werent his because he was married (yes this happens)? Then there is the insane campus rape hysterias, bias in domestic abuse courts, alimony bias (noone here is arguing temporarily it shoudnt exist but it can last for decades or life sometimes which is insane). The laws need to be changed to stop the bias and in some of them like child custody and alimony they are getting better. In others like praternity fraud and abuse, and college expellments of inmocent men, theyre getting worse if anything.
Injustice sucks. It is everywhere. But I don't see it dis-proportionally targeting men.
C) Common law marriages in some states: youre not married why should you be treated as such?
Common law marriage is a clear violation of human rights. If two people willingly choose not to sign a marriage license then they should never, ever be considered married by any governmental entity.
The ONLY people I see saying that on this or any other place is guys who use that as an excuse for why they cannot find someone. Resoundingly the women state that they just want an independent person.
I think if you read studies and ask around you'll find youre very wrong. Why do you think the likes of Donald Trump and Hugh Heffner get so many attractive women? Do you think 19year old Brad Pitt could get as many women as he could now when working some menial job? I get more female attraction now that I have more money, period.
Usually when I meet a woman the first thing she asks is "Hi, where do you work?" Its almost like its out of a script, even if I try to steer the conversation away from that topic. Its even funnier when they have poor english skills, and that seems to be the only thing they know how to say clearly. I have to laugh when they end the conversation immediately after finding out what I do, which hilariously pays way above the median wage but apparently "not enough" for many. Im not bitter at all. I find this whole charade really, really amusing actually.
When women start offering to pay for dates or at least split the check Ill agree with you. But as of recent Ive had a lot of women ask me out then go out of their way to run as far away from that check as possible when it arrives (look away, go to the bathroom lol). Also if you look on most dating websites most women over 30 have "my mates earning potential is extremely important to me" in their settings. Again Im not poor so this doesnt particularly hinder me, I just find it impossible to deny.
...I guess part of my point is that the folks complaining about how awful women are are trying to achieve something that at its core is not worth having, acquiring a female of old school contractual engagement that once caught has no recourse. So partnership, commitment, effort are not necessary or desirable once the acquisition is accomplished. That ship has sailed. I know some folks don't like it. I am not one of those folks.
Our modern society is predicated on social skills. Every relationship, be it romantic or in the workplace or merely among neighbors, depends on reading body language and emotion, on empathizing, on patience and solicitousness and on what management consultants call "emotional intelligence". This is pivotal in finding a partner, and in retaining him/her. It's the society that we've built.
I reassert my skepticism of such a society being effective, productive or ultimately fulfilling. I personally would much more prefer a contractual society, a society of arrangement – where employment, marriage, and whatever other core activities of our lives unfold, are done dispassionately, with computer-like precision and mechanical fiat. This isn't about demure and helpless women being bought at the slave-market. It's more of an Orwellian society, or perhaps Huxley's Brave New World. That world, if we recall, was remarkably gender-egalitarian. It completely dispensed with motherhood, raising children in incubators and factory-farms.
The MGTOW agenda is not compelling, because it is contrary to biology. Essentially it advocates a monastic life, minus the religious zealotry. But what is compelling, valuable and essential, is not a tree-house with crudely painted sign, "No girls allowed", but a social alternative for single people – male or female – who are unable to find a partner. This isn't about sour grapes or contempt for modern laws or modern feminism. It's simply about the fact that not everyone can find or retain a partner, and not everyone is content with that.
Our society assumes marriage, or at least stable couple-hood. It's assumed when buying a house, when signing up for benefits at work, when traveling on a cruise or to a resort, when attending a party or office-function. We assume that most people can find and retain a partner, just as we assume that most people can walk or drive. But just as some people have a handicap preventing them from walking, or lack the eyesight or other sensory capacity that prevents them from driving, so too, some are simply unable to find a partner. Society needs to offer better accommodation for such people.
I think if you read studies and ask around you'll find youre very wrong. Why do you think the likes of Donald Trump and Hugh Heffner get so many attractive women?
If that is what a person wants, what amounts to a series of prostitutes, then clearly money is necessary.
Do you think 19year old Brad Pitt could get as many women as he could now when working some menial job? I get more female attraction now that I have more money, period.
Quote:
When women start offering to pay for dates or at least split the check Ill agree with you.
You are dating the wrong women. I don't offer to pay for dates. I just pay for them.
I think if you read studies and ask around you'll find youre very wrong. Why do you think the likes of Donald Trump and Hugh Heffner get so many attractive women? Do you think 19year old Brad Pitt could get as many women as he could now when working some menial job? I get more female attraction now that I have more money, period.
Usually when I meet a woman the first thing she asks is "Hi, where do you work?" Its almost like its out of a script, even if I try to steer the conversation away from that topic. Its even funnier when they have poor english skills, and that seems to be the only thing they know how to say clearly. I have to laugh when they end the conversation immediately after finding out what I do, which hilariously pays way above the median wage but apparently "not enough" for many. Im not bitter at all. I find this whole charade really, really amusing actually.
When women start offering to pay for dates or at least split the check Ill agree with you. But as of recent Ive had a lot of women ask me out then go out of their way to run as far away from that check as possible when it arrives (look away, go to the bathroom lol). Also if you look on most dating websites most women over 30 have "my mates earning potential is extremely important to me" in their settings. Again Im not poor so this doesnt particularly hinder me, I just find it impossible to deny.
So - you date lots of unattractive women - right? You don't only value women based on how attractive they are - do you?
Our modern society is predicated on social skills. Every relationship, be it romantic or in the workplace or merely among neighbors, depends on reading body language and emotion, on empathizing, on patience and solicitousness and on what management consultants call "emotional intelligence". This is pivotal in finding a partner, and in retaining him/her. It's the society that we've built.
And this is a bad thing? I mean, I find no such necessity at work. But who does not want to be on the giving and receiving end of empathy, patience, kindness?
Quote:
The MGTOW agenda is not compelling, because it is contrary to biology. Essentially it advocates a monastic life, minus the religious zealotry. But what is compelling, valuable and essential, is not a tree-house with crudely painted sign, "No girls allowed", but a social alternative for single people – male or female – who are unable to find a partner.
What is this social alternative? DECIDE that you CHOSE to remain single, all evidence to the contrary?
Quote:
This isn't about sour grapes or contempt for modern laws or modern feminism. It's simply about the fact that not everyone can find or retain a partner, and not everyone is content with that.
Our society assumes marriage, or at least stable couple-hood. It's assumed when buying a house, when signing up for benefits at work, when traveling on a cruise or to a resort, when attending a party or office-function.
I know loads of people who do these things without a partner. How is this hard?
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.
