Did feminism ruin relationships between men and women? (calls, records, dating)

[RedJacket]

Originally Posted by TKramar

If an actress wants to read the leading man's lines, she's not going to get very far.

Tootsie did.

[gwynedd1]

On average, naturally, 106 boys are born for every 100 girls. The Y-chromosome exposes recessive sex link traits at twice the rate of women. More genetic variability, not even discussing behavioral variability...

[NotARedneck]

Originally Posted by smel

I think there are plenty of good men left. I don't know where you live, but where I live most men are hard working good people, who don't whine about what they don't have.

I agree with what you say in the first sentence but have seen little evidence that women act on it.

Originally Posted by smel

I am speaking as a woman, but hey I don't really think that is who most of the posters on here are talking to anyway. You just want to complain to each other about women. And yes Nutz, I have traveled extensively and surely know more about what women want than you do, unless you are secretly a woman too. I hope that all of you will be happy with each other because you don't want to do anything to make your chances of finding a woman better. You would just rather wallow in your misery. Have fun.

Actually, I tend to write my comments to of younger women. Its is likely a wasted effort but perhaps some might benefit. For instance:

The type who while in high school despise the guys who will become "good men", the guys who focus on their studies and have long term plans for an education and a career.

The type who in college are completely focused on finding hot guys from families with money, no matter how immature and self destructive they are and no matter that they treat women like something that is disposable.

The type who graduate without snagging the "Mr. Right" I described above and think that they will find lots of them at work. They are invariably disappointed since "the best ones are taken" and most of their single male co-workers are the same ones they despised in high school and ignored in college, only older and even further from being desirable.

The final indignity is that they are eventually forced to try to settle. If they do convince one of these poor guys that he is now a hot property, they can cash in quickly through no fault divorce.

I knew a lot of "good men" in my 20s and early 30s. Few had much luck with the single women during those years. They were all working hard, too. Most came to the conclusion that the only way to be successful in relationships was to make as much money as possible. I wasn't so cynical so I avoided their fate in divorce court. Phew!

[NotARedneck]

Originally Posted by OngletNYC

I can't speak on the whole post, but he is absolutely correct about this:

The rest of his comments were good too and absolutely accurate.

In contrast, JSizzle is a cretin and has proved it many times.

Moderator, if you don't like this nor think its warranted, see post # 1150 first. This is not a personal attack, just stating a fact.

[NotARedneck]

Originally Posted by tamajane

Completely agree on this. But women with good incomes are not rejecting men with same or lesser incomes, if those men have other qualities they want. The women are not all ugly, as feminism has afforded opportunities to essentially all women, so the selection is wide. This freedom allows women to be with a wider range of men too, including men who would not be able to provide on their income alone, but who are desirable in other areas.

That is the issue that has some men so riled up. They not only lack in monetary success but other areas which they fail to acknowledge. There is no moving forward from that state of denial.

Sorry to puncture your balloon, but 99% of the times, this is translated into he's hot.

If men are riled up, its because they know that this is the case. Meanwhile they are accused of only going for models. This is such bunk.

Basically, if you look at this objectively, you'll see that younger women are nearly always going for men who are much better looking, in relative terms. They will likely wake up some day, found they've lost their youth and realize that they were used. But in the mean time, the ability to offer sex makes them believe that they are actually in the game.

Then, when this day comes, it's, "Where have all the nice guys gone? Why aren't they interested in me anymore?"

Can you perhaps see why most men aren't happy with this?

[TKramar]

Would that be without realizing the same about themselves?

The so-called attractive women who are stuck up about it aren't interesting.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by smel

This is your opinion. Most women are driven to marry for love. Yes, women are still motivated by a pure emotion.

Perhaps this is the case. From my pov, eh, A. I don't know if it's a matter of pure love, rather passion and definitely emotion. B. huge life decisions should largely be contended with via the head over the heart. This is on my mind due to a conversation I had with my father today. He was always a sensitive man and married for love/passion (3 times). Hind sight tells him he should have paused and considered long term compatibility. Another topic!

Originally Posted by betamanlet

I suppose all that "there are no good men left" stuff has nothing to do with finding guys who earn more than they do given that women are more educated and make more money than the average guy does now....

Imo wom/men that make these statements are perhaps highlighting that they are the one's that are no good. As another poster commented there are plenty of great people everywhere.

Originally Posted by Rubik's Cube

Ladies of the forum, consider the following: men generally care less about your money and your career accomplishments than you care about their looks and the softness of their skin. Given how little many of you claim to care about such superficial traits, take a moment to ponder the implications of this reality, and re-evalute your priorities.

In general you might be right, tho, when addressing individuals a plethora of variables, not considered, will surface. *raises a hand of variables*

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Hi Rubik's Cube,

I would like to clarify my position that I think women should do what makes them happy. Go ahead and have a career. I am simply doing a public service for these beauties to inform them that it is a poor selling point in the love market.

Are women really thinking about this stuff when they're at the bar, etc? When I was in the dating scene I didn't have a career, so it wasn't on my mind. Maybe it would be now. Either way, I agree 110% that men could give a fig about a woman's career when it comes to dating...most of the time. I say this because when I was a street performer I typically had a male harem every summer. Yes, I was certainly pretty, beautiful for some, but I had little doubt my job drew them in like moths to a flame.

Originally Posted by Rubik's Cube

Absolutely agree. However, it's long been my contention that only a woman who's jaw is more square than the Marlboro Man's could truly derive happiness from a "career". Many women don't seem to understand what makes them happy until it's too late.

This post fits people, rather a gender. Those lucky enough to engage a profession they enjoy certainly derive happiness from it.

Originally Posted by OngletNYC

Sorry but your post still makes no sense to me; your use of the quote function has fallen woefully short.

I agree that men fill the vast majority of CEO positions because they are more likely to take risks. This also explains why the majority of Jeopardy grand champions are men, as are the majority of top poker players. Risk-taking is a key personality trait among winners and leaders, and it is a trait which is far more likely to found among men instead of women.

If you disagree with me, you can tell me why and I will comment. I don't want to get involved in an argument you are having with someone else, especially since I can barely follow it.

I agree with this. Historically, women have had responsibilities to consider when it comes to risk (children, etc) so any risk taking decisions is saddled. It can suck, but that's life.

[KylieEve]

Originally Posted by RyokoMariaUrameshi

I believe that people should use birth control and condoms. The problem with birth control is all of the health problems that come with it. I used to be on birth control but I had to stop taking it because it was giving me blood clots, headaches, and it messed up my sleeping and eating habits. I've been off of birth control for 2yrs and I still have effects from it.

Heaven forbid you have side effects. Find something that won't give you side effects. Or just get pregnant and then just kill the baby problem solvedIts only a human life you are destroying. No big deal.

[KylieEve]

Originally Posted by Sunflower_lol

I'm not against abortion. In my view, there would be 4 reasons why I would consider abortion.

1) Getting raped
2) It was protected sex but neither condoms nor pills worked (that wouldn't be my fault at all)
3) I knew ahead of time of the fetus being deformed or suffering from a mental problem, etc... complications
4) If it were to put my health at risk to the point of it being a death sentence. In one extreme case, one of my childhood friend's mother die as soon as giving birth.

Abstinence sure but I the real focus would be to use protection if you want to do it.

1) Yes this is certainly traumatic, however not the baby's fault and you could consider adoption.
2)Oh the birth control didn't work so lets just end this innocent human life problem solved again ....not the baby's fault.
3)Couldn't do it myself
4)This is the only reason that could be valid

[NotARedneck]

Originally Posted by TKramar

I didn't say "dozens". I said "dozen"--as in 12.

Reading comprehension is not universal on this site.