Over at Anakin's blog a reader who goes by Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, left a comment that contained the following statement:
"There are very few good women out there. Good women are only two steps from being unicorns (as in completely mythical). It doesn't matter if I find one or not. Even if I do that means somewhere between 99.98% - 99.996% of good men will NEVER find a good woman."
I responded, 'So .004-.02% of women or 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 5000 women meet your definition of a "good woman"? That kind of begs the question...what is your definition of a good woman?'
This certainly is not the first time I have heard this sentiment regarding the rarity of the "good woman". I usually wonder what exactly a "good woman" is when I read it. So, I thought I would ask you all.
P.S. You don't have to believe good women are almost as rare as unicorns to answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
242 comments:
1 – 200 of 242 Newer› Newest»Well, we can start with a nice rack. Between b and c cup. Not too much droop and size in the proper proportion to the rest of the frame.
Hmm, it just depends what side of the fence you are sitting on, I think, L.
It appears much harder to find a partner in today's world, whether one is male or female.
My own belief is that there are probably just as many bad men as there are bad women around.
Bad women(sluts) though, are generally not held in high esteem as are there male counterparts.There was always a kind of tacit approval that men could and would sow their wild oats before settling down.( A notion that has always been repugnant to me, as a Christian)
Now females(not all) are emulating this degrading and hedonistic kind of lifestyle.
There is no tacit approval that it is okay for a woman to behave in such a manner.. In fact other women are highly critical of these "sluts".
I had an interesting conversation with my nearly eighteen year old niece about "sluts" Everybody knows who the sluts are in her small town, she tells me.. Nobody thinks highly of them either.. My neice(who hasn't had a boyfriend) hangs around with a large group of female/male friends. They all look out for one another.Nice bunch of young people.
If only these bad(liberated???) women realized that being a slut will never be cool... And, that while men who are rakes can often get away with this kind of behaviour and still come up smelling like roses, WOMEN CAN'T!! That's just the way it is. It was ever thus.
Having said all that, I know a heck of a lot of good men and good women too.
Good men and women are people who care about the feelings of others and treat them with respect, irrespective of gender. They don't use people up, either.
For the record, L I reckon that you are a good woman :D It shines through in your postings! However, I would prefer to think of you as a good person. It is a less divisive description..
And for those of us who are quietly living out our lives, with the gifts our Father gave us, we ask.. "What is a good man? Who among you will be the man we entrust with our purity, with our gifts and dreams? Who will stand to honour us in the marketplace when men like MarkyMark and his readership call us vile names?"
I know what marks a good man. I have been blessed to know them, and I am honoured and blessed to be loved by one.
Well Prof Hale, I recon that rules me out.
Thanks Kathy. I agree that there are both bad men and women and good men and women. I was just curious what men who say there are few good women think a good woman is.
The Librarian, I have been blessed to know many good men as well. I have also known many women I would consider to be good women. I just wanted to get an idea of what the standard of "good womanhood" was from those who think there are few of them.
What is a good woman?
YOU, my friend, are a good woman, and I am thankful and blessed to call you my friend :).
Generally speaking, the traits are the same that make a good man. Short of fulfilling the requirements of being a good Christian, little else is needed. Do not give your word lightly, but keep it when you do. Act with honor, speak the truth, and cherish wisdom. Simple things, really, but not so simple in practice.
The temptation that the legal system offers women in terms of power over an estranged husband cannot and should not be discounted. People are weak things, and easy turned, and it shouldn't be surprising that in a culture that became a victim of its own success, faithlessness and avarice permeate the social consciousness. As Vox has said in the past, there's no earthly reason for a secular man to get married in a Western nation, ever. Christian men without the desire to remain celibate, on the other hand, have their work cut out for them, as there is no reliable litmus test for resistance to that particular temptation.
To sum up, single Christians (and men in particular) should learn the finer points of effective questioning, deduction and observation. And most importantly, disregard the advertising, and learn to walk away from the bait.
I've been pretty frustrated by looking for good men. I'm doing better with this by becoming friends with guys at church now. Yep, your prayers have been answered, I'm back in church.
Oh, yes--a good man is one who is masculine and yet can treat women with respect and consideration rather than as an object or receptacle for sexual release.
"Oh, yes--a good man is one who is masculine and yet can treat women with respect and consideration rather than as an object or receptacle for sexual release."
So what's a good women if not someone reliant on the income of the serf ?
I really detest the fake and impersonal interpretations that women mark men as..
It's as if we are here to do you a favour and you can just go on doing your own thing without giving any consideration to what a man may need or want..
Typical selfish and self serving female behaviour. It's not what I can do for you, it's what I can get from him..
A very good question, Learner, one that I think should be posed to any fellow that rails about how there are "no good women" out there. It is easy and not a little bit satisfying to declare "there are no good women anywhere!" in a fit of pique. Yet such a claim is not logically true, and if it were, it would encompass female members close to a man, including his own mom. So even in my darkest days of post-divorce recovery and dating frustration, I never thought that there were "no good women" out there, although it certainly felt like it from time to time.
The "good woman" is one of those "eye of the beholder" kinds of things, I'm afraid. Thus it will vary from man to man.
My definition of a good woman is very much like Feral's, and boils down to a set of character traits.
1. Loves God.
2. Hates the World
3. Hates divorce, and won't resort to it in all but the most extreme of circumstances.
4. Is industrious
5. Has integrity
6. Has accountability / sense of personal responsibility
7. Considers the needs of others before her own
8. Exercises self control, both emotional and physical.
It is interesting to consider just how much (2) thru (8) flow from (1), but sadly I've observed women have too much disconnection between claims of (1) and actions evidencing (2) thru (8). The prevalence of trait (3) in the population of women who claim (1) is a particular disappointment. Bottom line is that a person's claim of (1) doesn't reliably translate well to the rest, and there is a lot of flexibility there, unfortunately.
Both men and women are weak things, prone to their sin natures. And there is a whole lotta temptation out there these days for both women and men to indulge their less constructive tendencies. Men, if you'll pardon the vulgarity, to treat women as cum dumpsters. As for women, Feral aptly summed up the social/legal temptations that women succumb to. To that, I add the less prevalent but still powerful temptation to act like a cum dumpster.
Applying these eight criteria to the population of women, and the set of "good women" shrinks dramatically.
Interestingly, I think the exact same criteria also applies to men, and the set of "good men" shrinks dramatically as well. The key difference being is that we don't have the legal temptations as women do, thus I hope I'm not being too partisan in my opinion that there the set of good men out there is larger than the set of good women.
In my mind, a 'good woman' is dedicated to the Lord and his ways.
Without God, we may as well not even bother talking about how suitable a person is for marriage. The idea that any of us can live or love well without the Lord in us strains believability, and is just an intellectual debate.
There are probably lots of 'good women', but they are usually at home avoiding the worldliness.
That said, there is a lot of unrealistic expectations held by men and women who ARE Christians, because the relentless influence of worldly pressures is nearly impossible to avoid completely.
The secular US is doomed, long past the point of any cultural recovery, the remnant of Christians have a shot at a good marriage, but the odds are still long.
When women stop being attracted to and rewarding bad men, men will stop being that way.
Even Christian girls get a little swoony over bad boys - I see it all the time, no point int denying it.
These Christian girls must learn that what they are experiencing is the LUST OF THE FLESH, and they must train it out of themselves, just as they would expect guys to refrain from porn.
It is the same thing. Being turned on over an 'edgy guy' that does not love God is no different than a guy getting turned on over a women in slutty clothing.
If it is not of faith, it is SIN.
SA
Are there good women out there? Yes, but finding them is hard, because they don't distinguish themselves from the bad ones. That's why women are like hand grenades. You never know which one will go off and which one won't until it's too late...
Well Prof Hale, I recon that rules me out.--Learner
I am sure you have other mitigating qualities. You probably have a great personality. *ducks*
But seriously, you are all setting the bar too high. Good women don't always start out good. They learn from past mistakes and work to make their lives better. None of us is as perfect as we know we ought to be, that does not make us bad.
You can be good, valuable in the eyes of men, good, righteous in the eyes of God, or good, satisfying the personal standards (high or low) that you set for yourself.
Slutty behavior is certainly harmful to your reputation with some crowds, but not all, and it is not a permanent condition. I know several "good women" today who were wild in their youth.
if you have avoided the youthful indiscretion other make, you will have fewer regrets later, and that is a good thing. But it is not necessary and sufficient to being a good woman now.
Well Prof Hale, I recon that rules me out.
Like most women, you are probably too harsh in your self-assessment. Send me some pictures and I will render you an impartial judgment.
Kathy my dear,
I have a bone to pick with you! You're talking about the supposed double standard of sluts vs. studs. That never really existed, even in the old days. Want to know why? Because, if a rake came in, boffed a bunch of local women, some of them would become pregnant. Guess who's left holding the bag?! Yeah, the local guys who have to LIVE with the rake's victims-duh!
Even if the double standard existed, here's why it: certainty of paternity. A woman can bear a child, and she knows beyond ANY DOUBT that it is her child; a man doesn't enjoy similar certainty. There's a reason that the pithy, little saying of "Mommy's baby, daddy's maybe" came into existence...
As for now, don't look up to the players, which is what rakes are called in the modern vernacular; we don't congratulate them. Other, fellow players may congratulate other players on bagging a hot chick, but we, the men of the general population, do not.
Then again, we don't care one way or the other. The way I look at it is this: guys become players to adapt to the skewed, dysfunctional modern dating scene we have today. If a guy wants female companionship, then he has to become a player; the other choice is to do without. Why? Because women REWARD the players, bad boys, thugs, etc.; by their actions, women have told men that players are what they prefer. Ergo, you have former nice guys, i.e. former gentlemen, becoming players.
The final quibble I have with you is that in no way, shape, or form is the number of bad men equal to the number of bad women-not by a long shot! A good woman is so rare that gold is as plentiful as sand on a beach. Good guys are everywhere though. When I hear women bitch and moan about the dearth of good men, I just want to slap them silly! By their actions (see previous paragraph), women have told men en masse that they want players; they want bad boys; they want guys to treat them like crap. If women want good men, then they have to start REWARDING them.
I have to go look at some houses, so I'm out of here...
MarkyMark
Oh, Kathy, I have to take issue with one more statement of yours. There's no tacit approval for women to behave like sluts? Come on, what planet are YOU on?! That's why we have TV shows like Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, and others exhorting women to show their grrl power by nurturing their inner slut, right? That's why we have Cosmo, Glamour, and other publications glorifying the slut lifestyle, right? That's why we have British newspapers cheering when girls go on sex tours, correct? If anything, girls are exhorted, admonished, and indeed CHEERED for being sluts today! It's how they become 'empowered women'...
I'm not sure I buy the "hand grenades" analogy; some women are quite obviously more toxic than others.
I liken it to a big bag of venomous snakes that has a few harmless ones thrown in for sport. We know those harmless snakes are in there, but unless you get to see the snakes in action, one may look much like another. Coral snake, or king snake? Green boa, or mamba? A farmer's blessing, or scaly death?
By their fruit... Words are less than nothing.
>>>My definition of a good woman is very much like Feral's, and boils down to a set of character traits.
1. Loves God.
2. Hates the World
3. Hates divorce, and won't resort to it in all but the most extreme of circumstances.
4. Is industrious
5. Has integrity
6. Has accountability / sense of personal responsibility
7. Considers the needs of others before her own
8. Exercises self control, both emotional and physical.<<<
It appears Wapiti is the only post, thus far, who took thorough measures in setting up parameters for his definition of a good woman.
In addition, I would have to say that what makes a good woman is one who can set the parameters of what makes a good man.
I always go back to this column.
Christian J--no idea how you got serfdom out of what I wrote. Perhaps it is your own personal life. As for me, you can read where my personal feelings are on my blog. I have encountered a great deal of objectification in my dating life, so I have sworn to only be around Godly men. Even then there are wolves in the flock.
Also, when a man talks about "needs" he is usually referring to sex. I have no reason to satisfy a man's "needs" if he hasn't spoken for me or made any kind of commitment to me or meeting my relationship needs. Staying a "good" woman is difficult with today's pressures and examples.
Ame,
Thank you and back at ya!
Feral,
Thanks for the input. I agree that many of the traits of good men and good women overlap.
Savvy,
Thanks for your comment, but I am curious how you would define a good woman? I am, as you know, happy you are back to church with a vengance :)
Christian J,
I don't really understand what your comment has to do with what Savvy said. It seems to me she objected to being pressured for sex outside marriage because of her christian faith. Could you explain how that relates to being selfish, self serving, or serfdom?
Also, would you elaborate on your definition of the "good woman" beyond not relying on serfs income?
EW,
Thanks for you input. I honestly don't know if the pool of good men is larger than the pool of good women or not. I'm not sure how we could even figure that out! I just don't think it is approaching unicorn status. But, I think Feral and yourself have a good point that the current legal system certainly does not encourage righteous behavior in women when it comes to divorce.
So, after your divorce when you were dating before you met your Mrs did you run across a lot of women who's walk did not match their talk?
SA,
Thanks for the input. We, both women and men, are indeed frail creatures with our propensities toward externals when looking for a mate. What you said is certainly very true, the culture is no help at all on that score.
MarkyMark,
How would you define a good woman? How would she practically distinguish herself?
Prof Hale,
"I am sure you have other mitigating qualities. You probably have a great personality. *ducks*"
Hmm...you know people often comment on my great personality...wonder what that means? heh
I tend to believe in redemption myself and think that a "bad girl" can grow into a good woman through God's grace.
" Send me some pictures and I will render you an impartial judgment."
Thank you for your kind offer, but me and my rack (or would it be my rack and I?) prefer our anonimity.
Feral,
"By their fruit... Words are less than nothing."
Wise counsel in so many areas of life.
Knight's Watch,
"In addition, I would have to say that what makes a good woman is one who can set the parameters of what makes a good man."
Good point, and I would say the same is true in opposite. Thanks for the link to that article as well.
I think the question would be answered rather differently by different sorts of men.
I think many Christian men would have criteria similar to EW's, but secular men probably have other criteria.
I don't think that there are more "bad" women than men. I think sometimes people will perceive it that way because if women wish to be "bad" (in sexual terms), it's simply easier for them to do so than it is for most men. I think if men had the same level of sexual opportunity, on average, as women do, you wouldn't see fantastic behavior among men, to be honest.
Noveseeker,
"I think if men had the same level of sexual opportunity, on average, as women do, you wouldn't see fantastic behavior among men, to be honest."
Interesting observation.
OK, my criteria for being a good woman, recognizing that EW's list is very good and this is an addendum:
I accept responsibility for my decisions and any fallout or outcome, good or bad. No blame game or finger-pointing. I screw up, I pay the penalty.
I recognize that my Creator gave me a mind, heart, and soul, as well as other specifically female bits, and it is my responsibility to exercise stewardship.
Therefore, I read, study, learn, and take care of my bodily housing by being responsible with diet, exercise, modesty in dress and demeanour. I try hard to not place myself into situations where any of the above could be compromised, and that means knowing my companions before I agree to spend social time together.
I look to my household. I'm single, although engaged to be married. Can I open my door at any given moment and welcome people in, or will I be embarrassed by the state of my housekeeping? A good woman can respond at a moment's notice to an emergency and be ready with food and other home comforts. (Working on this!)
Look to Mary and Martha for our examples; there is a time to sit and learn, and there is a time to be up and doing.
A good woman balances out her professional interests with her family's, but knows in her heart that her family is first and she's going to assign her time and energies accordingly. This is going to be individual within each marriage and family because we're all different.
And Professor Hale? Learner is gorgeous, vivacious, loving, funny, smart, and kind. Anyone would be lucky to have coffee with her, let alone a whole life. Given the modesty thing, let's leave the rack discussion out of this, shall we?
"I'm not sure how we could even figure that out! "
I probably should clarify a little about the relative proportion of bad woman and bad men.
I think that there are probably more bad women than bad men out there, not because men are intrinsically better, but because they have less socially acceptable/reinforced opportunity to be so.
Were it men that got the kids and a two-decade payout for little to no cost whatsoever, I suspect that it'd be men with the itchy divorce trigger finger and women bemoaning how badly the system shafts them.
"So, after your divorce when you were dating before you met your Mrs did you run across a lot of women who's walk did not match their talk?"
Not a lot in that I only met/dated five women in the three 1/2 years before Mrs Wapiti and I got together. All professed to be Believers; I didn't bother with those that didn't.
One was extremely conservative, in that once she found out that my ex had divorced me, she couldn't hang with that spiritually and she hit the road (she interpreted Scripture as meaning once married, always married).
Another claimed to be a Christian yet was very "flexible" regarding abortion and homogamy and other moral issues. Needless to say, I broke that one off quickly.
Another was a bit more open to divorce than I would like. I broke that off too.
Another, a nurse, still lived with her parents and her minor sisters at age 28. She seemed nice enough, but I wasn't all fired up about the umbilicus she had with her parents. She may have been a "good one", I'll never know now.
The fifth, a public school teacher, seemed also to be nice enough but had a few psychological hangups I didn't want to deal with. Apparently I had some she didn't dig on either. We parted on mutually agreeable terms. She may have been a borderline "good one", just not for me.
I met Mrs Wapiti when I was fixing to give up entirely on the female race. I'm glad I hung in there and trusted God to show her to me.
So, my experience is that of the set of women who profess to be Christians (which is about 30% of the population), half were possible (not confirmed) good 'uns. This leaves about 15% of the population of women, plus or minus, as eligible for the "good woman" title.
Lastly, I don't know if you Learner are a "good woman" or not, having never met you in person and can only read what you choose to write online. I will say however that, in your online presence, you have shown a lot of class, most notably in cases where your interrogators often do not. This speaks a lot for what lays within you.
I am truly saddened for you that the dating scene hasn't worked out for you as you and I would like it to, and pray that it will turn in your favor soon.
You want my answer. Here it is.
Let's start by taking two examples of good women (who also have blogs so I can directly point out how they are good women), Dr. Helen Smith and Amy @ Clothesline Alley. What have both these women done to be considered good women (and be on one of my blogrolls on my blog)? They have proven that they support men. Just go through Dr. Helen's entire blog and this post by Amy for proof.
Both of these women are anti-feminist by definition. However, most women who claim to be anti-feminist don't really support men. Typically, anti-feminist women are too busy going on to MRM and MGTOW blogs and arguing with the men about how they're "misogynists" as opposed to trying to convince women about the error of feminism like any logical thinking person would expect. Or these women's opposition to feminist consists of opposition to abortion (which is important but has nothing to do with men's rights) or opposition to pre-marital sex (which is irrelevant) or claims of attacks on motherhood (which is false since feminists do not attack motherhood, they attack fatherhood, feminists support single mothers after all).
What is missing here is any mention of men. Whenever anti-feminist women talk about their opposition to feminism there is never any talk about who the victims of feminism are, men. They never talk about false rape charges, false sexual harassment claims, anti-male divorce courts, anti-male attitudes in women, etc. Despite these women's supposed anti-feminism as far as any man can tell these women support 99% of feminism. Many men believe that most women who claim to oppose feminism are just doing so because they are worried about the gravy train ending. There is no real evidence to dispute this except for a few cases such as Dr. Helen and Amy.
Beyond that nearly all anti-feminist women even go into defend women at all costs mode just like feminists do no matter how psychotic any particular woman is. What do you think this looks like to men?
Why did I write all this about how nearly all anti-feminist women don't really support men? I could give you a complete definition of a good woman, but most of it doesn't matter for our purposes here. The part that is relevant for our purposes is that a good woman is an anti-feminist who supports men. As I have shown that is incredibly rare since most anti-feminist women aren't interested in supporting and respecting men, just arguing about abortion and pre-marital sex.
This is why there are so few good women out there. It comes down to nearly all women not showing men basic decency and that's includes anti-feminist women.
What PMAFT said!
The Librarian,
Good points :) I especially like this one: "I accept responsibility for my decisions and any fallout or outcome, good or bad. No blame game or finger-pointing. I screw up, I pay the penalty."
Thank you for your kind words also. Of course, other than you and one other friend, no one who reads this blog has met me in person. So, you can call me "gorgeous" and no one can call you on your friendship colored glasses :D
EW,
I think the points made by Feral, Novaseeker and yourself that women have more opportunity to exercise their "badness" via social strictures is interesting.
I didn't realize the number of professing christians was only 30%. With that being the case and the sorry state of christian committment 15% is probably a close estimation.
Thank you also for your kind words. Please do keep praying for me bro, as I am currently working on dipping my toe into the dating/relationship water again, so to speak. Taking that risk hasn't been easy in some ways, but the gentlemen in question is an excellent man and quite worth it.
PMAFT,
Ah, so a "good woman" is defined in your mind as an anti-feminist pro-male activist sort?
"I could give you a complete definition of a good woman, but most of it doesn't matter for our purposes here."
Actually that was what my purpose was here in this post...to define what a good woman is. Care to take another stab at it or would you leave your definition as simply anti-feminist and pro-male? What would that look like for an average woman in real life?
MarkyMark,
What PMAFT said didn't really answer the question though....What would that look like in the real, non blogging, world?
Regarding the anti-feminist position: it is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. I have known many women that are by the stipulative definition provided, "anti-feminist", but were still petty, manipulative and otherwise unmerciful creatures. More than a few also claimed Christian faith, which illustrates the inherent problem with the attempt at rigorously defining "a good woman".
This had crossed my mind in the first post, hence the restriction to those that are "good Christians"; attempting to pin the definition "good" in a general case to those with amorphous moral codes is an exercise in futility.
based on your picture, I can say that lack of a uni-brow is good. If you are plucking, that is good too. (some have to).
Thank you for your kind offer, but me and my rack (or would it be my rack and I?) prefer our anonymity. Right. Because this blog is such a public venue and all. well, in the absence of an impartial observer, try not to be too hard on yourself.
Learner,
I've GIVEN UP trying to find a good woman, so what she's like is irrelevant. I can tell you this: they're so rare that they're almost mythical, a la' Unicorns...
MarkyMark
To put it another way, the occurrence of a good woman in nature is so rare as to be statistically insignificant. I don't have a PRAYER of finding one, so why worry about it?
Oh, that reminds me of the old joke: what do you call a woman who is friendly, happy, and well adjusted? Married to someone else! That 'bout sums it up...
I'd like to take a stab at this.
In my opinion,"a good woman":
Doesn't harm others,emotionally or physically,neither for profit,nor for sport*. *Females tend to get a kick out of "drama", for males this amounts to emotional terrorism.
Doesn't act like a child,a "good woman" doesn't throw temper tantrums or resort to emotional manipulation to solve a problem or obtain what she wants.
Doesn't place blame on others for her decisions.
Determines the impact her choices will have on the lives of those in her life before acting on impulse.
Exercises restraint.
Considers the needs of others before her own.*Men have needs other than sex,just because those needs aren't the same as YOUR needs doesn't mean they aren't legitimate.
Is not a female chauvinist. Most women tend to think of individual women as part of a collective called "women",engaged in competition, not cooperation, with the group called "men". Therefore, they view a criticism of any woman as a criticism of "women", and therefore a personal attack. This causes relationship difficulties because when some destructive behavior a female engages in is isolated and identified, the usually male observer of such behavior is said to "just hate women" and not one woman's one destructive behavioral characteristic and is therefore written off.
Most importantly, a "good woman" likes and appreciates men. This is most important to me because if a woman likes and appreciates men every other difficulty can be overcome. Most women would probably not say that they hate men, but I've noticed that the way they treat men pretty much bespeaks an attitude of dismissive contempt for males.
Many women treat men as simply a source of income or a beast of burden, they look down on men and consider themselves to be more intelligent. They abuse their comparative upper hand in the dating and mating arena and see it as "empowering" themselves(with the implicitly suggested "disempowering" of males).
A "good woman" who understands the differences between males and females and appreciates the different-ness of men does not compare proverbial apples and oranges.
That's about it,I think.
Anon0957 NAILED it! However, he's seeking the impossible dream by seeking a woman like that! He may as well eat you know what & bark at the moon...
I'll take another more specific stab at this.
I agree with Feral in that being against many aspects of feminism is necessary yet not sufficient. I say “many aspects”, because I do think that some aspects of feminism are not in themselves bad: women having access to education and careers and so on, if they wish. It's the gender war aspects that are harmful, and the denigration of men that often accompanies them.
Having said that, what are the other qualities that comprise a “good” woman?
One is a healthy amount of self-respect. By this I don't mean self-worship, narcissism, the cult of “self-esteem” and so on, but rather more a sense of self-value that implies certain life decision tendencies. For example, a woman with self-respect is not the kind of woman who sleeps around, not the kind of woman who enjoys a hedonistic lifestyle and so on. By this I don't mean a killjoy, but rather someone who has a good sense of who she is, and avoids things in life that detract from that.
Another is a healthy, Christian worldview. By this I don't mean a narrow kind of dogmatism, really, but instead a view of the world that is centered on the life in Christ, and what that means in terms of life decisions. In part that includes what the Bible, for example, says about men and women, for sure, but it also includes a whole host of other things that impact the personal holiness and centeredness of someone, quite apart from relationships with men. By this I don't mean, again, a stereotypical “holy roller”, but simply someone who knows where they are in the universe, and what that implies for their life.
Another is someone who seeks to achieve a balance in life. We live in an age of imbalance. Some people err on the side of their work, others err on the side of their kids, others err on the side of their own pleasure and so on. Balance is a very hard walk to follow, but it's a very important one, and sleuthing it out can be challenging but rewarding.
Of course all of that should be built upon other standard qualities of character that are important in men and women, alike: honesty, fidelity, sanity, selflessness and so on.
I don't think that good women are as rare as unicorns. I do think that in certain environments (bars, clubs), you won't find as many of them, and perhaps also in certain cities (LA, Manhattan), because the urban culture for young women of a certain social class in these areas can be quite toxic (as it is for men, too). I think the frustration comes from men not being able to meet “good” women, but that's a whole different topic, ranging from looking in the wrong places, to looking at the wrong women in the right places and so on.
I must admit that I have no idea of what a "good woman" is anymore.
I am not even sure that a "good woman" is desirable by any standard. Is it that important?
I wonder which is the worst: a good woman or a bad woman.
Good or bad, it doesn't matter anymore.
Silly and pointless question, that one.
Feral,
There probably isn't any one factor that will identify a good woman (or man) whether it be rejecting the destructiveness of feminism or claiming to be a christian (or perhaps for that matter even being a christian). I understand it is not a simple question, but I think it is an important one.
Prof Hale,
I try to keep the brows under control, heh.
"try not to be too hard on yourself."
Will do, thanks.
Mark,
I understand your position, I just was interested in hearing what this mythical creature was like.
Learner,
If I were to render an answer, it would incorporate most of the elements in EW's answer then. Even so, it's still chasing the impossible dream...
MarkyMark
Anon 957,
Thank you very much for your well thought out answer.
Novaseeker,
Thank you for your input as well. I often wonder though if women would not have gained greater opportunities in education and the ability to support themselves without feminism. I think we would have.
*********************************
I think with all of these answers integrated together that a pretty good picture is forming. I appreciate the effort you all have taken thus far.
Thanks Mark.
Anon 1235,
If the question is silly, pointless or unimportant I wonder why you bothered to post a reply.
"I didn't realize the number of professing christians was only 30%."
Here's the breakdown. Judge for yourself if the adherents of particular "Christian" religious denominations can rightly claim to be Believers.
"Please do keep praying for me bro"
I will. One of the hardest questions for someone like me to answer is that posed by Sisters: "where are the good guys"?
I guess it goes to what Nova says...it depends a lot on where you look. And church may not be a good place to start. More's the pity.
EW,
Christian guys such as MLV would say that church is a poor place to find a good, Christian girl...
MarkyMark
The bottom line on what makes a good woman is of course very subjective and dependent on the standards you are using to define "good".
There are some obvious bahaviors and virtues that eveyone recognize as good, and others that get general agreement to bad. There are also a lot in the middle and some that are neither good nor bad, but fall into the realm of free will.
"One of the hardest questions for someone like me to answer is that posed by Sisters: "where are the good guys"?
I guess it goes to what Nova says...it depends a lot on where you look. And church may not be a good place to start. More's the pity."
I guess I would say that the good guys are where the good girls are: generally, in both cases, where you least expect to find them. At least that has been my experience.
The issue with finding mates in church is that, I think at least, is that people expect that singles at church are going to be markedly different from singles elsewhere. That's often a false assumption. I know why people make the assumption, but it's still a false one.
Also there are a lot of odd expectations people have about fellow church-goers. Among men and women, I think, that there is this assumption that men and women who are faithful church-goers are somehow more apt to choose mates based on criteria that are different from "secular people" -- again, that's an assumption that is often untrue. Look at Debbie Maken, to take a somewhat notorious case oft-discussed around the blogosphere. Surely there are *some* people in the churches who have different criteria than people who are not in the churches, but one must also remember that people who are un-churched are not monolithic, either.
Finding a mate in this day and age is tricky, but not impossible. But I don't think you're any more likely to find one in church -- as a man or a woman -- than you would elsewhere.
EW,
I guess that is the difficulty in determining how many "christians" there are in the US. I don't think denomination alone can really answer that question. But, I suppose that 30% many be pretty close.
Church may not be the best place to find a good woman or a good man but hopefully it is still better than a bar/club....though that may be more wishful thinking in my optimistic heart than anything else.
Prof Hale,
Agreed, there is definitely variation in what people consider a "good" woman or man.
Nova,
"I guess I would say that the good guys are where the good girls are: generally, in both cases, where you least expect to find them. At least that has been my experience."
Agreed...you never know when you may run into one. The trick, I think, is keeping yourself open to the opportunity. It can be very easy to think that you will never meet a good person and I think the odds are worse if you go around with that expectation in your mind and heart.
I think that Learner's eyebrows are kinda alluring, for whatever it's worth.
But I've always been an "eyebrow man".
And legs too...
SA,
Well, thank you. I don't believe I have ever run across an "eyebrow man" before!
Ah, so a "good woman" is defined in your mind as an anti-feminist pro-male activist sort?
I don't think I would need to include the activist part except that I have no other way of knowing if a woman actually likes and will show basic human decency to men.
In theory, there are women who like and show basic human decency to men who aren't pro-male, anti-feminist activists, but they all let us men down. We discover that they would rather defend a psychotic woman than a man including their fathers, husbands, and sons. Nearly all women go into "defend this sisterhood" mode whenever even the most insane of women is threatened.
The only way I have seen a woman who isn't like that and truly likes men and shows men basic human decency is when she is a pro-male, anti-feminist activist. And it has to be both. Simply being anti-feminist isn't enough since that looks like agreeing with 99% of the feminist agenda, but being against abortion. Even so called anti-feminist women are not good women.
But many of us simply, in the course of our daily lives, never get put in a position where we have a chance to display an anti-feminism-pro-male POV... some of us, due to our own inclinations, end up in female-dominant professions (the founder of the Dewey Decimal System advocated the hiring of women because, he said, you don't have to pay them as much and they are detail-oriented). I work with men, and I just don't see the anti-male bias in the workplace, I see men and women doing their jobs (granted, a service-oriented profession). I know for a fact that the male candidate for the head position at my most recent workplace turned it down because he really loved what he was doing, and would have hated the administrative goop that promotion would have entailed.
Should I have stood up and yelled that his rights were being violated because the next candidate was a woman? Even though she was tailor-made for the job and has statewide and national recognition for her qualities? And that my male friend, although qualified, would truly have hated it? I've known these people for years. How would this have helped anyone? How would this give me cred for being a "good woman"? Being forced to force my friend to take a job he didn't want to begin with?
Just saying that there are more of us than you might suspect. We are all living in communities, working in communities, we have friendships and relationships, and we simply may not have occasion to rise up and say, "Hey, what about the guy here?"
It seems to me the most likely way to ensure that you never run across a good man or a good woman is to decide a priori that there are none.
It seems to me the most likely way to ensure that you never run across a good man or a good woman is to decide a priori that there are none.
What if the EVIDENCE says as much? Wishing to find a good woman doesn't mean a man will now, does it? For me, it's like trying to ferret out a Tootsie Roll from a sea of turds...
Mark,
Bud, we have gone round and round about this before. The statement I made about a priori assumptions says nothing about the relative abundance or paucity of good men or good women in the world.
Saying you are more likely to find a good one when you have not decided there are none has to do with how our minds work. If we decide in advance that things are a certain way that is how we will view them because we are viewing them through a lens that tells us that is what the truth is.
The idea that a person is more likely to find a good man or woman if they are open to the possibility does not mean that you have to look for one if you do not want to. It is just like saying a person is more likely to find something when they believe it is findable because they are open to finding it /looking for it.
Please note that I am not saying that you or anyone else should get out there and find someone...that is entirely your decision. I understand that it is easier to believe that there are none than to take the chance of opening yourself up to hurt. It has to do with whether or not the risk is acceptable to you. If it is not acceptable to you that is your decision. But what I said about a priori assumptions is basic psychology.
See, MM and your readers, you could see me a dozen times in the course of a day, and just not notice me. I am somewhere between stopping clocks and stopping traffic on the attractometer, kind of average but not actively unpleasant to look upon; I'm not skinny but definitely not obese, just well-muscled and fit because I enjoy my workouts; I don't go to clubs or bars because that just does not interest me; I am an educated professional in a service profession I love, not looking for a sugardaddy or rescue, and dress accordingly; I prefer a quiet, drama-free life. I have an active life of faith that includes (mainstream, Anglican/Episcopal) church work and volunteer work in my community. But I'm not "hottt." What exactly are you looking for? A club-hitting-porn-star-wanna-be who also tutors illiterate children on the side? What does "GOOD WOMAN" mean? What is your definition? And where on God's green earth are you looking? Does "good" mean the same thing as "hot"? And if so, does "not hot" mean the same thing as "not good"? Because that's the impression I'm getting from your blog and your followers. If you all would just be honest and say, we want "good" women as long as they are also "HOT" women, that would clear a lot of hurt up for those of us who are good, but not HOT.
Your followers would say that this post is full of jealousy and sour grapes. Fine. Let them. But I guarantee I am much happier in my life than many of your readers. Now if you will excuse me, I need to call my fiance and tell him again how much I love him...
"Oh, that reminds me of the old joke: what do you call a woman who is friendly, happy, and well adjusted? Married to someone else! That 'bout sums it up..."
I'll say it does! Sounds like you either waited too long or reached beyond your grasp, MM. Not that anyone here would judge you for that, since there's probably more than a few of us in the same boat. So why blame the opposite sex?
Most people get to marry, some don't. That suggests to me that life is mostly fair, but that some people may have bad luck. Or maybe they're really choosy, or perhaps there's something about them that makes other people not choose them.
I can think of people who had certain liabilities, eg. weight problems, disabilities, personality issues, but eventually came to terms with their singleness or married late - without blaming the opposite sex as much as you do.
Perhaps you are one really good guy who has been unfortunately or unfairly overlooked. But then, why should we take your word for it? How do we know it's not just you - and your malcontent minority - wallowing in your unfortunate circumstances, possibly of your own making?
Anon,
If you are going to leave comments such as that here have the courtesy to identify yourself Catwoman.
TL,
I have wondered more than once a similar thing....when some men say there are no good women do they really mean there are no good women they are attracted to? (I am also sure that sometimes the complaint of "no good men" comes form the lips of women who really mean there are no good men who they find attractive). It does feel "unfair" to be considered "bad" because you are not "hot". That is not to say that I think anyone is obliged to find anyone else attractive. It is just that in my mind I don't connect the idea of being a "good" woman with sexual desirability as a woman. Perhaps the term "good woman" as it is so often used in the blogosphere really means "good wife material"?
They seemed like reasonable questions/comments to me, no less so than other anonymous posters on this thread. But then, partiality (with or without courtesy) is your perogative, after all it is your blog.
Catwoman,
Correct, it is my blog and as such I dealt with the other two anonymous comments in this thread as I saw fit. If you think it was "partial" that I asked you to identify yourself because I knew it was you but did not ask the other anonymous' to identify themselves because I have no idea who they are, well that is up to you and I think probably says more about your perceptions than mine.
Learner,
Yes, of course.. but we're looking at a logical disconnect from the starting premise, and that is that there are NO GOOD WOMEN. Period. As you and I both know, that is not the case. Therefore, there had to be a problem with the starting premise. Anything we say in our own defense, and in defense of our fellow good women, will be seen by the MM types as being just so much deluded self-defense, because they know for a fact that there are NO GOOD WOMEN. Period.
Therefore, I, living my quiet life with my community and church service, and preparing to be married to a man I adore and to be faithful to him unto death, yeah.. I BAD.
While granting that there are personal reasons such as attraction and chemistry, yes. But a lot of us have never been interested in or attracted to the alpha thug types, and I don't see much acknowledgement in the MRA blogs about women outside of the group who are attracted to that subtype.
Well, since you're so confident that you know who I am, ip #, employer and all, not much need for silly aliases then, is there? To that end, I will repeat my question for MM:
Why should we take your word that if you "don't have a prayer" in finding a good woman, that the reason is because "the occurrence of a good woman in nature is so rare as to be statistically insignificant", rather than the reason originating with you?
LOL Catwoman...yes I am 100% confident it is you and wonder at why you feel the need to not identify yourself? Sure, I know it's you because I can see your IP address but other's can't see that. Of course the reason why I looked to see if it was you was because your comment sounded so much like you (you really do write with an extraordinarily distinctive "voice"), so I suppose others recognize you as well.
FWIW MarkyMark hasn't been back since you posed your question. Patience.....
"wonder at why you feel the need to not identify yourself?"
So that people respond to ideas, not names, even if they eventually figure out who people are.
Because people draw conclusions based on your name and not on the content of your comments? I wouldn't be too concerned about that if I were you.
Everyone has a "distinctive voice", even you, Learner. Sometimes it's good just to start afresh, whether there's newbies on the thread or not. You use an alias - there's no moral high ground to keeping the same one.
Catwoman,
I didn't say that you were the only one with a distinctive voice, just that yours was extraordinarily distinctive. There is nothing wrong with writing in a distinctive voice. Goodness knows that propensity has helped me catch students when the plagiarize.
Who mentioned any moral high ground? I am all for using aliases on the internet...as you noted I use one, as do many people. However I don't think "anonymous" qualifies as an alias.
"However I don't think "anonymous" qualifies as an alias."
There. That's "Anonymous" as an alias -- Easy peasy! Unless of course, you have some official code book in your library for what "qualifies as an alias" in the blogosphere and what doesn't.
"Unless of course, you have some official code book in your library for what "qualifies as an alias" in the blogosphere and what doesn't."
Nope, just a dictionary that, you know, defines what words mean. But why bother with what words mean when they don't suit your position?
What you are doing is like calling a radio talk show regularly and disguising your voice in order that people won't recognize you.
You say you want a "fresh start" but you are expressing the same opinions. What is the purpose of a "fresh start" without "fresh" opinions. I mean, I could understand if someone wanted to change their tune and not own up to it doing that, but why do it to express the same ideas?
"But why bother with what words mean when they don't suit your position?"
I could say the same snarky thing to you.
"I could understand if someone wanted to change their tune and not own up to it doing that, but why do it to express the same ideas?"
I doubt that everyone here follows my "extraordinarily distinctive voice" as much as you and your like-minded blogging enthusiasts. I doubt that most people care that much.
It seems to me the most likely way to ensure that you never run across a good man or a good woman is to decide a priori that there are none.
Who is making this argument? I gave two examples of good women which I sure nearly all men would agree with.
But many of us simply, in the course of our daily lives, never get put in a position where we have a chance to display an anti-feminism-pro-male POV... some of us, due to our own inclinations, end up in female-dominant professions...I work with men, and I just don't see the anti-male bias in the workplace, I see men and women doing their jobs (granted, a service-oriented profession).
This is why I can't tell if you're just clueless or trying to protect female privilege. All this stuff happens all the time.
I know for a fact that the male candidate for the head position at my most recent workplace turned it down because he really loved what he was doing, and would have hated the administrative goop that promotion would have entailed.
Should I have stood up and yelled that his rights were being violated because the next candidate was a woman?
Congratulations on completely missing the point. This is why more and more men are getting suspicious of what women really think of men. This story has nothing to do with what I'm talking about so I'm suspicious as to why you brought it up.
What I'm talking about is men being cleaned out by corrupt anti-male divorce courts, being thrown in prison on false rape charges, false sexual harassment charges, having their kids taken away from them by ex-wives and corrupt anti-male divorce courts, losing jobs due to affirmative action, boys who are harassed and humiliated by feminist teachers, etc. These are real and specific examples of how feminists oppress men. This happens all the time so a lack of opportunity is no excuse to say anything about it. If you don't believe that just read Dr. Helen's or Glenn Sacks blogs.
Even women who call themselves anti-feminist only seem to care about abortion and pre-marital sex. That's what I'm forced to conclude since that's all they talk about wrt feminism. Women (outside of very few) have been completely silent about all of this. Silence is consent, particularly 40 years of silence. Since potentially every woman benefits from feminism silence means that you're happy about the situation.
With nearly all women not seeming to care about what is happening to their fathers, brothers, and sons, we have to ask the question if women who don't speak out even think of men as human beings. The answer is no since they are silent. Any woman who thinks differently would have every reason to show us proof that she's different. Without proof we have to assume that they don't think of men as human beings.
Why should I get involved with a woman who doesn't think I'm (or any other straight man) a human being deserving of basic rights?
Perhaps you are one really good guy who has been unfortunately or unfairly overlooked. But then, why should we take your word for it? How do we know it's not just you - and your malcontent minority - wallowing in your unfortunate circumstances, possibly of your own making?
Why should we take your word for it that you don't hate men? After all, you are not acting in a way consistent with a woman who doesn't hate men.
"Why should we take your word for it that you don't hate men? After all, you are not acting in a way consistent with a woman who doesn't hate men."
So I must take at face value everything every man tells me about himself and his experience with women? There's nothing about MM's writings that justify me having any skepticism about what he says?
"But many of us simply, in the course of our daily lives, never get put in a position where we have a chance to display an anti-feminism-pro-male POV... some of us, due to our own inclinations, end up in female-dominant professions...I work with men, and I just don't see the anti-male bias in the workplace, I see men and women doing their jobs (granted, a service-oriented profession).
This is why I can't tell if you're just clueless or trying to protect female privilege. All this stuff happens all the time."
Why not give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are clueless, but willing to learn? You're far more likely to get your point across. It was the feminists who took the "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" stance last century that wore everyone out on gender issues, and guess what happened -- people, men and women, just rolled their eyes. It did not work Men are no less interested in pornography, no less likely to treat women are sex objects -- hell, those things are probably even more entrenched because (among other things) of the contempt that victim feminism has brought on itself!
There may be some feminist groups that have opposed or minimized certain men's issues, but I think this blog (and the women who frequent it) are examples of those who are interested and concerned about men's rights. But it's not realistic to expect that people (male or female) are just going to put their brains in neutral and accept everything that is said unquestioningly. Of course, there will be discourse! And through that conversation, some men's issues will emerge as more important and valid, some as less important and valid.
But one thing for sure, people are sick to death of "victim politics". John Q. Public wants to hear about the discrimination of the natives in Pago-Pago (or any other oppressed group du jour) as much as he wants a dog to throw up on his rug. And it's not for lack of caring, it's just that there's only so much headspace you can devote to stuff like that. For that reason, you've got to form alliances the way they are always formed, with facts, diplomacy...and some well-strategized pranksterism.
Wow.
Lots to comment on here, it seems.
What exactly are you looking for? A club-hitting-porn-star-wanna-be who also tutors illiterate children on the side? What does "GOOD WOMAN" mean? What is your definition? And where on God's green earth are you looking? Does "good" mean the same thing as "hot"? And if so, does "not hot" mean the same thing as "not good"? Because that's the impression I'm getting from your blog and your followers. If you all would just be honest and say, we want "good" women as long as they are also "HOT" women, that would clear a lot of hurt up for those of us who are good, but not HOT.
I think men and women alike suffer from this. What I mean is that both of us tend, I think, to be attracted to certain “types”, even though we know that the likelihood of finding someone who is of that “type” who also has the other qualities we are looking for, is small. For men, it's about the “hotties”. The issue for us is that our eyes cannot help but notice them. Sometimes that can mean that we don't notice other women in the same vicinity because our eyes are not drawn to them in the same way. To me, that's a big reason why trying to meet someone in a “meet market” type setting is futile for both men and women – that setting is very skewed toward selecting certain types of men and women alike, and many perfectly attractive men and women with good qualities simply get overlooked – that's the nature of the beast. Women engage in the same behavior as well in that setting, and men notice that very much.
For example, we often hear from women that they like walks on the beach and quiet chats before the fireplace, and a man with character and so on, but what is generally NOT stated is that all of that presupposes attraction. I am no expert on women, but I think that while men are generally speaking more visually attracted than women are, women nevertheless are also visually attracted and most have a “type” to whom they are more attracted. That is NOT always the stereotypical “alpha” type, but it's a type nonetheless. But we don't hear about that so much from women. We hear about the walks on the beach and so on, but we don't generally hear: “has to be at least 3 inches taller than me” or “strongly prefer dark hair/no hair/no facial hair/facial hair/swimmer physique” and so on. Women don't talk about their types much, at least not to men. So we hear about the walks on the beach and the character stuff and so on, but then get rejected because we are not of an unstated “type” – and you can imagine that this leads to quite a bit of frustration. It's kind of the flipside of what you were saying about men's criteria. I think both sexes engage in it.
continued
s for “good women”, I think most of the time that is meant to mean a woman who is morally good, not promiscuous, and not a bitchy feminist. The issue that many men have is that the women to whom their eyes are most attracted are often less likely to fit those criteria very well, simply because they get hit on 24/7 and have succumbed to temptation more than once. In light of that, you either adjust your criteria (and look in different places), or you drop out of the race. I see men doing both all the time.
The other aspect of “no good women” relates to what some of us have seen with respect to how even ostensibly good women can behave when a relationship goes awry, in terms of the legal system. Most of those experiences that men have had are not with ballbusting man-hating feminist studies addled shrews, but normal, nice, “good” suburban women who realize at some stage that the legal system has handed them a thermonuclear weapon. Many do not use that power responsibly, regardless of how “good” they were prior to running into marital difficulties. Hence the conclusion some men draw that “there are no good women” … because even the ones who are “good” by a fairly objective standard can turn into heartless fiends in family court. Now, for myself, I don't draw that conclusion. I'm more cynical than that. My conclusion is that anyone who was given that kind of power by the legal system – man or woman – would probably abuse it, because human nature is fallen and prone to abuse power imbalances. Under the current legal scheme, the power imbalance is in favor of women, so of course we see women abusing it. That doesn't mean, for me at least, that women are “bad”, but that the legal system certainly enables and even encourages bad behavior even by “good” women – which can make many men conclude that even “good” women are, in fact, not so good. The legal system poisons this greatly, and has undermined the consideration many men have for women to a huge degree.
But a lot of us have never been interested in or attracted to the alpha thug types, and I don't see much acknowledgement in the MRA blogs about women outside of the group who are attracted to that subtype.
Indeed this is an important point. As I say above, I think women are attracted to various types. I would say that the alpha type is probably attractive to more women than any other type (just as the hottie is attractive to more men than any other type … alphas are simply male hotties), not all women are attracted to that type, and a good number of women avoid that type.
So why does the alpha type get so much attention in the men's blogosphere?
continued
A couple of reasons come to mind. The first is that men tend, as a group, to love placing themselves in a hierarchy and figuring out where we are in a hierarchy. That kind of pecking order politics seems to come naturally to us, and is something we are constantly aware of, regardless of the setting. We're all quite keenly aware of the men who are higher on the sexual pecking order than we are.
The second is that what the alphas do is very visible. Alphas pick up women at work, on the subway, in the park, at the house party, other men's wives and so on. In terms of simply picking up women, alphas clean up, period. And all sorts of women, too, including “good” women who, for whatever reason, are swept off their feet by having an alpha pay them some attention. Maybe they're in a boring marriage, or are in a slump season with the boyfriend or what have you – but mr big is there and something “just happens”. And it's quite visible to men – we observe this, and it isn't only in the bars and clubs (although those places are designed primarily for alpha types). So because it's very visible, it gets talked about a lot. Just as women get frustrated that men chase after immoral “hotties”, men get frustrated that women fall for immoral alphas. It's the same issue viewed from the perspective of the other sex.
continued
It did not work Men are no less interested in pornography, no less likely to treat women are sex objects -- hell, those things are probably even more entrenched because (among other things) of the contempt that victim feminism has brought on itself!
CW –
I think that it did work, actually. Not in the way that McKinnon and Dworkin wanted, but what they started proved to have a life of its own. The sexual revolution was very much the main thrust of feminism, and is its lasting legacy. Most contemporary feminists are quite proud of that, and many young women take advantage of that, too. I realize that it's a mixed bag and many women rue many aspects of the sexual revolution, but a good number do not, and enjoy being “objectified” to a certain extent because it implies (for them) sexual power. I don't think porn has become entrenched because of contempt for feminism. It's become entrenched because the sexual revolution has taught many women to see sexual expression as a form of power. There was an interesting series of articles on high-end prostitution that I blogged about last month – a guy interviewed a few of these women, all highly educated, and pretty much every one of them was a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, and saw what they were doing as a means of achieving power (by monetizing their sexual attractiveness and making men tangibly pay) and change (by undermining the men's wives who were in “patriarchal marriages”). There is a very strong link between second wave (and later wave) feminism and sexual libertinism – a direct one. So, I really don't agree that the oversexualization of society that we see all around us today is a reaction against feminism … it's the product of feminism.
“For that reason, you've got to form alliances the way they are always formed, with facts, diplomacy...and some well-strategized pranksterism.”
I know this is what you usually say, but I'm honestly not sanguine about it. Glenn has been out there for quite some time doing this, and while he does a great job at it, nothing much is happening as a result of it. I think the main reason is that most men are apathetic about these issues, and there's historical precedent for that being the reaction to the empowerment of women, as we can see from the writings of Unwin among others.
Catwoman,
"I could say the same snarky thing to you."
Yeah, it was pretty snarky, wasn't it? I must be learning from a master of snark.
"I doubt that everyone here follows my "extraordinarily distinctive voice" as much as you and your like-minded blogging enthusiasts. I doubt that most people care that much."
You might be surprised who recognizes your "voice". At any rate I was, of course, referring to your presence here and in other "like-minded" blogs, because that is where the behavior in question is occurring.
PMAFT,
"It seems to me the most likely way to ensure that you never run across a good man or a good woman is to decide a priori that there are none.
Who is making this argument? I gave two examples of good women which I sure nearly all men would agree with."
Fair enough, I suppose I was engaging in a bit of the despised hyperbole. My apologies. Change what I said to: It seems to me the most likely way to ensure that you never run across a good man or a good woman is to decide a priori that there are so few they are statistically insignificant or nearly as mythical as unicorns.
Also- "Congratulations on completely missing the point. This is why more and more men are getting suspicious of what women really think of men. This story has nothing to do with what I'm talking about so I'm suspicious as to why you brought it up."
TL cited an example about her own experience, she did not deny the examples you posed. You just assumed that she would.
"Even women who call themselves anti-feminist only seem to care about abortion and pre-marital sex. That's what I'm forced to conclude since that's all they talk about wrt feminism."
Well PMAFT, to take a page from your book, why are you addressing this here? Wouldn't it make more sense to address that on a woman's blog who only talked about feminism with regard to premarital sex and abortion? I'm not familiar with these blogs...could you give an example?
"With nearly all women not seeming to care about what is happening to their fathers, brothers, and sons, we have to ask the question if women who don't speak out even think of men as human beings. The answer is no since they are silent. Any woman who thinks differently would have every reason to show us proof that she's different. Without proof we have to assume that they don't think of men as human beings."
Perhaps part of the issue is that many women simply are not aware of the issues because they are outside of the mainstream consciousness? By the way the same thing is said of many men. You can say that if women thought of men as humans they would know but that is as illogical as concluding that people who are not aware of and vocal about the rights of people with disabilities and how they are discriminated against do not think people with disabilities are human. I am not claiming that every women who was presented with the facts about DV, family courts, false accusations etc would "get it", but I believe that some would.
"Why should I get involved with a woman who doesn't think I'm (or any other straight man) a human being deserving of basic rights?"
Who here said that you should? It certainly is not and has never beem my position to try to convince anyone to do anything of the sort. Allowing for the possibility that good women outnumber unicorns does not mean you have to get involved with one...that is as it has always been- it is your choice.
Nova,
Thanks for the comment. Lots of great points there.
I agree that many women also have physical types they are most attracted to. But really, I just want someone who I can sit by a bonfire on the beach with ;)heh (though I do love bald men, bonfires, and beaches for the record)
"So, I really don't agree that the oversexualization of society that we see all around us today is a reaction against feminism … it's the product of feminism."
Exactly!
"pornography... sex objects -- hell, those things are probably even more entrenched because (among other things) of the contempt that victim feminism has brought on itself!
CW –
I think that it did work, actually. Not in the way that McKinnon and Dworkin wanted, but what they started proved to have a life of its own."
I wasn't talking about whether feminism in general "worked", as far as enacting certain changes. I was talking about the "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" strategy that PMAFT suggests. Expecting men to actively be involved in eradicating porn, rape, objectification, etc under threat of being considered sexist if they don't speak out as feminist activists was never a very effective vehicle for change. Awhile back, Anakin pointed out the folly of the "only men can stop rape" campaign. Why? Because these problems exist for reasons other than "a society that hates women".
"The sexual revolution was very much the main thrust of feminism, and is its lasting legacy... I don't think porn has become entrenched because of contempt for feminism. It's become entrenched because the sexual revolution has taught many women to see sexual expression as a form of power...So, I really don't agree that the oversexualization of society that we see all around us today is a reaction against feminism … it's the product of feminism."
My point wasn't that the objectification of women was caused *only* by a reaction against feminism, but rather the be-part-of-the-solution-or-against-feminism shaming strategy against eventually backfired. And for reasons you mentioned -- it's hard to see a porn star as a victim now that they are treated almost like mainstream celebrities in many ways, which makes earlier nagging to "be part of the solution" not only more onerous, but a sham. I would say that the reactions against feminism are indeed products of feminism (but not the only products).
Wow...this thread just keeps on going and going. I agree with a lot of stuff that's already been said, so I won't add much. As for what is a good woman...well, that's a question for the ages, isn't it? I'm probably not the best one to answer it, as my "filter," if you will, has proven to be quite faulty in the past.
Checklists and the like are cool to come up with, but the problem I find is that they can also be "defeated" too easily. Men and women alike can put up a facade long enough to impress a target audience. And there are a lot of people out there who are skilled at this--we've all known them. Methinks this is another reason why churches aren't necessarily great spots for meeting potential mates. Quite a number of people attend churches and church events who, from what I can tell, are there for ulterior motives (i.e. the "market") more than for the spiritual aspect of it. After all, church is a great place to meet a "good" man or woman, right? So even if you're not into the whole God/Jesus thing, why not just play along for the sake of meeting good spouse material? More than a few view it that way I think.
To get to know people better one has to actually get more involved in the church and see who goes "above and beyond" to contribute their time and talents, and who just shows up and does the song and dance. Not that that's a perfect indicator by any stretch, but it helps.
Nova,
Agreed 100% with your post(s), with one exception: a good number of women avoid [alphas]. That sure doesn't square with what I've seen. I think women who are not attracted to alphas are extremely rare. They're out there, but as I've said before, they're not great enough in number to tilt the odds of not meeting a witch all that much. It's like saying there are "a good number" of (heterosexual) men who are simply not attracted to hotties. Not true. Effectively, *all* such men are attracted to such beauties, it's just a matter of whether or not we let that attraction push us to give pursuit or if we can see past that attraction and look hard for the underlying traits. Alphas are the same way to women methinks, and unfortunately, exceptionally few women seem to be willing/able to resist that initial temptation. I'll grant that they're out there, but certainly not in noticeable numbers.
Great explanation of the role of human nature in both men and women though. We can look at countries where women have next to no rights (a few Arab countries come to mind) and how they're treated to see that men aren't perfect either. The system in which we live plays a large role, which leads me to claim men from such a culture as ours who wish to marry have very limited options.
What's the quote? Something like "strange game, seems the only way to win is to not play." From one of those old movies before my time I think. But it still holds true.
Learner and Librarian, good points and I'd like to respond to those as well, but I have to work tomorrow and I'd prefer to get some sleep before then. Maybe later...
"Perhaps you are one really good guy who has been unfortunately or unfairly overlooked. But then, why should we take your word for it? How do we know it's not just you - and your malcontent minority - wallowing in your unfortunate circumstances, possibly of your own making?" -Anon
This sounds awfully familiar. And why should a man, in the converse, believe you when you state you are a good woman?
I don't speak for MM, but something about this post already hints at holding men like him suspect. Granted, perhaps I should talk because that my distrust of many women has deepened over the years, but this is not completely unwarranted. It's not because of my own personal experience, either, but a composite of what I've heard and read from hundreds upon hundreds of other men over the years.
The self-fulfilling prophecy thing doesn't quite wash. Like many men, I used to believe that there was someone for everyone and that no matter what happened meeting her would come to fruition, no magical thinking involved, just that was the way it was. While it's true that some men that give up dig themselves in a hole, I don't think a good amount of women in the US have a clue how difficult it is for men to procure a decent relationship with a woman or preventing it from going the route of divorce and court battles. Especially with those claiming how good they are and exclaim they "can't find a real man" when they do the same to men--overlook them.
As far as traditional versus feminist women, I do think it's a very good point to be raised that even so-called anti-feminist women can be bad to men, too. In fact, in the past I had nothing against "equality" until came to represent anti-male/female supremacy. That's one my biggest barbs against our culture today, and in many aspects it's like a matriarchy with patriarchal trappings.
As far as Christian women go, as a skeptic it's hard for me to tell the difference other than (it seems) one believes in God and goes to church sometimes and the other doesn't. I realize there are Christian women that don't sleep around, don't commit interpersonal war with their partners 24/7, and try to make their relationships/marriages healthy, but from where I'm standing I don't think the percentage is like it used to be. Just look at divorce rates among Evangelicals for a start.
"There is a very strong link between second wave (and later wave) feminism and sexual libertinism – a direct one. So, I really don't agree that the oversexualization of society that we see all around us today is a reaction against feminism … it's the product of feminism."
Absolutely, although you have much contention with this among the latter feminists trying to come to grips with what they've unleashed here---including pseudo-chivalry buffers and punishments like sexual harassment policies and date rape laws. The reason that is so is for allowance of more license in sexual choice while still pro-offering protections concurrent with sexually libertine ways.
Of course, there is quite the underlying hypocrisy alongside with it, including, but far from limited to, female sexuality is more valued and casting men as more responsible in "gray" areas that were normally fleshed out by adults without too much social and state intervention.
So I must take at face value everything every man tells me about himself and his experience with women? There's nothing about MM's writings that justify me having any skepticism about what he says?
Given the volume of his writings, no.
Fair enough, I suppose I was engaging in a bit of the despised hyperbole. My apologies. Change what I said to: It seems to me the most likely way to ensure that you never run across a good man or a good woman is to decide a priori that there are so few they are statistically insignificant or nearly as mythical as unicorns.
I really don't care if a belief affects the "search for a good woman". I didn't always believe that good women were that rare. It didn't make a difference.
The fundamental problem is that most women are willing to use the power of the state against men. A good woman would not use the power of the state against men. Given the danger of the power of the state being used against me, I need hard proof that a woman would not use the power of the state against me.
TL cited an example about her own experience, she did not deny the examples you posed. You just assumed that she would.
But it had nothing to do with anything. I could post a story about going into a store to buy a pair of slacks, but you would be wondering why I bothered.
Well PMAFT, to take a page from your book, why are you addressing this here?
Because in the way I have defined a "good woman", a "good woman" has an anti-feminist nature. Any woman who doesn't believe she's a feminist will claim that she qualifies simply on the basis of opposition to abortion and/or pre-marital sex. My point is that they don't because they haven't shown that they oppose the other 99% of the feminist agenda. This is important since the other 99% has to do with women using the power of the state against men.
Wouldn't it make more sense to address that on a woman's blog who only talked about feminism with regard to premarital sex and abortion? I'm not familiar with these blogs...could you give an example?
I have in the past, and will do so in the future. There was the taking back womanhood blog, but that was recently deleted. Coffee Catholic's blog made similar pronoucements but given how she changed/deleted/hid her blogs I don't have a publicly available example.
Perhaps part of the issue is that many women simply are not aware of the issues because they are outside of the mainstream consciousness?
In some cases, perhaps. For example, I wouldn't expect most women (or men) to know that women commit more DV than men despite being a known fact since 1975.
However, a lot of these things ARE in the mainstream consciousness. Take false sexual harassment charges. This happened to Clarence Thomas, now a Supreme Court Justice. As for false rape charges, we have all heard of the the Duke LaCrosse players. Divorce is common place and most divorces are filed by women. This means that women are intentionally sending men to be abused by the divorce court system.
All of this is certainly in the mainstream consciousness of men. We men have seen our fathers, brothers, etc. (which means your fathers, brothers, etc. too) go through anti-male divorce courts. In fact the entire reason that many men are engaging in a "marriage strike" because of divorce and all of its risks to men.
Most of this is in the mainstream consciousness big time.
Why not give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are clueless, but willing to learn?
Men better at convincing people than I have been trying to do this with no success.
You're far more likely to get your point across. It was the feminists who took the "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" stance last century that wore everyone out on gender issues, and guess what happened -- people, men and women, just rolled their eyes. It did not work
What are you talking about? It did work for feminists. Feminists were able to gain many legal weapons that allowed women to use the power of the state against men.
There may be some feminist groups that have opposed or minimized certain men's issues, but I think this blog (and the women who frequent it) are examples of those who are interested and concerned about men's rights. But it's not realistic to expect that people (male or female) are just going to put their brains in neutral and accept everything that is said unquestioningly.
I haven't asked you to accept a thing I have said unquestionably. The internet is filled with proof of everything I have said. Unlike the professional feminists paid by the government, I don't have the time to promote men's issues all day so I can't document everything with links. However, if you want documentation of every issue I talked about and more read Dr Helen's blog or Glenn Sacks blog>
But one thing for sure, people are sick to death of "victim politics".
Feminists engage in "victim politics". Men point out SPECIFIC and CONCRETE uses of the power of the state against them done by women. Men are not whining. Every day more and more men are just going their own way, not getting married and having less and less to do with women since any woman can use the power of the state against them too easily. When enough men go their own way, the system will collapse under its own weight.
Learner:Wouldn't it make more sense to address that on a woman's blog who only talked about feminism with regard to premarital sex and abortion? I'm not familiar with these blogs...could you give an example?
Pro male: "I have in the past, and will do so in the future. There was the taking back womanhood blog, but that was recently deleted. Coffee Catholic's blog made similar pronoucements but given how she changed/deleted/hid her blogs I don't have a publicly available example.
"
To be fair to those good women on the blogs that you mention, they most cetainly encompass much more than pre-marital sex and abortion. You obviously have only given their blogs a cursory glance.
In my opinion, you have not provided a satisfactory answer to Learners question at all.
There are many good men around too. Mark, Wapiti, Nova, Anakin, to name a few. I am certainly far from perfect... but... I see a heck of a lot of good people around here, both male and female!
Jesse,
"Men and women alike can put up a facade long enough to impress a target audience."
Very true Jesse. I think this is part of why it is important to listen to what others have to say about the person you are interested in. They likely can see the other person a little clearer than we can.
"What's the quote? Something like "strange game, seems the only way to win is to not play." From one of those old movies before my time I think. But it still holds true."
The movie was "War Games" with Matthew Broderick and it came out in 1983 when I was 17 and you were probably a baby, right? :)
Sociopathic Revolution,
Thanks for your comments
"The self-fulfilling prophecy thing doesn't quite wash. Like many men, I used to believe that there was someone for everyone and that no matter what happened meeting her would come to fruition, no magical thinking involved, just that was the way it was. "
Perhaps you (or anyone else who wishes to) can illuminate the disconnect I see in this line of reasoning. The idea that an individual is more likely to find something if they have not closed themself off to the idea that it is findable does not mean that every individual who thinks that something is findable will find that something. It just means they are more likely to find it. It is not a guarantee. The fact that some people, both men and women, who believe there are good members of the opposite sex who do not find a mate does not make the idea that that belief may make it more likely any less true.
It isn't about magical thinking, or guarantees, it is about probability and awareness. The idea also does not mean that anyone is obliged to look for a good woman (or man for that matter) if they have decided that entering a relationship is outside of their risk tolerance.
"I don't think a good amount of women in the US have a clue how difficult it is for men to procure a decent relationship with a woman or preventing it from going the route of divorce and court battles."
Agreed. That is part of the lack of mainstream consciousness of these issues among women.
"Especially with those claiming how good they are and exclaim they "can't find a real man" when they do the same to men--overlook them."
Very true. This kind of thing grates on both men and women alike And, I don't just mean that it grates on women when some men say they can't find a good women, but they overlook good women who are not "hot". I mean it grates on women when other women say they can't find a good man but turn men down left and right for frivolous reasons, men who the irritated women would accept in a second flat. Nova made some excellent points about this.
PMAFT,
I am addressing the 100th comment on this post to you...do you feel honored? ;) I suppose that is fitting though since what you said over at Anakin's started the discussion.
"Given the volume of his writings, no."
When I was lying awake in bed last night because I could not seem to fall asleep to save my life I was thinking this exact same thing regarding MM and Catwoman's (AKA anonymous')question to him about why he should be believed. MM has years of posts and comments he has made at his place that pretty clearly define where he is coming from. That is a very different place to come from than a place where you are "anonymous". It is like comparing apples and oranges.
"I really don't care if a belief affects the "search for a good woman". I didn't always believe that good women were that rare. It didn't make a difference."
I addressed this same point to SR.
"The fundamental problem is that most women are willing to use the power of the state against men. A good woman would not use the power of the state against men. Given the danger of the power of the state being used against me, I need hard proof that a woman would not use the power of the state against me."
I understand what you are saying, but do you understand that the absence of the "hard proof" you are looking for does not make a particular woman "not good"? If you decide to not pursue a relationship with her because the risk is not worth it to you (and I agree that there is a risk) that does not mean she is not a "good woman". And I don't see you deciding the risk is not worth it to you as the issue. The issue is whether or not your perception of the risk defines the goodness of a particular woman or women as a whole. I don't think it can. That is not to say that I think good women are abundant. Feminism and the current legal system have helped reduce that number considerably. Whether or not a person is "good" is not about odds, it is about them as an individual person. You deciding you don't want to take the risk and judge people on an individual basis is just that, your decision. But it is not what decides the "goodness" of a person.
(Continued)
PMAFT,
"TL cited an example about her own experience, she did not deny the examples you posed. You just assumed that she would."
"But it had nothing to do with anything. I could post a story about going into a store to buy a pair of slacks, but you would be wondering why I bothered."
She gave an example of her limited ability to stand up for men in terms of workplace discrimination in he life. That had everything to do with the point she was making. Would your story about buying slacks have to do with the point you were making? Because her story went directly to her point. Perhaps it did not go toward your point....but it did go toward hers, because it was her point.
"Because in the way I have defined a "good woman", a "good woman" has an anti-feminist nature. Any woman who doesn't believe she's a feminist will claim that she qualifies simply on the basis of opposition to abortion and/or pre-marital sex. My point is that they don't because they haven't shown that they oppose the other 99% of the feminist agenda. This is important since the other 99% has to do with women using the power of the state against men."
Oh, okay I get it, thanks for clarifying.
"Most of this is in the mainstream consciousness big time."
Definitely these issues are coming out in the public sphere more but I think MRAs are much more aware of that change than your average women is. Do you regularly bring these issues up with women face to face in your everyday life? I do. And I can tell you that most women are not aware of them. Even those who are aware of them are not aware of the male point of view on the issue. The vast majority of women have never heard of Glenn Sacks or Dr. Helen and do not read their blogs. That is not to say that every women who is rationally and thoughtfully challenged on the subject will agree. But some will. I am one of them.
Kathy,
I have to agree with you that Coffee Catholic addressed elements related to feminism far beyond premarital sex and abortion. That is not to say that I agree with everything she writes, but I specifically recall things she wrote about work place discrimination against men and comments she wrote about DV.
"How do we know it's not just you - and your malcontent minority - wallowing in your unfortunate circumstances, possibly of your own making?" -Anon
This sounds awfully familiar. And why should a man, in the converse, believe you when you state you are a good woman?
I don't speak for MM, but something about this post already hints at holding men like him suspect."
I would direct the exact same question to a woman who says makes similar kinds of blanket statements about men (and I have).
"So I must take at face value everything every man tells me about himself and his experience with women? There's nothing about MM's writings that justify me having any skepticism about what he says?
Given the volume of his writings, no."
Just because someone's writings are prolific doesn't mean that what they are saying is true, accurate and unbiased by their own experiences -- by that measure we'd have to take Andrea Dworkin at her word! At the same time, a person's ideas shouldn't be given ad hominem dismissal just because it seems like that person has a bias or "issues", although, that is what's likely to happen when condemning statements are made about either sex.
Acknowledgement of your biases, disclaimers about the limitations of your personal experience, and avoiding generalizations will actually add strength to your argument, not weaken it.
"Why not give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are clueless, but willing to learn?
Men better at convincing people than I have been trying to do this with no success."
Rome wasn't won in a day. See the last paragraph of learner's 11:10 am post. Likewise, not every man is privy to women's issues either. It's not like feminism happened and every man ran out and signed up for women's lit classes and sensitivity training! If you judged each man and woman as "good" or "bad" by how much they know about both sexes by how much each sex know about issues that impact the opposite sex, neither sex would come out all that great.
---
"...It was the feminists who took the "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" stance last century that wore everyone out on gender issues...It did not work"
"What are you talking about? It did work for feminists. Feminists were able to gain many legal weapons that allowed women to use the power of the state against men."
I wasn't talking about feminism in general, I was talking about the strategy of "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem". Remember Alan Alda, 70's celebrity male feminist? It didn't exactly catch on.
---
"I haven't asked you to accept a thing I have said unquestionably. The internet is filled with proof of everything I have said."
And haven't you also heard on this blog and others, considerable support about quite a number of men's issues? Such as presumed rebuttable shared custody? And empowering men in doubt to get paternity testing? But here's the rub: there's no such thing as total agreement on any issue, even among agreeable people, some people are always going to be more middling than others.
For example, on paternity testing, you'll have some who support the idea of mandatory testing for all infants at birth, and others who disagree with that, but support the idea of empowering men to have it, even done in secret (ie. opposing Germany's move to have it secret testing unlawful). So do you deem those who support the latter less extreme view as "not good"? No! People (male or female) will differ, supporting some MRM views but not others, or supporting some more or less strongly than others. Sometimes due to how much they know about the subject, or other things they might know, or personal characteristics like temperament, etc. etc. It's not always about defending women or feminism or not wanting to support men -- but it you assume that it is, you're going to keep repeating the same pattern.
"But one thing for sure, people are sick to death of "victim politics".
"Feminists engage in "victim politics". Men point out SPECIFIC and CONCRETE uses of the power of the state against them done by women. Men are not whining."
When MRA's act from a place of "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" or assume that silence means foe (instead of unawareness), then well, that's victim politics. It's victim politics when women do it, and it's victim politics when men do it, too.
I'll bite.
A good wife (I know the entry says 'woman', but the context is clearly 'a good woman to marry') is:
-grateful
-careful with money
-supportive of her husband
-submits cheerfully to her husband's leadership
-sexually enthusiastic (not just available)
Male Samizdat,
With that modest list of reasonable requirements, you just ELIMINATED 99.999999% of American women-ha!
MarkyMark
MarkyMark:
I could have done that by just listing ONE of them.
"I don't think porn has become entrenched because of contempt for feminism. It's become entrenched because the sexual revolution has taught many women to see sexual expression as a form of power...There is a very strong link between second wave (and later wave) feminism and sexual libertinism – a direct one."
Certainly, feminism contributed to the sexual revolution, which contributed to porn, eventually carving its own niche with so-called "sex-positive" feminism and "feminist erotica", etc. But it would be blame shifting to pin the sexual revolution and the porn explosion entirely on feminism. Playboy magazine, which predates second wave feminism, heralded the mainstreaming of porn and its massive commericalization -- with its peddlers and partakers being overwhelmingly male. Yes, female participation in that industry increased over the years, but at the same time, there seems to be a kind of if-you-can't-beat-'em-join-em resignation that goes along with that. I'm not saying that all female participation in porn is victimization or that there aren't women who have taken advantage of that industry for their own gain. It's just that when you take something like porn, an industry started and driven mostly by men, as moguls and consumers, and point to the female or feminist contribution without acknowledging men's involvement and the corporate impetus behind it, then, well, it just seems like blame shifting, as I said. When you're talking about porn, you've got to remember that most women aren't consumers of porn and are quite put off by it. Many Christian women have even tried to oppose it.
MS
"A good wife (I know the entry says 'woman', but the context is clearly 'a good woman to marry')"
Well, that wasn't really what I intended it to be. But it seems that my earlier question 'does good woman really mean good wife material?' would be answered yes by you...am I correct about that? If so, why?
I could have done that by just listing ONE of them.
You got THAT right, MS!
As an addendum to my last post -- and the statement that most women aren't consumers of porn -- I'm sure there will be an number of responses challenging that, and even if someone was to produce some statistics showing that to be the case, I think a lot of men here would still say that women are mostly to blame for porn.
The reasoning among a lot of MRA's here looks something like this:
Because some women are porn actresses, it means that women must approve of porn, because it they didn't, they would band together and effectively stop those women from appearing in the those films (or producing, directing, distributing them). If they are still doing it, then we didn't try very hard.
Right? Just like any other skanky behavior.
If some women are promiscuious, and the rest of us have not figured out the right things to say or do to stop that kind of behavior (however hard some have tried), then we are collectively to blame for it. Especially if said skanks are "hot".
If older baby boomer feminists created a boom in premarital sex and careerism that the younger gen-x sisters were unable to reverse, then well, those young women are feminists too, regardless of their actual sexual history and work situation.
If we listen to your MRA issues, we're just pretending to care. If we don't match your level of intensity on every issue, or say little, then that's implicit lack of support and therefore "anti-male".
I'm not saying that these attitudes apply to all of you, or that there isn't a need for there to be more support for men's issues. It's just that a lot of you wouldn't know support if it came up and licked you on the face.
To be fair to those good women on the blogs that you mention, they most cetainly encompass much more than pre-marital sex and abortion. You obviously have only given their blogs a cursory glance.
How do you know? One of the examples I mentioned was deleted. CoffeeCatholic keeps moving her blogs to private, and she won't give me access. I can only base what I think of her on her comments on other blogs which have included saying that anyone who has pre-marital sex is helping feminism on MM's blog and on EW's blog claiming that single men were "demanding handouts" because they didn't have kids (as in "demanding handouts" in terms of social security which makes no sense since never married men typically die with net positive assets). In addition she claimed that single men are just as bad as the feminists if they retire childless. (I recently wrote a blog entry about how the argument that MRAs and MGTOW are just as bad as feminists is illogical and false.) Even if she talked about issues other than pre-marital sex and abortion I wouldn't believe that she ever truly supports men.
This is a derivative of a problem that has been seen on many MRM and MGTOW blogs. A woman comes on, claims to supports us, but then starts going on about how we're all misogynists. Thus these women prove they really don't support us since if they did they wouldn't be telling us we're misogynists, they would be trying to wake women up.
I addressed this same point to SR.
And you haven't shown that believing something exists makes it more likely you will find it. I have lived the counterexample to that, both in terms of not finding a good woman when I believed I could and finding things I believed I couldn't find (things that aren't related to this discussion).
I understand what you are saying, but do you understand that the absence of the "hard proof" you are looking for does not make a particular woman "not good"?
Definitely and I should have phrased it better. The problem is that the risks are too high without hard proof. Plus, it is in the interest of every good woman to provide hard proof. It would open up many good men to that good woman if she provided hard proof. Since it is in a good woman's best interest to provide hard proof that fact that it isn't happening on a larger scale means that good women are incredibly rare even if they believe otherwise in their heart of hearts. If they really believe it and don't provide hard proof then I have to conclude an alternate explanation such as they think conformity is more important than the men in their lives. This effectively throws them out of the good women category.
Whether or not a person is "good" is not about odds,
But my chances of finding them is about odds. I could win the lottery, but since the odds are so low its a waste of my money to buy a ticket.
She gave an example of her limited ability to stand up for men in terms of workplace discrimination in he life.
But there was no workplace discrimination in her story. This said to me that she didn't believe men are ever discriminated against in the workplace.
Definitely these issues are coming out in the public sphere more but I think MRAs are much more aware of that change than your average women is.
Not just MRAs, but men in general. The average man might not know about every single issue a MRA knows about, but most men are aware of most of these issues, particularly the biggest ones. In the case of divorce for example, the average man is very aware of what will happen to him in the LIKELY event he ends up with a divorce. How is it women are completely unaware of what is going on to half of the population? We aren't talking about some tiny minority that can be hidden. In the case of divorce, most divorces are filed by women so women are intentionally sending men into anti-male, abusive, and corrupt divorce courts.
The vast majority of women have never heard of Glenn Sacks or Dr. Helen and do not read their blogs.
Neither have the vast majority of men, but its has not stopped men from understanding a lot of these issues. This is why there are things like the marriage strike. Millions of men came to the same conclusion on their own without ever knowing who Glenn Sacks or Helen Smith is.
Right on MM, beat me to the punch. My more cynical side can't help but wonder if you're being a bit too generous though.
Learner, I'll just say that in '83 I had been kicking around for a little while but I still don't remember anything from way back then. So I guess "War Games" wasn't before my time after all. Makes me feel old...but not as...never mind.
It's not like feminism happened and every man ran out and signed up for women's lit classes and sensitivity training! If you judged each man and woman as "good" or "bad" by how much they know about both sexes by how much each sex know about issues that impact the opposite sex, neither sex would come out all that great.
If feminism was all about getting guys to read women's literature and go to sensitivity training then women have no real issues (and thus no issues for men to know about). Men's issues don't exist because men exist. They exist because of the ability of women (created by feminists) to use the power of the state to oppress them.
MRAs aren't concerned about what books you decide to read or if you go to sensitivity training. MRAs are concerned with removing the ability of women to oppress then using the power of the state.
This makes it clear that feminism is totalitarian since they are trying to change the way men think where as the MRM is about freedom since they are just trying to remove the ability to oppress through the power of the state.
I wasn't talking about feminism in general, I was talking about the strategy of "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem".
And that strategy did work for feminism. Women now have many tools at their disposal to use the power of the state to oppress men. The feminists were very successful with this strategy despite your claims to the contrary.
When MRA's act from a place of "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem"
MRAs aren't arguing from the position of you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. What we are saying is that we can't know if you are part of the problem or not (regardless if you are part of the solution) without absolute proof. Feminists have made things too dangerous to use any other assumption. Given these circumstances its in the best interest of any woman who isn't part of the problem to provide absolute proof. If they don't men have to be skeptical.
"But there was no workplace discrimination in her story. This said to me that she didn't believe men are ever discriminated against in the workplace."
And thus you see the dilemma of the "good women," the mythical herd of unicorns somewhere out there. In my specific situation which I related, there were two candidates for promotion. The male candidate, although fully qualified for the job, would truly have hated it (he's a good friend and a fellow-worshipper at our church, I've known him for over a decade), and the female candidate, equally qualified, was eager to take it on. This was one specific situation I was referencing, and explaining why my "activism" is limited to my circumstances, and that you took it to mean that I believe there is no workplace discrimination ever anywhere tells me a lot about why we unicorns are blunting our singular horns against brick walls.
Yes, there is workplace discrimination against men,and a lot of it happens in service or helping professions, where you would expect to see women advancing. In this one particular case, this was not a case of discrimination, because the male candidate truly did not want the advancement that would have taken him out of a position he loves, but what I'm hearing from you is that I failed as an appropriate MR supporter because although we both agree that discrimination did not happen in this case, I did not make a point of saying loudly and publicly that discrimination happens. Even though it would have been totally out of line and inappropriate and not relevant to the situation at hand.
What I am trying to say, is that some of us unicorns are simply not in positions where we can argue men's rights. In my particular case, I'm not a citizen of this country so I don't even have a voice as to who is voted town dogcatcher, let alone a county judge. What am I supposed to do to show support in my situation?
Here's what I do.
I treat the men I come into contact with on a daily basis as though they were Tootsie Rolls, not turds (not a fan of the candy, but you get the idea).
I have a brother and a father. I treat men as I would wish my wonderful men to be treated by women they come across in their daily lives. Would I or other women be given the same courtesy from you that you would want your mother or sister to receive in their daily life?
I look people, men and women, in the eye and smile and say hello and thank you and in general, regard them as a fellow child of Our Father until they give me good reason to think otherwise.
Right now, that's the best I can do. I'm sorry you find it inadequate.
If feminism was all about getting guys to read women's literature and go to sensitivity training then women have no real issues...This makes it clear that feminism is totalitarian since they are trying to change the way men think"
Whoa, whoa! When I referred to men going out and reading women's lit and going to sensitivity training, I was using those as facetious metaphors! I wasn't prescribing any kind of thought control. My point is that men are no more aware of the issues that affect women than women are of the issues that affect men.
But you seem to assume that there are no issues that affect women for men to bother knowing about. What bugs me is that you don't seem to think that there are risks also for women when it comes to marriage and divorce.
Yes, there have been women who have divorced for frivolous reasons and took advantage of the system to maximize their financial gain. Most of the time, that is not the case. And even when women get custody and child support, most still have do deal with a decline in standard of living that they would rather avoid. Few married women relish the idea of being a single mom. Few women relish the idea of being single again, with their best years behind them.
You may not believe what I'm saying here, since you seem spend a lot of time listening to horror stories, BUT divorce, with its heartaches, headaches, and financial, social and practical losses, *does* create an incentive for people to get along, work things out and stay together. Not all the time, but a lot of the time. Should the incentives be made even greater, with improvements to the law vis a vis shared custody, no-fault, etc.? Absolutely. But please be disabused of the notion that divorce is some kind of gravy train for women.
"I wasn't talking about feminism in general, I was talking about the strategy of "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem".
And that strategy did work for feminism. Women now have many tools at their disposal to use the power of the state to oppress men."
Well, I would argue that it was other strategies and circumstances that advanced feminism. "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" may have been trendy initially, but it eventually backfired as people got tired of having to prove themselves with politically correct posturing.
"MRAs aren't arguing from the position of you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. What we are saying is that we can't know if you are part of the problem or not (regardless if you are part of the solution) without absolute proof. Feminists have made things too dangerous to use any other assumption."
Again, all relationships involve risk. The risk of divorce is reduced for first timers who are white, college educated, and over a certain age. And of course, there's always the pre-nup. Heck, you could even have a clause for your "pro-male/anti-feminist conditions, or list them on your blog or somewhere prospective mates can see them up front.
Realize, I'm not trying to sell you on marriage nor am I trying to convince you that women are all lily white perfect harmless creatures. But, getting back to the "good woman" definition...You have listed two conditions so far for a "good woman": that she not be some kind of scary, golddigging feminist nightmare, AND that she express support for your men's rights views. So here's a question for you PMAFT: if she believed all the right things, but wasn't interested in you romantically, would you still consider her to be a "good woman"? Not necessarily as a wife, but as a person?
Me: To be fair to those good women on the blogs that you mention, they most cetainly encompass much more than pre-marital sex and abortion. You obviously have only given their blogs a cursory glance.
Pmaft : How do you know? One of the examples I mentioned was deleted. CoffeeCatholic keeps moving her blogs to private, and she won't give me access.
How do I know? Because I have read the blogs in question.
As Learner says" Coffee Catholic addressed elements related to feminism far beyond premarital sex and abortion." She is still giving feminism a bollocking on her current blog, too.
http://www.coffeecatholic.blogspot.com/
Just because "Taking back womanhood" was deleted does not mean anything. I have read posts from Ace, Hearth and Terry. These good women were very supportive of their husbands and of men's rights. They certainly wrote about much more than abortion and premarital sex..I have seen comments from yourself, Marky Mark and other men there.
Seems to me that you want the impossible... a perfect woman.
There isn't such a thing. Perfect people do not exist. The best thing a woman can do to show she is supportive of men is to live her life in such a way that other young women will emulate her. Lead by example.
Amy has also mentioned this in her posts.
It's what I also do. As I have been a stay at home Mum for the past 14 years I don't have anything much to do with the modern working woman. However, I look after my husband and kids, they come first. I support my husband in his business endeavours.
It is certainly plain FOR ALL to see that I am not a feminist.
Talk is cheap with nothing of substance to back it up..
She is still giving feminism a bollocking on her current blog, too.
Let's take a look at where she does. There are a total of 9 entries on that blog. Of that 9, 2 talk about feminism in some form or another. These are the two:
Single Mothers
Feminism and career women
The "Single Mothers" entry is pretty much all about abortion and pre-marital sex with some stuff about government funding single mothers. There is no mention of what feminism is doing to men here.
The "Feminism and career women" is a diatribe about having a career vs. being a mom. And it has some stuff about pre-marital sex added in. Again, there is no mention of what feminism is doing to men here either.
This is consistent with the comments I have read of hers which show an obsession that people aren't having enough kids, abortion, pre-marital sex and the mythical idea that feminism wants to destroy motherhood. (Clearly, feminism doesn't want to destroy motherhood because they support single mothers.)
So where is CoffeeCatholic talking about what feminism is doing to men? It's not on her (public) blog.
Amy has also mentioned this in her posts.
And that's why I mentioned her specifically as an example of a good woman in my first comment to the blog entry. (You can check this. Scroll up to my first comment here.)
Seems to me that you want the impossible... a perfect woman.
If it takes perfection to make sure that I'm not raked over the coals in a divorce, then I guess so. Otherwise, what I'm asking for doesn't seem like it should be much.
It's what I also do. As I have been a stay at home Mum for the past 14 years I don't have anything much to do with the modern working woman.
I'm not sure why you women are so obsessed with this career vs. motherhood argument.
Talk is cheap with nothing of substance to back it up..
I'm looking forward to when you take your own advice.
But you seem to assume that there are no issues that affect women for men to bother knowing about.
I based that on what you said since you couldn't seem to come up with anything equivalent to various men's issues that derive from women using the power of the state against them.
And even when women get custody and child support, most still have do deal with a decline in standard of living that they would rather avoid. Few married women relish the idea of being a single mom. Few women relish the idea of being single again, with their best years behind them.
First of all women get custody and child support in most cases. Second, if women really don't want to divorce then why are they filing most divorces? Generally, when someone doesn't want to do something they don't do it. Filing for divorce is the opposite of not wanting a divorce.
BUT divorce, with its heartaches, headaches, and financial, social and practical losses, *does* create an incentive for people to get along, work things out and stay together.
If this was true the divorce rate would be a lot lower than it is.
Again, all relationships involve risk.
If the risk is being thrown in prison and/or losing all your life savings then eventually no man will get involved in a relationship. This has already started to happen with the marriage strike which exists because men see the growing risks of divorce for them.
And of course, there's always the pre-nup. Heck, you could even have a clause for your "pro-male/anti-feminist conditions, or list them on your blog or somewhere prospective mates can see them up front.
Judges throw pre-nups out most of the time.
So here's a question for you PMAFT: if she believed all the right things, but wasn't interested in you romantically, would you still consider her to be a "good woman"?
Yes, and my initial comment here listed two such women.
Anon0204,
PMFAT beat me to the punch, but your comment nonetheless begs the question: if women are not wanting divorce, then WHY are the filing them at a 2 to 1 margin vis' a vis' men? Why is it that women file for divorce 70% of the time, hmmmm? Actions speak louder than words, my dear, and women's actions say that, contrary to your rhetoric, that women DO want divorce. You'll have to do better than that, my dear. Next!!
MarkyMark
@Learner July 31, 2009 11:22 PM
My answer is indeed "yes".
Reason: I'm defining this through a man's eyes. If a woman doesn't have these traits, then she's trying to be a man, and you already know what I think about that.
I can understand your confusion (is there perhaps a better word) about my list. It's not, for example, an apologetic for premarital sex. A good woman prior to marriage would have a set of prerequisite attitudes such as respect for men, a clear differentiation of sex roles, and an understanding of the proper use of money.
...and now you know why I've stopped hunting for unicorns....
I've been watching this thread in quiet fascination as the discussion has unfolded and thought I might drop in my .02. Personally, I don't believe the thought of a "good woman" is an issue that must be thought about wrt to marriage/relationships alone, but in all aspects of life. Bad company can be corrupting and people of loose morals can do some very evil things if the opportunity arises, a lesson I learned so well not too long ago.
As a woman, I would consider another woman worthy of trust, friendship, and so forth if she met the following guidelines:
*is cheerful, pleasant, is of good character, and dresses modestly. If she is truly religious, even better and if she shares my thoughts on faith and theology, fabulous but not a requirement of friendship.
Personality Wise:
*if married, she shouldn't share gossip about her husband with me, should submit to his leadership, and should have her priorities straight when it comes to marriage, family, work, and so forth. I personally would not have issue with a woman who works outside the home, so long as she places her family first and doesn't neglect them in pursuit of a career.
*has a healthy respect for justice and fairness when it comes to all issues in life, including men's issues and gender relations
*has a balance of "give and take" about her. By this I mean, she is a loving supportive person when one needs such a boost and she also gratefully accepts such help and support when she needs it as well. I've come across many women who just take take take as well as numerous women who love victims and thus encourage one to wallow in self-pity, rather than help a friend find constructive solutions for an issue they are facing.
*possess good self control in life in general and also manages finances well.
Politically:
*is anti-abortion.
*has libertarian leanings and does not like a large government and handouts.
*is anti-feminist and by this I mean is not a supporter of female privilege, finds paternity fraud/false crime allegations/etc to be sickening injustices, finds routine infant circumcision to be a questionable procedure and would opt against this procedure for her son, and does not believe women are oppressed by the mean evil patriarchy.
(I typically ask potential friends, in a respectful fashion, what they thought about some news story on paternity fraud, etc to see their response. Somebody who is anti-feminism is important to me not only because of my political beliefs, but also to protect my husband from being falsely accused of who knows what. I'm very hesitant about who I give out anything but necessary information to, especially having lived through the terror of being falsely accused of a crime by a vindictive woman. We really don't want to spend another $10k to clear my husband's name after such a thing! Once was more than enough! ;o))
*does not support gun control. If she knows how to shoot or even has a CCW as do I, I'd be in awe. :P
As you can imagine, this list does tend to limit those who make up my "inner circle" I will meet a woman for a playdate at the park even without meeting such standards, but I would not have a close friendship with her.
Gosh pmaft.
You quote me out of context.
"It's what I also do. As I have been a stay at home Mum for the past 14 years I don't have anything much to do with the modern working woman. However, I look after my husband and kids, they come first. I support my husband in his business endeavours."
This is my job..I support my husband in all that he does.This is a positive example particularly to younger female relatives and aquaintances. Has nothing to do with careers versus motherhood.
Basically men are the providers and protectors whilst women are the carers and nurturers.
I am nothing special,just
a woman who loves and supports her husband and loves her kids.
Me:"Talk is cheap with nothing of substance to back it up"
Pmaft:"Im looking forward to when you take your own advice"
When I made that statement it was in reference to my self not to you.
I live the lifestyle that I preach!
Coffee Catholic is a good woman. She was at pains to point out on one of her blogs the evil of gossiping to other women about
one's husband.
She is a good wife and mother who supports her husband. She never speaks ill of him..
You are a hard man to please.
What do you want the woman to do???
It's just that when you take something like porn, an industry started and driven mostly by men, as moguls and consumers, and point to the female or feminist contribution without acknowledging men's involvement and the corporate impetus behind it, then, well, it just seems like blame shifting, as I said. When you're talking about porn, you've got to remember that most women aren't consumers of porn and are quite put off by it. Many Christian women have even tried to oppose it.
That may very well be, but the climate that makes the culture drip with pornography and sexuality is the direct product of female sexual empowerment, the deletion of the double standard and so on. Yes people like Hefner and so on gained tremendously by the sexual revolution, but the heart of the sexual revolution was the sexual liberation of women. It was fairly foolish to think that female sexuality could be virtually completely liberalized without having sexuality in general devolve into general licentiousness. McKinnon and Dworkin badly miscalculated, probably because they seem to have had at best a very dim awareness of heterosexual dynamics beyond their cramped ideologies. The result of that is what we see today: broad-based sexual license for men and women alike, an internet that is marinating in pornography and so on.
It's true that Flint and Hefner and so on were the pioneers of porn, but today's industry is quite different – much of the material produced is actually made by women themselves. Just as the internet has taken prostitution largely away from male intermediaries, the same has happened with pornography – and that taking away of the middle “man” has led to a ballooning in the amount of material produced. So while it's fine to say that the industry was male dominated at the outset, that really isn't the case today, at least not for the most common type of porn – internet porn. And the reason why women are more willing to do this themselves is because of the feminist sexual revolution which has taught them that this is empowering.
Is it irritating that there is such a male demand for this? Sure. I get into that quite a bit on my blog. But there's also plenty of supply, and today that supply is largely directed by women themselves, as has become the case with prostitution (hence it being seen as empowering, because there are no male pimps involved for many of these women today).
Because some women are porn actresses, it means that women must approve of porn, because it they didn't, they would band together and effectively stop those women from appearing in the those films (or producing, directing, distributing them). If they are still doing it, then we didn't try very hard.
Right? Just like any other skanky behavior.
If some women are promiscuious, and the rest of us have not figured out the right things to say or do to stop that kind of behavior (however hard some have tried), then we are collectively to blame for it. Especially if said skanks are "hot".
If older baby boomer feminists created a boom in premarital sex and careerism that the younger gen-x sisters were unable to reverse, then well, those young women are feminists too, regardless of their actual sexual history and work situation.
It's clear that not all women are “feminists” in terms of the label. At this point, I'm not terribly sure that it matters much. The damage has been done, and won't be undone anytime soon. I think that's why you see the cynicism among men that you do – not just MRAs, but also many other men who don't even know what MRA means.
In other words, it doesn't matter very much what individual women think, at the end of the day, because, as you say, there isn't much ability to change much. The cultural revolution of the last few decades has permanently changed our culture. There is no going back. Sure, we may be able to tinker a bit around the edges, but that's all. Other than that, these are permanent, irreversible changes. Some people like that, and some people don't. Each of us has his or her personal solution to it, whether that involves dealing with each other, or not. Such is life, I think.
I also think that the MRA label is kind of faulty as well. Mostly what it means is men who are, to one degree or another, concerned about the status of men in the society. But activists we are not, and likely will never be. So it's kind of an odd label as well. I'm becoming more inclined to simply say that men who identify as MRAs are really just men who are in some degree at odds with the current system, for one or another reason. Beyond that, the term really has no meaning.
But please be disabused of the notion that divorce is some kind of gravy train for women.
I don't think you'll get much agreement there from men who have actually been divorced. And, no, it's not just the “horror stories”. The garden variety divorce leaves women with a megaton of control over the lives of their ex-husbands if there are children involved. Have you ever asked a second wife about what she thinks of the divorce system and whether it is balanced between men and women? Sorry, but you're simply wrong here. Pre-nups are fairly useless unless you have substantial separate property before marriage – so it's the tail of the dog, really.
PMFAT: "if women really don't want to divorce then why are they filing most divorces?"
MM: "PMFAT beat me to the punch, but your comment nonetheless begs the question: if women are not wanting divorce, then WHY are the filing them at a 2 to 1 margin vis' a vis' men? Why is it that women file for divorce 70% of the time, hmmmm?"
First of all, the proportion of women who file isn't half as relevant as the percentage overall who do divorce and file, and those who do not. As I said earlier, divorce rates are elevated among certain groups, the young, the poor, the less educated, certain cultural groups, people who have been divorced before, people with mental health and substance abuse issues.
But since it is concerning to you guys, why women are usually the ones to file, let's look at that. I've already gone on record as acknowledging, from the research paper "These Boots are Made for Walking", the financial edge that seeking full custody has given women, and I oppose that. It should be rebuttable presumed joint custody, because in those states, the percentage of female filers drops to somewhere around the low 60's.
But what about the remaining proportion? Is is because women are controlling shrews who like to use the power of the state to oppress men? Or is it due to men being abusive or unfaithful? Or things more middling than either of those? Consider Gottman's research that found that complaints (not necessarily criticisms) are brought up about 70% of the time by women -- a statistic remarkably close to female filing rates. So the question is more one of what proportion of those complaining (or filing) have good reason to do so?
Many people make a blanket judgement on those who leave over complaints that don't fall under biblical grounds such as adultery or abandoment, assuming they are uncommitted, petty, frivolous. But that's a simplistic way of looking at circumstances that are usually much more complex than that.
I don't know if this helps, but here's an analogy:
Two roommates of the same sex lease an apartment, let's say Felix and Oscar. Felix is more conscientious than Oscar. After numerous tactful reminders, Felix gets tied of Oscar's messes, and eventually breaks the lease and moves out. Is Felix the bad guy because he broke the lease for something he could have just patiently endured? Or is Oscar the bad guy for not playing by the code of responsibility for self and consideration for others? Maybe Felix had unrealistic expecations and perhaps a few traits of his own (maybe even abusive or crazymaking ones) that Oscar had to endure. Maybe Oscar presumed on the good graces of Felix, and may have even "forgot" to clean up after himself just to spite him -- or done other things just to spite him.
Basically, the good guy doesn't always wear a white hat and the bad guy doesn't always wear a black one. Hats usually vary in shades of greyness when it comes to marriage and divorce. And that's the problem when it's assumed that the filer is always the bad guy.
Sure, women are more likely to both divorce than they used to -- and so are men. Women were more likely to file before second wave feminism -- I think I read somewhere that the rate was about 60% at the turn of the last century. Divorce rates seem to be declining, and again, there are lot's of factors that increase or decrease it's likelihood.
"So here's a question for you PMAFT: if she believed all the right things, but wasn't interested in you romantically, would you still consider her to be a "good woman"? Not necessarily as a wife, but as a person?
Yes, and my initial comment here listed two such women."
Hey PMAFT, thanks for answering my question. Here's the same question, in reverse:
Meet Skye, she's 30 and she's romantically interested in you (you can tell by the way she acts around you, and her friend told your friend she has a crush on you and wishes you'd ask her out).
BUT...she calls herself a feminist. Not an angry bitchy feminist, mind you, but more of a "caring nurturer" kind. She's pro-abortion, although she's never had one and doesn't intend to get one either. She carries condoms in her purse from when she volunteered at Planned Parenthood a few years ago, but they are all past the expiry date because she's never had casual sex -- she doesn't believing in using or being used...she has had two boyfriends in her life, the last one broke up with her while overseas in the Peace Corps to date someone there, the other from college was a mutual break up when they graduated. No hard feelings or lingering bitterness....She's average in looks and dresses a little on the dowdy side (she doesn't like to be "flashy" or "materialistic"). Not that into shopping or malls, thinks it's bad for the environment. Likes people, places, and things "with substance". No major debts or dependency issues, good job, works hard, but not too ambitious or competitive...Men's rights aren't really on the radar screen for her, since no one in her family ever got divorced, but she's a little skeptical because she thinks the needs of children should come first.
She's a feminist and she's nuts about you. Do you date her?
"but the climate that makes the culture drip with pornography and sexuality is the direct product of female sexual empowerment, the deletion of the double standard and so on."
The fight against the double standard wouldn't have happened if that double standard hadn't existed in the first place. And this why even religious leaders who don't necessarily approve of feminism point to the male contribution to it (through prior double standards and taking advantage of them being loosened) and the fruits that followed. So you can't just point to the sexual liberation of women as being the the heart of the sexual revolution without also pointing to its head.
"It was fairly foolish to think that female sexuality could be virtually completely liberalized without having sexuality in general devolve into general licentiousness."
I agree, but it's also foolish to think that an unchallenged male double standard was either fair or sustainable.
"It's true that Flint and Hefner and so on were the pioneers of porn, but today's industry is quite different – much of the material produced is actually made by women themselves...And the reason why women are more willing to do this themselves is because of the feminist sexual revolution which has taught them that this is empowering."
Yes, some facets of feminism (especially later ones) considered it empowering, while others fought against porn. And you cannot just point to that without also pointing to the corporate forces driving porn as a great way for men and women to make money (ie. Hugh grooming daughter Christy, even hotels feature porn channels). Again, you can't just single feminism as producing a "climate".
"Is it irritating that there is such a male demand for this? Sure. I get into that quite a bit on my blog. But there's also plenty of supply, and today that supply is largely directed by women themselves as has become the case with prostitution"
You're talking about a very large supply being provided by a small fraction of people (women and men), with men still the bulk of the consumers. When you report on historical changes without taking still existing double standards into account, you feed into the innocent victim mentality of guys who believe that "good women are as rare as unicorns".
"The garden variety divorce leaves women with a megaton of control over the lives of their ex-husbands if there are children involved. Have you ever asked a second wife about what she thinks of the divorce system and whether it is balanced between men and women?"
Again, I do support the reform of the divorce system into something more balanced. Are there imbalances? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily translate into "a megaton of control" once the ink dries, even if a woman gets custody and a large chunk of the assets. What good is control if you're still living below the lifestyle to which you've become accustomed? Or when you're exhausted because you're now parenting on your own and have to do everything yourself? Yes, I've spoken to second wives and I know that first wives can be greedy and vindictive, just as first husbands can also be the same way, as well as irresponsible and absent -- and yes, I'm aware of the unfairness deadbeat dad exaggerations especially when leveled against the poor, but they do exist, as do deadbeat moms.
Realize, I'm not arguing denying that there are imbalances in the legal system that favor wives divorcing, that should be fixed. Or that some women have gleefully cashed in big time. What I'm saying is that even with these imbalances, single motherhood is not something most women are eager to embark upon. Most know that even if they get custody and good settlements, it's a long and hard road to walk.
"Pre-nups are fairly useless unless you have substantial separate property before marriage"
I know that, and so it seems odd when you hear single guys who own little more than an old honda civic and a vast library of star wars videos shudder in fear about losing their shirts in divorce court. Marriage tends to lead to the aquisition of assets, so if they do marry and lose half of what they have, at least they'll probably be better off financially than if they just stayed single.
"I don't think you'll get much agreement there from men who have actually been divorced."
I don't mean to minimize the experiences of those who have been through that, and yes, there are some patterns emerging about divorce being imbalanced in the way that it impacts men. Those imbalances need to be looked at and solutions found.
However, it's also possible to lose perspective from going through a crisis like divorce. To think that it's the worst thing that can happen to anybody, worse than other crises, and that everyone who goes through it thinks the same way. And if not, then people "don't get it", which is awful because it's such an important issue, and proof that nobody cares and that the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
I see a lot of that sort of thinking around these blogs, and although there's a lot of truth to people's complaints about the divorce system, feminism, etc., sometimes those perspectives seem quite myopic and solipstic. You know when it's getting that way when you agree with people and they still argue with you.
What do you want the woman to do???
She would have to disavow a good portion of her entire history of comments on MRA and MGTOW blogs. The reason why you're having such trouble convincing me is that I have what you said on one side and CoffeeCatholic's (visible to me) blog posts and commenting history on MRA and MGTOW blogs. Given that she WROTE those comments, it tells me a lot about her.
She's a feminist and she's nuts about you. Do you date her?
First, I'm not sure I agree with the premise. She's a feminist who volunteered at Planned Parenthood. I'm not why someone that leftist would be interested in me in the first place. If she's aware of my politics at all (and let's leave out my more extreme views on my blog since she never would have seen that), she would be closer to killing me than to being interested in me. I'm wondering why she's interested me. More likely she would regard me as some sort of fascist. She probably would have a problem with my current job which involves advancing technology for a defense contractor.
Even ignoring that the fact that she's a feminist is problematic enough. The fact that she's volunteered at Planned Parenthood is a huge red flag. She's part of an organization that is against so many things I stand for. No, I wouldn't date her.
To do otherwise would be a waste of both our time. Even ignoring the men's issues aspect, from a practical perspective there's just way too much that wouldn't work. Even if we did date, I can't see how anything would get past the first date. We would both realize that we would kill each other as in there would be a mushroom cloud. Throw this on top of the fact that her leftist political views (which I'm assuming to be leftist based on what you described) means that she's thinks divorce is all right and you have something that sounds like a bad idea all around to me.
Really the condoms (which I would hope she would get rid of since they are expired) and the sexual history don't enter into anything given what they are. I'm not anti-condom after all. More importantly, I wouldn't know.
Ignoring the cognitive dissonance required for her to be interested in me in the first place, I wouldn't date her at all. There are red flags of things related to men's issue and just practical reasons why we shouldn't be together.
As an addendum to my last post, I don't need to have the exact same politics of any woman that I might get involved with. However, I can't see how it would work if her politics are so radically different.
A while back my mom suggested that I should get together with a daughter of one of her friends. First, this woman has never shown any interest in me and could actually be a lesbian (although I'm not really sure of that). This woman's political views are so radically leftist compared to me that we would kill each other. I have never been interested in her, but I can't imagine us getting together being anything other than a disaster. Then there's other problems like she has large amounts of debt.
If anyone is wondering why my mom suggested getting together with such a person, I think it was because she got concerned about my lifetime lack of a romantic life. My mom really does know me better than that.
"She's a feminist who volunteered at Planned Parenthood. I'm not why someone that leftist would be interested in me in the first place. If she's aware of my politics at all (and let's leave out my more extreme views on my blog since she never would have seen that), she would be closer to killing me than to being interested in me. I'm wondering why she's interested me. More likely she would regard me as some sort of fascist. She probably would have a problem with my current job which involves advancing technology for a defense contractor."
She's a feminist, not a pacifist (although she did date one once). Let's say she's left of centre, and gets it that every country has to have a military. Remember, she's the "caring nurturer" kind, and doesn't want to kill anybody.
"Throw this on top of the fact that her leftist political views (which I'm assuming to be leftist based on what you described) means that she's thinks divorce is all right and you have something that sounds like a bad idea all around to me."
She doesn't think "divorce is alright", but she thinks that when it happens, the children are the most important consideration. People who lean to the left aren't necessarily "pro-divorce", especially if they have ideals about fairness and integrity.
Here's a thought: a person's politics is probably not a good predictor of what their reliability as a spouse. Temperament and past history are probably better indicators.
She's a feminist and she's nuts about you. Do you date her?
I would never even consider dating a woman like that. Way too many red flags. And I would certainly never date a woman who labeled herself as a feminist -- just not worth the effort, in my opinion.
What exactly do you want to do about the double standard, catwoman? Under the current circumstances, there's no way the genie is going back in the bottle. That fight was lost decades ago.
"What exactly do you want to do about the double standard, catwoman? Under the current circumstances, there's no way the genie is going back in the bottle. That fight was lost decades ago."
As as acknowledging history is concerned -- admit that both sides had a hand in the sexual revolution, it wasn't just a matter of feminists coming along and ruining everything. The pre-existing double standard for men certainly played a part in predicating that revolution.
As far as the present is concerned, most of who you would call "today's women" weren't even around back then, and had no role in formulating the changes to sex roles and mores. Yes, some women are behaving in a way that reinforces or worsens the situation, and ditto for how some men are behaving. But most are doing the best that they can to make do with things as they are today, and are not promiscuious (and some, like many who frequent this blog, are even working towards the restoration of those roles and mores). And those women don't deserve the kind of blaming and generalizing levelled at women by many of the men on these blogs.
"And I would certainly never date a woman who labeled herself as a feminist -- just not worth the effort, in my opinion."
Suit yourself, and I am playing the devil's advocate here, since I definitely don't call myself a feminist. But it goes back to what I was saying about white hats and black hats. Politics isn't always such a package deal and there may be some problem things that you'd expect to go along with "feminist" that aren't really there, and other things that might turn out to be an asset. I have come to realize that character, temperament and history are more salient than professed beliefs about religion and politics.
"And those women don't deserve the kind of blaming and generalizing levelled at women by many of the men on these blogs."
Ultimately, if you want to gain ground on men's issues, there's got to be some acknowledgement of issues that impact women also. You're probably thinking, "oh sure, that's all we've been doing for the past 40 years!". But taking a "never mind the female experience, it's our turn now to be heard" and making it all about men as victims just isn't going to do anything but create more of a critical mass of angry guys who have some vested interest in blaming others (whether it's in any way justified or just passing the buck on their own stuff).
Gender politics needs a more integrated approach, otherwise all you have is finger pointing.
I know that, and so it seems odd when you hear single guys who own little more than an old honda civic and a vast library of star wars videos shudder in fear about losing their shirts in divorce court.
So you're assuming they won't ever gain any more then, right? They're just always gonna be that guy living in a basement somewhere and working just enough to be able to play video games the rest of his waking hours? If a woman is interested in him in the first place, she probably thinks he's going somewhere with his life, no?
You've already provided your answer. Let's move on to your very next sentence...
Marriage tends to lead to the aquisition of assets, so if they do marry and lose half of what they have, at least they'll probably be better off financially than if they just stayed single.
Wrong. For one, you fail to take into account the effect that losing the kids would have on a man's post-marriage life, not just financially (child support) but emotionally, psychologically, and otherwise. These other effects are going to take a financial toll over time.
Two, you fail to account for alimony payments. Those are above and beyond the "half of what they have," mind you. So the man's share of the "half" just keeps going up.
Three, you fail to account for the further damage a vindictive PEW could do. Think increased alimony payments (if the ex-husband is so unfortunate as to get a higher-paying job), watching your kids get dragged across several states so she can get back at you, etc. Yes, even I would say the type of women I'm discussing in this third point are rare, but they're out there and that's the point. A man had better make sure his wife-to-be shows ZERO of those vindictive tendencies before he ties the knot.
So a man who goes through even a slice of that crap is better off financially than if he'd stayed single? Hardly. That's not saying all men or even most men who get divorced get shafted so terribly, but many do and I'm gonna guess ALL of us know of one or a few who have. And that's big...the risk is clearly out there and it's enough that ANY man who's inclined toward marriage--even one you'd probably deem a "Star Wars loser" of sorts--had better be accounting for the risks and be sure he's not about to leap off a cliff. The ride is fun while it lasts, but when it ends...
So, to kinda bring this back around to the topic of the post, unless/until I meet a woman who checks out as flawlessly as I can tell on any of those vindictiveness danger flags, I'll be holding on to my singleless as if my life depended on it, thank you. Because it just might.
As for your "would you date her" game, Nova has it right. Any man with sense will be walking the other way as soon as he realizes he's dealing with a self-proclaimed feminist. Anyone who even thinks of themselves as remotely in that camp is not worth the romantic effort to learn more about. If and only if she gets some consistency in her ideas and disavows the fembot label completely should a man bother feigning any interest.
She's a feminist, not a pacifist (although she did date one once). Let's say she's left of centre, and gets it that every country has to have a military. Remember, she's the "caring nurturer" kind, and doesn't want to kill anybody.
She has to pick one. Now, she's just being completely inconsistent.
She doesn't think "divorce is alright", but she thinks that when it happens, the children are the most important consideration. People who lean to the left aren't necessarily "pro-divorce", especially if they have ideals about fairness and integrity.
Clearly she believes that no fault divorce should exist so that makes her pro-divorce. It's also worth noting that "for the children" has been used as an excuse for all manner of attacks on freedom.
There's just too many red flags here. And on top of that we would kill each other even if there were no red flags.
"So you're assuming they won't ever gain any more then, right? They're just always gonna be that guy living in a basement somewhere and working just enough to be able to play video games the rest of his waking hours?"
I have actually heard guys in situations similar to that complain about being taken for all they've got. It just doesn't seem to have as much gravity as a guy who actually has assets to lose -- and the conversation I was having with NS was about assets, lest you think I'm not taking the emotional costs into consideration.
"If a woman is interested in him in the first place, she probably thinks he's going somewhere with his life, no?"
In all likelihood, he probably will.
"Two, you fail to account for alimony payments. Those are above and beyond the "half of what they have," mind you. So the man's share of the "half" just keeps going up."
Most women don't get alimony.
"Three, you fail to account for the further damage a vindictive PEW could do...A man had better make sure his wife-to-be shows ZERO of those vindictive tendencies before he ties the knot."
I agree that vindictive people should definitely be screened out.
"So a man who goes through even a slice of that crap is better off financially than if he'd stayed single?"
Financially (which was the point made in the original discussion), most likely yes. In most cases, two can live more cheaply than one, especially when there's a double income involved.
But please, don't talk about marriage and divorce as if risk doesn't also factor into women's side of the situation.
"She has to pick one. Now, she's just being completely inconsistent."
Other than make for somewhat annoying occasional political conversations, how does inconsistency on socio-political issues have any bearing on the durability of a marriage?
"Clearly she believes that no fault divorce should exist so that makes her pro-divorce."
That is a logical leap. Most people agree with no-fault divorce just like most people agree with having some kind of welfare. It doesn't mean that they're planning to go on the dole themselves.
"It's also worth noting that "for the children" has been used as an excuse for all manner of attacks on freedom."
Yes, that can be used to justify the most draconian of child support arrangements. However, my understanding of reasonable MRAs is that they do consider the needs of children of utmost importance when it comes to the inevitability of divorce and child support. They just want a fair deal. And that should be the first thing going throug the mind of anyone who encounters men's (or women's issues) in divorce for the first time -- what are the impacts on the kids? But that healthy skepticism doesn't necessarily lead to opposing things like presumed rebuttable joint custody -- it could well lead to supporting it.
I guess what I'm getting at here, is that it sounds like you are holding on to your political views so tightly that it's probably keeping you from seeing the humanity in a good number of good women.
On being a feminist:
If woman says she's a feminist, she's a feminist. Period. Men should shun her (if they have any sense of self-preservation).
If a woman says "I'm not a feminist, but...", what inevitably follows is a feminist belief. If a woman espouses a feminist belief, she's a feminist. Men should shun her (if they have any sense of self-preservation).
Yup. The VAST, VAST majority of American women are filtered out using those criteria. It's still better than divorce.
And, by the way, if you support no-fault divorce, then you support divorce as a way of life. Women looooove no-fault divorce because it gives them an easy way to destroy men - and don't tell me Ameriskanks aren't into destroying men, because it's the women's national sport.
Most women don't get alimony
They sure as hell do. It's called child support. Alimony is hidden within child support payments.
The day that receipts have to be submitted to non-custodial parents to account for the spending of child support payments, and spending of those funds on non-child expenses is punished by the courts as severely as non-payment of child support, it will truly be child support. Until then its hidden alimony.
"Ultimately, if you want to gain ground on men's issues, there's got to be some acknowledgement of issues that impact women also."
Well, actually I've come to the conclusion that we aren't going to see much change on any of these issues until women want to see change due to the impact on them. Men will never organize on these issues to any meaningful degree or for any extended period of time. What you see in the MRA internet world is a tiny subset of men -- most men couldn't care less about these issues, I think.
So, in terms of a moderated message, I don't think we're going to see that, either. In fact, I don't think we're going to see much of a message at all. What we will see is that when the impact issue on women becomes critical, women will act to do something about it. What we have to say about it won't matter much, pretty much because most men have nothing at all to say about it, and that won't change much.
It's similar to what you see happening in marriages: women are the ones who struggle more with issues, and when it impacts them, they do something about it. Men tend to put up with more. There are probably deep-seated issues underlying that, but it also plays itself out on the gender politics level. So to be honest I think what passes as "MRA" is really nothing of the sort. It's more of a clearinghouse for people to vent. It will never be a viable political movement, and most of us who are involved in it know this by now.
“Other than make for somewhat annoying occasional political conversations, how does inconsistency on socio-political issues have any bearing on the durability of a marriage?"
It has to do with character. Being pro-abortion means that she puts individual rights ahead of morality -- at least what I see as morality. That's a deal-breaker. You have to be on the same page with respect to moral issues, at the very least.
I know you're peddling the idea that political leaning and moral ideas don't matter, and there are plenty of stable, loving, wonderful feminist women who are pro-abortion and pro-planned parenthood and pro-pre-marital-sex, and none of that really matters because these are wonderful, kind, loving, stable, loyal women. But I don't believe that. I don't think people need to be identical, but there are *some* core issues on which I at least believe unity is needed -- and moral issues are at the foremost here. If a woman is pro-abortion, that's a huge blinking red flag for me and for many other men as well -> it's a sign of a distorted moral view. I would think, based on how you have described this hypothetical woman, that she is more morally concerned about the environment than she is about abortion, because if she were not, she would not place personal freedoms for women around abortion ahead of the moral issues around it (which is what you do when you say something like "I am nurturing, but pro-abortion" or "I am pro-abortion, but I don't like abortion" --> that's like saying I think people need to have the right to kill people, but I don't think they should actually do it. It reflects a muddled moral reasoning, and that goes to the core evaluation of her as a person. She may be the most stable woman in the world, but with a moral worldview like that, she's simply not going to get a second look.
You may say that this is needlessly exclusionary, but I don't believe that's true. Everyone has their own standards and issues which are important to them -- men and women alike. Many of us would prefer to be alone than to compromise on some of the core issues that we hold dear. And I have to say that for some of us, those political and social conversations are the stuff of life. I live in Washington DC, and everyone is talking about this stuff all the time. People choose to live where they do in this region based on political affiliation to a large degree (due to districting and so on) and the conversations that come up about political and moral issues are not occasional -- they are kind of daily type stuff. And the same is true of religious and moral issues of the couples I have known through church (Orthodoxy) --> it's a core part of their lives, and not being able to really share that (Christianity in general, not the specific church) and be on the same page about that with your spouse would be a huge downer, to say the least, and for most of the couples I have known, a non-starter.
Catwoman,
Divorcing your husband because you're bored or he forgot your birthday are NOT good reasons to divorce! There's a guy I know whose wife divorced him because, after three kids & 20 years of marriage, she wanted her freedom. The fact of the matter is that women do not cite adultery as grounds for divorce any more often than men do; women aren't divorcing men for VALID reasons.
Again, women want divorce; if they didn't, if it were so bad for them, then they wouldn't file for it now, would they? Women divorce because they have unrealistic expectations, and because they make out like bandits in the process. Gabby Hartman, who wrote a book about divorce, had THIS to say: if a woman isn't driving a Porsche after three divorces, then she's doing something wrong! Just something for you to think about...
MarkyMark
the conversation I was having with NS was about assets, lest you think I'm not taking the emotional costs into consideration
And I was also talking about assets. That's why I pointed out that the emotional damage would likely lead to financial loss down the road. One can't entirely separate the two. I'm also talking about assets over the man's life, which is the important thing. Simply having more at a snapshot in time right after a divorce--and I'm not even saying this is the case, I'm just postulating it for the sake of argument--doesn't mean much if his future expenses are significantly higher, his ability to gain future wealth has diminished, he is at considerably higher risk of losing more money to the PEW down the road, etc. We have to look at the whole picture here.
Most women don't get alimony.
Male Samizdat already threw down on this so simply refer to his post. Plus, the mere commonality of alimony is what poses the threat. It's not all that easy to tell ahead of time which ladies are going to take you to the cleaners and which are going to be civil when the marital disputes start.
Financially (which was the point made in the original discussion), most likely yes. In most cases, two can live more cheaply than one, especially when there's a double income involved.
Again, look at his whole life--5, 10, 20 years post-divorce. Refer to my paragraph above. I'm not saying every man who goes through a divorce comes out worse financially. Some no doubt do come out with more assets. But I'd say that's not true in most cases.
It's a tough call because we'll never know what would have transpired had he stayed single, but judging from the relative financial security of (never-married) single men, married men, and divorced men I have known, I'd give the nod to bachelorhood on a strictly financial/wealth playing field and put divorced men at the back of the pack by a lot. Last I checked, the main benefits of marriage were the intangibles, not the acquiring of assets. It's a tradeoff, as in men have to give up some of that wealth and financial freedom in order to gain the benefits that marriage brings. And so those benefits need to be there in buckets if a man's to cash in his future financial freedom and wealth.
But please, don't talk about marriage and divorce as if risk doesn't also factor into women's side of the situation.
It absolutely does. We both know there are plenty of "bad" men out there. It's even been put forth that men and women both have tendencies toward selfishness and evil, and I believe that. We're all fallen, we all have problems with sin, and we're all going to choose to sin the vast majority of the time if we think we can get away with it. That's human nature 101. Hence the issue is a system that enables one sex--in this case, women--to have a huge upper hand over the other.
For an example of the reverse, look at Saudi Arabia. Giving men the right to divorce their wives and kick them to the curb at will clearly isn't acceptable either. Either sex will tend to go for what they can get if the system allows them to and if they've been steeped in that thinking.
On this note, American men are known in much of the world as taking very good care of women, due in no small part to the native men growing up in a culture that just doesn't encourage respect for women as equals (in value and worth, not in all areas/skills/predispositions). So both sexes are susceptible to such warping. This isn't just a women=bad thing; that oversimplifies what's going on.
But anyway, I don't recall implying that there are no marriage/divorce risks for women and I wasn't talking as if there aren't. I was simply addressing the man's risks.
most men couldn't care less about these issues, I think
Or they're simply in a position (i.e. married) where due to self-interest there's little they can do about them. If such issues come up where only men are around and they know no women can hear them, methinks you'll find that plenty of men do care. They're just not active opponents.
I don't think we're going to see much of a message at all...
It will never be a viable political movement
The message is out there, it's just not being openly broadcast and rallied around in the style of "regular" movements. But there are plenty of men who get the idea. Hence we see all kinds of hand-wringing about how men won't get married. That lack of marriage constitutes a "movement," just not an organized one like maybe we'd like or expect to see.
Terrorism isn't a highly organized movement, but rather a bunch of cells marching in generally the same direction and often for the same reasons. But it's certainly a viable, if fragmented, "movement," and terrorists are viable enemies. The effects are real and significant enough to demand attention. While I'm not at all saying the MRA movement is a threat or whatever--that's not the comparison I'm making--its production of results despite a lack of structure is similar. Many folks who aren't self-identified as MRAs are still harboring the ideas and taking the actions that MRAs do.
Catwoman,
On 7/31 at 11:51pm you said “If older baby boomer feminists created a boom in premarital sex and careerism that the younger gen-x sisters were unable to reverse, then well, those young women are feminists too, regardless of their actual sexual history and work situation.”
Catwoman, it seems to me that you don’t realize that a woman can be greatly influenced by feminist ideology even if they are Gen Xers (or younger), or if they are not sexually experienced or if the don’t have a high powered career.
August 1, 7:50 pm
“The fight against the double standard wouldn't have happened if that double standard hadn't existed in the first place.”
To blame the upsurge in rampant sexuality on the double standard doesn’t make sense. The double standard has been in place to one degree or another for millennia in the culture at large. The double standard has it’s roots in provable paternity. It does not make it right, and of course God has no such double standard. But the fact remains that sexuality has become out of control because of the changing sexual standards for women which is the product of feminism in large part. I am not removing culpability for men, we are all responsible for our own actions, but the idea that the double standard/sowing of wild oats/boys will be boys deal has been around for a long time. Sexual license increased when sexual freedom was chosen by women.
“I have actually heard guys in situations similar to that complain about being taken for all they've got. It just doesn't seem to have as much gravity as a guy who actually has assets to lose”
Regardless of how much a man has, when he is “taken for all he has” it is still all he has. The idea that it is somehow more important when someone with “assets” loses what he has than when a guy who doesn’t have much loses what he has is pretty offensive to me.
Catwoman (continued)
“But please, don't talk about marriage and divorce as if risk doesn't also factor into women's side of the situation.”
Relationships always involve some element of risk. However the risks associated with divorce such as your partner filing for divorce and loss of child custody are much lower for women. The current legal climate and it’s effect on marriage leaves men with the short end of the stick is the issue at hand . It’s like two people trip on a wooded deck and one gets a scrape and a splinter and the other breaks their arm. Which person’s issue should be focused on? The person who says “but please, don't talk about the risks associated with walking on a deck unless you talk about the splinter’s” to people talking about breaking an arm is missing the point. I am not saying women have no risks in marriage or relationships, but that it’s like going up to the person with the broken arm and being annoyed with them if they don’t talk about your splinter.
Also, Catwoman, this: “However, my understanding of reasonable MRAs is that they do consider the needs of children of utmost importance when it comes to the inevitability of divorce and child support. They just want a fair deal. And that should be the first thing going throug the mind of anyone who encounters men's (or women's issues) in divorce for the first time -- what are the impacts on the kids?” is pretty patronizing. You are qualified to determine what a “reasonable MRA” is or what he should think about
It seems to me that you don’t realize that a woman can be greatly influenced by feminist ideology even if they are Gen Xers (or younger), or if they are not sexually experienced or if the don’t have a high powered career.
PMAFT, on 8/1 at 12:22 you said
“I addressed this same point to SR. (okay, actually I said this part)
And you haven't shown that believing something exists makes it more likely you will find it. I have lived the counterexample to that, both in terms of not finding a good woman when I believed I could and finding things I believed I couldn't find (things that aren't related to this discussion).”
Okay, if you are walking down the street do you think you would be more likely to find a coin if you are looking for one than if you are not looking for it. If you think “Okay, I think there are coins out there on the street, maybe not many, but there are some, so I’m going to keep my eyes peeled for one” don’t you think it would be more likely that you would find one than if you walked down the street thinking “coins on the street are so rare that the odds of me finding one are so low that looking won’t help me find one”. This is actually a very simplistic comparison because coins either exist or they do not. The “goodness” of a person is not something that can be evaluated easily. It is about our perceptions of the person and perceptions are influenced by our predispositions. Please note this idea has nothing to do with whether or not you should look, it has to do with the effect of awareness on your recognition and perceptions. I don’t know how else to explain it PMAFT and frankly I can’t figure out why you would object to the idea. The idea does not mean you have to look in any way, shape or form. You can decide that the risks associated with divorce coupled with the number of good women out there mean you are not going to hold out any hope…that is your choice.
“Plus, it is in the interest of every good woman to provide hard proof. It would open up many good men to that good woman if she provided hard proof. Since it is in a good woman's best interest to provide hard proof that fact that it isn't happening on a larger scale means that good women are incredibly rare even if they believe otherwise in their heart of hearts. If they really believe it and don't provide hard proof then I have to conclude an alternate explanation such as they think conformity is more important than the men in their lives. This effectively throws them out of the good women category.”
Or, the good woman has not idea she has to provide the proof you seek because these issues are outside of her experience. It seems a bit at cross purposes to me to hold it against women for not showing she cares by voicing her understanding of this stuff when the reality is that she may not understand. I have communicated with very few women (okay, none) who was naturally aware of this stuff. I suppose that leaves you deciding whether you will try to educate people who don’t know or you can decide that if women don’t get it on their own that they won’t get it. I know which one I think is more likely to result in women understanding these issues. That is why I write this blog. I understand that as a woman I can talk to other women about these issues with more impunity than a man can, so I am not suggesting you start lecturing women on the subject. Just that you realize there is an understanding gap here.
Jesse,
“Makes me feel old...but not as...never mind.”
Heh :)
The Librarian- Excellent explanation of your position
MS- Thanks for the clarification. So, can a woman be a good woman without being good wife material? Also in your comment of 8/2 at 5:26 you said “Yup. The VAST, VAST majority of American women are filtered out using those criteria. It's still better than divorce.” What is “it”?
Amy, thanks for putting in your 2 cents :) You are always welcome to do so!
Nova,
“If a woman is pro-abortion, that's a huge blinking red flag for me and for many other men as well -> it's a sign of a distorted moral view. I would think, based on how you have described this hypothetical woman, that she is more morally concerned about the environment than she is about abortion, because if she were not, she would not place personal freedoms for women around abortion ahead of the moral issues around it (which is what you do when you say something like "I am nurturing, but pro-abortion" or "I am pro-abortion, but I don't like abortion" --> that's like saying I think people need to have the right to kill people, but I don't think they should actually do it. It reflects a muddled moral reasoning, and that goes to the core evaluation of her as a person.”
Very well said.
Learner,
Thanks for reminding me of a point I forgot to bring up earlier: to wit, if a guy has fewer assets, then any loss thereof will hurt MORE. Though Paul McCartney was taken for a 150-200 million, that still left him with hundreds of millions. The last time I checked, he was worth half a billion prior to his divorce; he could STILL live an opulent lifestyle on what he had left. However, for a man making $40k-$50k a year, losing half means the difference between living with a roof over his head vs. homelessness. IOW, the less a man has, the more any loss hurts him. Ergo, a man with less has to be MORE careful than a wealthy man.
MarkyMark
But the wealthy man has more to lose MM. He must also be aware of the monster of imputed income, so his risk is exponentially higher on that front. And when we're talking about the absolute amount of wealth taken, the "what greater things could that money have done?" angle comes into play. Seems to me like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So that Heather Mills swooped in for a few years and took off with a significant percentage of McCartney's wealth? Not a bad retirement plan if you ask me. Gotta give her props for devising a scheme to net herself some privatized welfare.
Jesse,
You're right. I wasn't trying to minimize the fact that wealthy men don't get hurt during divorce, but McCartney losing half is a lot different than you or I losing half. That was my point...
MarkyMark
MM, very true. Perhaps the answer then, if one realizes he's at risk to become a divorce statistic, is to either aim very high or very low. Half of nothing is still nothing, and half of many millions is still many millions. If it were me and there were no "(C) None of the above" on the card then I'd aim low. Less long-term risk that way--and you don't have to work hard either!
Learner,
The great thing about a lot of these blogs is that the vast majority of the frequenters are older than I am. So not only do I get to learn from their wisdom but I also get to amuse myself at their expense whenever age comes up. What could be better?
Catwoman,
Just found another tidbit of yours that deserves a response. I'll quit reading the thread too closely or I could be here all night I suspect.
But most are doing the best that they can to make do with things as they are today
By whose standards? One could say feminists are doing the best they can to make do with things as they are, but what are their end goals? Certainly not mine or yours, I figure. If you're not yet familiar with the idea of lifeboat feminism then now's a great time to go read up on it. There's a lot of that going on--women decrying how men get shafted in much of society but who aren't too eager to give up their privileges or speak out in a way that they think might jeopardize their own standing. Outside of the blogosphere all we get is opposition or deafening silence from the vast majority of ladies whenever men's issues come up.
Until I see more women taking an active role in opposing BS policies that denigrate and discriminate against men, you'll have quite a hard time convincing me that women are just "doing the best they can" about the current situation. It's happening on plenty of blogs, but out there in the "real world"...not so much.
And if you're going to claim that women *are* taking such action, and that such includes the younger types as well, then please also let me know what region of the country/world you live in. Said info might be useful to me someday.
Jesse @ August 2, 2009 9:12 PM says:
And if you're going to claim that women *are* taking such action, and that such includes the younger types as well, then please also let me know what region of the country/world you live in. Said info might be useful to me someday.
It will be in the same region where you can purchase unicorn hunting licenses....
Please to provide you with amusement Feral :)
Here's the thing, though. There are great women, in the terms defined in this thread. But good men and women are bad at finding each other, and are more likely to find bad apples. That's the issue with dating/mating as it now stands. The old institutions for meeting good people are passe, and have been replaced with precisely nothing.
"Or, the good woman has not idea she has to provide the proof you seek because these issues are outside of her experience. It seems a bit at cross purposes to me to hold it against women for not showing she cares by voicing her understanding of this stuff when the reality is that she may not understand. I have communicated with very few women (okay, none) who was naturally aware of this stuff."
I too have not come across any woman who is aware of "this stuff" either, Learner.
In fact I was not aware of any of "this stuff" myself until I stumbled across Marky Mark's blog some time ago. I truly was not aware of how bad things had become for men. Perhaps this is partly because within my own family and small circle of friends, their marriages are intact.
My opinion has been that people in general are becoming more selfish, greedy and Godless. I never thought of it in terms of one gender getting a better deal than the other.
I do agree with Learner and others, though, that men are getting short shrift in the courts. (and from some women)
Shared parenting is the only fair way to deal with marital splits. We have it in Oz, though it could be under threat now with this new Labor Government in power here.
"The old institutions for meeting good people are passe, and have been replaced with precisely nothing."
This is very true Nova.
I have often pondered this dilemma.
When my mother was a teenager, she would go to a dance held evey Saturday night accompannied by her parents. It was there that many young people found partners. Indeed, it was where she met my father.
Where do they go today?
Bars?? Nightclubs?? No guarantee of meeting a decent person in those sorts of places, is there?
Kathy,
The dearth of suitable, effective means to MEET people (not to mention suitable places) is a huge problem. The radicals, in their zest to tear down everything traditional, never bothered with SUITABLE REPLACEMENTS...
MarkyMark
Nova, Kathy, Mark,
Very true, there are not really very many suitable places to meet people now, especially once you are no longer in your early 20s.
Well, MM, the replacement was simple Darwinism.
Why?
Because feminism was a movement led by upper middle class and over women, and lesbians, which had no real interest in the problems and perspectives of other women. Darwinism suits the best placed women, and lesbians (who opt out and laugh out loud at the hetero lemmings splashing their way upstream in the lesbian-constructed canal, and that they find a hard time mating). It's as aimple as that. Most women were also disregarded. And were sold a bill of goods that told them they were better off slaving away like men. And now they are not happy with that. But the leaders of feminism don't really care about them, as long as te top women succeed.
It's the vanguard of the proles all over again. Women need to wake up about that.
I too have not come across any woman who is aware of "this stuff" either, Learner.
In fact I was not aware of any of "this stuff" myself until I stumbled across Marky Mark's blog some time ago. I truly was not aware of how bad things had become for men. Perhaps this is partly because within my own family and small circle of friends, their marriages are intact.
I can't help but wonder in the cases of some people that certain issues are ones they aren't aware of due to age and generational differences. Age certainly brings about a different sort of wisdom, but most of the older people I know are very quick to point out the experiences of people my age were markedly different than what they experienced at the same age.
I am quite a bit younger than everybody on this thread, so while I was extremely blessed to never have a divorce in my family, nearly 50% of my classmates throughout my school years were from broken homes. I can recall many times being confused and asking my parents about why a friend might not live with her father and so forth. A huge majority of my classmates were latchkey kids and my family knew several families that had divorces turn into very ugly situations, complete with allegations of child abuse. One of my father's friends was also falsely accused of rape/sexual abuse during divorce proceedings. And I mustn't forget that 1/3 of my generation was killed in what should be the safest place on earth, their mother's womb.
I'm also young enough to have attended junior high and high school post-Columbine, when we had lockdown drills at school and even real lock-downs one day when somebody claimed to have seen rifles in a car in the student parking lot. Thanks to Columbine and the other school shootings that followed, nasty stereotypes began to circle around about certain young men, as well as about supposed male violence in general.
My time in school was also just as Ritalin and ADHD were falling out of vogue for Aspergers and other forms of autisim. During my early years of school, I saw many male classmates suffer with the side effects of ritalin, all while recess was stolen from us so we could prep for silly standardized tests. By the time I was in high school, several male classmates were being drugged with psych drugs far worse than ritalin, including one young man whose personality just melted away while he was on his drugs. He was never the same afterward. Many of the guys who were on the debate team and in the science club with me--the geeks I suppose we could be called--were labeled with aspergers and other deficiencies, sometimes unofficially, simply for being a little quirky, although brilliant young men who were more than functioning in society. They simply weren't being social in a "correct" way.
To be fair, I must share that my Dad could be called a bit of an MRA so I was exposed to certain ideas long before I was politically aware and could begin to research statistics in hopes of seeking answers to many questions swirling in my head about the world. He made sure I knew about false accusations, divorce stats, and so forth while I was quite young and learned more as time has marched on. This may have indeed made me look outside the politically correct box a bit more as I have seen what I have, especially in the past ten years as I've really been able to make sense of life experiences and articulate my thoughts in ways I couldn't have prior to then.
"I can't help but wonder in the cases of some people that certain issues are ones they aren't aware of due to age and generational differences."
Perhaps this is so Amy though I have talked to women as young as 20 or 21 who seem as uninformed as the older women I have spoken to. I wonder if a larger influence on you was your father as well as your experience pretty early in your adulthood with your husband being falsely accused?
I wonder if a larger influence on you was your father as well as your experience pretty early in your adulthood with your husband being falsely accused?
I fully admit that could be the case, Learner. ;o)
I did want to clarify that while my husband was accused of abusing me by medical professionals when I was sought care after an injury (a "you can tell me if your husband is hurting you" it was said in one instance), he has never had any legal action against him. The true false accusation we had to deal with was me being falsely accused of abusing my daughter last fall.
I had been been providing discounted childcare to a woman who claimed she desperately needed it and was no longer able to do so various reasons, including some concerns I had about her. Just before I told her I had to stop watching her children, I told several friends, on the phone, in emails, and on facebook, I was worried she might become angry and do something to "get even with me." Three days later the police came knocking on my door and my fears were confirmed. Both the police report and the CPS papers state that no signs of abuse or neglect were seen, that Peapod was well cared for, but this didn't stop them from "investigating" further. All of this on my daughter's second birthday, while my husband was deployed across the world and I was across the continent from family. Good times...not.
My daughter and I wound up fleeing the state during the midst of the drama, on advice of my attorney and LEOs in another city who assisted me in removing my daughter from the home she'd been placed in sans court order, and that we did & didn't look back. We left everything behind but two suitcases and the clothes on our backs and ran across the country to safety. She & I haven't returned to the state since and even had to miss being there when my husband deployed home a little over a week ago. We'll finally get to see him this coming weekend.
As it turns out, the woman who did this to me has also falsely accused a man of rape and has claimed to other people that her husband is abusive. What happened to me has been difficult to deal with as is, but I'm absolutely terrified she's going to harm another innocent person and it kills me that I have no way to warn people who could be her next potential victim. It's a shame there is no "false accuser registry" where the general public can go see what evil people might be lurking in their communities...
Ack, sorry for the longwinded comment there. I just wanted to clarify in case my first comments might have been confusing. :o)
Oh my goodness, Amy I am so sorry to hear that. There should be a false accuser registry!
Yeah, but to listen to the feminazis tell it, false accusations aren't a problem; they're only 2% of all rape accusations-yeah, riiiiggghhh...
MM, By feminist logic, not only are false accusations rare, it would also seem women who aren't ever raped, sexually harassed, etc and so forth are fairly rare going by their numbers....
I was recently advised that nearly all false accusations are mistaken identity rather than malicious intent. As if somebody seeking revenge is some really bizarre concept that fallen humans would never ever make reality. I do not doubt for a moment that there are indeed cases in which true rape victims accidentally misidentify somebody as their attacker, but that still cannot adequately explain the realities of false rape accusations.
"Well, actually I've come to the conclusion that we aren't going to see much change on any of these issues until women want to see change due to the impact on them."
Men's issues *are* women's issues. Women have sons, brothers, etc. who are affected by those issues. Besides, women have been known to champion causes that don't necessary impact them directly.
"It has to do with character. Being pro-abortion means that she puts individual rights ahead of morality -- at least what I see as morality."
Most people think that adulery is immoral but think it should still be legal.
"that's like saying I think people need to have the right to kill people, but I don't think they should actually do it. It reflects a muddled moral reasoning, and that goes to the core evaluation of her as a person."
A pacifist could say the same thing to someone who is anti-abortion but pro-military.
"I know you're peddling the idea that political leaning and moral ideas don't matter, and there are plenty of stable, loving, wonderful feminist women who are pro-abortion and pro-planned parenthood and pro-pre-marital-sex, and none of that really matters because these are wonderful, kind, loving, stable, loyal women. But I don't believe that. I don't think people need to be identical, but there are *some* core issues on which I at least believe unity is needed...I have to say that for some of us, those political and social conversations are the stuff of life. I live in Washington DC, and everyone is talking about this stuff all the time."
I'm not saying that political/moral beliefs "don't matter", because they do, since it does factor into compatibility, among other things. And BTW, in no way am I expressing agreement with abortion or supporting the idea of marrying those who support it. I brought up "Skye" to see what kinds of assumptions would be made in projecting what her behavior would be, based on her loosely held ideologies. If indeed "everyone is talking about this stuff all the time", then it may be that people may be giving it too much weight, as far as something that is truly useful in being able to predict someone's behavior.
"So, in terms of a moderated message, I don't think we're going to see that, either."
I'm not talking about moderation as much as I'm talking about "integration". Stand alone gender politics has no more credibility, it just sounds like special interest lobby bs. There needs to be more integrated study and theoretical formation of men's issues and interests with women's issues and interest. Otherwise, it's useless.
I think of what Camille Paglia once suggested, which is that "women's studies" (and presumably men's studies") be scrapped in favor of "sex studies", since after all, "it is sex that we are all so tirelessly interested in".
"Divorcing your husband because you're bored or he forgot your birthday are NOT good reasons to divorce!"
It seems that by your understanding, women either divorce their husbands because they are unfaithful (a reason that is valid, but an occurence that is rare) or they divorce for frivolous reasons, like lack of emotional sensitivity and other unrealistic expectations. From what I've seen, the truth is somewhere in the middle and it usually has to do with the steady erosion of the relationship. And went you look at what went down, on both sides, it's no wonder that divorce occured.
"“I have actually heard guys in situations similar to that complain about being taken for all they've got. It just doesn't seem to have as much gravity as a guy who actually has assets to lose”
Regardless of how much a man has, when he is “taken for all he has” it is still all he has."
It not about a man with nothing "being taken for all he has", but with the idea that he worries about it happening (which doesn't really happen anyways -- assets are divided to one degree or another)
"It's a tough call because we'll never know what would have transpired had he stayed single, but judging from the relative financial security of (never-married) single men, married men, and divorced men I have known, I'd give the nod to bachelorhood on a strictly financial/wealth playing field and put divorced men at the back of the pack by a lot."
I'm skeptical. I think the research tends to show that divorced men tend to be more well-off than never-married men.
"Last I checked, the main benefits of marriage were the intangibles, not the acquiring of assets."
You'd never know that, from all the MRA talk on the blogs. It's almost all about "financial rape".
"We both know there are plenty of "bad" men out there."
I'm not just talking about women who end up married to cheaters and abusers. Lot's of reasonable women get together with reasonable men and still wind divorced, an exhausted and overwhelmed single mom.
"Hence the issue is a system that enables one sex--in this case, women--to have a huge upper hand over the other."
Just because some women have dealt well in divorce court does not mean that women "have a huge upper hand". Most divorced moms are struggling more financially than when they were married -- not skipping with glee over big windfalls.
"But anyway, I don't recall implying that there are no marriage/divorce risks for women and I wasn't talking as if there aren't. I was simply addressing the man's risks."
And that's the problem - it's an unintegrated POV you guys are arguing from.
"Catwoman, it seems to me that you don’t realize that a woman can be greatly influenced by feminist ideology even if they are Gen Xers (or younger), or if they are not sexually experienced or if the don’t have a high powered career."
I realize there are feminist ideologies still afoot, but I don't think ideology is really what's driving the kind of behavior the men here are complaining about, which has more to do with the "genie out of the bottle" precedents in behavior that got set, that women of today have inherited from their older sisters.
"To blame the upsurge in rampant sexuality on the double standard doesn’t make sense"
I'm not blaming the double standard, I was just saying that it was unsustainable (and loosely held to, as well), so what you are talking about is simply a matter of timing.
"Relationships always involve some element of risk. However the risks associated with divorce such as your partner filing for divorce and loss of child custody are much lower for women."
These are not the only risks associated with divorce.
"And that should be the first thing going throug the mind of anyone who encounters men's (or women's issues) in divorce for the first time -- what are the impacts on the kids?” is pretty patronizing. You are qualified to determine what a “reasonable MRA” is or what he should think about"
Fine then, we won't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are concerned about the impacts of divorce on kids.
"But most are doing the best that they can to make do with things as they are today"
"By whose standards? One could say feminists are doing the best they can to make do with things as they are, but what are their end goals?"
You are conflating "women" with "feminists", Jesse. Not a good idea.
"What you see in the MRA internet world is a tiny subset of men -- most men couldn't care less about these issues, I think."
It could be too, NS, that not as many men as you think have the kind of harsh experience in divorce and/or the legal system as you guys have had. And so you end up with this sounding board in this little corner of the blogosphere. Probably not all of the MRM goals are realistic, but some may be more attainable than others, if you choose your battles.
Wow...what a hot button! Kathy Farrelly says that once upon a time, back in the day, you could meet someone dancing. . I'm not sure if one can do that nowadays. .... Perhaps there were dance forms back then that reinforced notions like "lead" and "follow" - alien concepts to what passes for dancing nowadays; as well as what passes for relational interactions ("lead" ... "follow".. get my drift?). Even before couple's dancing had such notions there were such things as community forms (think square dancing and reels) that involved everybody (think...."community investment in the problem"...etc.) But I digress. I wanted to put my .02 forward about a "good" woman.
I have a few fundamentalist churches within a mile of me who would define "loving God" and "hating the world" very different than I would, and very different, I suppose, than most of the believers in my locale. This idea of a "good" man/woman is laden with potential for projection and slippery language. It's like trying to talk about "tithing" and suddenly everyone is talking, really, about "giving" - the language has changed but deep down people are talking about the same thing they are trying to resolved. So, the first caveat would be to separate out "good" into two forks, one being the "good" in the sense of "she is not disposed to run off if I fail to entertain her sufficiently", the other being "are we going to be a good fit, and will she follow me in more than one sense of the word." I know, excuse me, many non believing women (of any stripe of "Christian") with more integrity than some "believing" women that I know. Things like integrity just are not connected the way we would like to think to religious belief and practice. They are not . I would go so far as to say that religious beliefs can, in fact, inject and reinforce a kind of Pharasaical dishonesty into a man or woman's thinking about the opposite gender. All that having been said, there are biblical and pragmatic reasons not to covenant with a non believer, and this is because God is wise. I.e. it is still better to covenant with a believer who is still forming integrity within themselves than with a non believer whose life or training has done this already.
So, with that bit out of the way, I'll get around (finally) to my "list"
1) A deep conception of the fact they have been redeemed.
2) A desire for integrity that flows out of that (i.e. out of that knowledge about #1.
3) The (learned) ability to think and reason, sometimes "out of the box" if that is what is called for.
4) A recognition of the moral need to think and reason.
5) An open-ness to God and His influence on her life in ways that are not reducible to what we can think and reason about (her life with God actually involves a connection in her Spirit; it goes beyond the "rational")
See, if she's thinking and praying, in time things like feminist knee jerking, etc. will just tend to fall away.
Beyond this, we start then to look at "good" in the sense of "is she good for me in particular , which is beyond my intention to speak to. But if she is not more than a few inches taller than me in heels, that is a good start!
Catwoman,
"I'm not talking about moderation as much as I'm talking about "integration".
I agree with you that both men and women need to be considered in any discussion of gender politics per se. However, I strongly disagree that the way to accomplish that is to minimize what men are telling you about their experience. And, don't tell me "they do it to". I know "they" do sometimes, but not in the context of what you are proposing in terms of an integration of both men's and women's issues. "Both men and women need to be considered, but this issue or that issue that is important to you, dude, just is not important".
Where did you say anything like that? Here:
"If indeed "everyone is talking about this stuff all the time", then it may be that people may be giving it too much weight, as far as something that is truly useful in being able to predict someone's behavior."
"From what I've seen, the truth is somewhere in the middle and it usually has to do with the steady erosion of the relationship. And went you look at what went down, on both sides, it's no wonder that divorce occured."
"It not about a man with nothing "being taken for all he has", but with the idea that he worries about it happening (which doesn't really happen anyways -- assets are divided to one degree or another)"
"Just because some women have dealt well in divorce court does not mean that women "have a huge upper hand". Most divorced moms are struggling more financially than when they were married -- not skipping with glee over big windfalls."
This is particularly true in the current culture where it appears to me that in the "war between the genders" easily 2/3 of the issues between the genders of the last century are about what feminism and it's lingering ideologies have wrought.
And...
"Last I checked, the main benefits of marriage were the intangibles, not the acquiring of assets."
'You'd never know that, from all the MRA talk on the blogs. It's almost all about "financial rape".'
I don't agree with this at all. Most of the comments on this thread the define a "good woman" are about the intangibles catwoman. I see much discussion of intangibles with regard to women in "MRA talk".
(continued)
Catwoman,
"I realize there are feminist ideologies still afoot, but I don't think ideology is really what's driving the kind of behavior the men here are complaining about, which has more to do with the "genie out of the bottle" precedents in behavior that got set, that women of today have inherited from their older sisters. "
I know you keep wanting to say it is not feminism that has created the behaviors these guys discuss. But, the precedents you refer to were set by feminists....that means that feminist ideology created the precedents for behavior that the "younger sisters" followed. Ther are following feminist ideologies whether they call it that or not (and I am not just referring to sexual mores).
You seem to not see or agree with the concept that the vast majority of american women hold and are influenced by feminist ideology whether they call themselves feminist or not.
It is my opinion that the first step for women to take is to acknowledge where they are influenced by feminism. You can't "fix" a twisted world view without acknowleging it.
'"Relationships always involve some element of risk. However the risks associated with divorce such as your partner filing for divorce and loss of child custody are much lower for women."
These are not the only risks associated with divorce.'
That is true, however what risks associated with divorce do women overwhelmingly bear compared to men? The risks I mentioned above are overwhelmingly bourne by men. I see no overwhelmingly bourne risk for women.
"Fine then, we won't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are concerned about the impacts of divorce on kids."
Or...you could actually listen to what they say and ask clarifying questions when it is unclear instead of announcing what they do think or should think.
Noseintheair,
Thanks for your input bro! I think it is important to recognize the concept that there is "good" and there is "good for me.
You are conflating "women" with "feminists", Jesse. Not a good idea.
That's a heck of a leap Catwoman. Too bad you didn't reread that a few times before you jumped.
The statement is simply pointing out that the "doing the best they can" thing could easily be turned around and used to back fembots too, and so I don't put much stock in it. That's all.
Hey Jesse,
Sorry, I meant you when I said "Pleased to provide you with amusement Feral :)" earlier! (My apoligies to you too Feral if that confused you!). I was bound to get confused after that many comments.
Other than make for somewhat annoying occasional political conversations, how does inconsistency on socio-political issues have any bearing on the durability of a marriage?
It means I really don't know what her beliefs are. I don't know who she really is.
And that should be the first thing going throug the mind of anyone who encounters men's (or women's issues) in divorce for the first time -- what are the impacts on the kids?
It's women who are filing the divorces. The best thing for the kids (outside of extreme circumstances) would be to NOT GET DIVORCED in the first place. Therefore a woman filing for divorce in most cases has already thrown the idea of "what's best for the kids" out the window.
I guess what I'm getting at here, is that it sounds like you are holding on to your political views so tightly that it's probably keeping you from seeing the humanity in a good number of good women.
Actually, "conservative" women are just as likely as leftist women to file for divorce. Look at the divorce rates in the church for example. The "conservative" women just would have a different set of red flags.
I don’t know how else to explain it PMAFT and frankly I can’t figure out why you would object to the idea.
I object because of what is effectively experimental evidence. I didn't always have the beliefs I have now. The results were the same regardless of my point of view.
Plus, its not like I'm claming good women don't exist at all. I have found a few after all.
You can decide that the risks associated with divorce coupled with the number of good women out there mean you are not going to hold out any hope…that is your choice.
That is what I have decided. Women (and catwoman is particular guilty of this) don't seem to understand risk analysis.
I know which one I think is more likely to result in women understanding these issues. That is why I write this blog. I understand that as a woman I can talk to other women about these issues with more impunity than a man can, so I am not suggesting you start lecturing women on the subject. Just that you realize there is an understanding gap here.
The thing is that it isn't about whether I try to convince women about these issue. Men who are better with the written and/or spoken word than I have tried for decades and failed. Hence why we have the marriage strike and many men are GTOW (regardless of whether they have ever heard of the MGTOW concept). The answer in my opinion lies more with technology and MGTOW than anything else. If I convince any women, great, but I'm not putting a lot of work into it.
One thing I have noticed about catwoman's "example" is that she seems to be under the belief that either I or men in general (probably the latter) should just date any woman interested in us. Whether it makes sense or if there are any red flags shouldn't enter into the equation at all according to her.
This whole "there's something wrong with a man unless he has a girlfriend/wife" is a major reason why we're in this mess to begin with, and catwoman is perpetuating that.
No worries at all, Learner, and I was greatly amused. :)
I had thought about addressing "Skye" and her wishy-washy ways, but all of my points have been made: "Skye" may have a certain je ne sais quoi, and good for her, but that's not a foundation for a relationship, and doubly so for a committed Christian. I know many "nice girls", many of whom are very pretty, but I don't think twice about passing them over for consideration because of a lack of coherent philosophy, moral code, and articulable opinion regarding such. (Using the verb "feel" instead of "think" is immediate grounds for ridicule for anything requiring logic.)
To reinforce PMAFT's opinion, "red flags" and "deal-breakers" are not only an expedient method of separating the chaff from the grain, but a very necessary foundation for starting a relationship: if everything is permissible, there is no direction to the union.
I wasn't going to address this since it is a bit of a tangential issue but the more I think about it the more I want to say something.
Novaseeker said: "that's like saying I think people need to have the right to kill people, but I don't think they should actually do it. It reflects a muddled moral reasoning, and that goes to the core evaluation of her as a person."
And, Catwoman replied: A pacifist could say the same thing to someone who is anti-abortion but pro-military."
So, it is just as muddled to hold the two beliefs that, 1. mothers should not have the right to purposefully murder their children in the womb, and 2. that the military defends our country and should be supported (ie; promilitary...which is not the same as "pro-war")as it is to hold the two beliefs that, 1.if a woman chooses to murder her child in the womb that is a choice that should be legal, 2. but that people should not use war or violence to solve problems? Really? Isn't abortion by definition the use of violence to solve a problem? How is this disconnect any where near as muddled as the view that mothers should not purposefully murder their own children but that people have a right to defend themselves and protect others?
The idea that the two positions in any way could be compared as models of muddled reasoning is, in effect muddled reasoning itself.
Describing a good woman is akin to describing obscenity: hard to do with words, but you know it when you SEE it...
More eyebrow photos!!!!
SA,
LOL :)
Good Christian folk, in an effort to get Learner's blog to that magical 200 point, I offer you this...
Way back when I was in high school, my parents' marriage was in trouble. We all knew this. It was not a happy home, and they eventually separated, then divorced. Please bear in mind there were no minor or dependent children when this happened.
So, one of my best friends had us over to her house frequently. The parental couple was regarded in our church community as being truly Godly and Scriptural, because Mrs. Mom was submissive to Mr. Godly.
Here's the thing. Mrs.Mom used a tone of voice when talking to and about her husband that I, even in high school, found repulsive. It was so evident in her tone and language that she did not respect him as the head of the family.
Mr. Godly just kind of kept his head down and tried to appease Mrs.Mom, and according to the very letter of the law, she was doing her duty and was, ipso facto, a Godly woman.
But... I heard the tone of voice, and witnessed some of the daily interaction .. so which is the better woman? The one who acknowledged "We weren't a good match from the get-go and let social pressures tell us otherwise"
or the one who says "We are married for better or for worse and you are a constant disappointment to me so I'll make sure it's the worse for you until the end of your life."
Yes, these are two extremes, and there is a world of grey between the two. Just saying that the idea of "good" may also be interpreted differently depending on circumstance.
And I love my stepmum!
Thanks Librarian :)
Librarian,
It sounds as if both couples were astray in their assumptions, but I find the dynamic between Mrs. Mom and Mr. Godly to be particularly distasteful (from your description). An Pharisaical adherence to the law without regard to the spirit of the law does nothing but feed the sense of vindication in vengeance against her husband and encourage her husband to appease the wife's capricious habits with negative reinforcement. The willful intent to undermine her own marriage for selfish reasons is abominable.
Although I do not approve of divorce except in adultery, abuse or abandonment, the intent in the other marriage to do wrong does not seem to be evident. Whereas they should have reconciled their differences, it does not seem that they intended to cause harm to each other by perverting the spirit of the law.
I intentionally left my first requirement of "a good woman" vague with regards to one's sex, as
"good" is (in my interests) better defined through one's practice and adherence to God's law rather than nebulous pop-culture interpretation, no matter what kind of jangly-bits one has between the legs. (I've prayed that I find such a woman some day, and I hope she's attractive. That's all I want, really. Well, that, a little cabin in the mountains, a good rifle, and a nice garden. And some children, God willing.)
If you all would just be honest and say, we want "good" women as long as they are also "HOT" women, that would clear a lot of hurt up for those of us who are good, but not HOT.
I think "moderately attractive" would suffice in place of "hot".
And that makes comment #200. Shazaam!
Post a Comment