Men are like jars. Why do I say this? Well, some men who are older are getting a "second look" from women, but oftentimes the connections are still elusive. You see, a goodly number of men eventually go through the Awakening. It's the time of their life when the increase in their good sense catches up with the decrease in their hormonal urges. A man looks around and notices that all the women of his generation who were so intimidatingly beautiful have disappeared for some reason. They have been replaced by aging women. The wrapper is pulled off, the playing field leveled, and the essence of what these women are is clearly seen by the men around them. For better or for worse, these women basically have their "wonderful personalities" as their main draw, and not much more than that.Anyway, there is a lot of talk about the "problems" with older, unmarried men. They are accused of "having issues," "being inflexible," and "having bad habits." I think it is good for men to parse these accusations flung out by media and the culture at large. Consider the following ...
1. Sure, a man may "have issues" ... or he may have a tempered outlook on women, life, etc. He may not be so gullible about human nature as when he was younger. He may have some notable concerns and criticisms about what's going on around him. He has issues? Indeed. Valid issues with how so many others act.
2. Sure, a man may be "inflexible" .... or he may have legitimate standards and expectations. Maybe it's just that he's not so desperate, after all. He may not feel a need to wear a mask and remake himself in order to curry favor with people of dubious character. He may not feel the need to grovel or compromise on the important things, such as his dignity and his sense of justice.
3. Sure, a man may have "bad habits" .... or he may have his legitimate hobbies, tastes, pursuits, idiosyncrasies, and expressions of his individuality. He may understand what so many people do not: that God didn't make us like dandelions (each one looking the same). He may look around and see all the things some married men have had to give up in order to be ... what? Not much happier than him? Maybe living single with his beloved Kawasaki is not so bad, after all.
So, unmarried men, watch out. First you will be invisible. Then, when you reach a stage where you don't have much invested in the Game, you will be seen as "the problem." Most likely, though, you are not the problem. Rather, some people coming down hard on men have created their own problems and don't have the maturity to face up to them. Some people simply fail to understand what men are like.
Ladies, understand this: men are like jars. The bigger rocks are easier to cram into a jar at the beginning when it's being filled than later on. When men are younger, there is often space in their lives for the woman of their dreams and the things that come with her. But as the years pass, other important things may take up that space (including some nuggets of wisdom and experience). If you don't come into a man's life early on, don't expect it to be an easy thing when he is older and he is more sure of himself. He will probably have very little time, inclination, and patience for glam, glitz, games, hype, and nonsense. What will you have to offer then? Indeed, it's a question you need to ask yourself--before you start to remove the rocks and put in your bouquet of dandelions.
85 comments:
LOL. Translation: "I'm not a loser, I'm just wise." Nice try, Anikin. And if you think a Kawasaki can replace a human relationship... I really feel bad for you, homes.
vysota, I don't think you get it. What makes "a human relationship" so valued? Doesn't it depend on the quality of the relationship?
Is it worth it to sacrifice your happiness and peace just to say you are "in a relationship"?
Anakin continues to philosophize on problems that don't really exist...
vysota:
Perhaps a translation of your own post is in order:
Men should be eager to get married regardless of the liklihood that she'll throw you to the goverment wolves.
Sorry Vysota, when women demonstrate that they are quick to break their vows, don't be surprised when increasing numbers of men simply decide to not take vows at all.
That premise can work both ways, even to the point of cynicism that results in a denial of grace.
While a man--who is older and wiser--can stick to his standards and be selective in his choices, the same is true the other way around: a woman can always say, as "Anna"--in Debbie Maken's book--says: "If this [45 year old man] is so Godly, then why is he not married yet?"
The end-result: a man (woman) who desires to marry, will remain single. He (she) will be justified in his (her) decision, but also runs the risk of denying himself (herself) a good mate.
If you wish to remain single, then that is a non-issue.
But if you wish to marry, then you could be painting yourself into a corner.
Everyone who wishes to marry ought to have standards. It is on him (her) to resolve with God as to whether those standards are reasonable.
Excelent insight, as a 43 year old male I can speak from personal experience, the older you get the less trouble they are worth.
Something else you will notice, it is not enough to avoid the desperate unmarried women franticaly searching for any man to attached themselves to, you also have to avoid married men who's wives can't tolerate your life of freedom. They send out their husbands as Trojan horses to befriend you in an effort suck you into their lives as a pseudo second husband. Creepy I know but this is a strategy that is constantly employed against me. I am only speaking from experience.
As you are hanging out with what you think is a new friend you will also get tasked with to-do's in unison with hubby. From there they keep you running with never ending new requests until you realize you have been had and blast out of the trap never to look back.
I'd rather live with a Kawasaki than a woman, and I don't even like motorcycles..... At least if I don't switch it on, it won't bother me or cost me anything.
Great post, Anakin.
Justin -- yes, the quality of the relationship matters. So when I use the term "loser" I do mean "someone who cannot get a decent human relationship". Being unable to find a woman who actually cares about you would qualify. It's a 2-way street.
Wombatty -- nice generalization, pal. Just because you can't find a good woman does not mean there aren't plenty around. Question is: why would they go for someone like you or Anikin here?
Peter -- you're sad. I'm sorry.
"Issues". "Inflexible". "Bad habits". All except the last are quite possibly judgements rendered by someone who likely couldn't get a man to do what they wanted him to do. So they minimize him to dismiss the threat he posed to their worldview--or to their self-esteem.
The third, bad habits, is something that can be objectively assessed and verified or falsified.
The fact of the matter is that the longer men and women wait to marry, the more difficult they will find it to adjust to the relationship.
Men and women, in general, should marry young if they are to marry at all. This is the simple truth of it, and we ignore this truth at our own risk.
I agree that a motorcycle is a poor substitute for a human relationship, but then again not all relationships are made equal and a relationship with a used up older woman--a victim of the eligible bachelor paradox--may very well not be the equal of taking joy in enjoying the rest of life solo.
Why is it that some insist on constantly grading a man's worth, a man's masculinity, based upon his ability to bag a chick or willingness to harness himself to her broke-down wagon?
Why is it that manly behavior is always graded by a female's standard?
Justin -- yes, the quality of the relationship matters. So when I use the term "loser" I do mean "someone who cannot get a decent human relationship". Being unable to find a woman who actually cares about you would qualify. It's a 2-way street.
I wonder if you apply this standard to single women as eagerly as you apply it to single men. Perhaps I should regard a single woman my age as a 'loser' of some sort - perhaps an 'unpleasant shrew who chases all the men off'. After all, if she hasn't been able to attract a decent man, something must be wrong with her.
Wombatty -- nice generalization, pal.
You're one to talk. Not only is your own post a generalization, you actually missed Anakin's point.
Regarding my own generaliztion, dating/marriage is a game of odds and looking at the divorce stats (including the fact that it is women who file for divorce the vast majority of the time) gives many men legitimate pause. As with any 'game' of odds, you must base your decisions on statistics/generalizations - it's just the nature of the beast. That's why I don't buy lottery tickets.
Just because you can't find a good woman does not mean there aren't plenty around.
Is this supposed to be a valid point? First, you assume that I am 'looking for a good woman' and second, you assume that I said that there are none. The simple fact is that, for men, marriage is a much riskier proposition with much less potential benefit than it was in the past. If you can't understand how this might affect men's eagerness to pursue marriage, then you're simply clueless.
Question is: why would they go for someone like you or Anikin here?
or you, for that matter...
Good post.
Its the flowers job to attract the bee, the whole telos of the flower is to attract the bee. If the nectar ain't sweet enough the bee can simply get its fix from a lump of sugar.
I wonder if you apply this standard to single women as eagerly as you apply it to single men.
Sure. There are plenty of militant feminists who are in their 30s or 40s who were never able to form human relationships with the opposite sex because they were too busy being in love with being bitter. You're merely the male version of that (more well-known) phenomenon.
you actually missed Anakin's point.
Actually, no, I don't think I did. I simply read between the lines for the rather obvious subtext.
dating/marriage is a game of odds and looking at the divorce stats (including the fact that it is women who file for divorce the vast majority of the time) gives many men legitimate pause
No, it's not. It's a game of character discernment. Some are better at it than others. There are still odds involved, but that's life. There are no sure things. However, being a good judge of character minimizes one's chances for a crappy marriage / ugly divorce. As for the fact that it's women who usually file for divorce, considering that men are more likely to hit women than vice versa it would stand to reason that women would file for divorce more often. This is but a fraction of reasons. A certain percentage are gold diggers, which is a far less common phenomenon amongst men. Of course you'd have to be a total idiot to marry a gold digger, and in that case you get what you deserve.
The simple fact is that, for men, marriage is a much riskier proposition with much less potential benefit than it was in the past.
The benefit has not changed. The risk might have increased marginally. Yeah, imagine, you no longer get a slave for life. The horror! You might actually have to work together to keep each other happy. Oh noes!
Question is: why would they go for someone like you or Anikin here?
or you, for that matter...
Oh, I know! I ask my girlfriend that same question all the time. She seems to have her reasons. I've made peace with that.
You're merely the male version of that (more well-known) phenomenon.
Interesting that you presume that I am bitter, Upon what do you base that assertion? Reading between the lines again? I'm not surprised by it though. Feminists, their mangina enablers and those taken in by their propaganda often use such presumptuous 'arguments' to cast aspersions on those who disagree with them.
Actually, no, I don't think I did. I simply read between the lines for the rather obvious subtext.
No, it's not. It's a game of character discernment. Some are better at it than others. There are still odds involved, but that's life. There are no sure things. However, being a good judge of character minimizes one's chances for a crappy marriage / ugly divorce.
First, I didn't mean to say that it is just a game of odds; certainly character development is an important aspect. My point is that, in the last few decades, the odds have been artificially stacked against men to the point that it should be no surprise to see men change their approach to marriage.
As for the fact that it's women who usually file for divorce, considering that men are more likely to hit women than vice versa it would stand to reason that women would file for divorce more often.
Wrong. Studies have shown for some time that women initiate domestic violence nearly as often as women. Kathleen Parker highlights this fact in her article Politically Incorrect Domestic Violence
One of the primary myths — and the one that meets with the most resistance — is that only men are violent. As I point out in my own book, Save the Males, women and children indeed suffer the worst injuries and more often die as a result of those injuries. But women initiate violence as often as men.
Ignoring or downplaying that fact both obscures the real problem of intimate violence and makes solutions less likely. Yet even people who know better are afraid of speaking up lest they be accused of undermining feminist efforts to help women and children in danger.
[...]
According to Mills, studies now confirm that women initiate violence in 24 percent of cases in which the husbands don’t fight back, while men initiate violence in 27 percent of cases in which women don’t fight back. In the other 49 percent of cases, both partners actively participate in the violence.
[...]
Yet many states have a “must-arrest” policy if a call to police is made. Many also take a “primary aggressor” approach in determining who should be arrested. Even if the man calls the police, says Mills, he’s often the one hauled off and charged, based on the assumption that he, the physically stronger, is more dangerous.
Consequently, the underlying problem of violence isn’t addressed and people needing help won’t call police for fear of the draconian measures likely to follow. In fact, according to Mills, 75 percent of women and 86 percent of men don’t call the police when their partner is violent.
Given your logic, filers for divorce shouldn't be so losidedly women.
The benefit has not changed.
I disagree as men have much less security in their decision to marry that they used to.
The risk might have increased marginally.
Marginally? Wow - you are clueless. Try reading Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book Taken Into Custody. In fact, just go to his site and read some of his articles.
One of this articles - Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children is quite blunt about it. He starts off:
Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.
And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.
And then there's this:
Yeah, imagine, you no longer get a slave for life. The horror!
The fact that you think this has anything at all to do with this issue suggests quite a bit about what you have rattling around in your head.
You might actually have to work together to keep each other happy. Oh noes!
Again, you betray your own thoughts.
Interesting that you presume that I am bitter, Upon what do you base that assertion?
When someone harbors this much resentment and bitterness towards the opposite sex I call that person "bitter". It's just how I am. Sorry.
My point is that, in the last few decades, the odds have been artificially stacked against men to the point that it should be no surprise to see men change their approach to marriage.
Yes, you no longer can trade 5 goats for a babymaker/chef. I understand that eliminated a lot of options.
One of the primary myths — and the one that meets with the most resistance — is that only men are violent.
No, I don't think anyone believes this. However, if a woman hits a man, that's not likely to hurt him. If a man hits a woman... that's a different story. And men don't file for divorce due to abuse, partially because it's downright embarrassing to be beaten up by a woman. Whether or not that's a good thing is a discussion for a different day, but the fact remains that the vast majority of abuse-related divorces are initiated by women. That, of course, makes sense.
Try reading Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book Taken Into Custody. In fact, just go to his site and read some of his articles.
Why?
One of this articles - Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children is quite blunt about it.
OK, so he has an opinion. So do you. So do I. Why should his have any more credence?
The fact that you think this has anything at all to do with this issue suggests quite a bit about what you have rattling around in your head.
They're called "thoughts" (Google the term). And they're actually quite fun. I enjoy having them, maybe you might too.
You might actually have to work together to keep each other happy. Oh noes!
Again, you betray your own thoughts.
If by "betray" you mean "type" then you're on the money, for once. Congratulations, with your last sentence of 2 longs posts you got one right!
One of the primary myths — and the one that meets with the most resistance — is that only men are violent.
No, I don't think anyone believes this. However, if a woman hits a man, that's not likely to hurt him. If a man hits a woman... that's a different story.
You apparently do - here is your original comment:
...considering that men are more likely to hit women than vice versa it would stand to reason that women would file for divorce more often
and then...
, but the fact remains that the vast majority of abuse-related divorces are initiated by women. That, of course, makes sense.
But abuse-related divorces are not a majority of divorces - not even close.
Try reading Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book Taken Into Custody. In fact, just go to his site and read some of his articles.
Why?
To educate yourself. Your assertion that the risk of marriage might have went up marginally betrays your ignorance.
OK, so he has an opinion. So do you. So do I. Why should his have any more credence?
His opinion is based on a mountain of empirical evidence - yours seems to be based on ignorance.
They're called "thoughts" (Google the term). And they're actually quite fun. I enjoy having them, maybe you might too.
Sounds more like feminist/mangina propaganda to me.
Wombatty -- obviously when I said "hit" I meant "hit to cause pain / damage". Men are far more likely to do that to women than vice versa because, on average, they are much stronger.
But abuse-related divorces are not a majority of divorces - not even close.
What is, and where are you getting the statistics?
Your assertion that the risk of marriage might have went up marginally betrays your ignorance.
Yes, the risk of marriage has gone up. Again, when you give a group of people rights there will be some sort of a down side. Since women are now no longer the property of their husbands, the "risk" for the husband that his wife will leave him has increased. And because black people are no longer slaves the "risk" that a black guy will refuse to till your fields has also shot up dramatically since about 1864. The horror. So yes, now you actually have to work to make sure your wife is happy (and she has to work to make sure you are). And while every system has the potential for abuse, this is certainly better than the previous system, where you basically owned your wife.
His opinion is based on a mountain of empirical evidence - yours seems to be based on ignorance.
Ummm, no, mine is based on knowing a ton of people in happy marriages, and knowing what it takes to make one work. Statistics are funny things. I could, for instance, argue that education is useless based on the statistics that 100 is the average IQ, and that's not all that bright. So I can give advise that "you should not seek a college degree, and certainly not a post-graduate degree because statistically speaking you're likely to be stupid".
Sounds more like feminist/mangina propaganda to me.
What is this "mangina" business? Are you under the impression you're being witty? Was 4th grade the apex of your maturity? Other than the cuteness factor, does this even have a meaning? Does being a parrot of useless terminology make you feel less intellectually puny?
OK, Wombatty, I read the suggested "Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children" article. Several points about it.
1. Not a shred, not even a hint of evidence, proof, or, hell, even hearsay in the whole thing. Not a whiff. All the article presents is a stream-of-consciousness rant not backed up by a single fact. Just a statement after statement after statement that we're supposed to take on faith. THIS is your authority with a "mountain of empirical evidence"? What, he couldn't spare a crumb of it in the article?
2. He's from Patrick Henry College. 'Nuff said.
3. Besides failing to provide a single fact (oops) he also fails to provide either the logic behind why women supposedly to this, or a way to fix the system. In a court of law if you have no evidence and no motive you will at best be laughed out, if not disbarred for being a waste of skin.
4. To call this Baskerville guy "fringe" is an insult to fringes. He's beyond fringe. He's, well, he's batshit. And when the guy's "bio" does not bother to mention where / when / in what he got his PhD, that's incredibly suspect as well.
This is the best you got, wombatty? What, you don't have a crazy uncle in a tinfoil hat you can trot out as an authority?
vysota - "...I ask my girlfriend..."
Girlfriend, is it?
Let me get this straight;
Someone who is obviously, an abject failure in the matter of marriage, is lecturing others as to the value of marriage?
How can an unmarried person even pretend to be an "expert" with regards to marriage?
I claimed to be an expert on marriage, slwerner? Wow, that's news to me. Do kindly point out where.
Also, having a girlfriend does not mean one is a "failure at marriage". It means one is not married. You see, a "failure" is someone who has tried the thing in question and did not succeed at it. A person who has not tried something cannot be a failure at it. Thus though it's entirely possible I'll be a failure at marriage, there is no reason to speculate on that.
Vysota
"So yes, now you actually have to work to make sure your wife is happy (and she has to work to make sure you are)."
And what does she lose if she doesn't?
Check out 'game theory', look up the word 'incentive' and then come back. If you still don't get it, put the feet up, light up a doobie and give your poor batshit slavic mind some rest.
Vysota:
Your continued assertion that any of this has to do with women having rights and not being property is fallacious. On what do you base this assumption?
It's not that women now have rights they didn't have before - it's that government policy grants women special rights at the expense of men. For example, If a women files for divorce, thereby breaking the marriage contract, it is the man who will more than likely be evicted from his own home, it is the man who will be denied access to his children. This is just the start - and he has committed no crime. The man is held accountable for child support, but the woman may spend the money however she wishes - no accountability.
As for your witnessing many good marriages, I've seen lots of bad ones and I've seen what men are subjected to by the family courts. The fact that you haven't doesn't change reality.
As for 'mangina' - no, I don't think I'm being funny. It's a descriptive term referring to male who, among other things, is an apologist for the current gynocentric society we are slouching towards. It also refers to men who compulsively blame men & excuse women. Your repeated insistence that this issue has anything to do with men losing the slave/property status of their wives (i.e. the dreaded 'patriarchy') is a perfect example. You simply assume, as feminists often do, that if man objects to the current state of affairs, there must be something wrong with him.
And what does she lose if she doesn't?
The same thing she gained when she married you. If she didn't care about having it, she would not have married you.
Check out 'game theory', look up the word 'incentive' and then come back.
Thanks. Any more sage advise?
If you still don't get it, put the feet up, light up a doobie and give your poor batshit slavic mind some rest.
No no, I'll wait for more racist idiocy from you. Or are you done?
For example, If a women files for divorce, thereby breaking the marriage contract, it is the man who will more than likely be evicted from his own home, it is the man who will be denied access to his children.
While this may be true, this is an argument for a better definition of divorce laws / custody laws, NOT an argument against marriage. But in your opinion, should men then get custody, child support etc? If so, why? Also, fathers are not denied access to their children. That's an old wives (har!) tale. They may have a bit less access than the mothers, but they do not totally lose access unless the court determines they have done something severe.
As for 'mangina' - no, I don't think I'm being funny.
Whew.
It's a descriptive term referring to male who, among other things, is an apologist for the current gynocentric society we are slouching towards.
So what's the descriptive term for "ball-less wonder who spends his time whining on blogs that women are mean to him"? Oh, right, "wombatty". Nvm.
You simply assume, as feminists often do, that if man objects to the current state of affairs, there must be something wrong with him.
That there is something wrong with you is a given. That's not my business, that's your therapist's. The question is: so what's your alternative? And no, "whimpering softly" does not count. On the upside you personally don't have to worry much about the very issue that's near and dear to your heart. Only a total dimwit would marry you -- considering how much you hate women -- so I guess this is all academic to you anyways.
Not a shred, not even a hint of evidence, proof, or, hell, even hearsay in the whole thing.
First, most such articles are not referenced. Second, you're basing your opinion of his work on one article? That's a pretty flimsy case you're making. Why don't you try reading a some more of his articles, here or here? Or - if you really want references and citations, read his book which contains 47 pages of endnotes.
2. He's from Patrick Henry College. 'Nuff said.
Maybe that's all it takes to persuade you, but I'm going to need a little more than a smug dismissal.
In a court of law if you have no evidence and no motive you will at best be laughed out, if not disbarred for being a waste of skin.
You're obviously not familiar with family courts.
And when the guy's "bio" does not bother to mention where / when / in what he got his PhD, that's incredibly suspect as well.
Indeed? From his bio page:
Stephen Baskerville is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Patrick Henry College and past president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. He is a Fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society and a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and for many years taught political science at Howard University and Palacky University in the Czech Republic.
I guess one out of three ain't bad...
This is the best you got, wombatty? What, you don't have a crazy uncle in a tinfoil hat you can trot out as an authority?
Try reading his bio page again (for the first time?). Given how widely published he is in wide variety of respected venues and the high praise his book has received by respected people, your appraisal of him is worth about as much as, say, that of 'a crazy uncle in a tinfoil hat'.
"The same thing she gained when she married you."
Oh no,no,no,no my poor deluded friend, she gains a lot more financially by divorcing.
You clearly are an aspergers, raised by a single mum or a slavic nimrod.
There's no point dueling with a dude who is clearly missing the frontal lobe of his brain. Logic eludes you.
Peace out, chilax and have a mocha chino or whatever you retarded douche bags have.
I claimed to be an expert on marriage, slwerner? Wow, that's news to me. Do kindly point out where.
How about here:
Ummm, no, mine is based on knowing a ton of people in happy marriages, and knowing what it takes to make one work.
You didn't use the word 'expert', but it's pretty close.
Also, having a girlfriend does not mean one is a "failure at marriage". It means one is not married. You see, a "failure" is someone who has tried the thing in question and did not succeed at it. A person who has not tried something cannot be a failure at it. Thus though it's entirely possible I'll be a failure at marriage, there is no reason to speculate on that.
Of course there's reason to speculate that you'll be a failure. Your imagination is apparently all the proof you need that we men are just pining away for the days of slave-wives, why should we require anything more to suppose you'll be a failure?
Along those same lines, I'll second slwerner's comment - despite 'knowing what makes a marriage work' you apparently haven't figured out how to get one started in the first place. What's wrong, doesn't your girlfriend want to be a slave-wife? Oh, the humanity!! ;-)
Peter -- you're sad. I'm sorry.
vysota --
Thank you for the insult. Actually, I've been married 23 years.
Do you have any positive reasons for guys like Anakin and wombatty to get married? You know, other than 'you're a loser if you don't'.
First, most such articles are not referenced. Second, you're basing your opinion of his work on one article?
That's the one you provided. I'm not sure how you go about being offended that I actually read the link you posted, and had the temerity to critique it, but you seem to have a talent for idiocy.
Also, you're right about Baskerville's PhD. I found it.
Given how widely published he is in wide variety of respected venues and the high praise his book has received by respected people, your appraisal of him is worth about as much as, say, that of 'a crazy uncle in a tinfoil hat'.
He "publishes" on extreme right-wing websites. That's not an accomplishment, that's just sad. I looked at the first link you provided. Everything I saw was some right-wing fringe rag with as much credibility as a homeless person's sign. And who are these "respected people" who praise his book, exactly? Look, 'batty, when your links support your opponent's arguments, maybe it's time to stop posting links. That's just a free hint.
You're obviously not familiar with family courts.
You obviously fashion yourself a Perry Mason. Pardon me if I doubt that just a bit.
You didn't use the word 'expert', but it's pretty close.
This ain't horseshoes or hand grenades, mi amore. Nice of you to admit you're wrong, however. It's a step in the right direction.
Your imagination is apparently all the proof you need that we men are just pining away for the days of slave-wives, why should we require anything more to suppose you'll be a failure?
Forgive me for momentarily assuming you to be a logical human being. Such a lapse in judgment shall not happen again.
despite 'knowing what makes a marriage work' you apparently haven't figured out how to get one started in the first place.
I will. Whereas you'll still be wearing out your right hand for the rest of your days or screwing two-bit hookers who are too coked up to care what goes in where.
Chill, Anonymous. The next Klan meetin's just around the corner.
Peter - actually, no, I have no reason for Anikin or wombatty to marry. In fact, I would prefer them to not pollute the gene pool with any more copies of themselves. I'm not so much arguing for *them* to get married, mind you. Well... I take it back. Anikin... he might be OK. He's sad and somewhat pathetic, but he does not seem like too bad a guy. Just unhappy. Wombatty... well, him I would not wish upon any woman.
Actually, I've been married 23 years.
And in all that time you could not make enough money to buy a Kawasaki? Wow.
Why is everyone feeding the obvious feminist troll here? I don't see the point.
Actually, I've been married 23 years.
And in all that time you could not make enough money to buy a Kawasaki? Wow.
You obviously haven't experienced what a drain on your finances a wife is.
Novaseeker - you're right of course.
You obviously haven't experienced what a drain on your finances a wife is.
You're right, I have not. I live in this bubble where pretty much every woman I know has this thing called a "job" and, amazingly enough, they give you money for those. In fact in some families the wife earns as much as, or even more than the husband.
Also, you're telling me that in 23 years you would not have been able to save up for a Kawasaki? Really? Are you in prison?
Thank you for the dialogue, vysota. You've made me think that maybe some of my remarks were a little ill-considered.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the coward's way out and let more able people take you on.
Good luck!
There, there, anonymous. You're cute when you're desperate.
That's nothing you should see me when I'm drunk, then I'm darn right sexy. Enough of alcohol talk, I guess you might suffer from some repressed childhood Vodka trauma as it is.
You're right NovaSeeker - I let myself get sucked in. I should have known better - especially after being reminded by 'The Feminist’s Guide To Debate Tactics'. On to more interesting things...
That's right, wombatty. "I'm running away because I have too much dignity". But hey, maybe your mommy believes you. On the other hand, considering your attitude towards women, chances are your mommy cares even less about you than I do.
Wombatty, Anon, etc.,
I would not bother with vysota anymore. As the book of Proverbs says:
Proverbs 9:7-8 He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. 8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you...
I think that certainly applies in this situation. I would just put it up on your blogs so that anyone who is interested in this controversy can see the nastiness of those who oppose the other side of this issue, and let that speak for itself.
God Bless,
Adam
Well said PC
PC -- allow me to translate your post for the benefit of those not versed in double-speak:
"Don't debate with people who hold opinions different from you because, chances are, they will prove you wrong, and then you will look foolish. Therefore heed the old proverb: 'Tis better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt'. Thus only talk to people who will always agree with your every word, lest the stress of defending your positions becomes too great."
I apologize, my previous post should have read "opinions different from yours". I hate it when the English language gets mangled. I blame the feminists...
So batty, I know I have put the fear of god in you and all that, but hey, maybe your ego will goad you into actually answering a question:
What do you propose?
You rail against feminists, family courts, etc etc etc. You got a better idea? Outlaw divorce? Not allow mothers to see their children if they file for divorce? Stop reproducing and end the human race? What? Again, you have all these wonderful criticisms of the present system, yet you're to actually say a single thing that's not a complaint. What do we do, hombre?
Vysota,
How dare you?!? FOR THE LAST TIME, stop calling me your GIRLfriend. I hope you're not embarrassed of our relationship together, 'cause you know, you mean so much to me. Are you seeing another man?!? I hope not! It's just -- I have these feelings for you and it pains me when you spend more time on this forum than you do with me, sugar lips.
You're tender, sensitive, and I'm definitely turned on by your Russian missile. Oh, wow! Just wow, baby! Anyway, we'll talk about this when you cum home. See ya later hunky boy. Don't forget our anniversary. I've got the candles burning ... oh, and goodness I almooOOoost forgo00oot --- please allow me to be little Bo Peep who lost his sheep tonight, remember the first time we did that?
vysota,
Allow me to paraphrase what you have said:
"I will just call 'hurling insults at people' debate, and, when I have won the insult war, I will say I have won the debate. Then, I will just say that anyone who refuses to play my game is 'afraid' to debate me'"
Vysota, you have not said anything of substance, and your ad hominem would have disqualified you from any academic debate. You fit the definition well of what the Bible means by "scoffer," and therefore, there is no point in arguing with you.
When you have some substantive response to something anyone has said, then let us know.
God Bless,
Adam
PC -- I do have substantive responses. I just happen to not be particularly nice about them, but neither is anyone else. I asked for evidence of his POV from wombatty. He provided Dr. Baskerville. I tore Dr. Baskerville apart based on several obvious problems. He threw a fit. I asked him what he sees as the problem. His basic answer is "feminists and family courts". He has provided not a shred of evidence, at all, for any of his assertions.
So no, this is not just a "war of insults". This is one person saying "I'm right because I'm right" and me saying "OK, prove it". There is nothing of substance I can say because there is nothing of substance to respond to. The only thing wombatty has done has been to whine about women in general and feminists in particular. But, again, that's not an argument. That's a cry for help. What do you want me to do about that?
Dog bless.
Vysota, you have not said anything of substance, and your ad hominem would have disqualified you from any academic debate.
Let's see:
1- completely baseless accusations of men pining away for the days of 'slave-wives' & women-as-property
2- equally baseless accusations of men lamenting 'having to keep a woman happy'
3- smears against Dr. Baskerville that are, at best simply opinion and, at worst, groundless
C'mon PC, wherever do you get the idea that there's no substance?
vyosta,
You haven't dealt with Baskerville. All you have done is personally attack him, and then called it a substantive response! Of course, you ignore the fact that Albert Mohler has had him on his program, and the likes of folks like Phyllis Shlafly [who is, herself, a lawyer] have likewised endorsed his work. You also attack him, and admit that you have never even read his book!
Again, I see the same thing in all of your posts. Just insult anyone and anything that disagrees with you, and don't argue against someone's position. As long as you do that, you will continue to fit the Biblical definition of a scoffer.
Now, if you would like to take Anakin's post apart, and actually present arguments against it, we are listening. However, as for me, I think your insults need to simply be ignored, which is what I am doing from now on.
God Bless,
Adam
Wombatty -- instead of crying, why not answer my question?
I'm not smearing Dr. Baskerville. I'm merely pointing out that he's extremely fringe in his opinions, and that he has not published in anything resembling main-stream, reputable publication, much less a peer-reviewed one. In fact, the most "mainstream" thing he's published in (according to the first link) is Playboy letters. Impressive, yes, though hardly a bastion of cutting-edge social or judicial research.
PC -- ummm, since when do Mohler and Shlafly count as "mainstream", much less actual research? Yes, Baskerville is an ultra right-wing loon, who talks to other, more important right-wing loons. Thanks for proving my point. That's like saying "No, he's not a Communist, look, he frequently talks to Karl Marx!" or "Look, he's not a Catholic, he has an audience with the Pope every other month!" I'm not sure how that "logic" works.
I would love to take apart Anikin's post. It's just... there is nothing to take apart! Literally. He does not make a single point. Can you tell me what the point of his post is? That it's harder for older men to change? Well, OK, sure, but that's a) Trivial b) True for men AND women c) Not an indictment of anything d) Certainly not the slam against women that he's trying to make it out to be.
Therefore, since he typed up a fairly long post without having an actual point I ventured a guess as to his motivation. Wombatty came in later, whining about "government wolves" which are supposedly out to get him were he to get married. He then chose to "take the high road" once I destroyed his arguments (or, rather, exposed the fact that his arguments are not based on any facts that he cares to provide). It truly takes a big man to walk away after losing.
Haha-
Vysota - vagina, they both start with V.
I get it now!
Whatsa matter? Pumped and dumped too many times? Poor baby. It does go to show the depth of your fury and helpless rage, that you have taken on the mantle of the truly powerful (males) in your effort to shake your tiny fist at the world.
Adam and Eve, honey. Leader, follower. I'm sorry that your efforts to usurp the God-given leadership position have come to naught - that's life!
Maybe if you threw a little more enthusiasm into the sex you could keep a guy.
Cheers!
I'd rather live with a Kawasaki than a woman, and I don't even like motorcycles..... At least if I don't switch it on, it won't bother me or cost me anything.
What Peter said! He's right! I like motorcycles, but, if you don't turn them on, they'll keep quiet and not cause you any trouble at all. That's more than you can say for a woman...
That reminds me of the old joke: your wife is @ the front door, while the dog is barking at the back door. Who do you let in first? The dog, because the dog will at least SHUT UP once you let it in!
Vysota - "I claimed to be an expert on marriage, slwerner?"
I never said you "claimed" to be an expert, I said that you pretend to be an expert on marriage.
Given your oh so smug attitude, let me suggest that you try re-reading this:
"How can an unmarried person even pretend to be an "expert" with regards to marriage?"
Then, look up the definitions of "claim" and "pretend", and see if you can see what the difference is.
Then, just for fun, you can review some of your gems:
* However, being a good judge of character minimizes one's chances for a crappy marriage / ugly divorce.
* The horror! You might actually have to work together to keep each other happy. Oh noes!
* ...the vast majority of abuse-related divorces are initiated by women.
* Since women are now no longer the property of their husbands, the "risk" for the husband that his wife will leave him has increased.
* And while every system has the potential for abuse, this is certainly better than the previous system, where you basically owned your wife.
* ... mine is based on knowing a ton of people in happy marriages, and knowing what it takes to make one work.
* The same thing she gained when she married you. If she didn't care about having it, she would not have married you.
* ...this is an argument for a better definition of divorce laws / custody laws, NOT an argument against marriage.
You sure pretend to know a lot about marriage, despite never actually having been married.
So, you seem to have a beef with those who advocate against marriage, giving teh impression that you are therefore an advocate of marriage; yet you yourself remain unmarried.
Thus, one might well conclude that either you would like to be married, but have failed to achieve this (you deny this option, of course); or, conversely, you believe that other men should marry, but you've failed to take your own advice.
Seems like "failure" either way.
slwerner -- that was cute. Stupid, but cute.
No, I did not pretend to be an "expert on marriage", and none of your quotes demonstrate anything to contradict that. I do claim to know something about marriage, but that's kind of like knowing something about water: living in this day, age and society it's impossible to avoid coming into continuous contact with both of these. But just because I know some basic things about water (that it flows downhill, that it's a liquid which freezes below 273 K, that it's a polar molecule etc) does not make me an "expert". Similarly I'm by no means an "expert" on marriage, but I do know enough about it to more than hold my own against those who are similarly not experts. Unless you, slwerner, are suggesting that, unlike myself, you, Anikin, wombatty et al are experts on the subject. Is that what you're saying?
So, you seem to have a beef with those who advocate against marriage, giving teh impression that you are therefore an advocate of marriage; yet you yourself remain unmarried.
Yes, just like I am an advocate of access to abortion despite never having had one (or, biologically, unable to have one). Just like I support the San Diego Chargers despite the fact that I have never played for them. Does one need to be so self-centered as to support something positive for society ONLY if it bears direct, immediate fruit in your own life? Not only that, but marriage is not just about the 2 people being married. I'm a strong advocate of marriage for a whole host of reasons, including the personal experience of growing up with parents who have a great marriage. Is that so hard to wrap your little brain around, werner?
Thus, one might well conclude that either you would like to be married, but have failed to achieve this (you deny this option, of course)
I do? Yes, I would like to get married, and I soon will. But even if I don't, what does that prove? Unlike you, I'm not a complete idiot. Therefore I don't advocate things for the hell of it. I would only marry a person I truly love, and someone I'm convinced truly loves me. I wouldn't get married just because "it's the thing to do". Idiots who do that are the ones who wind up divorcing or having miserable relationships. You seem to think that there is no gray area between "marry the first girl who goes on a third date with you" and "become an embittered asshole towards the entire female gender and write periodic angry missives about it on the internet (aka "pull a wombatty")". Sorry to break it to you, but there is a rather large continuum between the 2 extremes.
So speaking of failures... nice post!
Vysota - "So speaking of failures... nice post"
Despite your self-aggrandizing pontifications, you seem to understand very little about actual marriage. For instance, the whole litany of "down-side" arguments against it - those things you seem to flippantly imagine can be easily "fixed" with a little legislative effort.
As a long-term married man myself (25 years) I have considered both sides of the marriage argument, and I have concluded that I cannot whole-heartedly advocate it for my own son, nor any other young men I care about (which means most of young men, world-wide).
Marriage has morphed into a long-term legal liability for men, without any guarantees for them in return. Additionally, young women today are ALL heavily influenced by feminist thought and ideology. Even those who might seem like good marriage material are quite likely to turn quite viciously against a husband, with often very little provocation. You seem to have over-looked mountains of evidence in your efforts to understand marriage "of so well".
So, since you don't come right out and explain yourself, what are we to think of someone who seems to have no (apparent) agenda beyond belittling those who don't view marriage today the same way you do?
Perhaps you simply just like to make yourself feel better by hurling insults at those you like to imagine yourself as being better than?
beyond that, I see no point in denouncing others for their anti-marital positions, especially since you proffer no counter-arguments to their concerns.
You may like to believe you know what marriage should be, but, again, you have no way of personally knowing - you've seen a few that work, and, even though you're only guessing at why it is that they do work, you've convinced yourself that you know so much better than all these other idiots who actually present their case against marriage today.
Well, as it has been noted, pride goeth before a fall.
And, my post a failure?
Sure seemed to get you pissed off. Since that was my primary aim, I'm going to mark it down as a success.
Have a bad day!
slwerner:
Consider vysota's post vs. most others in this thread - including mine - and ask yourself who is "an embittered asshole' writing 'angry missives'. Is there a point to engaging such a person any further? NovaSeeker was right - starve the troll.
slwerner wrote:
You seem to have over-looked mountains of evidence in your efforts to understand marriage "of so well".
[...]
Well, as it has been noted, pride goeth before a fall.
Indeed, such men usually learn about how things really are the hard way when they get blindsided by reality
Wombatty - "starve the troll"
Gee, I was hoping to "poke the bear".
I just wanted to piss off this vysota person - who claims to be a man (when I first encountered posts from that person, the use of certain terminology lead me to believe that they were posts by a lesbian - but, I cannot be certain).
I'm hoping that vysota will call me a "loser", or maybe even something worse; and, hopefully, question my intellect.
Now, that would make me happy. Then, once it's angry, I can see starving the troll.
[...] ask yourself who is "an embittered asshole' writing 'angry missives'
Make that a "delusional, embittered, pissed off, narcissistic, and deranged left wing asshole" who spits out subjective opinion and spins it as the truth. Then, like a niave little vitriolic bastard, begins beating on his chest and wetting his panties in his puerile attempts to crown himself as "victor". Taking a page from his own book, I'm not sure how that "logic" works out though.
Perhaps he's suffering from poor male or female inadequacies. A double helping of 'Beano' and a month off from watching Oprah might set him/ her right ... but I doubt it. No, I fear Anakin's flatulent cyber-stalker is thoroughly in need of intensive therapy and massive doses of anti-neurotics. Once he's cured, then he'll have something to really cheer about!
Until then, I'll enjoy the pop psychology that inevitably surfaces anytime one fails to sufficiently prostrate oneself before matriarchial dogma, such as, presented by our hysterical troll. Vysota's arrogance and conceit is only exceeded by his wild fantasies and gangster-style posturing. If this clueless loser does, indeed, have a girlfriend, it's my guess she's at the lower end of the gene pool.
Yeah, vysota is definitely a woman, I reckon.
Men don't go on and on like women sometimes do. They usually state their case in a rational manner.
Vysota's whinning ad hominem trolling is quite puerile.
Yep, a woman alright. Pfft!
Through my powers of deductive reasoning I have deduced Vysota is a middle aged Ukrainian Jewish woman who can't get a root.
Tee hee! anon 1:19
Howdy Vysota,
Let me take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge your existence, for once, after months of tolerating your vicious (and false) vitriol against my person. As as disagreeable and despicable as your behavior has been, I have allowed you to post your opinions here for quite a while.
But as you can see, I just deleted your last three posts. I feel that your behavior falls under the definition of trolling. You have indicated on more than one occasion that you enjoy insulting others, here. Well, I don't. And this is MY blog .... "homes." If you're here for the pure enjoyment of urinating on the discussions that go on here, then I suggest you that you not come back.
What? I'm sorry, did I delete your last post again? Oh, that infantile comment about "yes men" and the previous one "censoring." Trolls always cry censorship when the boom gets dropped.
Yep, it is censorship!
The thing is .. other people have disagreed strenuously with me and have had some sharply worded posts, but nothing like you, Vysota (who seems to take pleasure in stirring flame wars). If you care so much about censorship, then you can 1) start your own blog 2) go off and complain at another MRA blog or 3) tone down the vicious insults.
Vysota - ”Wow! Talk about the mother of all FAIL!” So you're morally against something you've been voluntarily doing for 25 years?
You think way to shallowly. I’m not against men and women being together and being in love. I’m against the government sanctioned male-slavery that is Marriage 2.0. The state of marriage has changed greatly, and all for the worse in the last 25 years. In 1984, while problems were already starting to emerge, marriage still seemed reasonable. Now, it’s a fools bet.
Vysota - ”Hey, just because YOU or people you know can't find a decent wife that's not an argument for not marrying.”
And the alternative would be…marrying a woman you don’t believe will be decent wife?
Vysota - ”That's like saying "well, I suck at driving so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone". That's not a fundamental problem. That's a fundamental YOU problem.”
What a piss-poor example. A more rational one would be that if one lived in a local where other people were dangerous drivers, then it would be an argument against wanting to drive. That’s more like what the state of marriage has become. A bunch of women who will be horrible at, but still want to do so. But, hey, for you, that’s no argument to not get out there and give it a try.
Vysota - ”Oh, but I have. How's about "find a woman who marries you because she loves you and wants to be with you rather than for your money or your sperm"? “
That’s NOT an argument – it’s nothing but an empty platitude. What percentage of young women to day would that include? A lot of young men out there looking are reporting that there simply are not many such women to be found anymore. Your idea ranks right up there with advising women to go about kissing frogs in hopes of finding a prince.
Vyosta - ”Or is that too far above your pay grade?”
Way to cliché! Any chance you might provide something of substance instead? Maybe something better than ill-thought examples that bear little or no reflection on reality?
Ummm, no, I'm not guessing. I do know why they work, the question is will I be able to do that myself? I'm hopeful...”
No, your guessing. No one knows, for sure, what will make any one marriage work. There is no magic pill. And, most of the “self-help” stuff out there seems to be of more harm than good. Most of it seems to be about how to be a good little man-slave, ignoring the reality that becoming a supplicating kitchen-bitch is likely to get you cuckolded, and, perhaps, raising another man’s child.
[continued]
[continuing]
Vysota - ” The thing with these "anti-marriage" people, like you, is that you present no alternatives. Coming back to my earlier example with driving, you're saying "driving sucks, don't do it", to which I'm saying "OK, even leaving aside that it's YOU who sucks at driving, if we all listened to you, what are your alternatives? How do we get from place to place? How do we get goods from place to place? How do we entertain rednecks?" Your whining about marriage leaves out your actual solutions. So you're proposing the human race simply stops reproducing and ends itself? Wombatty beat a hasty retreat when he saw the questions, I'm guessing you have no more balls than him.”
Again, your shallow way of thinking prevents you from understanding the solution, much as you misunderstand the problem.
First off, your example still sucks, and doesn’t really fit.
A more apt example would be if car prices were exorbitant, many people would simply refuse to buy a car – and thus, they would not be driving. That’s what’s happened to marriage. It hasn’t been that men became worse at it. It because it’s become to expensive and to risky (what with all the reckless women out there). Men have made intelligent decisions that driving isn’t worthwhile, not that they “suck” at it.
Secondly, just as there are alternatives to driving (even if they are not always as easy to live with), marriage isn’t required for either relationships nor procreation, frankly.
Yes, I understand that sex outside of marriage is a sin. But, as women who are increasingly choosing to become single mothers by choice are showing us, there are indeed alternatives. I’m sure you were aware that women can used donated sperm to have their eggs fertilized and implanted (no sex involved).
One gat celebrity (whose name escapes me at the moment) even went so far as to have a surrogate (woman) implanted with a donor egg fertilized with his sperm, so as to have a child.
For all the overly-wishful talk of women eventually being able to have babies without men (some gene transfer from Y to X chromosomes, along with creation of stem cells from such genetic alterations which could then be selectively differentiated into X-Chromosome-only sperm and egg – no males needed, nor created); the simple reality is that artificial wombs are much closer to becoming reality.
At that point, men who wish to have children can take the same route as all those women who now wish to have no men involved in their children’s lives – purchase a donated egg, provide some sperm for fertilization, and use an artificial womb to carry the embryo to term.
But, of course, that’s even more complicated than, say, riding a bus to avoid having to drive.
The real “solution” is for men to hold off from participating in Marriage 2.0, and fro them to demand of woman who want partners and children to be willing to sign contracts (as are becoming more common in European countries) which provide for the protections of men’s interests not available via marriage.
Or alternatively, we could continue driving down the same dangerous road of Marriage 2.0, hoping for the best.
Admittedly, there are no truly good, easy alternative’s to what marriage used to be. But, Marriage 2.0 is an out-and-out disaster from the male perspective – all the responsibilities, none of the rights or protections. Getting married today would be like taking to roads filled with drunk drivers just because some people think that they HAVE to drive.
Bye, bye, chubby wubby!
Nice laughin' atcha!
Anakin - she'll be back, you'll just have to keep deletin' until she goes away for good.
to be willing to sign contracts (as are becoming more common in European countries)
This is something not very many Americans are aware of, I think. My European colleagues look at me as if I have three heads when I tell them that many American women are off-put by premarital contracts and so on -- because they are pretty standard in many continental European countries, and have been so for some time. But then again, we need to remember that the real excessive pedestalization of women is a characteristic of the Anglo countries -- not the continental ones.
Well, werner, I'd answer you, but Anikin is too afraid to let me. Thus, I guess, you can have the last word. Until Anikin shows he has the balls to allow dissent you can win by default.
"dissent" is the highest form of vaginal irritation, vagisota
@vysota
If your still about, check out this new item over at The Spearhead - How To Deal With “Not All Women Are Like That”.
It's a good assessment of what men must go through in selecting a mate - and why the arguments against doing so make more and more sense.
I read the article werner. Look, I'm a scientist. Thus I can smell pseudo-scientific bullcrap from a mile away. Maybe years of sporadic "evolution vs. creationism" debates honed it.
All your article says is "there is cost associated with making the wrong decision". No duh. So here's my response: if you cannot tell whether a woman is a gold digger before you marry her, you've deserved whatever happens to you. The flipside is: how about you marry a woman who has a freaking job? All these people, including you, run around assuming that their wife will sit at home, eat candy and devote her time to getting fat and ugly. Now women with careers and good paychecks may not WANT misogynistic a-holes like, well, yourself, but, again, that's a YOU problem. My girlfriend / future wife, for example, will have a job that will earn less money than mine, but not by a whole lot. So if you're an ugly bastard who's devoid of personality but with a high-paying job and you marry a hot young thing whose goal in life is to look pretty then anything she does to you after the wedding is YOUR damn fault. That's like complaining that "miracle water" that you bought from a televangelist didn't cure your cancer. A fool and his money are soon parted.
Also, slwerner, selecting the right mate now is far less crucial than it used to be. Now if you make the wrong decision -- divorce! Decades ago, back in your hallowed Golden Age, once you got married -- that's it. You're stuck with whatever wrong choice you made for the rest of your life. Maybe we value things in life differently but I would much rather lose a substantial chunk of money and get rid of a horrible harpy than keep that money and have to live with her for the rest of my days. I value my happiness more than I value my money.
vysota - ”I read the article werner. Look, I'm a scientist. Thus I can smell pseudo-scientific bullcrap from a mile away.”
Um…it was more of an ECONOMIC-based explanation of the risk assessment. How you came to think that it was being presented as science isn’t at all clear.
Remember that very poor analogy you tried to draw between driving and marrying, with men, in your misunderstanding, not driving because they decided they sucked at it?
Well, that article was more akin to my attempt to realign your poor choice of analogies into something more reflective of the real world, wherein men chose not to drive/marry based on costs and risks posed to them by others.
Vysota - ”The flipside is: how about you marry a woman who has a freaking job? All these people, including you, run around assuming that their wife will sit at home, eat candy and devote her time to getting fat and ugly. Now women with careers and good paychecks may not WANT misogynistic a-holes like, well, yourself, but, again, that's a YOU problem.”
Here we see another example of you convincing yourself you know something – when, in fact, you do not. My wife is an attorney. See, you think you have some great insight into people from a few posted words. You do not! All you have is your (misplaced) faith in your own infallibility.
Vysota - ”My girlfriend / future wife, for example, will have a job that will earn less money than mine, but not by a whole lot.”
Well, you cannot believe everything that a carnival fortune-teller says.
A lot of women marry with no intention of having a career, but never-the-less end up in one. Other women have good careers when they marry, but end-up as housewives in fairly short order. Individuals change with time, experience, and maturity – and not always for the best, nor as we would like them to. Even having children has a huge effect on both men and women – which, again, cannot be guaranteed to be for the better in either.
And, what makes you think that a career women is a better or more faithful wife. Plenty of women have affairs with coworkers (especially in professional environments), and many leave their husbands for men they meet via their work. These things you imagine as “guarantees” simply are not.
You seem to have little more than wishful thinking, backed-up by insults towards others. Not a solid game-plan, IMHO.
Good luck with that.
No, slwerner, what I have is realism. It is YOU who wallows in the rosy candy land of wishful thinking.
Yes, there are no guarantees that my wife won't cheat on me, or leave me or whatever. Again, this is called "life". You want certainty? Absolute, 100% certainty? Go jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. That's pretty much the only time you will every be truly certain about the outcome of your actions. As for the rest of us, we realize that yeah, life's a bit of a crapshoot. Yeah, you can't be certain about anything. But we actually have the balls to go out and take chances and do something. Some things work out. Others don't. If you want to spend the rest of your life alone -- your prerogative. But, again, that's a YOU problem, not a general state of being.
The bigger issue that you have exposed, werner, is that I was somewhat mislead. I kinda thought that it was the boomers who raised their kids in America to be whiny, me-first, everyone's out to get me pricks. Not all of them, of course, but there is plenty of that to go around. You are opening my eyes to the fact that the older generation has their share of that. For them everything is everyone else's fault. They're always the victim. They deserve everything, they don't have to work for anything, and if something doesn't go their way it's everyone else's fault. I didn't get the job? It's the fault of affirmative action. My business failed? It's the fault of the tax code. My children are insufferable brats? It's the fault of TV. My wife left me? It's the fault of the feminists. I failed a test? It's the fault of the teacher. Nothing is ever YOU. It never even enters the minds of these people that "Hmmmm, maybe I screwed up... maybe I'm not as good as mommy told me I am". So their reaction to when they lose is to huff, take their ball, and go home.
Thank you for exposing me to one of the biggest "how not to raise your children" examples out there, slwerner.
Hey vagistota, you got a fupa?
You sound exactly like every bitter feminist I've ever heard. Give it up, sweetie. They guys are wise to you.
Post a Comment