- This topic has 95 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 22, 2014 at 9:57 PM #779275October 22, 2014 at 11:39 PM #779280
njtosd
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Glitch on uploading.
Haven’t read the book. I will look at it. I don’t like monty python. The first time I saw a Fish Called Wanda I liked it, but not later on.[/quote]
I don’t really like the Wanda movie – I thought the Michael Palin character was a cheap shot – and I don’t love Jamie Lee Curtis. I like the Holy Grail, and the flying circus episodes.
October 23, 2014 at 5:34 AM #779287CA renter
Participant[quote=Blogstar]http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=men+are+success+objects%3F
The first link discussion is centered around some ideas expressed by the famous and highly regarded former board member of The NYC chapter of NOW, Warren Farrell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell
It’s nice when one of the books you have read and really got something out of, the author of said book, and his subsequent books, have stood up to the test of time.
Sorry, he is a man, I really apologize for that, but his work is highly acclaimed by some women too!
I know times are changing but I look around and see some familiar patterns as apparently do a lot other piggs. Hot women never go out of style, for instance.[/quote]
I’m fairly familiar with Warren Farrell. He’s no feminist. NOW is strongly opposed to much of what he preaches (they parted ways years ago). His views completely ignore the different biology and hormones of men and women. He’s one of the most powerful forces behind the “Second Wives/Fathers’ Rights” movement that seeks to take away any of the few remaining safeguards provided to women (or men) who give up everything — especially wage earning — in order to care for their families.
And here’s an article quoting him on his research that finds that most people in incestual relationships have a positive experience. He states that the reason girls don’t like having their fathers or other male relatives rape them is because:
“Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”
…page 4
http://nafcj.net/taboo1977farrell.pdf
Is it any wonder that NOW disagreed strongly with his push for father custody or full 50/50 custody arrangements, irrespective of who was more responsible for the child-rearing during the marriage, and irrespective of the age of the child (including breastfeeding children)?
He goes on to say this:
“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”
[page 6, from above link]
He also claims that many children who accuse their fathers of sexual or physical abuse in custody cases are really “victims” of PAS — Parental Alienation Syndrome. Gee, I wonder why.
———
Here he is defending date rape:From “The Myth of Male Power”:
“If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying.
“Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work with over 150,000 men and women – about half of whom are single – the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.
“We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
Warren Farrell quotes: What is their context?
by in MensRights…………………….
“Highly regarded,” indeed.
October 23, 2014 at 9:03 AM #779301NotCranky
Participantdupe
October 23, 2014 at 9:07 AM #779302ParticipantWarren Farrell dumped NOW over the 50/50 but is still highly regarded by great women. Thank god there is a struggle to be reasonable on custody.
I don’t have a problem with what he is saying. He is a great man in this field thus far and incredibly brave. Amazing that the PC police have not yet ruined him.
Even Bertrand Russell Was wrong about some things . Everybody great is wrong about some things. Plus this guy Warren has some issues with women Because we all have issues with this stuff. Shere Hite clearly had some issues with men and made mistakes and was not a fraction as useful as Warren Farrell. Still I don’t throw out the contributions she made because my mind is not so weak as to only tolerate a 100% palatable message.
NO=ambivalence in many case , would you put a huge freight train on the tracks get it up to 60 miles and hour and jump in front of it if you were ambivalent about getting hit.
When a female is with a a male in heavy petting or has her hand down his pants and he has advanced that far as well, Is still arousing him and saying no, her strongest feeling is ambivalence. What she is really ambivalent about is whether she wants the man to be linked to her or not. She is partially responsible for still being in a mind frame of deciding this in front of a freight train she put on the tracks.Many times the encounter happens and unlike with a real train the woman lives to tell about…most the time she doesn’t though because she knows what she did.
Are there cases of terrible date rape , yes, but they don’t speak for the whole topic of “No”. I am not sure what yes means yes is about but I like the sound of it. I will teach my boys to be very leary of women who are ambivalent in the heat of passion , that was my way and it served me well. I will definitely tell them to be leary of women who are drinking or taking drugs. Be very leary of a woman who is in a position to have psychological problems over having sex with you.
I don’t know how wise the courts are in this wacked out schismatic country, but I am glad there are people like Warren helping them stay on track.
Ps the only time I ever saw anything REAL incest like it was a woman giving a Real mock blow job to her toddler son. Women suck their kids fingers all the time. Do they do it to boys more than girls? Warren just says let’s talk about this stuff.
October 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM #779303ParticipantLove is a polygynous primate battlefield. (Pat Benatar left out some words)
October 23, 2014 at 9:25 AM #779304ParticipantThe light went on about mormonism yesterday, One success object is good enough for 20 women. Are mormon children getting taller?
October 23, 2014 at 9:40 AM #779306poorgradstudent
ParticipantTangental, I’ve read that the whole stereotype of “rich, successful guy marrying his hot young secretary” is basically a dead trend. Successful men for the most part want to marry successful women. It’s actually part of why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in this country, as most people tend to marry a partner from their same general income bracket.
October 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM #779311Participant[quote=Blogstar]The light went on about mormonism yesterday, One success object is good enough for 20 women. Are mormon children getting taller?[/quote]
Probably. The gene for blue eyes did not arise until about 6000 years ago. Now 20% of the population has blue eyes. Considering that there isn’t a very clear evolutionary advantage for blue eyes (although there is a mild one for those living in northern areas), it is interesting to see the genetic gains blue-eyed people have made in a relatively short period of time. So if there was a active polygynous group (which there kind of is, even outside the Mormon community) it would be likely that the children arising from that group would get taller. Of course, that assumes that our species hasn’t maxed out on its height potential.
October 23, 2014 at 1:32 PM #779314UCGal
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]Tangental, I’ve read that the whole stereotype of “rich, successful guy marrying his hot young secretary” is basically a dead trend. Successful men for the most part want to marry successful women. It’s actually part of why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in this country, as most people tend to marry a partner from their same general income bracket.[/quote]
coming home from walking the dog on the beach this morning I listened to an NPR story about how rare the trophy wife really is.Yes there are beautiful women married to rich men. – But if you dig deeper, those beautiful women are often wealthy in their own right. Outside of the blatent examples like Anna Nicole Smith, it’s really much less common that you’d think – to the point of being rare.
The radio piece had a lot of discussion with a sociologist about this – she basically restated the idea in the other thread – people marry at their own level. She pointed out that rich people are more comfortable around other rich people. Beautiful people tend to be more comfortable with other beautiful people. So the trophy wife stereotype has a rich guy marrying someone poor – which is unusual, and a beautiful woman marrying someone not attractive – which is also unusual… so that combo really makes it rare.
October 23, 2014 at 1:36 PM #779315Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=Blogstar]The light went on about mormonism yesterday, One success object is good enough for 20 women. Are mormon children getting taller?[/quote]
Probably. The gene for blue eyes did not arise until about 6000 years ago. Now 20% of the population has blue eyes. Considering that there isn’t a very clear evolutionary advantage for blue eyes (although there is a mild one for those living in northern areas), it is interesting to see the genetic gains blue-eyed people have made in a relatively short period of time. So if there was a active polygynous group (which there kind of is, even outside the Mormon community) it would be likely that the children arising from that group would get taller. Of course, that assumes that our species hasn’t maxed out on its height potential.[/quote]
The blue eyes run a lot in Catholics. That could be part of it, high birth rates.
One data point. My parents made 8 blue eyed kids.October 23, 2014 at 2:19 PM #779319scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Warren Farrell dumped NOW over the 50/50 but is still highly regarded by great women. Thank god there is a struggle to be reasonable on custody.
I don’t have a problem with what he is saying. He is a great man in this field thus far and incredibly brave. Amazing that the PC police have not yet ruined him.
Even Bertrand Russell Was wrong about some things . Everybody great is wrong about some things. Plus this guy Warren has some issues with women Because we all have issues with this stuff. Shere Hite clearly had some issues with men and made mistakes and was not a fraction as useful as Warren Farrell. Still I don’t throw out the contributions she made because my mind is not so weak as to only tolerate a 100% palatable message.
NO=ambivalence in many case , would you put a huge freight train on the tracks get it up to 60 miles and hour and jump in front of it if you were ambivalent about getting hit.
When a female is with a a male in heavy petting or has her hand down his pants and he has advanced that far as well, Is still arousing him and saying no, her strongest feeling is ambivalence. What she is really ambivalent about is whether she wants the man to be linked to her or not. She is partially responsible for still being in a mind frame of deciding this in front of a freight train she put on the tracks.Many times the encounter happens and unlike with a real train the woman lives to tell about…most the time she doesn’t though because she knows what she did.
Are there cases of terrible date rape , yes, but they don’t speak for the whole topic of “No”. I am not sure what yes means yes is about but I like the sound of it. I will teach my boys to be very leary of women who are ambivalent in the heat of passion , that was my way and it served me well. I will definitely tell them to be leary of women who are drinking or taking drugs. Be very leary of a woman who is in a position to have psychological problems over having sex with you.
I don’t know how wise the courts are in this wacked out schismatic country, but I am glad there are people like Warren helping them stay on track.
Ps the only time I ever saw anything REAL incest like it was a woman giving a Real mock blow job to her toddler son. Women suck their kids fingers all the time. Do they do it to boys more than girls? Warren just says let’s talk about this stuff.[/quote]
here’s a bizarre unpublished rape fact. Google rape orgasm. Data shows 4 to 6 perc. Of actual rape victims involuntarily orgasm during a rape including stranger rapes with extreme danger.
people are wired differently than we might think
October 23, 2014 at 6:42 PM #779334Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=poorgradstudent]Tangental, I’ve read that the whole stereotype of “rich, successful guy marrying his hot young secretary” is basically a dead trend. Successful men for the most part want to marry successful women. It’s actually part of why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in this country, as most people tend to marry a partner from their same general income bracket.[/quote]
coming home from walking the dog on the beach this morning I listened to an NPR story about how rare the trophy wife really is.Yes there are beautiful women married to rich men. – But if you dig deeper, those beautiful women are often wealthy in their own right. Outside of the blatent examples like Anna Nicole Smith, it’s really much less common that you’d think – to the point of being rare.
The radio piece had a lot of discussion with a sociologist about this – she basically restated the idea in the other thread – people marry at their own level. She pointed out that rich people are more comfortable around other rich people. Beautiful people tend to be more comfortable with other beautiful people. So the trophy wife stereotype has a rich guy marrying someone poor – which is unusual, and a beautiful woman marrying someone not attractive – which is also unusual… so that combo really makes it rare.[/quote]
I’ll concede to a lot of that. Age comes into play. Maybe this is rarer than I think also, but the guys who take foreign women not their race or education and income level seem to take younger women pretty often.
October 23, 2014 at 8:19 PM #779346Participant[quote=Blogstar]
I’ll concede to a lot of that. Age comes into play. Maybe this is rarer than I think also, but the guys who take foreign women not their race or education and income level seem to take younger women pretty often.[/quote]
I’ve seen this to… I’ve also seen a lot of these marriages fail. Mismatched expectations.
October 23, 2014 at 8:36 PM #779347Participant[quote=Blogstar]Warren Farrell dumped NOW over the 50/50 but is still highly regarded by great women. Thank god there is a struggle to be reasonable on custody.
I don’t have a problem with what he is saying. He is a great man in this field thus far and incredibly brave. Amazing that the PC police have not yet ruined him.
Even Bertrand Russell Was wrong about some things . Everybody great is wrong about some things. Plus this guy Warren has some issues with women Because we all have issues with this stuff. Shere Hite clearly had some issues with men and made mistakes and was not a fraction as useful as Warren Farrell. Still I don’t throw out the contributions she made because my mind is not so weak as to only tolerate a 100% palatable message.
NO=ambivalence in many case , would you put a huge freight train on the tracks get it up to 60 miles and hour and jump in front of it if you were ambivalent about getting hit.
When a female is with a a male in heavy petting or has her hand down his pants and he has advanced that far as well, Is still arousing him and saying no, her strongest feeling is ambivalence. What she is really ambivalent about is whether she wants the man to be linked to her or not. She is partially responsible for still being in a mind frame of deciding this in front of a freight train she put on the tracks.Many times the encounter happens and unlike with a real train the woman lives to tell about…most the time she doesn’t though because she knows what she did.
Are there cases of terrible date rape , yes, but they don’t speak for the whole topic of “No”. I am not sure what yes means yes is about but I like the sound of it. I will teach my boys to be very leary of women who are ambivalent in the heat of passion , that was my way and it served me well. I will definitely tell them to be leary of women who are drinking or taking drugs. Be very leary of a woman who is in a position to have psychological problems over having sex with you.
I don’t know how wise the courts are in this wacked out schismatic country, but I am glad there are people like Warren helping them stay on track.
Ps the only time I ever saw anything REAL incest like it was a woman giving a Real mock blow job to her toddler son. Women suck their kids fingers all the time. Do they do it to boys more than girls? Warren just says let’s talk about this stuff.[/quote]
I have no problem with reasonableness on custody issues. But I DO have a problem with second wives (often former mistresses) trying to remove support from a first family under the guise of “father’s rights.” When shared custody is forced for the sole reason of reducing/eliminating support for the first family, I have a serious problem with it.
There is a very strong relationship between “Second Wives” groups and “Fathers’ Rights” groups. The second wives are the ones who have successfully pushed this agenda, not the fathers. There are many stories about men who did not want to take custody away from the mothers, but were coerced by their subsequent wives, instead. Not “reasonable” under any circumstances.
And you need to do some research into the story behind PAS and the connections between those who try to legitimize it and people who justify incest and abuse. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that you’re not aware of.
As for Warren Farrell, I question the motives of a man who made a lot of money as a prominent feminist, then changed his stance entirely to advocating for “men’s rights.” He’s a huge supporter of fathers’ rights (some would argue that he supports the rights of abusers a bit too much), but has no children of his own. He’s condoned incest and date rape, too. Something is not right on that front. I find him creepy.
That being said, Farrell makes some valid arguments regarding the damage that divorce can do to men, women, and children; but I would not consider him “well regarded” in the world of psychology (his credentials are in political science, IIRC) or family law. He has more enemies than friends there.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.