- This topic has 132 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 17, 2016 at 10:39 AM #803796November 17, 2016 at 10:49 AM #803797
NotCranky
ParticipantCivilization is about a lot of things as much or more than it is about reason. Civilization cracks all the time, it’s thin ice, it’s muddy. But go on with your left good right bad mindset, believe that you have the rational ticket inside your bubble. We will all be lucky not to go extinct !
November 17, 2016 at 11:08 AM #803798ParticipantBrian, Before I move on, here is funny counter culture movement to domineering feminist/feminizers and so many women checking out to be Lesbian. It seems men see themselves as trapped between being used by vicious sex depriving women who have the upper hand now, and going their own way. Search MGTOW. I am not saying I agree with it but, there are two sides to every story. Will you celebrate the anti- woman movement as much as the anti-man movement? Maybe you are the one who just wants everything to be bad then you have an excuse to stay nice and safe on the sidelines in your bubble?
No offense meant, just trying to help.
November 17, 2016 at 11:14 AM #803795Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=NotCranky]
I’d certainly take her for first lady , umm first person, over Bill, Hillary. The types of things that bother me about the Obamas are pimping celebrities, and the Versace dresses and what not, while pretending to be humble. The gardens for example just look like an act. She starts to come across just as contrived and teleprompted as her husband. Michelle is still probably a better person than most of them, not necessarily better than you average person. Melania could easily be her equal as far as first lady performance.
Also , I think they play race too much…as bad as Trump.[/quote]
What about Nancy Reagan? She has to borrow designer dresses because she couldn’t afford them. Michele Obama buys off the rack and buys designer only on special occasions.
What about the veggie garden? It’s hipster cool and old fashioned at the same time.
I guest traditionalist forgot what a kitchen garden is. My grandma, rest her soul, had one. She had chickens and ducks in a pond too. We used to kill them for food.[/quote]
Your Grandma, rest her soul, was authentic. Traditionalist do garden more than hipsters, Hipsters soend a lot of money building the garden , but it doesn’t get used.November 17, 2016 at 11:19 AM #803799scaredyclassic
Participantive heard of mgtow…
“romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.”
in general, probably true for the majority of men.
it is very risky husiness. life can be good, often much better, without a,woman. i would not advise my kids to join with any woman i thought was not a financial positive. i wouldnt yell at them. but id preach mgtow, at least until they found a deal that looked good.
November 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM #803801Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]ive heard of mgtow…
“romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.”
in general, probably true for the majority of men.
it is very risky husiness. life can be good, often much better, without a,woman. i would not advise my kids to join with any woman i thought was not a financial positive. i wouldnt yell at them. but id preach mgtow, at least until they found a deal that looked good.[/quote]
Thats what I meant, men going the other way.
Scaredy , have you read , The Rational Male? Maybe we are too old to fix our Average Frustrated Chumpness , but our kids aren’t.
November 17, 2016 at 11:39 AM #803800spdrun
ParticipantIf you don’t want a woman who’s a gold-digger, the best answer is to date one that’s roughly your equal and intelligent/successful/competent on her own. You can’t have it both ways: weak/subservient and not needing your money.
First date is important … if she has trouble knowing what she wants (asks you to order for her) and doesn’t at least offer to leave the tip (ideally in cash), run the other way.
November 17, 2016 at 11:49 AM #803802bearishgurl
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Trump doesn’t just objectify women.
Bill was caught and impeached. He was punished.
Now. to hold a woman responsible, as an enabler, for the sins of her husband is not a novel concept, it’s very old. Women were held responsible for adultery, domestic violence against themselves and their kids.
On the right there is definitely a longing for traditional roles for women, among men and women. That’s why Trump was given a pass.
About my own views, I think that women should be given equal rights and responsibilities. They should earn their own money, take care of their own selves; and they can objectify men if they wish. Why can’t we have a female Trump? That would really mean that women finally made it.[/quote]FIH, I don’t buy that women were ever held responsible for their spouse’s adultery and domestic violence.
And I don’t feel that the “longing for traditional roles for women” can be attributed to “Republican dogma.” It is a relatively new phenomena adopted primarily by millenial women, who are the best-educated generation of women thus far, but who deep down would prefer to quit their FT jobs in a heartbeat if they could find a “sugar daddy” willing to take care of them financially … hopefully for `life,’ lol …. Men didn’t fear marriage because of too many perceived “gold-diggers” out there until the first millenials came of age and these women, are, for the most part, more “high-maintenance” (financially) then their older counterparts. (I know because I have daughter(s) who spend more on ONE cosmetic item than I do on food for myself and my pets for a week-plus.) Yes, many millenials live and work in expensive areas where their incomes are needed to survive … even as part of a couple. That is the only thing keeping many of them in their jobs. If they are parents and their spouses could obtain a well-paying job in a lesser-cost-of-living area where they wouldn’t have to work at all, they would be more than happy to move. Millenial women, as a group, aren’t anywhere near as goal-oriented as their oldest Gen X and Boomer counterparts and frankly don’t care if they walk away from FT employment still owing ~$100K in student loans. Millenial women are the ones who are coming back to work ONE BUSINESS DAY after their maternity leaves are over and handing in their resignations (AFTER collecting ALL of their maternity benefits) with or without the consent of their spouses. For whatever reason, major employers still favor hiring them over us boomers as FT employees, in spite of their fickleness, disloyalty, frequent improper dress at the office and constant requests for time off and “work-at-home schemes.” In addition, millenial moms have lost their generation’s credibility when they blatantly damaged the (social and workplace) gains their boomer moms achieved for them by displaying their very pregnant selves regularly in public in very tight and skimpy clothes (have they ever heard of maternity wear?) and insisting on nursing their babies in the middle of restaurants, airports, etc. This (delusional) group of “uber-moms” seem to think that everyone wants to watch all of this stuff in public and that they are somehow curious anomalies when pregnant or nursing :=0
In other words, the “gold-digger” phenomenon (which has been scaring young men away from commitment and marriage in the past decade … and rightly so) is generational. It has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the “sense of entitlement” many millenial women have. Instead of being equal partners with their spouses, they want to be put on a pedestal and taken care of financially by a spouse as long as the ride lasts.
The vast majority of us boomer women never expected men to take care of us . . . ever (regardless of marital status) and irregardless if we have lived our entire lives in a “deep red state.” We never expected men to insure us medically. We earned our own pensions, our own SS benefits, earned or purchased our own healthplans, own our own homes and many, many of us have paid all of our own living expenses for years …. even decades or all of our lives (regardless of marital status). We didn’t get to the place we are by staying home during our kids’ minority thereby pi$$ing away our best earning years. Some of us even paid ALL the family bills when we were part of a two-income couple and managed our family’s household budget for long-term continuity. And boomer women didn’t and don’t want to support able-bodied men unless they were serving as (temporary) SAHD’s in families where childcare expense would be cost-prohibitive.
I’m sorry to hear from FIH that he hasn’t been able to find any “quality” women who are used to paying their own living expenses and not looking for a man to support them. They’re out there but he’s probably been hunting in the younger Gen X/Millenial category and, for the most part, he’s going to get exactly what he can find in those categories.
And yes, as Russ pointed out, it’s true that men are attracted by looks first and only consider other attributes after the female passes his “looks” bar (um, yes … even men who are 65+)! That’s just the way it is and this will never change. Lazy females of all ages who are “letting themselves go” and/or have remained underemployed/unemployed when their incomes were desperately needed by their household are doing/have done so at their own peril (again, regardless of marital status). Divorce judges aren’t kind to able-bodied women who are purposely unemployed or underemployed (whether parents … or not), especially in CA.
All of the Donald’s spouses were successful in their own right and had personal sports endorsements (Ivana, a boomer), TV and radio gigs (Marla, a late-boomer American from a fairly well-off family) and top model pay and a jewelry company (Melania, a Gen X) before they each married him. NONE of them needed the Donald to pay their bills so they could continue to live on their own before they married him. Had any of them NOT ever married Donald, they would ALL still be financially okay today because they are ALL very motivated individuals. THAT MOTIVATION (plus their beauty, of course) was what Donald was attracted to. Ivana, in particular, worked 8-14 hour days for more than a decade in Donald’s hotel(s) and was instrumental in their success. She received a large lump sum in her divorce (to set her for life) and deserved every penny of it. Donald had/has prenups with his second and third wives. Marla likely wasn’t married to Donald long enough to be awarded a regular monthly alimony check but nonetheless, received a settlement in her divorce to start over as a middle-class resident of Los Angeles, where she could pursue her acting and TV career. Melania was still peddling her jewelry on TV as late as last month. In all three of these cases, it was actually DONALD who insisted all his spouses stay home with their kid(s) when they were young because he frequently worked 12-18 hour days. In short, he was a workaholic all of his life. It was DONALD who insisted on paying child support to Marla for Tiffany to live nearly FT with her mom in CA (3000 miles away from him) because that was what was best for her (because of his erratic work schedule). In all cases, DONALD put his kids first, took care of ALL of them financially during all of their minorities, sent four of them to college (with one left to go) and did not hang around all of his life “living a lie,” as the Clinton’s did, (however much they were in collusion over their “big lie”) :=0
“Locker-room talk” aside, we can’t begrudge President-Elect Trump for “doing the right thing by his family” all of his life, regardless of his personal circumstances. That alone is the most telling mark of his character, in my opinion.
November 17, 2016 at 12:14 PM #803803Participant[quote=harvey] . . .
Democrat cheats on wife: perverted.
Republican cheats on wife: not perverted . . .[/quote]pri_dk you still don’t seem to understand that Bill Clinton was a serial cheater over the course of ~25 years. He had so many “paramours” that Americans have lost count. In addition, several women have come forth stating he was a sexual predator and one even claimed to have been raped by him. Of course, Hill may have had her own dalliances, but if she did, she kept them under the radar (except for the “rumors” of Chelsea’s real paternity, which seems plausible, considering her purported biological dad, now deceased, looked exactly like her).Bill Clinton’s behavior over many years was much, much different than claims of “he was an octopus” (~35 years after being in the close quarters of a very public aircraft with Donald), “go put on your swimsuit” (in front of the pool at Mar-a-lago with 150 guests standing around and more in the pool), “you’ve gained too much weight” (to Miss Universe, an international beauty queen just 4 months after winning her crown) and Donald’s private “locker-room banter” with Billy Bush.
If you cannot discern the difference between the behaviors of these two men, then I can’t help you and neither can anyone else :=0
November 17, 2016 at 12:18 PM #803804Participant[quote=NotCranky]Brian, Before I move on, here is funny counter culture movement to domineering feminist/feminizers and so many women checking out to be Lesbian. It seems men see themselves as trapped between being used by vicious sex depriving women who have the upper hand now, and going their own way. Search MGTOW. I am not saying I agree with it but, there are two sides to every story. Will you celebrate the anti- woman movement as much as the anti-man movement? Maybe you are the one who just wants everything to be bad then you have an excuse to stay nice and safe on the sidelines in your bubble?
No offense meant, just trying to help.[/quote]Good observations and suggestions, Russ.
November 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM #803806Participant[quote=spdrun]If you don’t want a woman who’s a gold-digger, the best answer is to date one that’s roughly your equal and intelligent/successful/competent on her own. You can’t have it both ways: weak/subservient and not needing your money.
First date is important … if she has trouble knowing what she wants (asks you to order for her) and doesn’t at least offer to leave the tip (ideally in cash), run the other way.[/quote]Excellent advice from the “experienced, serial dater,” spdrun!
November 17, 2016 at 12:27 PM #803805Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]ive heard of mgtow…
“romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.”
in general, probably true for the majority of men.
it is very risky husiness. life can be good, often much better, without a,woman. i would not advise my kids to join with any woman i thought was not a financial positive. i wouldnt yell at them. but id preach mgtow, at least until they found a deal that looked good.[/quote]Since I think you posted here that you have three sons, you are a good and wise dad, scaredy. Young men should endeavor NOT to entrap themselves with an entitled millenial princess, regardless of their looks. And yes, I have had (both forward and reverse) discussion(s) with my daughter(s) about your (italicized) sentence.
November 17, 2016 at 12:41 PM #803807Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]If you don’t want a woman who’s a gold-digger, the best answer is to date one that’s roughly your equal and intelligent/successful/competent on her own. You can’t have it both ways: weak/subservient and not needing your money.
First date is important … if she has trouble knowing what she wants (asks you to order for her) and doesn’t at least offer to leave the tip (ideally in cash), run the other way.[/quote]Excellent advice from the “experienced, serial dater,” spdrun![/quote]
I don’t know about the run the other way part? Why not have sex with her but keep her low priority as a mate and don’t spend a bunch of money on her? you would not have been on a date with her if she wasn’t meeting physical appearance criteria. She’s gonna leave anyway and you want that eventuality , but unless you are getting plenty, don’t run away, just build your options with other women. Or maybe she will change due to these positive masculine prompts?
November 17, 2016 at 12:54 PM #803808Participant[quote=NotCranky][quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]If you don’t want a woman who’s a gold-digger, the best answer is to date one that’s roughly your equal and intelligent/successful/competent on her own. You can’t have it both ways: weak/subservient and not needing your money.
First date is important … if she has trouble knowing what she wants (asks you to order for her) and doesn’t at least offer to leave the tip (ideally in cash), run the other way.[/quote]Excellent advice from the “experienced, serial dater,” spdrun![/quote]
I don’t know about the run the other way part? Why not have sex with her but keep her low priority as a mate and don’t spend a bunch of money on her? you would not have been on a date with her if she wasn’t meeting physical appearance criteria. She’s gonna leave anyway and you want that eventuality , but unless you are getting plenty, don’t run away, just build your options with other women. Or maybe she will change due to these positive masculine prompts?[/quote]LOL, Russ …. you must be a subscriber to askmen.com :=0
November 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM #803809ParticipantSerial dater, pfffffft. More like how NOT to be a serial dater — if she treats you as a human vs a walking ATM, it’s more likely to lead to a pleasant long-term relationship in the future. If that’s your goal, of course.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.