Propagation of the species


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Propagation of the species

Propagation of the species
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay
Pseudo-male career women aren’t as desirable to mate with as their traditional woman counterparts. Why should a male mate with his market place competitor when he can have a traditional woman ? Why should he be motivated to buddy up with women who competes against him for jobs ? What is so attractive about a woman who would rather give birth to 500 conference calls instead of a baby ? And then at the very last minute she wants one but time has passed her by. What is so sexually appealing about that ? Lastly, why should I give a rats rear end about your university diploma? How many guys get a hard on over that ?

08-28-2006 06:26 AM

Re: Propagation of the species
Romulus
Regular Contributor
Romulus
True, men can get companionship, sex, etc. without entering marriage. The main reason for men to enter marriage is to create a family. This requires cooperation, not competition. Career women bring competing priorities to the table something that inherently stands in the way of and is directly at odds with cooperation. Its THIS factor about career women that is unappealing to men, not a woman’s education level, earning potential, etc.

Message Edited by Romulus on 08-28-2006 06:45 AM

08-28-2006 06:36 AM

Re: Propagation of the species
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames
Um, I don’t think women with careers are what you seem to think they are.

And I’m not sure what you mean by a “traditional woman,” either. Honestly, it seems like these days plenty of the traditional-types have jobs and even careers. They just leave the workforce for years so they can raise the kids and then they are back at work. Lots of women also work pre-marriage because they have to in order to make a living.

Just ’cause two people are both working doesn’t mean they are competing for jobs. They aren’t even necessarily in the same field, after all.

As for university diplomas and all that jazz, I’m guessing a good deal of people have an easier time relating to people with similar experiences to their own.

You don’t find it alluring, and that’s fine, but I still don’t think that working women are quite what you make them out to be.

08-28-2006 07:21 AM

Re: Propagation of the species
Romulus
Regular Contributor
Romulus
“Just ’cause two people are both working doesn’t mean they are competing for jobs. They aren’t even necessarily in the same field, after all.”

I didn’t say they were competing for jobs. I said they had competing priorities, big difference. A career woman and career man both place their individual careers as a top priority in their lives. This creates conflict b/c one side has to compromise for the sake of the other’s career or both sides compromise their careers for the sake of the marriage and/or family. Both scenarios lead to resentment which leads to unhappiness – the primary factor for divorce. Traditionally, men lose more in a divorce – 1/2 assets, custody of children, etc. As such, it is advantageous for a man to minimize the risk of divorce. Marrying a career woman only increases the chance of divorce, something men are seeking to protect themselves against.

08-28-2006 07:36 AM

Re: Propagation of the species
fishnamedjames
Regular Contributor
fishnamedjames
Romulus: I was actually responding to Halladay. You posted your reply while I was still posting mine.

08-28-2006 07:44 AM

Re: Propagation of the species
Hedgie
Regular Contributor
Hedgie

A university degree is one of the last things I look for in a woman as a potential mate. So is intellectual brilliance.

Beauty, good character, soundness of judgement, trad values, yes.

But a degree? No. In fact, to the extent that modern universities have become feminist training camps, a degree can be a red flag.

Message Edited by Hedgie on 08-28-2006 09:24 AM

08-28-2006 08:38 AM

Re: Propagation of the species
CH
Contributor
CH
Hedgie – I have to admit, you’re starting to depress me. I’ve been cheering on so many of the arguments you’ve been making (excluding the rather crude ones, truthful though they may be), but I’m one of those traditional types who happens to have a few degrees under my belt, and I hate to think that my education could be a potential liability. I’m not dumb enough to think that men seek out their intellectual equal (I personally am not attracted to men that I’m smarter then anyway), but would you really be happy with someone who didn’t take advantage of the educational opportunities available to them? I personally would give up everything for the right person, but as the person who is going to be there helping the kids with their homework at the end of the day, I would like to think that an advanced education can be as an asset to them.

08-28-2006 09:58 AM

Re: Propagation of the species
Romulus
Regular Contributor
Romulus
“Romulus: I was actually responding to Halladay. You posted your reply while I was still posting mine.”

Sorry, my mistake.

08-28-2006 10:12 AM

Re: Propagation of the species
wilburnts
Visitor
wilburnts

It is a fact that people with degrees make more money, which we all need and want.  Also, women have to get a degree to take care of the kids when a man leaves her for a younger woman.  Happens all the time.

08-28-2006 04:16 PM

Re: Propagation of the species
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

It is a fact that people with degrees make more money, which we all need and want.

Most people want to make more money, but not everyone.  Some people chose to make less so that they can have shorter hours, less stress, more spare time, longer vacations and longer lives.

Many of these people are women.  That’s one reason they earn less.

Also, women have to get a degree to take care of the kids when a man leaves her for a younger woman.  Happens all the time.

Not as often as we have been led to believe.  Most (66%-93%) divorces are filed by the wife, citing the reason as ’emotional unfulfillment’.

AKA she isn’t happy.

08-28-2006 05:27 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Propagation of the species

Re: Propagation of the species
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay
Um, I don’t think women with careers are what you seem to think they are. And I’m not sure what you mean by a “traditional woman,” either. Honestly, it seems like these days plenty of the traditional-types have jobs and even careers. Traditional women.. i.e. young secretaries, waitresses, elemetary school teachers, etc who want a family and are willing to spend time with the kid. As opposed to high octane 93 premium grade career woman who supposely calls all the shots at her corporation, wants to delay children or not have them at all . I don’t know what is so hard about distinguishing the two. _______________________________________________ Just ’cause two people are both working doesn’t mean they are competing for jobs. They aren’t even necessarily in the same field, after all. I bet most men here have applied and interviewed for jobs against a lot of women. The same has happened to me. I can cross over into different fields and so can these career women. Like I said, they are competition. So why marry or date them ?

08-28-2006 10:54 PM

Re: Propagation of the species
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

This is a pretty good example of feminist jive, and worthy of examination for the purpose of illustrating the “I’m not a feminist, but,…” type of feminism.

One thing we men must always keep in mind is that a woman is disposed to engage a man only only if she believes she is his mental superior. And, that applies in all levels of interaction and involvement, from casual discussion to marriage. A woman’s primary evaluation of a man may be his wealth, health, and social status, but she has “no use for him” if he can’t be fooled. Women have as varied degrees of intelligence and expertise as men, but their orientation is to evaluate a man’s knowledge of women, his emotional maturity, and his ability to resist domination, and to reject him as unusable if he is superior to her ability to fool him. That is one of the reasons why men are required to initiate contact, and are required to acquiesce at the female’s refusal of him for reasons never truly spoken. You will never hear a female complain that she dumped “him” because he didn’t believe she lost her virginity in a date rape, or that he didn’t buy her story about her girlfriend becoming accidentally pregnant. At least, you won’t hear a female disclose that to a man.

This is a fairly simple concept, but it is enormously important for men to get it. You already know that if you ask a hundred females to have sex, some small number will accept. What must be understood, is that asking a large number in order to receive a small positive response has the same result as the female choosing the man, and not the man choosing the female. In the same way, and for the same reason, females search out blogs and chatroom posts that are critical of feminist domination with an eye to the writer’s naivete and gullibility. Females rarely dare to engage an equal or superior intellect even though they fully intend to cheat and lie with impunity, and to use the most unkind personal attacks of which they are capable. And, that brings me to the analysis of this post:

“Um, I don’t think women with careers are what you seem to think they are.

And I’m not sure what you mean by a “traditional woman,” either. Honestly, it seems like these days plenty of the traditional-types have jobs and even careers. They just leave the workforce for years so they can raise the kids and then they are back at work. Lots of women also work pre-marriage because they have to in order to make a living.”

Sounds kind of chatty and nurturing – doesn’t it? “Um, I don’t think …” Well, if she doesn’t think career women are “what you think they are,” and she doesn’t say what she thinks you think they are, and she doesn’t tell us what she thinks they are, who the hell knows what anybody is talking about? Pretty clever. Know why? Because one of the most useful tools of the liar is the undefined term.

I have to concede that the original post’s author has mad a mess of his use of terms, but there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about what he thinks a career woman is. So, in reality, the (probably) female responder is not saying she doesn’t know what he means; she is saying that she disagrees. But, since she doesn’t state that, she isn’t obligated to say WHY she disagrees. So, how can you argue with the reasons she gives for disagreeing with you when her argument is about something you never asserted? Know why? Because all her arguments are about “working women,” not “career women.” But, alas, she gives away the game in her last sentence: “You don’t find it alluring, and that’s fine, but I still don’t think that working women are quite what you make them out to be.”

Do you see the trick? She has substituted the term “working women” for “career women” This is sometimes called equivocation. I think the female who wrote this is very carefully composing the post to effect the change in meaning of the terms to occur gradually between the very beginning of the post and the end – to make it harder to spot. But, honestly, she did it very inexpertly and sloppily.

I could continue the analysis of this post – it has several other elements of false logic and mystifying verbiage, but as someone once said, “A lie can travel all the way around the world before the truth even puts on its running shoes,” and so I will stop at this one instance of clever lying rather than write several hundred more words to expose all the tricks in her post.

This is a pretty good example of feminist jive, and worthy of examination for the purpose of illustrating the “I’m not a feminist, but,…” type of feminism.

One thing we men must always keep in mind is that a woman is disposed to engage a man only only if she believes she is his mental superior. And, that applies in all levels of interaction and involvement, from casual discussion to marriage. A woman’s primary evaluation of a man may be his wealth, health, and social status, but she has “no use for him” if he can’t be fooled. Women have as varied degrees of intelligence and expertise as men, but their orientation is to evaluate a man’s knowledge of women, his emotional maturity, and his ability to resist domination, and to reject him as unusable if he is superior to her ability to fool him. That is one of the reasons why men are required to initiate contact, and are required to acquiesce at the female’s refusal of him for reasons never truly spoken. You will never hear a female complain that she dumped “him” because he didn’t believe she lost her virginity in a date rape, or that he didn’t buy her story about her girlfriend becoming accidentally pregnant. At least, you won’t hear a female disclose that to a man.

This is a fairly simple concept, but it is enormously important for men to get it. You already know that if you ask a hundred females to have sex, some small number will accept. What must be understood, is that asking a large number in order to receive a small positive response has the same result as the female choosing the man, and not the man choosing the female. In the same way, and for the same reason, females search out blogs and chatroom posts that are critical of feminist domination with an eye to the writer’s naivete and gullibility. Females rarely dare to engage an equal or superior intellect even though they fully intend to cheat and lie with impunity, and to use the most unkind personal attacks of which they are capable. And, that brings me to the analysis of this post:

“Um, I don’t think women with careers are what you seem to think they are.

And I’m not sure what you mean by a “traditional woman,” either. Honestly, it seems like these days plenty of the traditional-types have jobs and even careers. They just leave the workforce for years so they can raise the kids and then they are back at work. Lots of women also work pre-marriage because they have to in order to make a living.”

Sounds kind of chatty and nurturing – doesn’t it? “Um, I don’t think …” Well, if she doesn’t think career women are “what you think they are,” and she doesn’t say what she thinks you think they are, and she doesn’t tell us what she thinks they are, who the hell knows what anybody is talking about? Pretty clever. Know why? Because one of the most useful tools of the liar is the undefined term.

I have to concede that the original post’s author has mad a mess of his use of terms, but there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about what he thinks a career woman is. So, in reality, the (probably) female responder is not saying she doesn’t know what he means; she is saying that she disagrees. But, since she doesn’t state that, she isn’t obligated to say WHY she disagrees. So, how can you argue with the reasons she gives for disagreeing with you when her argument is about something you never asserted? Know why? Because all her arguments are about “working women,” not “career women.” But, alas, she gives away the game in her last sentence: “You don’t find it alluring, and that’s fine, but I still don’t think that working women are quite what you make them out to be.”

Do you see the trick? She has substituted the term “working women” for “career women” This is sometimes called equivocation. I think the female who wrote this is very carefully composing the post to effect the change in meaning of the terms to occur between the very beginning of the post and the end – to make it harder to spot.

I could continue the analysis of this post – it has several other elements of false logic and mystifying verbiage, but as someone once said, “A lie can travel all the way around the world before the truth even puts on its running shoes,” and so I will stop at this one instance of clever lying rather than write several hundred more words to expose all the tricks in her post.

08-29-2006 09:15 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: