Here’s the Problem


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Here’s the Problem

Here’s the Problem
MMMBBB
Newbie
MMMBBB
The man that wants a women to stay at home, iron his shirt, to raise the kids and take care of the house wants a mother, not a partner.

For all the defensive arguments stated in support of the article, I suggest reading up on gender issues and what the journals referenced in the article really say.

The fact is that career women are more unhappy in their marriages because they handle the responsibilities of their work, and then are expected to do everything in the home. If you work a 9-5 or a 7-11, once a wife and her husband are at home, each should cook, each should clean, each should contribute EQUALLY. The only reason that career couples have dirtier homes is because the men don’t pick up their share of the work when the women go to work. Married men should not “help” their wives with the household work, they should simply do 50% of it. Not all women want children and care about learning how to change a diaper (no, it’s not an innate trait, women don’t know how to raise children, or do dust or laundry any more than men). Not every women wants to quit her career and engage in baby talk for the rest of her life. Simply put, the women with careers, who can handle responsibilty, and aspire to use their education and knowledge to challenge themselves are the most exciting women to share a life with.

Sure, everybody prefers a situation that benefits them the most, but before men start criticizing women for having a career, they should look at how little respect they’re giving hard-working women and how they’re placing different demands and expectations on the person who is their equal. It’s 2006 and about time for men to step up to the plate.

09-10-2006 10:30 AM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

MMMBBB wrote:

It’s 2006 and about time for men to step up to the plate.

Why should men step up to the plate and get married when everything is stacked against them?

* If a man wants a divorce then his wife usually always gets everything.

* If a woman wants a divorce then she usually always gets everything.

* If a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant then the governent will use DNA testing as evidence of paternity to collect child support.

* If a woman cheats on her partner, gets pregnant with another mans child and the cuckolded man finds out the truth a few years later then DNA evidence no longer counts and he STILL has to pay child support for a kid that is not his.

Marriage is a sweet deal in the west for women at this point in time and they know it. They dont want guys like Mr Noer to upset their apple cart. Thats why they demanded the article be taken down and accused it of being “blood boilingly misogynistic” and “shockingly irresponsible”.

But the strange thing is that women have been getting away with writing articles far far worse than that in past, attacking men with false statistics and yet men have stood by and just taken it.

Here’s an article by Caitlin Moran from the respected UK newspaper The Times:

“How can we cure sexism? Limit the supply of women”

http://tinyurl.com/npa2o

“Indeed, the man-drought is so bad that, as they head into their late thirties, many of my female friends are getting desperate enough to seriously consider a bisexual who’s got a pretty firm grasp of “up”, at least, and has killed one person, but only in the heat of the moment.
Sex selection, then, is the unexpected cure for a misogynistic society. The only surefire way to stop men being sexist pigs is to limit severely the supply of women.

And, of course, once you’ve established one generation of feminist men, the chance that their daughters will be seeking, in turn, to abort their baby girls is minimal.”

So suggesting that men might want to consider carefully whether they should marry a career woman because of the divorce statistics causes a furor, but advocating killing unborn baby girls as a cure for “sexist pigs” doesn’t raise an eyebrow.

Funny that.

Message Edited by Doc_Savage on 09-10-2006 11:38 AM

Message Edited by Doc_Savage on 09-10-2006 11:40 AM

09-10-2006 11:04 AM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself

MMMBBB wrote:
The man that wants a women to stay at home, iron his shirt, to raise the kids and take care of the house wants a mother, not a partner.

For all the defensive arguments stated in support of the article, I suggest reading up on gender issues and what the journals referenced in the article really say.

The fact is that career women are more unhappy in their marriages because they handle the responsibilities of their work, and then are expected to do everything in the home. If you work a 9-5 or a 7-11, once a wife and her husband are at home, each should cook, each should clean, each should contribute EQUALLY. The only reason that career couples have dirtier homes is because the men don’t pick up their share of the work when the women go to work. Married men should not “help” their wives with the household work, they should simply do 50% of it. Not all women want children and care about learning how to change a diaper (no, it’s not an innate trait, women don’t know how to raise children, or do dust or laundry any more than men). Not every women wants to quit her career and engage in baby talk for the rest of her life. Simply put, the women with careers, who can handle responsibilty, and aspire to use their education and knowledge to challenge themselves are the most exciting women to share a life with.

Sure, everybody prefers a situation that benefits them the most, but before men start criticizing women for having a career, they should look at how little respect they’re giving hard-working women and how they’re placing different demands and expectations on the person who is their equal. It’s 2006 and about time for men to step up to the plate.

Don’t worry your little head none of us will marry American women anytime soon. We are passed that point, it is foreign women or single life enjoying the world instead of your nagging of how you have it soo hard. American women have the easiest life in the world compared to your foreign sisters but you complain the most.

09-10-2006 11:31 AM

Re: Here’s the Problem
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Why would I f*cking want to marry when I get sex without a piece of paper from my very hot girlfriend?  Why would I want to marry and jeopardize my income and asset base, which generates more than 7-figures annually for me?  Why marry when I have a housekeeper who shows up 1x every 2 weeks, a gardener etc and I am perfectly capable of fixing my own meals and taking care of myself without the liability of marriage?  You must be joking, or on drugs. Don’t make the ignorant presumption that because I am a man that I need to get married, I don’t and won’t, when there are plenty of very hot women to enjoy

09-10-2006 01:08 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

MMMBBB wrote:
The man that wants a women to stay at home, iron his shirt, to raise the kids and take care of the house wants a mother, not a partner.

For all the defensive arguments stated in support of the article, I suggest reading up on gender issues and what the journals referenced in the article really say.

The fact is that career women are more unhappy in their marriages because they handle the responsibilities of their work, and then are expected to do everything in the home. If you work a 9-5 or a 7-11, once a wife and her husband are at home, each should cook, each should clean, each should contribute EQUALLY. The only reason that career couples have dirtier homes is because the men don’t pick up their share of the work when the women go to work. Married men should not “help” their wives with the household work, they should simply do 50% of it. Not all women want children and care about learning how to change a diaper (no, it’s not an innate trait, women don’t know how to raise children, or do dust or laundry any more than men). Not every women wants to quit her career and engage in baby talk for the rest of her life. Simply put, the women with careers, who can handle responsibilty, and aspire to use their education and knowledge to challenge themselves are the most exciting women to share a life with.

Sure, everybody prefers a situation that benefits them the most, but before men start criticizing women for having a career, they should look at how little respect they’re giving hard-working women and how they’re placing different demands and expectations on the person who is their equal. It’s 2006 and about time for men to step up to the plate.

MMMBBB is saying that he/she believes men and women are equal in every respect except genitalia, so that the only reason a man would need a woman around is to have a sex object around. That’s an interesting theory that reduces women to mere sex objects, but such a theory will only work in reality if women dress as sex objects and willingly accept their role as only being useful to a single successful man as simply a sex toy for such men.

09-10-2006 01:10 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD


Why would I f*cking want to marry when I get sex without a piece of paper from my very hot girlfriend?  Why would I want to marry and jeopardize my income and asset base, which generates more than 7-figures annually for me?  Why marry when I have a housekeeper who shows up 1x every 2 weeks, a gardener etc and I am perfectly capable of fixing my own meals and taking care of myself without the liability of marriage?  You must be joking, or on drugs. Don’t make the ignorant presumption that because I am a man that I need to get married, I don’t and won’t, when there are plenty of very hot women to enjoy”

If you replace “men” by “women” in your post, it becomes mine. I agree 120%.

09-10-2006 01:36 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

ACatInSD wrote:

If you replace “men” by “women” in your post, it becomes mine. I agree 120%.

That means you want a “hot girlfriend” doesn’t it?

Each to their own.

09-10-2006 01:43 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

See, you can be logical when you want to be.  I am only stating positions which are supportable.

09-10-2006 01:43 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

Of course. I am in the shoes of being possibly damaged too.

09-10-2006 01:47 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Yeah right when a man wants a woman that does woman stuff he does not want a real woman, he really wants a mommy. When a woman wants a man with a job and income she doesnt really want a father to pay the bills she wants a “real man”.
Nice try you gotta come up with something better than that.

Message Edited by Cassius on 09-10-2006 02:08 PM

09-10-2006 02:04 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Here’s the Problem

Re: Here’s the Problem
LL
Contributor
LL

You know what the problem is…

People, in general, have forgotten what it means to have a relationship with someone.

You aren’t supposed to do only 50 percent in a relationship…

You are supposed to give it your ALL-100 percent.

The man is supposed to give it 100 percent.

The woman is also supposed to give it 100 percent.

“Everything in”.  People should have only show half of themselves to their partner in case the marriage doesn’t work out or they are “bored”.

If people have that mindset, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Both people should be happy (most of the time).  The work has to be divided, because one person can’t do everything.

If the woman wants to work and the man stays at home, fine. As long as they are both happy.  However, then what happens if she decides to divorce him just because she doesn’t “respect” a man who doesn’t make more money and is of lower status than her?

If you have substantial funds before the marriage, sign the pre-nup.

If the woman doesn’t want to work and the man works, fine.  As long as they are content with this choice.  Then some women will be saying “Well, what happens if he leaves your sorry ass girl”.

Well, I don’t know what to tell you.  I know women who treated their husbands terribly (from Bi-Polar and other mentail ailments) and then when it was all said and done, took a large chunk of their money from the house, child support, alimony and from his main financial assets. Like I say, the current divorce laws need to be revamped. Or the whole insitution of marriage needs to be revamped.  Or maybe people also need to be informed that marriage is a huge undertaking and they shouldn’t rush into it?  I think all of these factors contribute to the high divorce rate.

Society shouldn’t “tell” you what to do.  This has detrimental consequences. Because as far as I am concerned, the U.S. Government can’t do anything right when it comes to benefitting people’s lives.  All they do is hinder it.

09-10-2006 02:20 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

Doc_Savage wrote:

MMMBBB wrote:

It’s 2006 and about time for men to step up to the plate.

Why should men step up to the plate and get married when everything is stacked against them?

I would ask:

what makes American women believe they’re even in a position to make demands on men like ‘step to the plate’ when

1) they are weak, helpless creatures, utterly and forever dependent on man, and

2) they demonstrate no value, skill, or trait that makes them particularly indispensible to men anywhere.

09-10-2006 06:37 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Darling, your missing the point. Men on average work more than women, about 50 hrs a week to a womans 36 hrs. Men generally pay more of the household bills, and have higher income. Men lift the heavy things, and I think deal with alot more stress.

That is the reason men die at least 7 years before women on average. Men also have 95% of on the job deaths. The things I do 4 stories off the ground, no women would do, I don’t think. One false move and I’m a dead man, maimed or injured.

Did you know that for every month a women breast feeds her baby, that act increases said childs IQ? Something that effects him for the rest of his life.

Did you know that products of the two parent family, with a stay at home mother are more confident, and assured, than their counter parts?

Feminism has done nothing but weaken society as a whole, and I can prove it. Empowered women mean nothing, in a weak and shattered society.

Either bear children and become a mother, or get the sex change you have always dreamt of, and become a man. Kill that lady inside you! Chop your hair off! Throw on some jeans, cuss like a sailor, drop your kids off at the 36 billion dollar day care industry, or extract money from the 60 billion a year divorce industry.

Or if the said child gets in the way, just abort him at the Trillion dollar abortion industry, I mean, who wouldn’t want to commit murder to protect that job vacuuming somebody Else’s carpets? Makes sense.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-10-2006 07:03 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Pete wrote:

I would ask:

what makes American women believe they’re even in a position to make demands on men like ‘step to the plate’ when

1) they are weak, helpless creatures, utterly and forever dependent on man, and

2) they demonstrate no value, skill, or trait that makes them particularly indispensible to men anywhere.

Because the feminists have gotten about half of what they want so far by lobbying the government to change the laws in their favour.

09-10-2006 07:28 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

For all the defensive arguments stated in support of the article, I suggest reading up on gender issues and what the journals referenced in the article really say.

The article and referenced studies took into account that the man did “50% of the housework”.

The woman was still unhappy.

You’re the one that needs to read them.

And with that, your entire argument is baseless. Go away.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-10-2006 09:16 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete
Men vote – with their feet. And leave.

09-10-2006 11:18 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Too bad these fembots are so insecure in their stance that all they can manage are these hit-and-run, here’s-what-you-guys-have-to-do type posts. And they say they want a “partner”. What a crock. They just want to be mommies ordering us naughty little boys around.

And how can they know what we want if they don’t stick around and/or listen for a bit?

As I’ve said repeatedly, if women want men who do housework they should actually select men who do housework to marry.

Duh.

If the gals can’t figure that one out, they should at least have the sense to shut up about their incompetence at mate selection.

(Cassius: `nother great post, a real beaut / keeper)

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-11-2006 03:09 AM

Re: Here’s the Problem
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

“Why would I f*cking want to marry when I get sex without a piece of paper from my very hot girlfriend?  Why would I want to marry and jeopardize my income and asset base, which generates more than 7-figures annually for me?  Why marry when I have a housekeeper who shows up 1x every 2 weeks, a gardener etc and I am perfectly capable of fixing my own meals and taking care of myself without the liability of marriage?  You must be joking, or on drugs. Don’t make the ignorant presumption that because I am a man that I need to get married, I don’t and won’t, when there are plenty of very hot women to enjoy”

you’ve accused me of being naive multiple times, but this… it just sounds so superficial and lonely. are sex and money really the only things that matter to you? I mean, you’ve said you love this woman, but it really doesn’t sound like it at all.

I guess if it makes you happy though, well, good for you.

09-11-2006 01:40 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

acrawfield wrote:
“Why would I f*cking want to marry when I get sex without a piece of paper from my very hot girlfriend?  Why would I want to marry and jeopardize my income and asset base, which generates more than 7-figures annually for me?  Why marry when I have a housekeeper who shows up 1x every 2 weeks, a gardener etc and I am perfectly capable of fixing my own meals and taking care of myself without the liability of marriage?  You must be joking, or on drugs. Don’t make the ignorant presumption that because I am a man that I need to get married, I don’t and won’t, when there are plenty of very hot women to enjoy”

you’ve accused me of being naive multiple times, but this… it just sounds so superficial and lonely. are sex and money really the only things that matter to you? I mean, you’ve said you love this woman, but it really doesn’t sound like it at all.

I guess if it makes you happy though, well, good for you.

Wait, let me get this straight. Biitches who divorce when they’ve made an OATH are not being superficial. But men wanting their needs met are superficial?

WHAT DUMB BIITCH decided that sex was superficial?.. That’s like saying eating is superficial. I guess if your life revolves around eating, sure. But if you don’t eat every day, you’re going to be dead soon. And then you can enjoy your deep and meaningful existence 6 feet under.

09-11-2006 02:59 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

acrawfield wrote:
“Why would I f*cking want to marry when I get sex without a piece of paper from my very hot girlfriend?  Why would I want to marry and jeopardize my income and asset base, which generates more than 7-figures annually for me?  Why marry when I have a housekeeper who shows up 1x every 2 weeks, a gardener etc and I am perfectly capable of fixing my own meals and taking care of myself without the liability of marriage?  You must be joking, or on drugs. Don’t make the ignorant presumption that because I am a man that I need to get married, I don’t and won’t, when there are plenty of very hot women to enjoy”

you’ve accused me of being naive multiple times, but this… it just sounds so superficial and lonely. are sex and money really the only things that matter to you? I mean, you’ve said you love this woman, but it really doesn’t sound like it at all.

I guess if it makes you happy though, well, good for you.

Sex and money… that’s just the deck that feminism dealt me. I only need women for sex, and I only need to work for money. It’s not superficial, I have a good life and enjoy life tremendously. If you want men like me to view women as being useful to me for more than just sex, we’ll then you have to show me that women can be useful to me for somthing other than sex. Gosh, this isn’t rocket science cupcake.

09-11-2006 03:13 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Here’s the Problem

Re: Here’s the Problem
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

“Sex and money… that’s just the deck that feminism dealt me. I only need women for sex, and I only need to work for money. It’s not superficial, I have a good life and enjoy life tremendously. If you want men like me to view women as being useful to me for more than just sex, we’ll then you have to show me that women can be useful to me for somthing other than sex. Gosh, this isn’t rocket science cupcake. ”

don’t blame feminism. no one controls your opinions, thoughts, and stereotypes except you. if you go through life thinking women are only good for sex, you have no one to blame for that but yourself.

in any case, I don’t really care how you view women, because it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. the only people it affects are you, and whatever women are unfortunate enough to get involved with you. so if you’re interested in being happy and fulfilled on an emotional level, you might want to take a look at how you view women. otherwise, accept the fact that you’ll probably die alone, and carry on as you have been.

09-11-2006 03:58 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Termi0n
Regular Contributor
Termi0n

“Don’t blame feminism. no one controls your opinions, thoughts, and stereotypes except you. if you go through life thinking women are only good for sex, you have no one to blame for that but yourself.”

I think this is what they call “denial.” You know, when you deny reality? Thats what you’re describing.

Reality is, you girls bring nothing else to the table that a man wants. You flat out refuse to be wives or mothers. So what would a man want with you? One thing. Thats it.

Women want fried ice. -Arab Proverb

09-11-2006 05:15 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

acrawfield wrote:
“Sex and money… that’s just the deck that feminism dealt me. I only need women for sex, and I only need to work for money. It’s not superficial, I have a good life and enjoy life tremendously. If you want men like me to view women as being useful to me for more than just sex, we’ll then you have to show me that women can be useful to me for somthing other than sex. Gosh, this isn’t rocket science cupcake. ”

don’t blame feminism. no one controls your opinions, thoughts, and stereotypes except you. if you go through life thinking women are only good for sex, you have no one to blame for that but yourself.

in any case, I don’t really care how you view women, because it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. the only people it affects are you, and whatever women are unfortunate enough to get involved with you. so if you’re interested in being happy and fulfilled on an emotional level, you might want to take a look at how you view women. otherwise, accept the fact that you’ll probably die alone, and carry on as you have been.

Hey stupid biitch, you could just abbreviate the “I’m too fugly and fat to keep a man interested, so I’ll try to demean his sexuality and cry foul at all the hot women who are getting more attention than me” by simply saying: SOUR GRAPES.

Enjoy your lemonade you dumb biitch

09-11-2006 05:25 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38

acrawfield wrote:
“Sex and money… that’s just the deck that feminism dealt me. I only need women for sex, and I only need to work for money. It’s not superficial, I have a good life and enjoy life tremendously. If you want men like me to view women as being useful to me for more than just sex, we’ll then you have to show me that women can be useful to me for somthing other than sex. Gosh, this isn’t rocket science cupcake. ”

don’t blame feminism. no one controls your opinions, thoughts, and stereotypes except you. if you go through life thinking women are only good for sex, you have no one to blame for that but yourself.

in any case, I don’t really care how you view women, because it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. the only people it affects are you, and whatever women are unfortunate enough to get involved with you. so if you’re interested in being happy and fulfilled on an emotional level, you might want to take a look at how you view women. otherwise, accept the fact that you’ll probably die alone, and carry on as you have been.

I’m happy and fulfilled on all levels, and if I’m not I just boot my ladyfriend to the curb or she stomps her feet out the door cuz i won’t marry her or sire children with her, and it’s on to the next ladyfriend. King Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines, but I don’t think I’ll even come close to that number of women in my lifetime as I usually spend too much time on each one. Thanks for your concern though about my well-being cupcake, it’s heart-warming.

09-11-2006 06:49 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

ACrawfield Wrote:

you’ve accused me of being naive multiple times, but this… it just sounds so superficial and lonely. are sex and money really the only things that matter to you?

Hello manipulation by shame tactics!! (Again. not like we’re tired of it and can spot it a mile off or anything).

Once again, he is looking at his needs realistically. As soon as he has a problem with that he has a problem with “love”? Guess what? If women really “loved” men, they would accept that we have needs as well. It’s a two way street. Understand? BOTH WAYS. I guess you don’t.

He has asked why he would want to sacrifice those needs for the needs of a woman. You seem to think that “him supposedly loving her” is a good enough reason. Whether she RECIPROCATES that appears to be irrelevant to you.

Have a look at the thread above this called ‘Rules for Single Women’. Take special note of the following rule because your post embodies the reason for it:

A man won’t say “I love you” until he is 100% confident that you won’t use this against him. This might take years, be patient because men can be sensitive, too.

Fact is, the biggest proponents of women only being good for sex are feminists. They aren’t good for “love” if they hate men. It’s really quite simple: hate and love are mutually exclusive. What is left apart from whether they are physically attractive or not?

Can’t understand that? Nooo of course you can’t.

Now run along and go read some more ego-gratifying “all
your needs are above love and all men’s needs are evil” crap that feminists write and get used to men secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) thinking of you with contempt.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-11-2006 09:34 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

“Once again, he is looking at his needs realistically. As soon as he has a problem with that he has a problem with “love”? Guess what? If women really “loved” men, they would accept that we have needs as well. It’s a two way street. Understand? BOTH WAYS. I guess you don’t.

He has asked why he would want to sacrifice those needs for the needs of a woman. You seem to think that “him supposedly loving her” is a good enough reason. Whether she RECIPROCATES that appears to be irrelevant to you.”

when did I deny that men have “needs”? I was simply stating that love didn’t even seem to factor in to his needs… and given that “love” and “sex and money” aren’t mutually exclusive, your accusations of selfishness don’t make any sense. you’re also assuming that men’s and women’s needs are not only different, but in direct opposition to one another, which I haven’t found to be the case. and when I talk about love in a relationship, I’m assuming that reciprocation is a given, obviously.

accusing me of hating men and not caring about their needs is not only ridiculous, it’s just an attempt to cloud the actual issues at hand with personal attacks. I like men quite a bit, and in fact, outside of this forum, would never refer to myself as a feminist because of its negative connotations. I love my boyfriend very much, and making him happy is one of the most important things in the world to me. so basically, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried… which I’m sure you’ll be doing any minute now.

09-12-2006 12:39 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

acrawfield wrote:
“Once again, he is looking at his needs realistically. As soon as he has a problem with that he has a problem with “love”? Guess what? If women really “loved” men, they would accept that we have needs as well. It’s a two way street. Understand? BOTH WAYS. I guess you don’t.

He has asked why he would want to sacrifice those needs for the needs of a woman. You seem to think that “him supposedly loving her” is a good enough reason. Whether she RECIPROCATES that appears to be irrelevant to you.”

when did I deny that men have “needs”? I was simply stating that love didn’t even seem to factor in to his needs… and given that “love” and “sex and money” aren’t mutually exclusive, your accusations of selfishness don’t make any sense. you’re also assuming that men’s and women’s needs are not only different, but in direct opposition to one another, which I haven’t found to be the case. and when I talk about love in a relationship, I’m assuming that reciprocation is a given, obviously.

accusing me of hating men and not caring about their needs is not only ridiculous, it’s just an attempt to cloud the actual issues at hand with personal attacks. I like men quite a bit, and in fact, outside of this forum, would never refer to myself as a feminist because of its negative connotations. I love my boyfriend very much, and making him happy is one of the most important things in the world to me. so basically, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried… which I’m sure you’ll be doing any minute now.

You stupid ridiculous biitch, your posts don’t point to your philanthropy. Quite the opposite, they point to your childishness. You want to have your cake and eat it too, you dumb biitch. You’re just too stupid  to realize it and these men have to constantly point it out to you. But just like a dumb biitch, you can’t hear anything being said. All you can hear is “ME ME ME ME ME ME MEEEEEEEEEEE.” It’s pretty telling that you can’t even acknowledge the idiocy of your own gender which is blatantly apparent in any social setting. This only reveals the secret insecurity you harbor. You want to be a man so badly. You just don’t realize that men are defined by the responsible they’re shackled to while women are defined by the responsibilites they choose. You want to be a man, but you’re not competent enough to be a man.

There’s a vacuum cleaner with your name on it. It’s a wonder you can even handle that responsibility.

09-12-2006 01:25 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

So basically, all of his needs apart from “love” (obviously defined by you as well) are irrelevant to his decision to get married.

His sole reason for marrying should be “because of love”, more specifically, “because HE loves HER”.

As far as I can tell your definition of “love” appears to be:

Love (according to ACrawfield): Excellent way to manipulate men into doing something against their best interests. Common use – “If you loved me you’d marry me”

Footnote: “Marry me” can be pretty much replaced with anything of your fickle choosing.

Rubbish spoken by a rubbish woman.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-13-2006 04:42 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-13-2006 04:39 AM

Re: Here’s the Problem
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

do you even read the posts you reply to, or just kind of make things up as you go along?

no, two people’s reason for marrying EACH OTHER should be that they love EACH OTHER. one person loving another obviously isn’t enough to make a relationship work, let alone a marriage. and if you’re in love- both of you- you’re not going to try and manipulate each other, because you don’t do that to someone you love.

of course, if you’d ever been in love, I wouldn’t have to explain any of this.

“So basically, all of his needs apart from “love” (obviously defined by you as well) are irrelevant to his decision to get married.

His sole reason for marrying should be “because of love”, more specifically, “because HE loves HER”.

As far as I can tell your definition of “love” appears to be:

Love (according to ACrawfield): Excellent way to manipulate men into doing something against their best interests. Common use – “If you loved me you’d marry me”

09-13-2006 02:22 PM

Re: Here’s the Problem
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

acrawfield wrote:
do you even read the posts you reply to, or just kind of make things up as you go along?

no, two people’s reason for marrying EACH OTHER should be that they love EACH OTHER. one person loving another obviously isn’t enough to make a relationship work, let alone a marriage. and if you’re in love- both of you- you’re not going to try and manipulate each other, because you don’t do that to someone you love.

of course, if you’d ever been in love, I wouldn’t have to explain any of this.

“So basically, all of his needs apart from “love” (obviously defined by you as well) are irrelevant to his decision to get married.

His sole reason for marrying should be “because of love”, more specifically, “because HE loves HER”.

As far as I can tell your definition of “love” appears to be:

Love (according to ACrawfield): Excellent way to manipulate men into doing something against their best interests. Common use – “If you loved me you’d marry me”

Hey dumb biitch, here’s the problem:

1. You love YOURSELF. No room for you to love a man properly.

2. Female love is about as reliable as a female’s word. We know both of them are given frivilously and both of them are gone just as easily. This is why a man’s word is respected while a woman’s word is humored (aka “suffered through”)

09-13-2006 04:19 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Here’s the Problem

What a pity
MMMBBB
Newbie
MMMBBB
I am not an American. I am that “foreign sister”.

Your comments show just how little you know. I work 12 hour days and am simply sick of chauvinistic comments coming from little boys.

10-26-2006 10:17 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: