the irony of the whole thing


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – the irony of the whole thing

the irony of the whole thing
Celticgirl
Contributor
Celticgirl
After spending a few entertaining hours on here for the past few days, a huge irony is apparent. The main gripes on here from the males are that women are gold-diggers, screwing them over in divorces, etc. The glaring preoccupation (perhaps not a surprise as it’s a Forbes site) is money – and ‘losing’ it (whether financial maintenance of your biological children is a waste is a moot point which I’m not going to get into)

The bottom line is successful career women don’t marry for money.
They don’t have to. They don’t need it. Lower income women – especially from the developing countries – do, or generally want to, to escape a desperate situation and provide economic and domestic oppotunites for their offspring

From what I read on here, the men recounting their stories are not mixing with successful professional women. Those type of women don’t put up with ‘non-committal relationships’ in return for being paid rent on the apartment – to mention one of many examples quoted on here. They don’t have to. Why would ANY successful, educated person want to be treated like a whore? (Yeah, am expecting some suitably juvenile remarks on that one, so don’t bother)

Why do I need a man’s money? I have enough myself and thank god, I can do what I please. And sleep with who I please. On this planet, that is a rare thing for a female, let me tell you – I’ve travelled and worked all over the world and I know this is true.
That is why feminism is so important. We are not ball-breakers – we just want equality. Is that so bad?

I think many of the guys here have either made bad marriage choices and/or have self-esteem issues and can’t imagine women wanting to be with them unless they flash the cash. That’s THEIR problem. And it’s also their problem if they commodify the entire female race as sexual and domestic slaves who are only fit for child-rearing.

No wonder only certain types of women give you the time of day. If I went round acting like a female chauvinist I’m sure I would only attract aXXholes, too.

08-31-2006 09:07 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
There have been a lot of what I am guessing is young guys taking on characters of stereotypical misogynists because they think they are taking the piss out of women, all they are doing is making men look very stupid as well as ruining this board and the debate.

But there are valid issues here, like male rights to freedom of expression being trampled by feminists and forbes having no balls and issuing an apology for not putting women on a pedestal, men need to know what marriage has become, what women divorce more, the feminist reaction to this article was just as childish and extreme and retarded as these guys, (if they are guys) but because of our societies double standards when women are childish and reactionary, organizations jump so as not to be labeled sexist. In our Catherine McKinnon, duke rape, Knee jerk, anti-male world. This is such bullsh1t and these double standards have to change, to bad forbes was to pu55y to be the ones to FINALY put their foot down.

Message Edited by Hujo on 08-31-2006 09:36 AM

08-31-2006 09:34 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Celticgirl wrote:
The main gripes on here from the males are that women are gold-diggers, screwing them over in divorces, etc.

[snip]

The bottom line is successful career women don’t marry for money.
They don’t have to. They don’t need it.

[snip]

If that is the case why were women infuriated by the article and demand it’s removal?

My observation is that a lot of high earning career women do not want to marry men with an “ordinary” average paying job. They want a husband who earns at least as much if not more than them. Any bad publicity about them or the institution of marriage in general is upsetting to career women. They have a hard enough time finding a man that suits their expectations as it is.

Now I know that picking out one individual case is a bit dubious but something your post reminded me of was the celebrity murder trial of Jane Andrews. She was a successful woman in her own right (she was the Duchess of York’s PA) with a millionaire boyfriend Tom Cressman. When he wanted to end the relationship with her she whacked him on the head with a cricket bat and then finished him off with a kitchen knife.

Ms Andrews claimed in her defence that she had taken the knife with her to bed to protect herself after he had raped her and beaten her up. When she was woken by Mr Cressman attacking her in the middle of the night, she claimed she wielded the knife to protect herself and he fell on it.

The jury didn’t believe her and she was found guilty of murder.

I think she was a gold-digger, despite her job and money she still wanted more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1330544.stm

08-31-2006 09:35 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Celticgirl
Contributor
Celticgirl
Hmmm…isn’t it a tad extreme to cite the case of Jane Andrews -a nutjob and convicted murderer – as proof that career women are gold-diggers?? I’m not saying that there are not female gold-diggers. There are. And male ones too.
You only have to read Dominick Dunne to know that men marry and murder for money too. Some men are cheating, lying assholes. Some men are rapists. Not all are.

I have to admit though I AM very unlikely to have a serious relationship with anyone who earned much less than me. Why? Before you all start baying….I have lived with two men who both earned considerably less (and were less educated than me). They moved into my home. I didn’t think it was a problem – THEY did. Every argument we had they would throw up the fact it was MY house. They resented the fact I worked long hours and wasn’t there to cook, clean and ironed their shirts for them (I paid someone else to do that for them – their response? ‘If you loved me, you’d iron my shirts!!”

Even thought we had a nice lifestyle, they were totally emasculated and took it out on me in not very nice ways. So , yes, to be honest I’d be very wary of getting into that situation again.

The bottom line is, women have come a long way in the last 40 years and men still have to come to terms with that.

Seriously, I’d love to have had a househusband who would have been happy to stay at home and bring up our children while I earned the bucks. But you men don’t seem to like doing that.

08-31-2006 09:52 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
zacharias
Regular Contributor
zacharias

Celticgirl wrote:
Seriously, I’d love to have had a househusband who would have been happy to stay at home and bring up our children while I earned the bucks. But you men don’t seem to like doing that.

Well, maybe the next generation raised under the new social values will adapt better than those raised with one set then expected to live with a different set. I’ve heard it speculated that the reason Moses wandered around in the wilderness for 40 years was so that all the old generation could die off and the new generation born in a completely different world adapt to the one they were in.

08-31-2006 10:25 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

Celticgirl wrote:
After spending a few entertaining hours on here for the past few days, a huge irony is apparent. The main gripes on here from

No. You don’t even know what the real irony is.

The irony is that in attempting to defend a career woman as a worthy companion for a man, you achieve the opposite: you show that the very concept of the career woman is indefensible.

The irony is that in attacking the idea that career women do not make good wives for men, you display the worst personality traits that only reinforce that view.

The irony is that in defending career women as worthy of something, you only show by your attitude and behavior that they are, in fact, worthless and disposable to men.

You don’t seem to realize yet just how repellent your attitude is. And fairly or not, that reflects very poorly on Anglosphere women, whether they have careers or not. It also gives ammunition to the idea that you women of the English-speaking countries are neither that essential nor appealing for men who seek wives or female companions.

08-31-2006 10:28 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

Celticgirl wrote:

Seriously, I’d love to have had a househusband who would have been happy to stay at home and bring up our children while I earned the bucks. But you men don’t seem to like doing that.

Just because you are a man trapped in a female body does not mean men have to comform to your expectation that they should be feminized. The problem is with you. YOU WANT TO BE A MAN. YOU ARE NATURE’S ABERRATION.

08-31-2006 10:31 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
miscwit
Contributor
miscwit

The bottom line is successful career women don’t marry for money.

You may be right, but the trend remains for women to marry up. The evidence is all over the dating websites. Those dating websites show the real truth about what American women want, financially independent or not. We all may talk platitudes and social theory, but actions speak louder than words.

Being financially successful should be a freeing experience. It should give women more options. In some ways, that has indeed occurred. Women can buy what they want and they don’t have to accept a miserable relationship because of economic concerns.

Yet, the social, gender contract has not changed much. Women still want a more successful man (in the most traditional sense – money). Men still prefer an attractive, agreeable, and considerate wife. Sure, she might be intelligent and witty, but that’s no excuse to be sarcastic, unpleasant, and unwilling to compromise. The current conflict between social engineering and biology are almost impossible to resolve.

I tend to ignore all the talk and look at actions as manifested in social trends. The actions of men show very justifiable frustration and anger. Those actions are the marriage strike, sport sex without commitment, and outsourcing wives. Women may proclaim their anger and dismay at this situation (through insults and shame, usually) but that will change nothing until men feel they are still valuable to women and to society.

As things stand now, we feel that we are not particularly valuable in society except as beasts of burden, expected only to work until we die with nothing more to contribute. Worse, we are told that we are actually a detriment to society, that our very nature is something that is unpleasant and wrong and should be stifled in all situations.

When we do have the temerity to voice our frustration, we are denounced as whiners and unmanly. It’s an ugly situation that is not likely to change until American women make the collective choice to mend this gender rift. Men didn’t cause it so we can’t fix it. Until the this happens, men won’t say much (as compared to the vast media empire built on the complaints of women). We’ll just continue to shun marriage, we’ll continue to find sexual pleasure through very temporary means, and we’ll increase the numbers of foreign women as wives.

08-31-2006 10:39 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Celticgirl
Contributor
Celticgirl
No Pete – the irony is that you can’t stand the fact that women want the same sorts of choices, financial power and freedoms that men have. You’re attacking you’re own lifestyles.

Good luck in finding a mate outside the anglophile world – am presuming you won’t want her to understand english too well!

08-31-2006 10:43 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Celticgirl wrote:

Hmmm…isn’t it a tad extreme to cite the case of Jane Andrews -a nutjob and convicted murderer – as proof that career women are gold-diggers??

I did state that my use of that example was a bit “dubious” actually. As for her being a nutjob though….hmmm. This was someone who worked directly with the highest levels of the Royal family. I understand someone has to go through a thorough vetting procedure to get a job like that.

Celticgirl wrote:

Seriously, I’d love to have had a househusband who would have been happy to stay at home and bring up our children while I earned the bucks. But you men don’t seem to like doing that.

Well if your interested in a 45 year old slap-head mitchell brother look alike maybe we could meet sometime (joke).

I personally know two couples where the man is the house husband. One lives opposite me and they have two teenage daughters and one 9 year old boy. The husband is fit and always seems cheerful. The wife is going grey prematurely and seems grumpy most of the time.

The other one is an English guy married to a Russian bride with two kids from a previous marriage and one with him. She has her own software company and they seem very happy (he’s a lazy git though).

So there you go, it is possible.

08-31-2006 10:44 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – the irony of the whole thing

Re: the irony of the whole thing
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

If that is the case why were women infuriated by the article and demand it’s removal?

Infuriated? I wouldn’t describe it as that. If you actually take the time to read what women here have said, the article treats men like babies who need to be waited on and women accessories tot hose men. I mean come one: with career women, you will be more likely to have a dirty house. GASP! Don’t bother to grab a broom or anything, buddy.

I don’t know what woman demanded it be taken down. It seems Forbes did so out of embarrassment.

But there are valid issues here, like male rights to freedom of expression being trampled by feminists and forbes having no balls and issuing an apology for not putting women on a pedestal

You’re making yourself a victim for no reason. Feminism did not “trample” male freedom of expression. Feminism criticized something men said. Sorry you guys can’t handle that but, hey, its life. Capitalism and other men “trampled” your freedom of expression. If that is what you want to call it. As for “put on the pedestal”, the only people who did that was Michael Noer. When a woman doesn’t wipe his rear-end for him, they fall hard from it.

08-31-2006 10:56 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

Celticgirl wrote:
the irony is that you can’t stand the fact that women want the same sorts of choices, financial power and freedoms that men have. You’re attacking you’re own lifestyles.

You want to be a man in a female body. You want to lead as a man while being a woman. “Our lifestyles include the obligation to provide for a family.”

YOU WANT OUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGE WITHOUT THE INCLUDED RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS.

If you don’t see the fallacy in your aspiration, you are an idiot.

08-31-2006 10:57 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Celticgirl
Contributor
Celticgirl
There ya go…in my experience you can’t generalise about people. Each to their own, I say.

As to your earlier point as to why women were so furious about the original article is because it was lazy and sensationalist – and to be frank downright prejudicial. These type of hacks make a career out of career women-bashing and it was about time we answered back.
(Plus I have to admit I enjoy winding up the chauvinists on here!)

Let’s be honest – you’d expect something a little better in a magazine like Forbes.Wouldn’t you?

08-31-2006 11:03 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Celticgirl
Contributor
Celticgirl
oh, do stop getting your knickers in a twist democles! Yeah yeah…I so really want to be a man….just like you!

08-31-2006 11:05 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

Celticgirl wrote:
oh, do stop getting your knickers in a twist democles! Yeah yeah…I so really want to be a man….just like you!

LOL, too bad you can’t huh? I love you too. Peace.

08-31-2006 11:08 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Celticgirl
Contributor
Celticgirl
Ha – you really don’t understand the irony thing, do you? Peace to you too though – I’m no man-hater.

08-31-2006 11:11 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

Celticgirl wrote:
Ha – you really don’t understand the irony thing, do you? Peace to you too though – I’m no man-hater.

You know, you are right. Do please explain it to me. No, I am not being sarcastic or facetious. Do please be articulate, since you seem to perceive me as less capable than you intellectually.

08-31-2006 11:14 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Then, as a career woman, you should have no problem signing a prenuptial agreement with a perspective husband then, will you?

08-31-2006 11:18 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Pete
Regular Contributor
Pete

Celticgirl wrote:
No Pete – the irony is that you can’t stand the fact that women want the same sorts of choices, financial power and freedoms that men have. You’re attacking you’re own lifestyles.

Good luck in finding a mate outside the anglophile world – am presuming you won’t want her to understand english too well!

“Choices, financial power and freedoms that men have.” That’s precisely the problem with you Anglosphere women. It’s also the root of your stupidity. Ultimately, your advocacy comes down to plain selfish greed and envy, pure and simple.

It’s clear enough from your childishly spiteful, ignorant post that you reinforce all the ironies I mentioned earlier.

You also show yourself lacking in the mental capability of arguing effectively in your self-interest.

Because ultimately, it is far more in your self-interest to endear yourself to men, rather than the other way around.

08-31-2006 11:26 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Celticgirl
Contributor
Celticgirl
Who says women don’t want to sign pre-nups? If you’ve acculmulated a lot before marriage I think it’s a very good idea. For both partners.

I think the reason why many women blanch at the idea pre-wedding because it’s almost like a harbinger of doom. Not very romantic to be thinking of splitting up before you get wed, is it?

But I think many modern women (who, yes, have worked hard for their own spoils) now have the sense to think that getting things sorted upfront can take the sting out of a bitter divorce if you’re unlucky enough to experience one subsequently.

I’d definitely do it – the problem is I don’t want to get married!

08-31-2006 11:28 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – the irony of the whole thing

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Celticgirl wrote:

There ya go…in my experience you can’t generalise about people. Each to their own, I say.

Agreed.

Celticgirl wrote:

As to your earlier point as to why women were so furious about the original article is because it was lazy and sensationalist – and to be frank downright prejudicial. These type of hacks make a career out of career women-bashing and it was about time we answered back.
(Plus I have to admit I enjoy winding up the chauvinists on here!)

Just like feminist hacks have made careers out of bashing men… for years and years using fake statistics. And we’ve put up with it as well.

Celticgirl wrote:
Let’s be honest – you’d expect something a little better in a magazine like Forbes.Wouldn’t you?

Err, not really. They’re there to sell magazines at the end of the day like all the others. If their circulation was dropping this should certainly help boost it.

08-31-2006 11:37 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Sorry CelticGirl, but it’s going to be near-unanimous here that you’re totally full of it.

______________________________________________
“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

08-31-2006 11:38 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

No, the bad omen is a woman who will not sign one.  That is a fact.  Don’t obfuscate and confuse marital bliss with the likelihood that 1 in 2 firts marriages will end and that women are the petitioners in over 70% of those filings.  Simple, if you want romanticis, then sign the prenup and remove theft and money from the equation.  Now you have what you want, a man who loves you for you and you are love with him for being him.  Prenups are for men who don’t have any assets as well, since they likely will at some point.

Your not wishing to get married only simplifies it for you, as it did for me.

08-31-2006 11:39 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
Democles
Regular Contributor
Democles

moneyneversleep wrote:
No, the bad omen is a woman who will not sign one.  That is a fact.  Don’t obfuscate and confuse marital bliss with the likelihood that 1 in 2 firts marriages will end and that women are the petitioners in over 70% of those filings.  Simple, if you want romanticis, then sign the prenup and remove theft and money from the equation.  Now you have what you want, a man who loves you for you and you are love with him for being him.  Prenups are for men who don’t have any assets as well, since they likely will at some point.

Your not wishing to get married only simplifies it for you, as it did for me.

moneyneversleep don’t be fooled by double speak. A prudent men knows and takes into account that relationships sour, therefore measures have to be taken to minimize loss. Her claim that is un-romantic to think about a dissolution is foolish, a female tactic to benefit them.

Second, her claim not to want to be married is a typical female response I have experienced when confronted with unpleasantries about marriage.

08-31-2006 11:49 AM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

I appreaciate the insight, as I

08-31-2006 12:47 PM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish
YOU WANT TO BE A MAN. YOU ARE NATURE’S ABERRATION.

Well, if wanting to be in control of her own life and be free to choose how she spends it and how she contributes to the world means she wants to be a man, then there are a lot of us aberrations out here. More and more all the time. There’s actually a word to describe nature’s aberrations that flourish this thoroughly: “evolved.”

08-31-2006 11:21 PM

Re: the irony of the whole thing
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

women are the petitioners in over 70% of those filings.

Another irony of this whole thing is that the guys keep throwing that statistic around with the idea that women being the ones who most often want out of marriages means it’s the women who are the problems in the marriages.

Of course, until the causes of it get investigated more thoroughly and objectively, we can’t actually know why women file most of the divorces. If we want to jump to conclusions, it certainly seems just as reasonable to assume that women do the leaving most because they’re the ones most frequently mistreated in the marriage as it is to assume it’s because women are trying to get fat alimony checks. To be completely dispassionate, though, I suspect a good chunk of divorces (maybe even most) are completely mutual (mine was), and since our system is set up in such a way that one person or the other must file (rather than simply filing together; we really should have an “amicable divorce” option), some couples stick to tradition and choose to have the wife do the filing.

See, back in the days when divorce was extremely rare and extremely scandalous, there was an odd kind of chivalry involved in settling this question. Someone had to be “at fault,” and the reason had to be explicit and quite severe. To divorce, one member of a marriage had to not only do the filing, but enter into the public and legal record exactly what their spouse had done to deserve it (infidelity, abuse, criminal behavior, and so forth; “we’ve just grown apart” didn’t cut it). So, since men who were at fault in a divorce were objects of social disapproval (observe Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind if you want to see just how hard a blow social disapproval was to any man of independance), but women known to be at fault were utterly ruined in the eyes of society, the “gentlemanly” thing to do was to permit one’s soon-to-be ex-wife to do the filing. Nowadays we have no-fault divorce, but of course, old habits die hard.

my guess is, if they’d just give us the option to file jointly and amicably, as the last action in our marriages, you’d see a huge drop in the number of individual, “hostile” filings, and you’d see a lot more balance in who was doing it. But of course, that’s just my theory. I can’t prove it, because I can’t look into the hearts and minds of thousands of people throughout the country whom I have never met. Can you?

08-31-2006 11:53 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: