The problem is, women want it both ways.
Women want the right to say no, even after enticing a man to be sexually active with her, even days, weeks, months, and years after the event.
Her word is to be considered sacrosanct, and must be taken as truth without question, ruining many (innocent) men’s careers and even lives, as a result.
Men are not permitted to have a defense against such accusations.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no use for serial abusers such as Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood, political and celebrity types; they deserve ostracization and severe punishment for their actions, BUT if women want true equality they must take responsibility for their own actions. They cannot have it both ways.
All one has to do is look at the way Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was treated by the mainstream media, who gave his accuser Anita Hill a pass, even though she followed him from job to job, without any mention of harassment.
Women want the same pay for equal work–not a problem in most cases, but if a woman cannot do the job, she then asks for special treatment because she is a woman, instead of realizing that she is not cut out for such work and should seek more suitable employment.
Men die sooner than women as they do the most hazardous work.
If women want to be treated as equals they have to step up to the plate and TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions
Multiculturalism, diversity and especially feminism are flawed concepts that equate to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Of course it took a female of the species to coax the male into eating of the forbidden fruit.
Another parallel example is that of the Tower of Babel in which separate cultures and languages developed.
At the risk of offending the female of the species, there were reasons why women did not achieve suffrage (the right to vote) among other things. I realize that there are many intelligent women who do not subscribe to externalized altruism, but there are too many who do . . . Women have a altruistic streak, which is necessary in the formation and care of their families. However, this altruism has been externalized, helped along by our enemies, caring for outsiders while neglecting the good within the family structure in–internalized altruism. This externalized altruism has become deadly which has been put into the hands of feminists. This externalized altruism made the communistic, so-called civil-rights movement a (hollow) success (Actually, the so-called civil-rights movement is falling apart), along with the country).
I am opening up a “can of worms” with this, but I feel it is necessary to set the record straight…
There is another aspect to women’s behavior that results much controversy and finger-pointing. There is enough blame to go around on both sides, but facing the facts quite often only results in much more consternation and ill feelings.
The recent Michigan State University “scandal” where female gymnastics competitors were “abused” by their doctor over a period of time comes into focus.
There are many questions that have not received proper answers, as it is not only unpopular, but inadvisable to ask them, as they go against the grain of “commonly acceptable behavior”.
I may ruffle feathers here, but I DON’T CARE. The TRUTH must be known.
Since this “abuse” was (supposedly) going on for years, why didn’t the women bring up their accusations years ago? Why did they keep seeing this doctor, going back for more and more “abuse”?
The fact is, these women threw themselves at this doctor, as they considered him to be of a high(er) social status, this doctor was put into a position of having many women to choose from, as they all wanted “a piece of the action”..
I do not absolve the doctor of responsibility to maintain a position of ethical detachment (which he should have known better and maintained), but, the temptation to “get it on” with these women who instigated the encounters were throwing themselves at him must be figured into the equation.
The attorneys for the women were brilliant as they used the term “survivor” to describe the women, rather than the correct term “victim”. Since these women were in no danger of losing their lives, the term “survivor” was incorrect, but was used to add “gravitas” to the situation.
Although this doctor must accept responsibility for his actions, they were partially instigated by the women themselves, who should also bear responsibility…
It was my understanding many of the gymnasts were teens hoping for Olympic level performance as a result of the doctor’s care. I am wondering how many parents were aware of the abuse and looked away to avoid ruining their child’s chances.
Let’s look at the other side of the equation…
The husband is expected to go to work, to a physically demanding, often dangerous job, requiring long hours, quite often for an unappreciative employer.
Repairs and necessary maintenance around the house are on his shoulders alone. Worries about how to support his household and pay for major repairs are also his concern alone. Lawn work, landscaping, keeping up the house infrastructure, snow removal and grass cutting are his duties as well.
When he does attempt to help his wife, he is constantly criticized for not doing things “her way”, despite his efforts being totally adequate. The incessant nagging and criticism for not helping out enough or not doing things “her way” is enough to drive a man to drink. He is “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t”.
When he does take care of the children, she considers it to be “babysitting” and not a normal part of family life. Quite often his input in to child-rearing is not taken seriously, with the result being an honest resentment for not being permitted to take part in making decisions regarding the children.
The ultimate threat is that of divorce, most often initiated by the woman, with the resultant one-sided “friend of the court” system making him pay above and beyond, with no accountability as to “child support” funds spent is demanded of the woman.
IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE A MARRIAGE “WORK”…
Platoplubius
January 17, 2019 1:12 pm
My quick quip…
What I see, thanks in large part to the proliferation of social media, is the trend I refer to as “Attention junkies ” which coincides with the “me me me” Millenial generation as well as the “everybody’s a winner” crap!
Many women and even some men nowadays seem to be focused on getting attention through a variety of means!
Everybody wants to be famous and they don’t care how they get that fame.
Very sad state of affairs for our species.
Administrator
January 17, 2019 1:13 pm
noBabel
January 17, 2019 1:47 pm
So if I were in the leadership council of a certain tribe, and I was a afraid of a different tribe who routinely kicked our asses throughout the last say, 2400 years, what would I do?
Would I infiltrate their societies as a diaspora, but maintain loyalty to my own tribe? Would I get involved in religion, media, show business, politics, and law to promote non-traditional family and tribal values outside of my tribe while keeping those values within my tribe intact?
I wonder how that would play out. What effect would that have on my tribe’s greatest enemy?
Got off on a tangent there, what were we talking about?
TPC
January 17, 2019 2:40 pm
My wife (much like myself) is prone to ranting. My favorite rant of hers is about “the modern woman.”
According to her, the modern woman has been taught she can do anything. And so when asked what she wants, the modern woman will inevitably respond “everything.”
She then asked me what I wanted…”a farm. Large enough to hunt, small enough I don’t have to rent things out.”
Then she asked me what the guys at work wanted. “A mechanic shop, a CNC company, a farm.”
Outside of your standard beta-soy-male, western men still want to be productive. They have concrete goals and desires.
Women used to want concrete things too, until modern feminism decided that being feminine was BAD and that only by being masculine could a woman be good.
pyrrhus
January 17, 2019 3:09 pm
Lesbian communists–all of the early leaders of feminism–have achieved their apparent goal of causing the demographic destruction of their followers…That’s not all bad.
mark
January 17, 2019 3:25 pm
I was always attracted (once the two way physical attraction/sex factor was confirmed good to great, that was a deal breaker less than that) to women who would be my “equal” without being my “rival.”
Feminine sexy women who were also strong, didn’t take any crap (especially from me) and thought sex was fun were who I pursued.
The one I married and have spent 43 years with fit and fits that description to a T.
I didn’t stay with the extremes long (no matter how good the sex was): clingers who thought I hung the moon or hotties use to being pursued and always getting their way.
Never had anything to do with open feminists…met a few, zero attraction boarding on repulsion no matter their looks.
EL Coyote (EC)
January 17, 2019 5:57 pm
In spite of the other crap, I liked Shahrazad Ali’s discussion on women’s lib. She said it was a white women’s problem with white men and it had little to do with black women; it had actually destroyed the black family. Usually, you hear that welfare ruined the black family, not the black woman. She said black women revolted against the BM, demanding that he provide for the family or git. She says this re-purposing of the man in the house made all other contributions of the man in the house seem meaningless.
Now that the entire purpose of a man in the house is to bring home the money, if a man does not have a job for whatever social reason, he is worthless and must be replaced. The man leaves, the kids grow up without a father and some really fucked up women are raising and fucking up the kids further. This is Shahrazad’s theme and I agree with that portion.
She said black women didn’t need liberation since the BM had not gotten to the point of being oppressive to the BW. It was educated, career white women who needed to be freed from the constraints of white males in the workplace. She said women’s liberation was imposed on BW to shut down the black civil rights movement.
Well, fuck. The civil rights movement morphed into black power. Then, liberated black women got educated and decided to run for president. Thanks to women’s lib, now we need a civil rights movement for white males (who are being oppressed by educated white women and gay men) and the establishment solution to this cluster fuck is to build a wall on the southern border. Sad.
There’s more to the story…American black men like to think that they “rule the roost”, but they are sadly mistaken. Of course their super egos get in the way. During the slave times, a savvy slavemaster would make an “example” of one of his male slaves by imposing a harsh punishment for a minor transgression. Using psychology, he would require the woman slaves to watch the punishment. After that, the male slaves were “kept in line” by their own females, who did not wish to see other slaves punished in the same manner, It is the black slave women that kept the male slaves “in line. This is a major reason for “the strong black woman” of today.
robert h siddell jr
January 17, 2019 9:02 pm
I had two typical American wives. Both became feminist and decided running around was a better life. Both had a great time until they aged and became old maids in poverty. I am now happily married to a Philippine girl who is not feminist, and advise young men to skip the heartaches and marry a traditional Asian or Latin woman.
It just doesn’tmatter
January 18, 2019 4:34 pm
Consider this-
The plain looking female has less chance to find a man who by design is visual and still wants, wishes, and tries for a “7+”.
Females know they either find a mate and make family, or work hard and support themselves.
Parents want their daughters to be independent, lest they support the girl we’ll into adulthood.
Some women found they can make a family and make money.
Thing is, multitasking makes both choice outcomes less best.
Smart women focus on their one important choice.
Society is guiding and forming these choices.
It’s far worse than that.
Yes it is. What he said is just for starters.
Harsh reality not likely to be well received
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOMkl3ApTK0
The problem is, women want it both ways.
Women want the right to say no, even after enticing a man to be sexually active with her, even days, weeks, months, and years after the event.
Her word is to be considered sacrosanct, and must be taken as truth without question, ruining many (innocent) men’s careers and even lives, as a result.
Men are not permitted to have a defense against such accusations.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no use for serial abusers such as Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood, political and celebrity types; they deserve ostracization and severe punishment for their actions, BUT if women want true equality they must take responsibility for their own actions. They cannot have it both ways.
All one has to do is look at the way Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was treated by the mainstream media, who gave his accuser Anita Hill a pass, even though she followed him from job to job, without any mention of harassment.
Women want the same pay for equal work–not a problem in most cases, but if a woman cannot do the job, she then asks for special treatment because she is a woman, instead of realizing that she is not cut out for such work and should seek more suitable employment.
Men die sooner than women as they do the most hazardous work.
If women want to be treated as equals they have to step up to the plate and TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions
Multiculturalism, diversity and especially feminism are flawed concepts that equate to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Of course it took a female of the species to coax the male into eating of the forbidden fruit.
Another parallel example is that of the Tower of Babel in which separate cultures and languages developed.
At the risk of offending the female of the species, there were reasons why women did not achieve suffrage (the right to vote) among other things. I realize that there are many intelligent women who do not subscribe to externalized altruism, but there are too many who do . . . Women have a altruistic streak, which is necessary in the formation and care of their families. However, this altruism has been externalized, helped along by our enemies, caring for outsiders while neglecting the good within the family structure in–internalized altruism. This externalized altruism has become deadly which has been put into the hands of feminists. This externalized altruism made the communistic, so-called civil-rights movement a (hollow) success (Actually, the so-called civil-rights movement is falling apart), along with the country).
This deserves it’s own post!
I keep telling him that.
“externalized altruism” is a brilliant term.
I am opening up a “can of worms” with this, but I feel it is necessary to set the record straight…
There is another aspect to women’s behavior that results much controversy and finger-pointing. There is enough blame to go around on both sides, but facing the facts quite often only results in much more consternation and ill feelings.
The recent Michigan State University “scandal” where female gymnastics competitors were “abused” by their doctor over a period of time comes into focus.
There are many questions that have not received proper answers, as it is not only unpopular, but inadvisable to ask them, as they go against the grain of “commonly acceptable behavior”.
I may ruffle feathers here, but I DON’T CARE. The TRUTH must be known.
Since this “abuse” was (supposedly) going on for years, why didn’t the women bring up their accusations years ago? Why did they keep seeing this doctor, going back for more and more “abuse”?
The fact is, these women threw themselves at this doctor, as they considered him to be of a high(er) social status, this doctor was put into a position of having many women to choose from, as they all wanted “a piece of the action”..
I do not absolve the doctor of responsibility to maintain a position of ethical detachment (which he should have known better and maintained), but, the temptation to “get it on” with these women who instigated the encounters were throwing themselves at him must be figured into the equation.
The attorneys for the women were brilliant as they used the term “survivor” to describe the women, rather than the correct term “victim”. Since these women were in no danger of losing their lives, the term “survivor” was incorrect, but was used to add “gravitas” to the situation.
Although this doctor must accept responsibility for his actions, they were partially instigated by the women themselves, who should also bear responsibility…
It was my understanding many of the gymnasts were teens hoping for Olympic level performance as a result of the doctor’s care. I am wondering how many parents were aware of the abuse and looked away to avoid ruining their child’s chances.
You bring up a plausible reason for the girls not saying anything about their doctor’s “treatment”. Good call…
anarchy-
You do not know what you are writing about.
Please elaborate…
Let’s look at the other side of the equation…
The husband is expected to go to work, to a physically demanding, often dangerous job, requiring long hours, quite often for an unappreciative employer.
Repairs and necessary maintenance around the house are on his shoulders alone. Worries about how to support his household and pay for major repairs are also his concern alone. Lawn work, landscaping, keeping up the house infrastructure, snow removal and grass cutting are his duties as well.
When he does attempt to help his wife, he is constantly criticized for not doing things “her way”, despite his efforts being totally adequate. The incessant nagging and criticism for not helping out enough or not doing things “her way” is enough to drive a man to drink. He is “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t”.
When he does take care of the children, she considers it to be “babysitting” and not a normal part of family life. Quite often his input in to child-rearing is not taken seriously, with the result being an honest resentment for not being permitted to take part in making decisions regarding the children.
The ultimate threat is that of divorce, most often initiated by the woman, with the resultant one-sided “friend of the court” system making him pay above and beyond, with no accountability as to “child support” funds spent is demanded of the woman.
IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE A MARRIAGE “WORK”…
My quick quip…
What I see, thanks in large part to the proliferation of social media, is the trend I refer to as “Attention junkies ” which coincides with the “me me me” Millenial generation as well as the “everybody’s a winner” crap!
Many women and even some men nowadays seem to be focused on getting attention through a variety of means!
Everybody wants to be famous and they don’t care how they get that fame.
Very sad state of affairs for our species.
So if I were in the leadership council of a certain tribe, and I was a afraid of a different tribe who routinely kicked our asses throughout the last say, 2400 years, what would I do?
Would I infiltrate their societies as a diaspora, but maintain loyalty to my own tribe? Would I get involved in religion, media, show business, politics, and law to promote non-traditional family and tribal values outside of my tribe while keeping those values within my tribe intact?
I wonder how that would play out. What effect would that have on my tribe’s greatest enemy?
Got off on a tangent there, what were we talking about?
My wife (much like myself) is prone to ranting. My favorite rant of hers is about “the modern woman.”
According to her, the modern woman has been taught she can do anything. And so when asked what she wants, the modern woman will inevitably respond “everything.”
She then asked me what I wanted…”a farm. Large enough to hunt, small enough I don’t have to rent things out.”
Then she asked me what the guys at work wanted. “A mechanic shop, a CNC company, a farm.”
Outside of your standard beta-soy-male, western men still want to be productive. They have concrete goals and desires.
Women used to want concrete things too, until modern feminism decided that being feminine was BAD and that only by being masculine could a woman be good.
Lesbian communists–all of the early leaders of feminism–have achieved their apparent goal of causing the demographic destruction of their followers…That’s not all bad.
I was always attracted (once the two way physical attraction/sex factor was confirmed good to great, that was a deal breaker less than that) to women who would be my “equal” without being my “rival.”
Feminine sexy women who were also strong, didn’t take any crap (especially from me) and thought sex was fun were who I pursued.
The one I married and have spent 43 years with fit and fits that description to a T.
I didn’t stay with the extremes long (no matter how good the sex was): clingers who thought I hung the moon or hotties use to being pursued and always getting their way.
Never had anything to do with open feminists…met a few, zero attraction boarding on repulsion no matter their looks.
In spite of the other crap, I liked Shahrazad Ali’s discussion on women’s lib. She said it was a white women’s problem with white men and it had little to do with black women; it had actually destroyed the black family. Usually, you hear that welfare ruined the black family, not the black woman. She said black women revolted against the BM, demanding that he provide for the family or git. She says this re-purposing of the man in the house made all other contributions of the man in the house seem meaningless.
Now that the entire purpose of a man in the house is to bring home the money, if a man does not have a job for whatever social reason, he is worthless and must be replaced. The man leaves, the kids grow up without a father and some really fucked up women are raising and fucking up the kids further. This is Shahrazad’s theme and I agree with that portion.
She said black women didn’t need liberation since the BM had not gotten to the point of being oppressive to the BW. It was educated, career white women who needed to be freed from the constraints of white males in the workplace. She said women’s liberation was imposed on BW to shut down the black civil rights movement.
Well, fuck. The civil rights movement morphed into black power. Then, liberated black women got educated and decided to run for president. Thanks to women’s lib, now we need a civil rights movement for white males (who are being oppressed by educated white women and gay men) and the establishment solution to this cluster fuck is to build a wall on the southern border. Sad.
Who downvoted me? Probably some white feminist.
There’s more to the story…American black men like to think that they “rule the roost”, but they are sadly mistaken. Of course their super egos get in the way. During the slave times, a savvy slavemaster would make an “example” of one of his male slaves by imposing a harsh punishment for a minor transgression. Using psychology, he would require the woman slaves to watch the punishment. After that, the male slaves were “kept in line” by their own females, who did not wish to see other slaves punished in the same manner, It is the black slave women that kept the male slaves “in line. This is a major reason for “the strong black woman” of today.
I had two typical American wives. Both became feminist and decided running around was a better life. Both had a great time until they aged and became old maids in poverty. I am now happily married to a Philippine girl who is not feminist, and advise young men to skip the heartaches and marry a traditional Asian or Latin woman.
Consider this-
The plain looking female has less chance to find a man who by design is visual and still wants, wishes, and tries for a “7+”.
Females know they either find a mate and make family, or work hard and support themselves.
Parents want their daughters to be independent, lest they support the girl we’ll into adulthood.
Some women found they can make a family and make money.
Thing is, multitasking makes both choice outcomes less best.
Smart women focus on their one important choice.
Society is guiding and forming these choices.