Are men afraid of women who know what they want?
- Thread starter lucifers angel
- Start date
Just as long as everyone knows that they believe in these separate standards, and don't try to fool anyone into believing that they stand for holding everyone to the same standards.
If you cared at all about equal rights, then you'd be fighting against the feminists...
actually if you really cared about equality, you wouldn't be fighting anyone for anything
Wouldn't you be fighting those who are fighting equality (feminists)?
True, instead I should just accept the discrimination written into the law by the feminists, and other sexists.
Bells
Staff member
And whine about it.
You could demand equal protection for the battered men in your community, but you do not. Why? Why don't you speak out for the battered men in your community? But as you say, it is easier for men like you to just accept discrimination and do nothing. You could learn something from the women who strove for equal protection. Instead you choose to deride them.
Or you could have just made sure that the person you were hiring would adhere to the working conditions and actually be able to do what is required. But hey, it's easier to just blame the woman you hired instead of actually looking at how you actually check someone's credentials and whether they could do the job or not. I wonder if you had hired a male and he had acted in the same manner whether you would actually make the comment about 'it was time for a man to do a man's job'. As they say, it's a man's world isn't it? So when something goes wrong, it's just so much easier to blame it on the woman because otherwise, you'd end up having to look at your own work practices.kmguru said:
I have known male employees who were not only lazy, but downright moronic. I have also found the same with some female employees. Refused to do what they were hired to do because they either could not be bothered, or because they did not think it was part of their work duties. You have no idea how many times I would ask a male clerk in my department to do something and get the response of "it is not in my position description", when in effect it was. So in the end, we hired clerks and admin personnel (both male and female) who did not mind sometimes having to do something that was at times just outside of their position description.
I don't understand what any of that has to do with her being a woman. Seems like she was a horrible employee. What does being female have to do with it?
I think sometimes certain jobs are more suited for a single person. In this situation it might not have been so much the issue it was a man vs woman who was doing the job. Maybe this woman had family and was not willing to do the out of town work, or staying late in the evenings....:shrug: It is hard to say. Maybe she just wasn't cut out for that job at all. Some ppl are strictly 40 hrs a week and they don't want to stay a minute longer. In any case maybe SHE just wasn't the right person for the job. If it was explained to her when she was hired that she would be responisble for weekend, out of town...etc work. She should not have accepted the job if she wasn't willing to do it. Like I said sometimes I think these kind of jobs are better suited for the single person. Alot of things come up when you have kids and you might not be able to do a job like this successfully.
I appreciate your attitude on the nature of equality - I think it's implicit but little praised - but I'm still a bit leery about the equal beatings thing. I think chivalry needs to be incorporate in equality - not because it's necessary, but because it's "right".
Welcome to the forum.
Geoff
I don't think you actually used the phrase 'all women are sexist', but the way you talk it seems that you are pissed off at women in general. A link? How about all the posts where you complain that feminism = sexism? Feminism does not equal sexism. I am a feminist, but I'm sure as hell not a sexist. I believe in equal rights and responsibilities for all people. I get just as pissed off when I hear of men being discriminated against as women.
Where did you get that idea from? Adrenaline is a painkiller, sure, but not testosterone.
Dude, that was an excellent quote.
I'm not saying it works exactly like medical painkillers but it works in similar effects; it helps to overcome stress not excatly pain or stress that comes from pain. If you've ever gone to the gym you find out that you work out more when you take some testosterone amplifier. Testosterone is responsible for sexual organs but it also makes you feel like you can magicaly lift a mountain. Good doses of it makes you aggressive, euphoric, and confident. Natures way of making males work harder or keep working. Taking testosterone pills makes you feel the same way you feel when take medical pain killer- euphoric. Sometimes I used to take them just before I go out drinking. If you are looking for a good brand of testosterone amplifier try Xyience.
I didn't. That's why I put a question mark at the end of my statement.
My hat off to you. I couldn't do a job like that w/o letting my emotions get involved. Kinda like I could never be one of those animal precinct officers; I'd beat the shit out of someone for mistreating their pets.
C'mon Bells. You should know that that isn't the context of which I meant what I said.
Concerning the first situation; I'd almost bet that she told him no at least once before he got on her. If so, he had his warning and her pushing him off her was justified. I know if that woman was my sister or relative, the guy who did it better hope and pray that the cops find him before I did.
My personal take on the second situation, sounds like the guy has some serious jealousy/security issues. He was way out of line for calling his wife a whore and slut. However, verbal attacks NEVER warrant a physical retaliation. So I think she was out of line as well for slapping him; although not so out of line that he needed to punch her in the jaw for it. If that offended her that much, she should have just turned around, walked away and went on out with her friends. In fact, if I were her, he would probably have divorce papers served to him the next day.
Sounds like those guys have some serious dominance/security/ego issues.
Now, here's where I become somewhat indifferent:
Out of the two married women, did either of them go back to or try to work it out with their husbands?
While I sympathize with them for what happened to them, if they are ignorant enough to go back to those jackasses, then they really deserve anything that happens to them thereafter.
Would you stay with a guy that hit you, Bells? Why or why not?
Let me ask you another question. Aren't women supposed to have 'intuition'? If your intuition is so good, why do so many women wind up (and worse, stay with) men who beat them? Wouldn't you be able to weed out those types of men? It seems to me that women tend to weed out all the nice guys (who albeit might be boring and bland, but will treat them well), but let all the abusers in.
As I mention above, different context/situation.
I think in some cases women might egg it on a little bit, but almost always it's because of one or more issues with the man (if it's the man doing the abusing). I think a sadistic, mean woman can augment those issues with bad provocative behavior of their own. (I'm not pointing fingers at either sex here, just being observant)
Once again, as I mentioned above. Different context than what I meant. In your cases, the women were defending themselves. But in the cases where women will slap a guy for saying something, the women were every bit as wrong as the men in that case. Physical retaliation (that includes slapping, throwing drinks in someone's face, kneeing in the nuts, etc.) to a verbal attack/insult is not right either.
If you want to get technical about this, let's say you and I were talking person, and I called you every bad name I could think of, there's nothing illegal about that. It's free speech. However, it's when you take a swing at me and slap me in the face, that infringes on my rights; that is illegal.
Ohhhh isn't that the truth!
Men (present company included) will do stupid, illogical shit to get laid. But I don't think they would as much if getting laid wasn't so difficult.
And I should iterate that men who:
-dupe women into having sex with them
-mislead women about their intentions in relationships
-cheat on women*
piss me off just as much as the women who are equally worthless.
Now, concerning our argument from the Divorce thread, would you rather me brush off a woman that doesn't have the same sexual schedule as me, or would you rather me feign further interest(for as long as it takes) to get her to sleep with me, all the while, 'getting what I need' on the side?
Sure, while the first option does sound jerky and assholish (even though it's not), but that's the mentality of an honest person. The second option is the mentality of a deceitful/dishonest person.
While you may think my mentality towards dating in that sense is harsh, I won't be dishonest with a woman.
If a woman wants to wait to have sex, and I don't want to wait that long(regardless of how strong my feelings are for her), then why stay with her?
She won't have any problem finding a guy that will wait, and as I've mentioned before, there are plenty of other good, dateable women out there that won't wait.
Women will dump a guy at the drop of a hat if he doesn't provide the 'emotional support' she needs.
When women dump a guy for not giving them the emotional support they need, they're labelled as heroes/strong women.
When guys dump women for not having sex with them**, they are labeled as jerks with one track minds. I'm fucking sick of that double standard.
Why can't men exercise that same right(and not get chastised by people like you and Bells for it)?
*girls cheat just as much as guys do. They just do it for different reasons.
**just because a guy does that, doesn't mean that sex was all he ever wanted from the girl
Also, AFAIC, sex is a VERY important part of a relationship. W/o it, IMO, you and her are just friends.
Last edited:
I have already given plenty of examples of the sexism that feminists have pushed into the USA, thus proving my point that feminism is purely sexism. Also, posts such as the above don't help to prove me wrong when feminists constantly attempt to smear anyone who dares to stand up to the sexism that feminists push as woman haters.
Either way, keep up the good fight for the feminist cause, maybe you can get a new round of legislation that bans men from being able to seek shelter from domestic violence (at least continue refusing to allow men to seek that shelter after it was written into law), or further discriminate against men in the field of education.
If you cared at all about equality, then you would be fighting against feminists and feminism.
feminism? I'm feminine. Does that mean I should be more butch cuz femininity is bad? So its not women yuo don't like, its just the feminine ones?
I'm so confused. :wallbang:
This is just a hypothesis, but I think the idea of feminism has been somewhat ruined. I think the original idea of feminism had good intentions; but some women 'extremists' took it and ran way too wild with it.
I understand that women wanted to be treated better than they had been treated, but as soon as it started getting more recognition and what not, the whole idea fell into the wrong minds (i.e. the feminazi types) that went overboard with it.
Kinda similar to the idea that Muslim extremists are doing their best to make moderate Muslims look bad.
I understand that women wanted to be treated better than they had been treated, but as soon as it started getting more recognition and what not, the whole idea fell into the wrong minds (i.e. the feminazi types) that went overboard with it.
Kinda similar to the idea that Muslim extremists are doing their best to make moderate Muslims look bad.
I agree with you. It's idiots like those women who see all men as potential rapists, who give the rest of their kind a bad name.
Yeah, because ALL feminists are man-hating morons. Just like ALL Muslims are psychopaths who want to suicide bomb innocent people.
Now you're just ranting, and not using reason at all. I have never said anything to that effect.
you are right...and I hate women like that and I puke at the thought of being associated with them.
Chatha:
I thought that was from endomorphins, not testosterone?? But then I'm a girl, and have a negligible amount of it. (I hope,
)Thanks, man, but I like my endocrine system the way it is,
(Insert title here)
Um ... that's hilarious. Morbidly so, but hilarious nonetheless. While you're probably right, you seem to be shifting the responsibility for men's behavior back onto women.
I think the answer to that question is obvious. My difficulty with your outlook in that thread was that you made it about the quality of a person, demanded more information in order to justify your moral judgment, and relied on your right to not give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
As we considered earlier in this discussion, maybe you didn't express yourself quite the way you wanted to, but, again, there is a theme that seems to be developing.
I don't see the criteria you've listed as being the same. Now, maybe you see emotional commitment and sexual obligation as the same thing, but have you ever had a penis inside you? Have you ever experienced another man ejaculating inside you? In your mouth? On your body?
What I'm getting at, Mike, is that there are fundamental differences between the emotional and sexual obligations of relationships.
Now, I could argue that I should have ended a relationship over sexual issues, but it's not quite the same; there were issues of honesty involved there. And I did try once. And she lied to me in order to keep the relationship going. To this day I don't understand why. Then again, I got a daughter out of it, so it's not really worth worrying about what could have been. And it should be said that the fact that she was a bad lay with an unsatisfactory schedule is not the reason she's not a decent girl. The fact that she's a lying, manipulative person whose parental formula is that her own indulgence is the first priority is what wrecks my opinion of her character.
Mikenostic said:
Um ... that's hilarious. Morbidly so, but hilarious nonetheless. While you're probably right, you seem to be shifting the responsibility for men's behavior back onto women.
I think the answer to that question is obvious. My difficulty with your outlook in that thread was that you made it about the quality of a person, demanded more information in order to justify your moral judgment, and relied on your right to not give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
As we considered earlier in this discussion, maybe you didn't express yourself quite the way you wanted to, but, again, there is a theme that seems to be developing.
I don't see the criteria you've listed as being the same. Now, maybe you see emotional commitment and sexual obligation as the same thing, but have you ever had a penis inside you? Have you ever experienced another man ejaculating inside you? In your mouth? On your body?
What I'm getting at, Mike, is that there are fundamental differences between the emotional and sexual obligations of relationships.
Now, I could argue that I should have ended a relationship over sexual issues, but it's not quite the same; there were issues of honesty involved there. And I did try once. And she lied to me in order to keep the relationship going. To this day I don't understand why. Then again, I got a daughter out of it, so it's not really worth worrying about what could have been. And it should be said that the fact that she was a bad lay with an unsatisfactory schedule is not the reason she's not a decent girl. The fact that she's a lying, manipulative person whose parental formula is that her own indulgence is the first priority is what wrecks my opinion of her character.