Hyerdahl wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:

> > It's funny to hear such romantic, sentimental tripe coming
> > from you.
> >
> Gee, I didn't think that suggestion was "sentimental" at all, just
> reality.  Unless you're 100% in the other person's court, the game
> won't work, IMO.  That doesn't mean that sometimes one doesn't do
more,
> get more, say more, etc. than the other; it simply means that it
takes
> more than 50-50.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but that has little
credibility.  Most of your agenda focuses upon what happens
when the liberated single women decide they don't "need"
after they've gotten old and desperate and run to fertility
clinics and cry about the US not being Germany. :-)

If your agenda was resulting in men being liberated guys
making these women happy, the women would be MORE empowered
in their relationships rather than waiting for the government
to rescue damsels in disdress, yes?

> > Most people don't care if the other person gives
> > 100% of themselves provided most of their immediate personal
> > needs are met.
>
> Well, I suppose it depends on what value one places on having a
working
> relationship.  And that 100% is more about the level of commitment
one
> has to the relationship, i.e. the love and trust.  If it is not at
that
> high level, it is doubtful the relationship will hold up.  There's
> already too much working against it, by nature, and by the demands of
a
> society that values newness.

You, yourself, says that women are now free of Patri-poppa
telling them what to do.  So whose telling these women what
to do? :-)

> By the same token, a person giving> 100% of themselves but failing to
> meet
> > the other person's needs will be jettisoned forthwith.
> >
> Well, I agree that needs being met is important, but needs will be
met
> when the people love one another and are willing to give all to that.

So there's plenty of liberated men willing to give aging
career spinsters all of their small income.  Good luck to 'em. :-)

> > > > Do you think all men who meet their spouse through the
> > > > internet "buy" their wives?
> > >
> > > No.  I think that men who go to foreign countries for the purpose
> of
> > > finding poverty stricken submissive brides...as buying their
wives.
> > > Women who sign up for Russian dating services are not secure in
> their
> > > own right, and thus, easily bought, but not so easily loving of a
> > > slavemaster.
> > >
> > >  Indeed, 20 years ago,> few women used the personal ads.  It's a
> sign
> > > of desperation for career women that nearly all of them MUST put
> > > themselves "up for sale" by going online because
men no longer
"ask
> them out" in > the workplace.
> > >
> > > Nonsense!  Both women and men use dating services, and frequently
> > it's just because they're  too busy otherwise...with their careers,
> school,
> > > etc.  But then...you already knew that.
> >
> > Yeah, they're real "busy".  Yet, if they were so
"busy" with
> > all of these things, wouldn't they have been precisely
> > in the best position for a man of their dreams to notice
> > and ask them out?
> >
> Well, my own son doesn't date the people with whom he works.  It's
> simply not prudent.  Work is not the dating game.  However, he met
his
> fiance at a friend's house and the friend is from work.

Yeah, I'm sure she's as real as your NRA membership card. :-)

> > Men use dating services for an obvious reason: It's easier than
> > hitting the pavement and looking for girls.  If a girl
> > has to use such a service, it's because she isn't getting
> > noticed (at least not noticed by the kind of men she wants.)
>
> I think women and men use dating services for the same reasons, that
> they don't have the time or network to meed datable folks anymore.
> People don't go to church anymore.  There used to be more social ways
> to meet people, i.e. big extended family parties, summer long
vacations
> in the mountains, etc.  People simply don't have the same venues they
> used to have, and dating in the office isn't as easy as it once was.

Yeah, we know who to thank for killing office romance. :-)
The poor double dippers now have to beg on the Internet.

> > > For one thing, you've told us you're not rich, and by your posts,
> > it's> > obvious you're a self-avowed sexist.
> > > >
> > > > So what about the latter?
> > > >
> > > > What's wrong with a "sexist" holding open his
wife's door
> > > > and coat and treating her as most women dream of being
> > > > treated?
> > > >
> > > I don't see opening a door for someone as being sexist; perhaps
> > that's why we don't usually see eye to eye;  we have different
views
> of what> comprises sexism.
> >
> > Now you're just being silly and beyond mere dishonesty.
> > A man getting his own coat and door, unless he has
> > a package or is elderly, while getting it for a woman
> > is clearly sexist.
> >
> Not really.  If a woman comes barging in the door wearing jeans and
> tennie runner can open her own door.  A woman wearing high heels
might
> actually prefer having the door opened for her.  I don't see it as
> sexist at all, but then I would also hold open a door for a man who
was
> wearing something inconvenient.  :-)

Yeah, I'm sure all the men in high heels appreciate that. :-)

> > > And while your alleged "wife" may not be offended
> > > by the opened door,
> >
> > Now you're not being dishonest but merely laughably clueless.
>
> ???

You know what I mean. :-)  --->

> > It's not just that she's not offended.  She's happy.
> > She gets a skip in her step when I pay attention to her
> > and hold her chair in a restaurant and when I get her
> > door and treat her like a princess.  (This is how
> > a slave is treated? :-)
>
> There are all kinds of slaves, Mark...even house slaves that are
> well-treated otherwise.

Yeah, it's slavery to clean one's own home.  Call amnesty
international!  I cleaned my cat box!

> But I'm suggesting that your alleged wife is
> not the ONLY woman in the world and yet, I don't really know any
women
> who are offended when a man offers to open a door.  Perhaps there are
> some.

Er, you brought this up, remember?  Here's the text:
> > > And while your alleged "wife" may not be offended
> > > by the opened door,

YOU said that, I didn't.  Now you're backing off.  Good job.

> > Women getting all huffy about men holding open their doors
> > ended 20 years ago when most men REALLY stopped doing it. :-)
>
> But Mark, men HAVEN'T stopped doing it.  You may have, but most men
> still open doors for women, even women in sneakers and Uggs.  :-)
That
> you say you don't open doors for women doesn't reall prove anything
> regarding other men.

I'm talking about a generation of men under 50. :-)

Honestly, I'm rather shocked at how incredibly barbaric most
young men are today.  Then again, they're at least better
than the wimps I know from my own generation.  It's going
to be an interesting completion of this decade.

> > Then they got nasty and tried to engage in emotional blackmail
> > to make the man get the door.
>
> Well, social choices are what they are.  Men can open doors or let
them
> swing shut.  It's totally up to them.

Indeed.  And young women who want to influence the young men to
do certain things have to change their attitude.  Young
professional men no longer need to attend NOW meetings
to get some.  (Assuming that there are any attractive
young women who go to such things :-)

>  That then changed when many career women got so "busy" that they had
> to run to the internet for dates.
>
> Mark, there are more men than women seeking dates on the net.  :-)

Barely.  Last time I checked, the ratio was 50:50.  For certain
demographics, men can be in a clear advantage.

> > > > > > She can say women can do as they see fit but
REALITY says
> > > > > > otherwise.  I choose to disempower her.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can't really "disempower" the
choices women have, tho.
> > > >
> > > > That's what's so neat: I am just making observations
> > > > about life.  I don't have to be all that powerful individually
> > > > to simply state obvious truths.
> > >
> > > So, are you saying that your observations are reality?  :-)
> >
> > As far as reasonable. :-)  If someone wants to say
> > that men holding women's doors and chairs isn't
> > sexist, they can go on believing that.
>
> I don't see it as being particularly sexist.  Sorry.  In fact, it
seems
> rather endearing.  When my dad was ill, a few years ago, I held his
> chair and took his cain so he wouldn'd feel conspicuous in
restaurants.
>  It wasn't really something we discussed, just something I did.

But I'm talking, as you clearly know, about cases where the
woman is clearly physically healthy and the man holds her
chair anyway.

But do keep pretending that this isn't a sexist gesture.
You're only shooting down your own credibility.

> > > I don't> > think so.  I mean you can attempt to disempower your
> Irina but, in the > end, you can only make vain threats.
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > Yeah, I guess some people will just be too "busy" to be
> > threatened by me.  Hey!  The Bridget Jones' Diary DVD
> > collection is out.  That should burn time for some. :-)
> >
> BJ?  You mean the girl who had it all?  Indeed.  And so do many other
> women.  It's hardly my fault that your Irina was born in a poverty
> stricken economy ,  Mark.

I hardly think anyone who watches "Beyond the edge of reason"
would think that.  It's more like a drama with a twisted
fairy tale ending.

> > > > > I mean even> > women who leave their abusive
(but rich)
> husbands
> > > >
> > > > Define "abusive?"
> > > >
> > > How is that important?  I suppose each leaving woman would have
to
> > > determine her own level of abuse, Mark.
> >
> > Because if a woman finds playing tennis and living in a nice
> > home "abusive", she's going to be very "abused" if she
> > goes out into the reality occupied by everyone else.
>
> I don't see playing tennis as a form of abuse, and I don't know any
> other women who do.  Sorry, no cigar.

That's the point: Such women cannot consider a man leaving
them to a life of luxury as "abusing" them.

> > This reminds me of the women yelping about men holding
> > their doors and now discover that many men no longer
> > are bothering them by doing so.  :-)
>
> Again, if you feel compelled to open doors for women, no one is
> stopping you.  It's a choice, Mark.  You should be able to discern,
by
> this time, the difference, between rights and choices.

Indeed.  The "right" for a "het" woman to marry a lesbian
or to have a SAH father is less important if these women
have no such interest in making that choice.

In the meantime, more women identify themselves as KKK members
than NOW.

> > > Some women might find abuse in
> > > a man who simply attempts to control her
> >
> > See below: How is a man who "neglects" a wife controlling her?
>
> Neglect is certainly one form of control;

Er, ok...  It's a form of control by... not controlling. :-)

> just ask social services how
> neglect effects a person's ability to see or have visitation with
their
> children.

That depends upon how you phrase it.  If a parent neglects
their child, they'll lose custody or control of the children.
(hopefully)  Unfortunately, some judges reward such
behaviour which might help to explain the soaring rate
of child abuse and poor educational scores.  Maybe German
children are raised better.

> >> >, while others might leave an > abusive man who tried to kill
her.
> Abuse is highly subjective and in > the eye of the beholder.
> >
> > You certainly don't have to worry about the "abuse" of men
> > holding open your door, paying for your dinner, or treating
> > you like a lady. :-)
> >
> INdeed.  That is just a social choice some folks make for a variety
of
> reasons.  I don't consider holding a door open as a form of abuse.
Do
> you?

Indeed.  It's doubtful anyone ever truly was offended by
such behaviour including telling women they look
nice today UNTIL men stopped doing it.

Now if a woman wants such abuse, she'll have to ask for it
online. :-)

> > > > Certainly, if the wealthy men are beating them up ala
> > > > "Sleeping with the enemy", you have a point.  But
> > > > in reality, if the guy is off playing golf at various
> > > > locations on his learjet, he's probably not going to
> > > > bother being all that abusive really.
> > >
> > > Again, abusiveness or neglect are both in the eye of the
beholder.
> >
> > Unless nobody is "eyeing" them. :-)
>
> Are you saying you have possibly blackmailed your Irina into thinking
> abuse is the status quo of having an American husband?

!?!?!

I was talking about how someone cannot be abused if they
are a spinster.

> Well, I suppose
> that's possible, at least until she gets her training wheels. :-)

I guess I did make her come to expect me to hold open her
doors which offended some American women in the past.

> > > to live a lifestyle that is clearly not a wealthy one shows us
that
> > > women DO have power over their own lives.
> > (edit)
> > > >>
> > So apparently being financially supported by someone isn't
> > so abusive after all.
>
> Abuse is abuse, Mark, whether or not you live in a higher tax
bracket.

Apparently, that's a "sacrifice" more and more career women are
putting themselves on the internet to make.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/10/05 8:42:02 PM ---