wrote in message
news:1110488611.414560.175230{at}l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

You fail to mention all the US dating services where hillbilly girls are
trying to snag a well off man. At least the Russian girls are educated,
slim, have their own teeth and don't chew tobacco  :o)



> > > >
> > > >  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 8:42:05 PM ---