Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >From: Mark Sobolewski mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com
> > rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:

> I didn't notice any desperation, and while she may have been yanking
at the
> chain of male insecurity, I don't think she said anything that could
have been
> construed as "hostile".  I leave that sort of thing to women like Ann
Coulter.

I hardly doubt that successful men who prefer to date their
young, pretty assistants really feel their "chain" being yanked
by the likes of Maureen Dowd. :-)

This is a neat opportunity to point out that heterosexual feminism
is largely an upper middle class white women's movement dependent
and obsessed with the thoughts of powerful white men. Working class or
liberated quiche cooking guys don't even show up on their radar
and NEITHER do women such as you Parg.  You're just a commoner
who brings them a diet pepsi.

If Maureen Dowd walked into your pizza shop, she would probably
patronize you for a little bit before finding an excuse to
get out as soon as she could.  She wouldn't even bother making
fun of you.

Maureen Dowd's public nervous breakdown is because she realizes
that she's now little higher than you are on the social food chain.
It's this "equality" that is devestating to her.

[Ann Coulter]
> What kind of man would want to ask HER out? Whhhoooo...chill in the
air.

It's interesting to see many on the left using the famous double
standard of bashing Coulter as a bitch for being a strong debator.

Her main achilles' heel is that she's 6 feet tall.  This locks
her out of dating nearly all the available men in her age
and social class.

>  And she seems to lack insight as to the incoherence (not to mention
the
> dangerous potential) of her stance.
>
> Could you provide a written example of "incoherence" in her article.
I briefly
> glanced thru it but none came to my attention.  AS to the
"dangerousnous" I
> didn't see anything but ...well...humour.

I must agree.  It is funny if not for the reasons she intended.
It was similar to "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason" or "Sex
and the City" except this was written as non-fiction.  If she
was just playing games with the readers' head to come across
as having a nervous breakdown, more power to her!

> She says she wants a smart guy but what would a smart guy do with
such a
> person?
>
> Exchange brain liquids?  :-)  It seems to me that smart people
already like to
> be with other smart people, Mark.  I don't see you spending a great
deal of
> time talking to Bubba.  :-)

Now you've gone and opened up something I wanted to introduce in
another
thread.  I discovered that there were a lot of nice, working-class
women
here in the US of A who could make decent wives but by then I was
already seeing Eastern European women.

I have a number of women friends (my wife was even worried initially
because my phone was always ringing until she embraced them as
friends too :-)  These women come from a variety of backgrounds that
I've met over the years.

I've come to the conclusion that women enjoy talking.  All of them.
You can have a woman dig ditches for 10 hours or conduct grueling
brain surgeries for that period of time and both will still
have energy at the end of the day to yammer non-stop.  They're simply
amazing.  Most men, on the other hand, tend to need to have energy free
or available to engage in chit chat.

As someone pointed out in criticizing Dowd's article: Women
(and men) in service industries probably are better _listeners_
as well as talkers and I've noticed this is the case on dates.
Working class women tend to handle meeting new people better
than office droids.

>  He would not want her to even get his phone number.
>
> Are you really suggesting that there is no man alive who likes Dowd?
:-)  I
> really find that hard to believe;  it is my fervent opinion that
there is
> someone out there for just about everyone.

It's a matter of standards.  The guys who might be willing to buy
her a beer are not the kind of men she would want to spend time with.
(By definition, she wants men who buy her cocktails :-)
She doesn't want to spend lunches gossipping with the gal
who refills her pepsi either.

> I suppose that insecure men need  not apply,

HAHAHAHAHA!  Dowd is wailing in public that the successful
men who can have any woman they want don't want HER!  Boo hoo!
Why does life have to be so FAIR!?!?

>  She exudes a massive sense of entitlement.
>
> In what way?  Mark, if you feel uncomfortable out of your league,
just go ahead
> and admit that.

Heck, I'll admit it when I'm out of my league.  I don't feel ashamed.
I don't write articles in major newspapers wailing in denial...

>  Nothing wrong with that> except that it rules out all sympathy when
she gets
> less than her self-perception requires.
>
> The operative part of what you said there is that there is nothing
wrong with
> that; everyone can enlist and maintain their own standards whether or
not those
> standards are met.  AND, my guess is that Down and Coulter, would
rather be
> where they are and alone than married to a sexist.

As you continually need to be reminded (and I enjoy doing so),
Dowd and Coulter want successful men regardless and even
perhaps because of their sexism.

> Coulter, of course, would not be able to admit that publically.

Actually, Coulter wrote an article 5 years ago about how she
wished men were more sexist such as opening her doors or
taking the initiative and asking her out.

> There's a negative feedback loop in place for men and women:>People
who are
> negative about relationships generally find it>all that much harder
to hook up
> making the situation even worse.
>
> Sure. I agree with you.
>
> >However, for men, there is a saving grace: Bitter or not,>he
improves with
> age.
>
> There are several things wrong with that theory.

For you, "wrong" would mean "uncomfortably true."

> First, that women live longer
> and that there are more women than men when people age, that is
hardly proof
> that men improve with age.

Non-sequitur.  I never said that was the proof.  Even if there's
a flood of older women in a room competing with a few younger women,
the men will tend to find the younger women attractive.
(No joke.  I've seen this happen in singles' dances)

This means that even if a career woman does have a lot to
offer a man including her income, she still must compensate
for the fact that she's older.  A man doesn't have this burden.

> Old men often have bad habits like drinking more,
> smoking more and engagine in riskier activities leading to earlier
death.

This would apply to the older women as well. :-)  One of the most
successful marketing campaigns to suckers was Virginia Slims
taking advantage of the gullability of young career women who
thought smoking to fit in with their peers made them "cool"
and "independant".

Even men who smoke often prefer a woman who doesn't.  Yes, that's
hypocritical as hell but there you are.

> In
> that regard, they have to cram more living into less time.  Secondly,
you're
> assuming that old women have the same need for male companionship
that men have
> for female companionship as they age.

And you're assuming (or hoping for) just the opposite.

Look at yourself.  You don't have a partner yet you feel a need
to make one up for usenet.  You don't appear to be happy despite
having rid yourself of "sexist" men living in your home.

> Once women are done having their family,
> they may actually ENJOY not having a man around, especially if their
husband
> was the controlling sort.

Ah yes, the non-primary parent whose at the golf course while
the poor sacrificing mom looks after the kids is the controlling
sort. :-)

> Many older women certainly enjoy a night out,
> dinner, dancing, etc. but aren't up for darning some old dude's sox.


If she's already darning her own old sox, what's the problem
with her building a relationship at the same time that gives
her all the things young women burn millions dreaming about
reading romance novels?

Consider: Women enjoy these things so much that many often engage
in all kinds of emotional games to get them from men.  That means
they must REALLY desire and "need" them at some level.

> In that
> regard, those older women often team up with other female friends for
work,
> vacations, and even home sharing.

You mean spinster and widow homes! :-)

I have a friend whose a TV psychologist who wrote a book and
she hypothesized much as you did: The women would have their
fill and fun of raising kids and having a romance and then
later settle down after divorce or widowhood to a new lifestyle
with new possibilities.

The problem with that is she, and many of her clients, never
got to stage 1.  They couldn't find the ideal man they could
divorce or widow so they could go to the next exciting lifestage
or relationship stage.

>   Women prefer older men and age
> >generally brings a better income and status which attracts>women.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.  And, it seems to be a beneficial plan all
the way
> around.

Except for poor old lonely Bridget Jones, er, I mean Maureen Dowd. :-)

> I mean if a younger woman, without resources marries and older man,
> first, she generally doesn't have to worry about the old fellow
philandering,

HAHAHAHAHA!

Even without viagara, such men can still have the appetite to cheat.
There certainly are plenty of aspiring, lonely, young career women
in the office seeking to sow their wild oats!

> and secondly, once he's gone, all he has generally...becomes hers.

Agreed.  It's men's ability to share that gives them the ability to
have such relationships while many successful women wind up
dying alone and childless.

> By the time
> that happens she can have relationships with younger men, if that's
what she
> wants.

Except few women want younger "gigilos".  Success for women brings
success, but little else.

>  Even if he's bitter, he may develop assets that will>help to offset
this
> characteristic.
> >
> No problem Mark...win-win.

Absolutely!  For men and younger women!  For Diane Keaton and
Carrie Fischer, there's always nights with the girls watching
the First Wives' Club!

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/10/05 2:46:32 PM ---