Hyerdahl3 jumps into a cute discussion between Heidi and me:

> >From: mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com
> >Heidi Graw wrote:

>  I've thought about this and indeed, a ring is a "stake" and helps>
to
> discourage other men from mistaking chatting up his "property".
>
> That's true, in your case, Mark.  :-)

That's what marriage is about: commitment.  It's kind of funny, don't
you
think, that gays and lesbians would want so desperately to join an
institution
that feminists found oppressive?

And not only is it true in my particular case, but most heterosexual
women
desire traditional men who will demonstrate a financial commitment to
them.

>  Then again, putting up TOO much in a ring also says: "This woman
expects the
> guy to blow a lot of money and can probably be either bought off by
another man
> OR she'll cheat on him with someone hot."
>
> Always a possibility.   Or, it could scare away other potential
suiters,
> knowing that they could not compete?   :-)

Why would he need to buy her a ring when she already has one?  Duh! :-)

> >> I didn't mention the size of my ring, did I?  ;-)
> >
> >Agreed.  But note that I don't claim to have an egalitarian
marriage.
>
> Indeed.  He has to protect his "chattel", so a ring was probably
procured.

[Shoulder shrug]  Then most women want to be "chattel" and sexist
men have nothing to feel guilty about.

> >Some time ago, I accepted a need to stop fighting city hall and give
women
> what they NEEDED but at the same time start appeasing my own sexist
desires and
> instincts.
>
> Good, then it's win-win for all concerned.  The woman gets her
citizenship, you
> get sex as you demand for a few years, and western women need not put
up with
> you.

So western women don't like wedding rings? :-)

I had the opportunity to marry and date other western women including
career women but found them impractical due to their contradictory
demands.

> I came to the conclusion>that if EVERY, repeat, EVERY single
(emphasis,
> "single" as in>available) woman I came across didn't meet up to
egalitarian
> standards
> >in their personal lives, then I should respect that decision
especially
> >since feminism supposedly claimed to want it in the first place
anyway.
>
> ???  Your choice, Mark.  You make your own rules for your own life.

This is nonsensical.  Unless we live in log cabins (and even then) we
don't
make up our own rules.  We are largely creatures of adaptation.

I'll ask you a question and it's up to you if you want to accept the
challenge
of honestly answering it: What did you think someone such as me was
supposed to do when conforted with the reality that western women had
sexist needs and desires in their personal lives at conflict with the
so-called equality agenda?

I didn't start out this way.  I truly believed when I was naively young
that
feminism was about empowering women to be more "equal" to men and
to accept challenges men had been shouldering.  Should you be surprised
I turned out to be a "sexist?"  (that's question number 2).  Question
number 3: What makes you think that more men in our society
aren't going to go in my direction as time goes by?

> >In other words, I was open-minded to the notions of egalitarianism
and
> feminism but gave up based upon the behaviours of women and not any
sexist
> ideas on my part.
>
> Your conclusions are like your choice, Mark....totally your own.

Ultimately, the direction of society will be decided by the true
desires
and motivations of both women and men.  You may promise equality
to women (at least your version) but they ultimately want what makes
them happy.  It's their lives after all!

> >>Yes, there are a few women out there who appear to be
egalitarian>and even
> may kill themselves to live up to that standard but I gave up on
finding them
> because they were as elusive as a unicorn and>also, eglitarianism
shouldn't be
> the only factor in a relationship.
>
> It need not be.

Irrelevent.

That's just the way it is!  Some things will never change...

>Men who buy wives, for example, marry women from an unequal
> position.

You haven't been paying attention.

Nearly ALL relationships have the women preferring the man to be in
an unequal position.  That's what women want!  That's why
most would rather admit to being a card carrying member
of the KKK than a feminist!

> But some women find that American citizenship is enough of an
> incentive, and that's ok.

Even if this was true, it would just make such a woman demanding
something materialistically different than other normal heterosexual
women.

> >I'm not just talking about sex appeal or wealth, but also>other
factors people
> find attractive in a mate.  Fairness and equality
> >are nice concepts, but they aren't required for a happy life.
>
> Well, they are for folks who do require them for a "happy life".

This is a circular argument.  Certainly for such rare individuals
that's
the case but for nearly the rest of the population, it's not.

 > That YOU
> don't require them speaks nothing about what others require.

Nope.  I just observe their actions and I'm not the only one.  Many
feminists
are also getting concerned about this problem FOR THEIR AGENDA even if
you're playing
denial games.

> And for those of
> us who hold dear the Bill of Rights and have Thurgood Marshall's
picture with a
> copy of the Constitution right over their computer, fairness and
equality are
> indeed required for happiness.  :-)\

Yep, have you learned something about the Constitution from what
happened
in Florida yet? :-)  Or heck, what happened with the last two
elections?
Can you say "Butt kicking?"

Wake up!!!!!

> >They should only be, when used, a means to an end.
>
> Who made you god, Mark.  You can't tell others what makes them happy
or how
> they should apply the concepts of freedom and equality in their own
lives.

As I said, I ADAPTED to the world as it is.  YOU are the one living in
fantasy land
using the constitution as some kind of holy magic wrapper when justices
say one thing you like but then turning around and questioning those
same justice's motives when it doesn't go your way.

> >Note: There's nothing wrong with exceptions or hypocrisy.
Sometimes,
> >a little indulgence is fun.  I eat beef on friday.  :-)  But lets>at
least
> recognize that this egalitarian stuff doesn't really exist
> >for most people out there and even in our personal lives.
>
> Hahahaha....well, most of us who cherish freedom and equality don't
need to
> think about in our "personal lives" since we've lived our lives so as
to pair
> bond with those who share our views.

Funny indeed.  It's pretty funny because both of us know you don't have
a "partner".
So all you can do is bitterly lash out from a marginal position as a
mere voter
against a chivalrous society you've depended upon your whole life.

And the young women who followed in your footsteps are heading in that
same
direction.  Good luck to 'em.  I'm happy you have progeny.  Many I know
of
aren't so lucky.

> >>Later, my wife told me she was pissed off because the saleswomen
didn't take
> her hint to go higher because she knew my limit.>The ring now has
sentimental
> value and a nice story behind it.
>
> So your alleged wife likes more expensive diamonds (that are riskier)
and high
> heels (which are also riskier) Hmmmmm.

Yeah, the same alleged wife you spend a great deal of time thinking
about.
Shouldn't you expend that energy on your own partner?  Oh wait, that's
right...

> >I appreciate that women love diamonds especially in this case
where>it's a
> gift and seen by other people.  The problem is that we live>in a
society where
> men's appreciation of traditional femininity and
> >women's sexuality has been under attack for 40 years.  It's hard>for
men to be
> appreciative and understanding when we've been>walking on eggshells
that long.
>
> I see no real reason for men to have to BE
> "appreciative".   I mean, if they don't appreciate how women are
today, they
> need not pair bond with them.

HAHAHAHA!  Indeed!  Maureen Dowd is learning the hard way
that successful men need not "pair bond" with her! :-)

> And, I think you were correct to stay within
> your price range on the ring.  More folks should figure out what they
have or
> want to spend on that kind of a symbol.    I can't speak to the
"walking on
> eggshells" comment because I haven't experienced that, nor do I know
of any men
> (except here) complaining about it.  If men are not finding
submissive women
> here, they can always go buy a bride.  win win

And if career women aren't "finding" successful men who appreciate
independent,
demanding here, they can always go to another country and find such
a man there, oh, wait, that doesn't work does it? :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/6/05 10:31:00 PM ---