In article ,
 hyerdahl3{at}aol.com (Hyerdahl3) wrote:
> >From: Mark Sobolewski mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com 
> > "Lee"  wrote:
> >
> >> >>This is what AM don't like, and why we seek FW.  FW
express­ their
>  own>>opinions while still maintaining an attitude of respectful
­cooperation
> >towards their man.  It isn't that you aren't submissive, it­'s
that> you>are
> disrespectful and uncooperative and hostile.
> >> 
> >> >The thing is AWs don't have to co-operate with a man if they­ don't
> >> want to.
> >> 
> >> Boy, that is the truth.  American Women tend to be uncooperative,
>  combative and hostile.
> 
> Well, American women marry every day, so I'm not convinced that your 
> experience
> with AW is that of everyman.  :-) 

This is kind of a laugh considering you tend to celebrate
AM being combative and hostile and keeping "bitterboys"
in their place.

> But perhaps what you see as "cooperative" 
> is
> not the same as what I see as cooperation between two equal people.

So howz your partner?

Once again, the moment the poor guy gets uppity and has the nerve
to actually try to get an edgewise in on her demands, you brag
that she can dump such "bitterboys" by the curb whether
or not they're married.  That's "cooperation."

> >> Are all AW like that?  No.  Are many like that?  Yes.
> 
> ???  I'm sure that sexist find many AW "uncooperative" since they want
> everything one-sided.   So, that you would find many so, is not surprising.

I've asked you this very question in the past about me and you've
declined.  How am I so selfish and one-sided with my wife for example?
What don't I give women that they need in my life?  

On the contrary, your agenda requires a huge sugar-daddy government
because the women have so many needs and oh-so-few abilities.
 
> >> >They can support themselves and work to amass wealth for
themselves.
> That>> >impoverished FW can't afford *not* to co-operate.
> >> 
> >> Yes, she can.  This may come as a surprise to you Heidi, but not
>  everyone on the planet wants to become an American citizen.  Many women
>  are happy where they are (even if they earn less than AW), and find AM
> > to make excellent husbands.  Your thesis is a prejudice, and it is
> >> flawed.  Not all FW marry AM for money and wealth.  They marry an AM
> >> because he makes a good husband, and she recognizes his kindness and
> > emotional worth.  An emotional worth that is frequently not recognized
> >> by AW.
> 
> It's foolish to believe that American men are any more or less
"kind" or
> "worthy" than any other man.

We've offered you that ticket to Saudi Arabia to find the non
white-male utopia of your dreams.  You've declined.

>   However, it's great to know that when men buy
> mail order brides they each get something out of the deal.

Indeed.  As Lee was saying, at least the "mail order brides" are
grateful for the men living up the traditional breadwinner
role as compared to women in the states who often regard
it as an entitlement.  

> >> FW appreciate the efforts AM make to be a good husband, and many AW are
>  unappreciative and ungrateful.
> >
> >Hello Lee,
> >
> >I find Heidi's statement here to be especially
condescending.>In some cases,
> certainly, there are women living in conditions>where they want to marry out 
> of
> their situation but that could>easily be said of the states as well where a 
> hot
> waitress >in the country marries a rich doctor to move to the big city.
> 
> Sure.  People tend to get what they deserve; men who marry women for good 
> looks
> or their submissiveness often get women who marry them for money, or power.  
> It
> tends to even out.

One would say that's even the definition of cooperation.  Notice
that it's not between equals.

On the other hand, it's funny to observe career women lamenting
in newspaper articles that they now want to avoid "golddiggers"
who, gasp!, actually look to her income to pay for his good
looks.  Welcome to equality, ladies. :-)
 
> >>In fact, many AM should consider precisely just such an avenue.
> The attitude of rural American women is far different than>urban or suburban
> women (as evidenced in the last election!!!)
> >
> ????  American women, whether in red states or blue states are still much to
> busy to care whether or not men marry mail order.  

Yet, there are so much more news articles about such relationships
as compared to your so-called "equal" relationships...

> IN fact, any American 
> woman
> will be spared when these insecure men marry foreign.

As I asked you, spared _what_?  A man who holds open their
doors?  Who gives them ladylike treatment they desire?  

Yeah, these women also often get spared the horrors of childbirth
you discussed as they wind up with their clocks ticking out.
 
> >In the cities and suburbs, it's HILARIOUS when many women>encounter 
> >financial
> difficulties that they begin to 
> >blame the men around them for their plight only serving>to drive such men
> away.  Or the women use their success
> >as an emotional shield to avoid intimacy.  
> >
> Hehehehe.  Mark is just jealous.  He probably has a female boss he resents.

Nope.  Actually, (and this is the truth), I did have a female boss
some years ago but she left the company to spend more time
as a new mother.  She is a very nice person.  

> And, let's face it, no woman out there would want to support somone who 
> appears
> that insecure.

As I have pointed out repeatedly to Heidi, 99% of women don't want
to support ANY man at all.  If they wind up alone, it's because
there aren't enough "sexists" to go around!

> >American shopping males are almost like religious shrines
where>middle class
> career women go to try to buy their way out>of their misery. 
> 
> Mark has 'males' on the brain.  :-)

Doh!  Malls.  

Speaking of formatting and style, just what editor are you using
that botches all quoted text?  Can we help?  Or is that your style
to make it a challenge to read your posts? :-)

> >Lee, I believe in being fair and I'll say that the
current>cultural mess in
> the states isn't all these women's fault.>A lot of it is due to American men
> wanting "playboy"
> >type women who would sleep with them on a third date.>Women began to view
> themselves as whores and acted accordingly.>There was a changeover from a 
> very
> puritannical view ofsexuality in the states to a more relaxed one including
> >sex within marriage.  That had it's own effect on >unbalancing
the culture.
> 
> We still have lots of Puritans in America,

Indeed.  Poor Bill Clinton basically tossed out the whole
leftist agenda, baby and bathwater, over some puritannical
notion of sexual harassment.  :-)

> but we also have lots of educated
> people, thus the red/blue states.  :-)

Yep.  The educated people certainly don't like to vote for
candidates who condescendingly tell them what they should think.
Herman Munster for Prez!  (Apologies to Herman Munster.  He
was "Homer" before the Simpsons)

>  As to sex, some here have called me a
> prude, but whatever the sex laws are, they are equal as to both sexes, and 
> that
> pleases me.
> :-)
> 
> (edit)
> 
> >But in general, the signs are mostly there really.  A FW
won't,>for example,
> automatically freak out if the man says "no" to her>or
denies her what she
> wants. 
> 
> ????  An adult decides for themelves, Mark;  one adult cannot implement a 
> "no"
> over that adult's behavior where another adult is concerned. 

Hence, the freak outs.

> So if you have
> the power to tell someone "no" over their own behavior,
you're not married to 
> a
> wife, but rather, a child.   

That's why I didn't marry such women who freaked out when I disagreed
with them on a date.

>  Sure, if you give her everything>SHE wants then this makes her lie all that
> much (pardon the>pun) easier to swallow. 
> 
> Again, when you have to "give" your marital partner what she
should have
> control over, herself, you have a child.
> OTOH, gifts are from the heart, and can be given, one adult to the other, but
> should be given freely or not at all.

Howz your partner?

You spend all of your time (half) gloating over all the courts
running to a woman's aid the second she's displeased with
her husband getting uppity and the other half whining about
how the taxpayers dollars are going to Halliburton rather than
a single mother. :-)

Your continual reference to men as control freaks comes
across as projection.
 
>  But most practical women know
> that relationships aren't all nice and good and they'll>be the ones likely to
> stick around.
> 
> Relationships are what the people make of them.  On a practical level, the 
> only
> children I wanted to raise were children and not a spouse.  :-)
> (edit)

Indeed.  You couldn't keep a relationship with someone very long
where you couldn't control what they ate and where they slept.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/30/05 10:02:53 PM ---